Campbell Brown: The sexist double-standard on Palin’s wardrobe; Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added

posted at 7:33 am on October 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Campbell Brown sounds off on the RNC’s shopping spree, but she does so to defend the RNC, not to bury Sarah Palin. The criticism of Palin’s clothes obviously touched a nerve with Brown, who makes the point that people scrutinize the appearance of women far more than men. Would you like Campbell Brown without makeup and in sweats?


Personally, I think Campbell would look just fine in scrubs, and it wouldn’t change the actual news at all — which is another point to be made in this kerfuffle. Why do we scrutinize the appearance of women so much more than men, especially in the public sphere? To extend Brown’s analogy, I suspect no one would notice if Wolf Blitzer owned five suits and three ties and wore them in a distinct weekly pattern, but heaven forbid a woman tried getting away on the cheap like that on TV or almost anywhere else.

The RNC isn’t going to take the risk of putting Palin in that kind of position. We can argue about the amount of money and the stores they patronized, but even that’s silly, as I wrote yesterday. Palin and the RNC aren’t doing sociological experiments in sexist double standards; they’re trying to win an election. Campbell Brown wants to win her time slot. Both Brown and Palin know that the public has certain expectations of women and their appearance that may be unfair, but neither of them want to sacrifice their careers in protest to the double standard.

Update: I’ve added the AOL Hot Seat Poll on this question:


I got to this a little late, and AOL already had 20,000 votes counted – and it was at 60% yes. Interesting; Campbell Brown seems to have gotten it right.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Palin’a appearance is scrutinized because she is so hot!

Right_of_Attila on October 23, 2008 at 7:42 AM

To paraphrase Frank Burns:
“Gosh, Honey, I think you’d look good in nothing at all.”
(that goes for both Sarah and Campbell, eh)

Micah on October 23, 2008 at 7:45 AM

This isn’t about double standards; it’s about having Sarah Palin ready to campaign across the country as VP. They bought her some clothes — I’m, sorry but BFD. I do not find $150K excessive for this level of effort. She, her husband and her kids have not been sitting in Washington for the past decade.

This was also not about “creating an image” — she looks elegant, gorgeous and entirely comfortable in her duds.

This is about jealousy and cattiness.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 7:46 AM

Women do get scrutinized a lot. I wore jeans once to work and my boss warned me not to do so again since reporters for newspapers should look appropriate. Understandable. Yet, my male co- worker wore jeans without any reprimand. Double standard. Women have to work harder than men as well as in appearence. I applaud Campbell, one of the few times I do.
I don’t object to looking clean cut and groomed, but hold the same standards to men.

jencab on October 23, 2008 at 7:48 AM

Campbell pats herself on the back for her other so-called critiques of Palin’s experience, but I think Newt Gingrinch’s latest volley at the Elite Media, comparing them to Poland’s Communist press villifying Lech Welensa, includes Campbell and all her ilk.

To praise Campbell is like thanking the Inquisitors for not beating you today.

Joan of Argghh on October 23, 2008 at 7:51 AM

What do Obama’s suits cost? How much was the botox for Biden?
What was the bill for Michelle’s lobster feast? How much again did Barney Frank take from Fannei Ma and what was the bill on the American taxpayers?

JellyToast on October 23, 2008 at 7:51 AM

what about cray Joe’s pugs and botox?

joepub on October 23, 2008 at 7:51 AM

Why do we scrutinize the appearance of women so much more than men, especially in the public sphere?

Because men are attracted to women’s appearances and women are attracted to men’s power. It’s an old cultural thing that people like to pretend not to know about, every so often, but that’s how things are.

It’s a double standard … in the same way that women can get pregnant and men can’t.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2008 at 7:52 AM

And when Hillary Clinton got made up for the primary debates to look like she was 45 instead of 60, everyone in the media talked how she looked “fresh” and “glowing.”

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 7:52 AM

Barry spent that much on styrofoam columns.

snickelfritz on October 23, 2008 at 7:53 AM

So it isn’t ok to look at Dear Leader Obamassiah’s associations with Bill Ayers (and what the both of them wanted to do to education) and his pastor Jeremiah Wright, but it is ok to scrutinize the Republican VP nominee’s clothing bill.

Oh boy the next four forty years are going to be so much fun.

rbj on October 23, 2008 at 7:53 AM

Do any of these folks realize how much Obama and Biden’s planes cost daily? What a bunch of Schumer.

wepeople on October 23, 2008 at 7:53 AM

“Gosh, Honey, I think you’d look good in nothing at all.”
(that goes for both Sarah and Campbell, eh)

Micah on October 23, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Easy Lad….

CynicalOptimist on October 23, 2008 at 7:54 AM

Personally, I think Campbell would look just fine in scrubs, and it wouldn’t change the actual news at all — which is another point to be made in this kerfuffle.

It would most certainly be a distraction. Obviously certain jobs and positions of responsibility demand professional, appropriate attire – like candidates and newscasters. So, yes, it is a kerfuffle.

Why do we scrutinize the appearance of women so much more than men, especially in the public sphere?

First of all, I don’t even know that that is true. We scrutinize Joe Bidens plugs and botoxed forehead, John Kerry’s disappearing wrinkles, John Edwards pretty hair, Bill Clinton’s nose, Obama’s tight jeans, John McCain’s Ferragamo shoes…

But even if we were to stipulate that women are scrutinized more than men, so what? Obviously, women and men are different. Men can have a very basic wardrobe and look fine; women can’t. C’est la vie. As a woman I don’t feel that I’m under some sort of unfair sexist disadvantage, and I find it annoying that we are even having this discussion, as if women in general are victims of an unfair double standard.

Buy Danish on October 23, 2008 at 7:57 AM

Of course if she’d gone with only a few inexpensive outfits she’s be painted as a tasteless hick that only owns two pair of overalls. Because she decided to try to dress nicely and in a variety of outfits she’s being painted as a spendthrift clothes-horse.

It doesn’t matter what she does the press will find fault – or make one up.

DamnCat on October 23, 2008 at 8:01 AM

I’m sure Sarah will have a good response to this when questioned.

lodge on October 23, 2008 at 8:02 AM

Palin’a appearance is scrutinized because she is so hot!

Right_of_Attila on October 23, 2008 at 7:42 AM

LOL>>>AMEN

Dritanian on October 23, 2008 at 8:03 AM

What do they spend on private jets, hotels or ad buys? Dumb topic, but the media has spent time on expensive haircuts before and will waste time on this too.

GOP should figure out how to swing it to their advantage. Palin has said she is going to return the clothes. Let her talk about the charity that some of them will be donated to. If the media wants to talk about Saks, let her counter with some “free” air time talking about children with cancer.

dedalus on October 23, 2008 at 8:05 AM

The real girlies here are the republican “insiders” whose private grousing about the expenditure turned this into a story.

Thanks, ladies. Your whining played right into the enemy’s hands, and now you’re going to change our country in ways you can’t even wrap your petty little brains around.

jeff_from_mpls on October 23, 2008 at 8:06 AM

Brown throws a bone to Sarah. OK score one for her for fairness but considering her one sided commentary from the beginning of this race it means nothing.
I woke up this morning to witness a virtual Obama love fest on MSNBC.
This morning for the first time it dawned on me how separated the east coast elite is from the America I know.

Noonan, Mika, some hack from Time and other talking heads were gushing over how smooth he is and how great it is that 7 years after 9-11 we could give the Presidency to an inexperienced black man (their words).
They all agreed that he is the fix for how the world views us.
My friends we live in two worlds within one, Red and Blue. Pick your side, we’re headed down a bumpy road.

FireBlogger on October 23, 2008 at 8:07 AM

Everyone’s beating the dead equine of $150K in this argument.

I’d like to see how much the DNC spent on far more idiotic purchases.

Say, like….greek columns.

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 8:09 AM

I’m betting that an investigation would find that the on-air wardrobe of Campbell Brown, Tom Brokaw, et al are either owned by the networks or donated by the designer/manufacturer in exchange for mention in the credits.

Glass houses and all that.

johnsteele on October 23, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Champbell was bound to get it right on some issue…sometime…
Too bad it was this one…

jerrytbg on October 23, 2008 at 8:10 AM

Wait…so she’s saying that the perpetually disheveled Barney Frank isn’t judged on his looks nearly as much as Sarah Palin? Or that we live in a society where Henry Waxman feels no pressure to come to work wearing a grocery bag over his head–but good looking women often feel the need to get cosmetic surgery?

Huh…who would have thought.

watchmen on October 23, 2008 at 8:11 AM

lol. yeah lets forget the 800 billion of our money that just went out to cover the friggin Fannie and Freddie mess.
Un freakin real.

Bamma is sportin some expensive threads also so they need to shut up.

Move on. Worry about things that matter like Florida, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Dont take this wardrobe bait being tossed out by some liberal loser.

Word has it Bamma’s people might need to go back to Pa. becuase the numbers are shifting out of his favor.

johnnyU on October 23, 2008 at 8:12 AM

Noonan, Mika, some hack from Time and other talking heads were gushing over how smooth he is and how great it is that 7 years after 9-11 we could give the Presidency to an inexperienced black man (their words).

There’s a term for this… premature ejaculation.

CC – BHO: “my Muslim faith”

CapedConservative on October 23, 2008 at 8:13 AM

She shouldn’t say, “Let’s put the focus on things that really matter,” or people will be turning CNN off.

snaggletoothie on October 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM

Hey, if Obama enacts “equal pay for equal work”, can they require that women use part of their pay for clothing?

And burkas for the ugo’s in National Association of Gals?

Right_of_Attila on October 23, 2008 at 8:16 AM

As a woman I don’t feel that I’m under some sort of unfair sexist disadvantage, and I find it annoying that we are even having this discussion, as if women in general are victims of an unfair double standard.

Buy Danish on October 23, 2008 at 7:57 AM

Unfortunately Danish it exists.
In your case, being thoughtful and insightful, it’s because of you.

jerrytbg on October 23, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Can we agree to stop using the word “kerfuffle”? It sounds so…I don’t know…Ned Flanders-ish.

All kidding aside…it says much about Palin’s authenticity that she didn’t already have a closet filled with $150,000 worth of designer clothes like every other damned politician does.

flipflop on October 23, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Appearance sexism aside:

It is not illegal to spend campaign contributions on expenses incurred on the campaign trail. THAT IS WHAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH: PAY FOR THE CAMPAIGN.

Otherwise, Obama is spending campaign contributions illegally every time he constructs a stage for an event rather than simply use what already exists @ his acceptance party, and now for his “victory” party.

You want to lock down on ILLEGAL EXPENDITURES OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, START WITH ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND FOLLOW THAT MONEY.

maverick muse on October 23, 2008 at 8:25 AM

On spot Flipflop…

jerrytbg on October 23, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Noonan, Mika, some hack from Time and other talking heads were gushing over how smooth he is and how great it is that 7 years after 9-11 we could give the Presidency to an inexperienced black man (their words).

FireBlogger on October 23, 2008 at 8:07 AM

It was always clear that the left viewed BHO as proof of active American appeasement. I’m surprised that Mika&Co. left out the muslim part, which is what really gets BHO supporters revved up to show how appeasing America is just 7 years after 9/11. And we all know that, if BHO wins, all of a sudden all of his supporters are going to concentrate on the ‘Hussein’ and feature it prominently in everything they say or do. It is a huge part of what appeals to them about BHO.

I also love this latest theme of BHO’s smoothness and ‘cool’ (talk about “code words”!), that every BHO supporter seems to have taken up over the past couple of weeks – like bad soap actors reading off of newly printed cue cards. I never imagined someone who uses ‘uh’ and ‘em’ as integral conversational elements to be smooth or cool, but sense is not something that the smooth, cool one or his supporters espouse – rationality being such an oppresive Western idea.

progressoverpeace on October 23, 2008 at 8:26 AM

You get the feeling she’s pre-emptively deflecting attention away from herself.

drjohn on October 23, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Now I know why Peggy is so upset at Sarah – jealousy over her wardrobe!

Fuquay Steve on October 23, 2008 at 8:31 AM

Why $150,000? Because a fashionista can spot a knockoff or last year’s trend at 100 yards. And if Palin even tried to pull it off, that would end up being the story.

Sekhmet on October 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Sarah Palin wasn’t spending taxpayer money on her wardrobe. She wasn’t spending Democrats money.

In fact she wasn’t spending ANY money, the RNC made the decision, just as the DNC made the decision to spend $140,000 on the Barackopolis in Denver that was used for 2 hours.

Is Barack buying his OWN TICKET to Hawaii? Is he paying for Secret Service on that PERSONAL trip?

originalpechanga on October 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Noonan, Mika, some hack from Time and other talking heads were gushing over how smooth he is and how great it is that 7 years after 9-11 we could give the Presidency to an inexperienced black man (their words).

FireBlogger on October 23, 2008 at 8:07 AM

Some day after this election passes, Peggy Noonan is going to wake up and discover nobody wants her anymore. She has left her conservative leanings behind and so will have no relevance for a McCain presidency, and her support during an Obama presidency would present her audience with too much cognitive dissonance to be coherent. She really can’t play it down the middle any more — she can’t go back.

She seems caught up in the Obama euphoria, which will pass whether he wins or loses. I think Peggy’s going to have a bad hangover.

She could probably get a spot on The View, I suppose.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 8:37 AM

If Palin wore something from Walmart or JC Penny they would hammer her for that…Bottom line is that she has to look professional. We all know Barry has spent a lot of money on his wardrobe as well but we know that wont be addressed.

mindhacker on October 23, 2008 at 8:39 AM

You know, after seeing a clip of Hillary! campaigning for Al Franken yesterday, I’m still thankful to Obama for ending her career.

And we’ll handle Obama-Alinsky just fine. The nice thing about Ayers-Obama in office is that they’re unrepentant and overconfident. This means that while Obama’s inexperience and bad judgment are under wraps right now, real world events will cause the mask to slip off rather quickly, as Joe the Biden revealed the other day.

Real Americans — perhaps under the banner of a purified GOP — will swoop in during the 2010 half-time election. Alinsky-Ayers won’t know what hit them. They’ll be neutered.

jeff_from_mpls on October 23, 2008 at 8:40 AM

Who the hell was it that got the 400 dollar haircut while holding up runways in LA?

These hypocrit morons.

benrand on October 23, 2008 at 8:41 AM

Cindy McCain is proof that you can spend a whole lot of money on clothing and still look cheap.

In the meantime that nasty Washington Post fashionista who attacked John Roberts kids for looking too white would go out after Palin with a vengence if she didn’t have the “uniform” of a campaigning politician.

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 8:41 AM

All kidding aside…it says much about Palin’s authenticity that she didn’t already have a closet filled with $150,000 worth of designer clothes like every other damned politician does.–flipflop

AMEN TO THAT!

Peggy Noonites suck eggs. They feign superiority to candidates but aren’t willing to become candidates because they’d be tarred and feathered by their own peers.
COWARDS, HYPOCRITES, CANNIBALS! Consumption of “Kerfuffle” is the major source of cholesterol and saturated fat blocking the arteries of journalism.

Katie Couric & Peggy Noonan = BFFE COWS: Where’s the beef?

Snobby elitists will drown us in their saturated fat reports. That’s an ugly way to go and worth avoiding at all costs.

maverick muse on October 23, 2008 at 8:41 AM

Is anyone keeping records? Is this the first non-negative thing Ms. Brown has said about Gov. Palin. Is $150K really that big an amount for a family of five when you don’t have time to bargain shop? I want to know how much the men’s clothes cost. To the penny.

Cindy Munford on October 23, 2008 at 8:42 AM

She could probably get a spot on The View, I suppose.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 8:37 AM

On the one hand, never underestimate the market for “reformed” conservatives.

On the other hand, there seems to be a bit of an oversupply.

Sigh.
__________

RJGatorEsq. on October 23, 2008 at 8:43 AM

Is this the first non-negative thing Ms. Brown has said about Gov. Palin.

Yeah. She had to put five bucks in the “praise jar” in the CNN break room.

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Can we agree to stop using the word “kerfuffle”?

flipflop on October 23, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Yes, because using that word can get you a mention at the (amnesty shill paper) WSJ in ‘best of the web’.

Right_of_Attila on October 23, 2008 at 8:46 AM

I forget, which party held a fundraiser starring some talentless and washed-up old has-been of a “crooner”, and charged more than $2,000/plate for the “priviledge”? And to which candidate did that money go?

Oh, yeah. They have “D”‘s behind their names, so they can get away with things like that.

Vic on October 23, 2008 at 8:46 AM

I think Peggy’s going to have a bad hangover.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 8:37 AM

Where is Scott McClellan these days?

Saltysam on October 23, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Would you like Campbell Brown without makeup and in sweats?

In a heartbeat.

roninacreage on October 23, 2008 at 8:46 AM

One simple concise answer to all this:

How of that 600 million did Obama’s campaign give to ACORN?

Saltysam on October 23, 2008 at 8:48 AM

Oops…

One simple concise answer to all this:

How much of that 600 million did Obama’s campaign give to ACORN?

Saltysam on October 23, 2008 at 8:49 AM

Cindy McCain is proof that you can spend a whole lot of money on clothing and still look cheap.

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 8:41 AM

It’s too bad, really, because she’s so pretty otherwise. I think her problem is that her clothes always have some big detail — whether bows, pockets, buttons, whatever — that engulfs her. She tends to look like the clothes are wearing her rather than she’s wearing the clothes. Simpler would be better.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM

Now I know why Peggy is so upset at Sarah – jealousy over her wardrobe!

Fuquay Steve on October 23, 2008 at 8:31 AM

I thought it might be sagging book sales, but perhaps it was something else that was sagging.

Cat fight.

Saltysam on October 23, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Cat fight.

Saltysam on October 23, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Speaking of cat fights, one of the reasons I really, really want McCain/Plain to win is to see the look on Nancy Pelosi’s face. Cuz I bet Sarah can tweak her to the point of hysteria.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 8:58 AM

Hey that announcer was kinda hot. What was she saying?

Mojave Mark on October 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM

Cuz I bet Sarah can tweak her to the point of hysteria.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 8:58 AM

How could you tell? Pelosi has had so much botox and plastic surgery she doesn’t even blink anymore. She has to wave that bony finger of hers at the cameras when she wants to emphasize a point.

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Campbell Brown is the epitome of the elitest leftwing slut. I enjoy Lou Dobbs very much, but as soon as she comes on to announce the lies and deceptions she has on her program following his show, I immediately change channels for the night before nausea occurs.

volsense on October 23, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Trying to get an interview.

tdavisjr on October 23, 2008 at 9:23 AM

Highhopes, if you think Cindy McCain looks cheap then you probably think Barney Franks looks DELICIOUS.

volsense on October 23, 2008 at 9:25 AM

“It’s all about the issues.”

So, Barry.

How soon before you investigate how many autos & homes Campbell Brown owns?

locomotivebreath1901 on October 23, 2008 at 9:30 AM

volsense on October 23, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Um….. No. But I’ll leave it to folks like you to figure out the “hottie rating” of homosexuals.

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 9:33 AM

I wonder what the value at list price of Katie Couric’s wardrobe is… I’m guessing CBS News provides a good portion of it. What are the wardrobe budgets of all the major TV news organizations? Including the value of sponsor provided items.

phreshone on October 23, 2008 at 9:36 AM

I donated to McCain – and they can use that donation to dress Sarah any way they want.

I thought Gretchen Carlson said it best – when we stop treating women as sex objects and judging them on their appearance and attire we really shouldn’t worry about a new wardrobe for Sarah’s VP run.

Considering her small town roots I’m sure her $39 WalMart skirts weren’t really options on the campaign trail.

When the campaign has to step in and buy you a new wardrobe you know you are a DC outsider.

Mr Purple on October 23, 2008 at 9:37 AM

Wow, she defended her about her clothes…How nobel. Sounds like a conservative endorsing Obama…trying to cover herself for the coming onslaught over the media performance.

tomas on October 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM

The MSM must know things are a lot closer than their ‘push’ polling.

Otherwise, why the fuss?

She is creating way too much heat in the kitchen in this election, and the MSM knows it.

Andrea Mitchell and others are starting to look desperate.

Starlink on October 23, 2008 at 9:22 AM

AND…don’t forget the sampling rates….
FEAR in the heart of the demon.. hahaha

jerrytbg on October 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Speaking of cat fights, one of the reasons I really, really want McCain/Plain to win is to see the look on Nancy Pelosi’s face. Cuz I bet Sarah can tweak her to the point of hysteria.

BigD on October 23, 2008 at 8:58 AM

You just gave me the biggest ear to ear grin.

Wow, I’m experiencing an epiphany.

Saltysam on October 23, 2008 at 9:51 AM

On CBS news yesterday, Hillary Clinton’s Beverly Hills pantsuit designer expressed surprise that nobody was giving Palin her clothes for free. That’s right. Hillary’s $6,000 pantsuits are free. That isn’t a scandal. I have no idea if the Obamas get their clothes for free.
So Palin comes along with no connections and needs to compete with the Obamas, the Clintons, and the McCains who are all personally wealthy and already established. Of course she needed new clothes.
It will be interesting to see if this story sticks. Campaigns spend so much money on things normal people don’t– how much do you think it cost to make that seal or to paint Obama’s plane– that clothes really seems like a more relateable purchase.

MayBee on October 23, 2008 at 9:51 AM

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 8:33

If you do, I’ll be sure you are at the top of the list.

volsense on October 23, 2008 at 9:54 AM

MayBee on October 23, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Oh please let this story stick. This only helps illustrate to the apolitical masses how the MSM manipulates the issues.

Their contempt for Lincoln’s famous “but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time” is astounding.

Saltysam on October 23, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Hillary Clinton’s Beverly Hills pantsuit designer expressed surprise that nobody was giving Palin her clothes for free. That’s right. Hillary’s $6,000 pantsuits are free.

You must have misunderstood. Hillary is paid $6,000 to not disclose the designer of those things. ;-0

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 9:56 AM

volsense on October 23, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Whatever.

highhopes on October 23, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I think Campbell would look just fine in scrubs, and it wouldn’t change the actual news at all — which is another point to be made in this kerfuffle. Why do we scrutinize the appearance of women so much more than men, especially in the public sphere?

You illustrate the point exactly.
Men wouldn’t have even noticed (most of them anyway) but women have a competition thing going on and who then influences men more than women?

Speakup on October 23, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Margery Eagan of the Boston Herald wrote a very snarky piece about Palin which has not been well-received by her readers.

Margery dear, if Palin’s voice is so annoying, what do you think of Maureen Dowd and Susan Estrich?

Buy Danish on October 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM

I hope that McCain/Palin wins on 4 November.

I still want to see SARAH on TV in Australia after that. It would be horrible not to be able to.

Crux Australis on October 23, 2008 at 10:08 AM

So, what’s up with those two “hair fangs” at her neck?

corona on October 23, 2008 at 10:09 AM

This is a perfect opportunity for Sarah to hammer Obama campaign and the elite MSM.

The flap over her wardrobe, people questioning whether she’s ready to lead not based on her record but based on who she is(remember the Newsweek cover which said, “She’s one of the people (and that’s the problem)”), the hounding of Joe the plumber, Obama saying “bitter people who cling to religion and guns”.

All these underscore a single theme: a current of disdain for common man. Sarah should take the bull by the horns and confront this issue and take it to the MSM and the Obama camp.

She should say something like, “they are coming after me not because I am unqualified (I am infinitely more qualified than Barack Obama), but because I am one of you and I will never forget that.”

promachus on October 23, 2008 at 10:10 AM

promachus on October 23, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Don’t be surprized if you get an e-mail asking permission for the usage…

jerrytbg on October 23, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Too late for Brown, her color has already been shown in Brown Shirts

Wade on October 23, 2008 at 10:26 AM

Most politicians these days running for office are so rich that they can shop in the best of places and acquire a $150,000 wardrobe before lunch. It’s a testament to the sheer middle-classness of Sarah Palin that she and her husband don’t make enough money to both outfit herself and keep their children clothed. If nothing else, that should reassure people that she understands their problems. Meanwhile, there are companies out there in very expensive cities that buy business wardrobes for their employees. Why not make Sarah look as good as possible?

NNtrancer on October 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Repub’s, doing our part to keep the economy going.

Sorry to say but I frankly don’t get a Democrap what was spent on clothes. With the traveling, appearances and cost of women’s clothing I’m not surprised at the cost. Probably more surprised more wasn’t spent.

Let’s get down to the facts. How much $$$ did BO waste with Ayers?

VikingGoneWild on October 23, 2008 at 10:38 AM

I don’t care that my campaign contribution goes to clothes.

Once it’s left my bank account and given to them to do what they think is necessary to win an election – fine.

Now if they spent it on a whirlwind Eurotrash trip, a new venue for the convention, design new presidential seals, embroidery on plane seats, …….

tru2tx on October 23, 2008 at 10:45 AM

I rarely say this, but Brown is right.

When Hillary joined Obama for their first joint appearance after he clinched the nomination, she joked that now she had time to take care of herself and exercise. When she was running, she had to be getting her hair done while Barack was at the gym every morning. I sympathize with her.

It’s a fact of life that’s there’s just a lot more appearance maintenance expected of females in the public eye. It’s expensive, and it’s not fair, and maybe someday it will be different, but for now Palin and Clinton just have to deal with it.

juliesa on October 23, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Would you like Campbell Brown without makeup and in sweats?

Ummmm….maybe

vcferlita on October 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Whenever I see Campbell Brown it always brings up memories of her smirky interview of Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild when the Lady switched allegiances from Hillary to McCain.

Campbell just drips with disdain; disregard the youtube title, the silly leftard who posted it self-pwned itself LOL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE13Zb0ejco

btw, PUMA Lady Lynn is AWESOME. Hard to believe she’s a Dem.

Let’s roll.

ex-Democrat on October 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM

If Palin has been spending too much on clothes, then let’s make a deal: Sarah Palin can only campaign in whatever she can find in Wal-Mart, and Barack Obama can only campaign in baggy pants and a hoodie from Chicago slums. We’ll see who wins the fashion contest.

Steve Z on October 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM

I think this was damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario..

If Palin did show up in every rally in the same outfit or the same 5 outfits rotating in and out with the mix and match accessories.. the *snicker* Tanning Bed Media would have called her out on that.. or shopped at Target (heaven forbid)

DaveC on October 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM

I don’t see any difference between this and obsessing over the cost of a John Edwards haircut. It’s more wasteful spending by politicians that can and should be frowned upon. It’s just another indication that the “maverick” ticket isn’t really so mavericky as they would have everyone believe.

Benaiah on October 23, 2008 at 11:33 AM

1) The clothes aren’t hers.
2) After the election, they will either be donated or auctioned off at a profit (we’re Republicans. We’re good at that kind of stuff).

So why is the media obsessed by this? I direct your attention to this editorial by Orson Scott Card:
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

kurtzz3 on October 23, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Treacher says pass it on:

Obama’s Greek columns, used for one night: $140,000.

Campbell Brown is a snake. This one “defense” of Governor Palin is disingenuous.

nyrofan on October 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM

I wonder how much Oprah spends on clothes, hair, makeup… and fat farms? Fortunately, if Obama wins she’ll be paying more taxes. I hope he creates a Beautify America fund with her redistributed money. (Actually, with that much Obama could also throw in some personal hygiene products for his friends in Europe.)

mrrrow

Y-not on October 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM

I don’t see any difference between this and obsessing over the cost of a John Edwards haircut. It’s more wasteful spending by politicians that can and should be frowned upon. It’s just another indication that the “maverick” ticket isn’t really so mavericky as they would have everyone believe.

Benaiah on October 23, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Edwards didn’t make it past the primary; Palin is a nominee.

And, of course, Edwards already had a chic wardrobe suited for the weather in the lower 48; Palin didn’t.

Jeez, people, the concept that someone living in Alaska (where there’s how many weeks or summer temperatures?) having to buy new clothes to campaign in for Vice President in the lower 48 is not that hard to grasp. Get a grip.

Y-not on October 23, 2008 at 12:00 PM

CWCID: Campbell Brown is right, this time.

ClintACK on October 23, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2