The XX Factor: What women really think.

Sandra Says No

Why I Don't Assume the Worst About Palin

Marjorie, as for whether Sarah Palin believed Africa was a country not a continent, no I don't have any concrete evidence. Since she was so new to the national scene in August, Google isn't exactly bursting with transcripts of her speaking about Africa. But the only "evidence" we have that she did think Africa was a country was an unnamed source who spoke out in the aftermath of a painful election loss, a loss about which the finger-pointing started before the votes were counted. And please don't pillory me for bringing up Elaine Lafferty again, but Lafferty in this interview says that Palin had an in-depth knowledge of Afghanistan and the Taliban, showing a level of thought that doesn't mesh well with thinking Africa is a country. Rich Lowry at the National Review quotes Steve Biegun, who briefed Palin on foreign policy and who was part of the conversation that led to the NAFTA crack, and Biegun sticks up for Palin.

As for the clothes, the first nasty leak we heard was that she was told to leave her clothing at home in Wasilla because it was unsuitable. Now, when the election is over and someone wants to make her look bad, we hear that she was instructed to buy three suits for the convention and nothing more and that she was a "hillbilly looting Neiman Marcus." Both can't be true, so which is it? If she was dressing herself like this before the campaign, how did she become such an expert on fashion overnight? And for her personal preferences, she came out of the voting booth last Tuesday wearing a jacket that I'd expect to find at Cabela's, not Nordstrom or Saks.  

From the moment she was announced as the GOP veep candidate, critics were only too quick to believe everything negative about her, true or not, and cite it as gospel. As Palin herself said, someone accused her of trying to ban Harry Potter when the book wasn't written yet. The New York Times printed as fact that she charged victims for their rape kits when she was mayor of Wasilla, even though the city looked back through its records and found no evidence to the claim. So pardon me for not jumping to assume the worst in this instance, either.

I understand that she did not appeal to everyone, and I certainly understand why. And I'm sure there are many people who hope she's gone back to Alaska never to be heard from again. Personally, I'm still waiting to see what comes out of all the introspection and self-critiquing that conservatives have spent the last week engaging in before I start thinking about 2012, or even 2010. I don't know that having Palin on a national ticket in 2012 would be wise or helpful. But I don't want her to go away entirely. For whatever she lacks, she brings energy to a party that it is sorely lacking. She has moves, as Melinda put it, and I don't think we should underestimate her.

"The Only Clothing or Accessories She Had Personally Purchased in the Last Four Months Was a Pair of Shoes"

There's something a little too poor-little-match-girlish about this image of Gov. Palin sorting through stacks of clothing for a family of seven figuring out what part of the inventory belongs to the RNC. If I were the returning governor, I'd be designating piles Be My Guest (watchout for the spitup); Stuff I'll Just Have To Replace (who doesn't get a good bra and new underwear before trying on a bunch of new clothes?); and (sigh) Maybe the Designer Would Sell Me Another Just Like It at Cost (that shantung silk jacket is practically a Palin icon).

Continent First?

Juliet, Melinda, Lauren, and Rachael, I'm perplexed by your certainty that Sarah Palin did indeed know that Africa was a continent not a country. On what are you basing this assumption? Sarah Palin's denials? Forgive me if I find her credibility lacking. This is the same woman who said she never wanted all those expensive clothes purchased for her by the RNC and insisted she would gladly go back to wearing her own clothes. Now we learn that the price tag for those Neiman/Nordstrom's duds was even higher than the $150,000 originally reported and that the RNC had to dispatch someone to Alaska to retrieve the clothing from Palin.

We have no information to indicate or prove that Palin knew the difference between a country and a continent, but we have plenty of well-documented news stories and televisions interviews showing how little she knows about geography and how little interest she has about the rest of the world. Remember that she could not name a newspaper she reads and that she shamelessly revels in a "real America" type of anti-intellectualism. (And by the way, she's not the first person to make this mistake. I've heard other Americans refer to Africa as one country.) I also believe she really did not know the NAFTA signatory countries.

Melinda, you characterized my past criticisms of Palin's intellectual challenges as elitism, but as the New York Times' Judith Warner recently correctly noted, there are plenty of Americans "who respect intelligence and good grammar." They also believe their president and vice president should be smarter, better-informed, and more versed in international affairs than the average American. This does not make them elitists; it makes them pragmatists. I still believe that Palin was woefully unqualified for the job and apparently so did millions of other voters who rejected the McCain-Palin ticket because they were insulted that McCain tried to pass her off as his, and Obama's, intellectual equal. I'm pretty well-informed and well-educated—and I can even speak in full sentences—but I still don't believe I'm qualified to be vice president or president. Knowing one's limitations is a sign of intelligence. That's honesty, not elitism.

I, for one, am very glad to see Palin leave the national stage, at least for now, and heartened that the voting public saw through her fake heartland authenticity. Apparently, I'm not alone. Check out this ode to Sarah.

Palin in '12

Sounds like those McCain aides are fast-tracking their guy's return to pariah—I mean, maverick—status by alienating every last conservative who voted for him with their mean, sexist, and derriere-covering hooey about Sarah Palin. I'm sorry, but I do not for one second believe that she did not know Africa was a continent. If she threw those poor foot soldiers for democracy into a panic by appearing at her hotel-room door "essentially ... wrapped in a bathrobe''—grow up, people; it's not the first time a candidate has finished dressing on the run. And from what I saw of the crack McCain-Palin organization, somebody needed to engage in the dreaded "throwing of paperwork and things of that nature.'' I see this as the jump-start of her rehab with women voters: diva, shopaholic, temptress, hmmm. Keep up the women-hating insults, McCainiacs, and it'll be Palin in '12.

Marriage, Interrupted

I admit that lately I've been thinking more about clothes (and their symbolism) than issues, but in today's New York Times longtime religion reporter Laurie Goodstein writes about the various religious leaders descending on California in support of Proposition 8, a measure that would change the California Constitution to state "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and reading it, I was jolted right back into the fray.

Back in 2004, campaigns against gay marriage were nearly as central to the Republican strategy as the Swift Boat smears and the Neiman Marcus/Saks shopping-spree-style stories of the day—like John Kerry's ill-timed windsurfing trips.That year the 11 state ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage—all of which passed—were widely believed to be a key element in Karl Rove's strategy for flushing out Evangelicals and right-wing Bush supporters to the polls. Dems panicked at the time and didn't fight them hard enough—if at all—leaving statewide activists stranded as they went door to door with a message of equality.

This year the issue hasn't gone away—in fact, California, Arkansas, and Florida all have ballot initiatives that would restrict the rights of gay men and lesbians—but it's certainly deeper underground, despite, or more likely, because of, changes in the right-to-marry that took place this year in California  and Connecticut. But recently, the McCain-Palin ticket has tried to revive the issue, unleashing Sarah Palin to The 700 Club, where she announced support for a Federal Marriage Amendment (which Sen. McCain himself has said he does not support). Currently, polls put support for California's version of the discriminatory measure a shade less than 10 percentage points behind.

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle gives a clue as to how the measure might be defeated this time: State Attorney Gen. Jerry Brown reworded the amendment to read "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry." With that wording, support for the measure immediately went down. Activists I spoke to in 2004 universally believed that a key to defeating the discriminatory measures were to find ways to convey to voters that this was a violation of their neighbor's rights—as opposed to the Evangelical and Republican positions that claimed gay marriage would undermine the marriages of straight voters. Those voters reached with the message that a ballot measure banning gay marriage was no better than creating a second-class citizenship—in other words, was inherently discriminatory—tended to vote no on the issue.

The big concern with California, and elsewhere, as Goodstein points out in the NYT, is that there tends to be a kind of Bradley Effect on gay issues: Voters are loathe to tell pollsters they plan to vote against their neighbor. But if Prop 8 is defeated, maybe Jerry Brown finally found out how to get that message across more broadly: Write the ballot truly explaining the amendment's intended impact, so voters are forced to face its intended bigotry.

Joe Biden's Wardrobe, Unpacked

Last week I asked XX Factor's male readers to weigh in with thoughts about the suit Joe Biden wore to the VP debate. I was trying to see if we could redirect our dissection of Sarah Palin's wardrobe—to see whether men pay as much attention to male candidates' clothes as we were paying to Palin's. The unscientific answer is: yes. (Of course, this has nothing to do with what one feels about the sticker price of Palin's wardrobe. Not to mention the cost of her makeup artist.) Most of you thought Biden's suit probably cost about $1,000, observing that it was not a "bespoke" suit and that similar suits at Brooks Brothers cost a grand or so. But many of you pointed out, too, that it could easily be in the upper end of that range, costing as much as $5,000.

Some pointed observations along the way: One reader wrote that he found the cost of Palin's wardrobe shocking because he "expected that, as governor, she would already have some clothes that were acceptable for the campaign trail." Another thought the fuss over Palin wasn't particularly gendered; just think of the hoopla over John Edwards' $400 haircut. (Great comparison: He noted that if you got a $400 haircut every day for a year you'd still be about two weeks shy of spending $150,000. It sure can cost a lot to dress yourself as a woman—but sheesh, you gotta work to spend $150,000.)

A third reader said he didn't think that we'd ever spend this much time thinking about a man's wardrobe because we're "culturally conditioned to almost instinctively believe certain things about people based on their gender." And we pay more attention to women's clothes: Even places like Target and so on have more big-label names designing down-market fashion for women than they have for men. Yet another reader took this point even further, noting that men can wear a suit over and over where women can't. He calculated that Biden's outfit would cost $2,500 or so from Hickey Freeman (where Biden has said he likes to shop). But he noted that it can be worn over and over as a "uniform," where Palin's dresses can't. Ah, well. Did Hillary solve this all with the pantsuit, yet another wondered. What seemed frumpy now looks pragmatic. 

Many thanks to all who wrote in. I know much more about men's clothes than I did five days ago. 

That Is Some Pricey Lipstick, Sarah

Wow, forget medicine and law; I'm gonna push my girl toward beauty school, where the big bucks are. Here's where Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist made more money than anyone else in the whole McCain-Palin campaign during the first two weeks of this month. According to the New York Times, Amy Strozzi, "who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show 'So You Think You Can Dance,' was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone.'' Now that she's moved on to Project Runway, "the campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi's payment as "PERSONNEL SVC/EQUIPMENT." Does that mean the lipstick is included?

Either way, Sarah Palin's makeup artist makes more in a month than a lot of people make in a year. We are really veering toward Marie Antoinette land here, aren't we? With perfumed sheep down on the old faux farm? And if she wants to talk small towns, I'll see her and raise her, because where I come from, this lame non-explanation of the $150,000 the RNC spent on her new wardrobe would be considered worse than no explanation at all: "That is not who we are,'' she told the Chicago Tribune. "It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported.'' Only, she didn't elaborate, didn't add or subtract any facts from our Escada-gate knowledge base at all, so her "denial'' is .. .denying what, exactly? "That whole thing is just, bad!'' she said of the uproar over her clothes. "Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are." OK, I'll bite: How frugal?

Evita

In one of the many Palin conversations at school pick-up today, someone was humming this tune, the lyrics to which are:

"I came from the people/They need to adore me. So Christian Dior me."

Most apt. 

Lilies that Fester: Palin and the Beauty Penalty

Sara, I was intrigued by your post (Palin May Be Pretty, But Her Poll numbers Aren't) noting that Palin's "supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes." I'm no Palin fan (though I can't get too worked up about the $150,000 wardrobe expenditure)—but I can't help wondering if Palin's sex appeal isn't actually hurting her, at this point.

I've blogged here before about the benefits—social and financial—our society hands out to those fortunate enough to be attractive. Reasearchers call it the "beauty premium." But ... it turns out that there's also a "beauty penalty." One 2006 study found that:

People are more likely to trust a pretty face, but when that trust is betrayed, the backlash can be ugly. ... Numerous studies have shown that attractive people generally make more money, get higher reviews from their supervisors and are viewed as being more intelligent and trustworthy. What surprised researchers in this study was that subjects deemed attractive also were penalized more harshly for failing to live up to expectations.

 I wonder if that's what's happening to Sarah Palin now. Quoth the Sage:

For if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.

Ahem.

People Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Glass Slippers

I've been trying to formulate an opinion about Sarah Palin’s new wardrobe, and I confess that the whole subject bothers me more than it should. On the one hand, I agree with the pragmatist bloggers that one needs to dress the part, and that faced with about six minutes in which to get Palin ready for her close-up, the RNC opted to throw money at the problem. (Anyone who saw the "before" snap of Palin in this baffling folk-elf outfit will understand that the woman needed at least some help.) On the other hand, I also agree with the purist bloggers that spending $150,000 on incredibly high-end designer duds not only looks bad to Joe the Plumber, but also turns Palin from Joe Sixpack into Empress Josephine. Still, the whole subject continues to make me queasy for some of the reasons Meghan explored: It is really, really different to be a woman in the public eye. The standards for looking “good” are completely unfair, and the stakes are vastly higher for failing to do so. We obsessed about John Edwards' haircut because a bad haircut truly wouldn’t have mattered. We obsessed over Hillary Clinton’s cleavage, or her pantsuits, or her highlights because they matter so much.

We could certainly wish that two kindly mice name Gus and Jacques had sewn all of Palin’s outfits for free on the night of Aug. 29, 2008, but maybe that whole Cinderella story says more about the relationship between women and beautiful clothes than we care to admit.

So I am going to have to side with the women (anyone notice a generational division opening up here?) who think that when it comes to looking up to the job, a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do. Nevertheless, the whole Pygmalion subplot, wherein Palin is a life-sized "teachable" Barbie doll, continues to leave me cold.

I'll Take Gov. Palin's Peep-Toe Pumps Any Day

So, Barack Obama has raised $605 million (including money from sources whose "names" look as if they were plucked from ACORN's voter registrations lists), reneged on his pledge to take matching federal funds along with John McCain, and is spending almost $2 million on a half-hour ad to air on the networks next Sunday, and I'm supposed to think he's a man of the people because he gets his shoes resoled? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Sarah's Temporary Wardrobe

How disappointing for Sarah Palin that she won’t get to keep any of those designer jackets, flattering pencil skirts, or peep-toe shoes. She would have known all along that the duds weren’t hers to keep—they are just part of the contrivance and makeup for her role in So You Think You Can Run for Vice President. The $150,000 was a production expense and when the season ends, she’ll have to return hers and the family’s costumes (Levi’s too?). She must be thinking, though, even if she and her dancing partner lose, she sorta earned the clothes. She’s responsible for raising so much money and all. Plus, they look really, really, good on her. Whoever gets that shantung silk Valentino jacket secondhand, will not do it justice the way Sarah did in her convention speech. Of course, sadly, keeping them would be against the law. (I doubt she could argue that they remain on permanent “loan” like Sen. Stevens’ massage chair.) Maybe she could suggest the campaign donate them to her favorite charity, the Salvation Army in Wasilla. She could buy them all back for pennies on the dollar.

Those Darn Elites

Noreen, I'll back you up a bit. If I had $150,000 to spend, I think I'd run right out to Escada. Or Prada. Or any other -ada where you could get such gorgeous garments. But—and this goes for any Democrats espousing the same message (Nancy and her Armani, etc.)—I'm not the one shouting an "I'm just regular folk, not elite" message. And if I had that $150,000 to spend on clothes—whether through a national political committee or my own wealth—I don't think I could rightly claim status as just a regular Jane anymore. Once you start paying $5,000 for your makeup, you join the ranks of some elite, whether it's media or not, don't you? I'm not saying, as Ellen astutely pointed out, that she doesn't need clothes that look good for this job interview—she does (though I think there's probably some suits out there that could be beautifully tailored for some savings and still make her look like a million bucks). I'm just saying it doesn't fit well with the us-against-those-darn-elites message that's been the centerpiece of her campaign.