Sarah Palin and the RNC Shopping Spree-What not to Wear

There’s an old saying that goes, "The clothes make the man." If that were really true, then perhaps we’d be seeing headlines like these in today’s papers: "Biden Reveals Shocking Chest Hair With Scandalously Unbuttoned Collar!", or "Cindy McCain Burns Husband’s Favorite Tie; Replaces With Stunning Blue Stripes!", or "Obama Prefers Boxers!" But of course, we all know that that cliché is ridiculous—the clothes don’t make the man, the man makes the man, so people don’t spend a lot of time and energy obsessing about what men are wearing. Unfortunately, the media does not seem to extend that same philosophy to talking about a woman.

What is going on the last few days? Everywhere you turn, be it newspapers, radio, talk shows, blogs—all anyone is talking about right now is how much money the Republican National Committee has spent to date on clothing, accessories, and grooming for Sarah Palin and her family. This media frenzy—and it’s not just the media "elite"—is so out of proportion with the importance of the story involved here that it would be almost laughable, except for the fact that it has opened up a far more serious, and messier can of worms from a bygone era: the brutal truth no one is speaking, is that if Sarah Palin were a man, no one would ever have questioned what the RNC spent on her clothing.

The reason no one is questioning the men’s wardrobes is because the clothes don’t make the man, and everyone knows it. Could anyone describe in detail, without peeking at news photos, even one outfit worn in the last thirty days by McCain, Biden or Obama? Nobody cares what the male candidates are wearing—we focus on their actions and their words. But sadly, the ferocity of this whole controversy has revealed that even in this day and age, at a time when women—intelligent, powerful, inspiring women—are making history, they are still being reduced to mere mannequins.

A focus on fashion in the White House has been around for a long time. Some of the most elegant and fashionable women in American history were first ladies. Think back to Jackie O, described as "…a living fashion catalogue who was copied, envied, and worshiped." Even today, years after her death, people still pay to go see exhibits of her dresses at museums. Or think of Nancy Reagan, who "…restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House." But let us not forget for a moment, that those two women were not presidents or presidential candidates. They were first ladies, whose primary function was to grace White House events with their lovely presences—thank goodness that today’s first ladies are able to, and expected to, accomplish so much more.

But we are not talking candidates’ wives here anymore; we are talking about the candidates themselves, and having (astonishingly) serious public debate and discourse over their choices in clothing, their hairstyles, and whether a dress was too short or not. Do we not have enough serious problems to address right now without being distracted by what the person who could help solve them is wearing today?

The pathetic truth is that for many, clothes apparently do make the woman. Today, as a rule, even with the advances being made every day by smart, accomplished women all over the world, those women are still being stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t tarpit of hypocrisy in terms of their appearance. We all want to be seen strictly for our merits and not for our dress sizes or color palettes, but this week’s flap shows that we were mistaken: appearance still matters, and the idea that it doesn’t may be just another pipe dream for women, another glass ceiling we didn’t realize was there until our lipstick smeared it when we smacked into it. Why are we still being judged by the standards of Stacy London and Clinton Kelly?

Back in March of 2008, when Hillary Clinton was still campaigning for president in her own right, an article by noted editor Bonnie Fuller appeared on the Huffington Post website titled "Listen Up Team Clinton: A Fashion Makeover Can Make Hillary More Electable! Ignore This Advice At Your Peril!" Can you even imagine how hard people would have laughed at a similar article aimed at a male candidate? The possible tips for a male candidate are surreal: "Come on, Joe Biden! We all know you’re balding, so keeping that snowy ring of long hair just makes you look like a demented old man. Get a trim, and watch how the voters respond!" Or "Senator McCain should really use some subtle eye makeup to keep his eyes from looking like black holes against his pale skin. This will avoid scaring the voters." Or "Senator Obama, polls show that fifty percent of women voters prefer their candidates not have visible nose hair." Of course you wouldn’t have stories like these making headlines, because no one would ever think of a male candidate purely in those terms. A makeover for Obama? What demented consultant would think that up? But a makeover for Hillary or Sarah? You betcha!

I understand that there is more to this story than just a sartorial report about Palin. $150,000 certainly is a lot of money, and I’m not downplaying that. But this is not a simple matter of Sarah Palin going on a shopping spree with taxpayer money. Consider the following points: first, the Republican Party needed John McCain to choose a running mate who could counteract some of the vibrancy and youthful dynamic of the Obama campaign. McCain needed a youthful, attractive, vibrant figure of his own who could help energize a doddering, faltering campaign. Sarah Palin fit the bill, but the RNC would never have let her get up in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers wearing blue jeans and mukluks (the McCain handlers must have read the Fuller article). Had Palin appeared looking frumpy or dowdy, tired or frazzled, there would have been absolutely no sound and fury generated by her presence, for the simple yet depressing reason that for women, appearance still matters. Palin’s appearance mattered, so the RNC did what was necessary to make it count.

Second, much has been made that what was spent was taxpayer money. This money was fronted to the campaign by a Minneapolis businessman who has since been reimbursed by the Republican National Committee. It seems to me that there are two truths that should be taken from that information: number one, national political committees get their money from donors and fundraisers, not primarily funds taken out of your taxes. Number two, the essential function of a national party’s committee is to assist in getting its candidates elected to office. So what is wrong with the Republican National Committee using some of the funds contributed by donors to help fulfill its given mission, i.e., getting McCain and Palin elected? This was an RNC judgment call—poor judgment, but not Palin’s.

I get it--$150,000 is a lot of money, and it was a tone-deaf strategy to employ in a time of economic crisis. But the RNC was at least honest with itself about the importance of Sarah Palin’s appearance, even if the rest the world does not dare speak it aloud. And does anyone really believe that Sarah Palin was doing her own shopping here? She had staffers and assistants advising her choices on this matter, as much as she had people coaching her for the debates and the campaign speeches, and those advisers wanted her to look good. She has been caught up in a whirlwind of controversy that is not all her making, and the public should not be naïve enough about the way political campaigns function to think that Palin did this all on her own—every outfit, every hairstyle, every accessory has been carefully screen tested and voter-vetted for its maximum positive impact.

Should the campaign have been more prudent about the total cost of their investment in Palin’s transformation? Yes—by all means, there should have been more Target and less Neiman Marcus. But the truly discouraging bottom line here is still that if Palin had been a man, would anyone even have noticed her clothes, much less inquired about how much was being spent on them? Did anyone ever ask Obama how much he spent on his suits, or McCain, or Biden? They have now, but would anyone have asked them if Palin were a man? Would anyone have cared?

Of course not, and the media as a whole should be ashamed of itself for making a mountain out of this molehill. We are less than two weeks away from arguably the most important election in several generations. We cannot afford to be focusing on candidates’ wardrobe choices as a rationale for choosing one over the other. We must get back to the critical business of making an informed, educated, responsible decision about the character and capabilities of the people we will be choosing to guide us through these difficult times. We cannot be sidetracked by matters of wardrobe choices, or hairstyles, or heel height. How sad it is that at a time when our daughters should be looking up to women like Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton and saying "My God, I could do that, too!" they are hearing stories about "Caribou Barbie" and shopping sprees. Our daughters deserve better media coverage of these amazing women than that; we all do.

To paraphrase, with deep respect, Martin Luther King, Jr., I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, and women, are created equal." I have a dream that our daughters will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their pantsuits or the chunkiness of their ankles, but by the content of their character. I had great hopes that that day had finally come for me, for my daughter, and for women all over this country who have been holding their breath in anticipation. But, like a skirt with last year’s hem lines, I fear this is just another dream that will wind up crumpled in a heap in the bottom of my closet. What a shame.