In defense of shopping
Much is being made today of the revelation that the McCain-Palin campaign has shelled out upwards of $150,000.00 for clothing, shoes, hair and makeup for Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. People think it's tacky and excessive, sends the wrong message, and makes the McCain campaign seem overly concerned about superficial things.
The problem is, campaigns for female candidates ARE about appearances, much moreso than for male candidates. Nobody notices if Joe Biden's navy blue suit and matching blue tie are 5 years old or brand new, because men's business fashion never really changes all that much. The only debate there is what colors of shirt and tie are acceptable, and making sure that the suits still fit and the shoes are nicely polished. Hell, as long as the suit is re-pressed, a male candidate can wear the same one 3 days in a given week and nobody will say a word. You men have it very, very easy.
But women's fashion is a constantly changing thing. You have not only the fabrics, the colors, and the cut of suits, but you also have the blouses that go under the suit, the belts and jewelry and bag, the shoes (my god, the shoes), and ever-changing concepts of what hair and makeup is appropriate. Staying fashion appropriate is a much bigger challenge for all professional women as compared to men. But then if you add in the inordinate attention paid to female candidates' fashion choices as opposed to their male counterparts, and of COURSE any female candidate is going to need a hefty "makeover" budget. It goes without saying.
For all of her efforts to downplay the difference between Alaska and the rest of the country, Sarah Palin herself could not deny that the fashion choices available to her were far fewer than those available to women in large metropolitan cities in the lower 48. Her clothing prior to her selection as VP candidate was unremarkable, which is about all you can expect. It certainly wasn't polished and impressive, but at least it wasn't outright tacky. Still, the day she was picked I said that someone had already been given the assignment of softening the bad highlights in her hair, getting her to back away a little from the ever-present updo she favored, improve the subtlety of her makeup, and go buy her an absolute shit ton of new clothes. It appears that this is exactly what happened.
Her first apperance with McCain after the official unveiling speech was when they toured areas affected by Hurricane Gustav. Sarah Palin showed up in a white button down shirt, jeans, and the hoop earrings heard round the world. She was reviled by pundits and bloggers for seeming too flippant about hurricane victims' plight...because of her EARRINGS. If this didn't tell you the inordinate attention being paid to her fashion choice, nothing would.
Very quickly, the campaign must have realized they had to go shopping for her pronto. Her convention speech was a few days away, and the whole world would be watching. So much scrutiny was applied to Sarah Palin's convention speech that the selection of an outfit was likely the kind of decision that numerous campaign officials had a say in. If she had chosen something too girly and flirty, she would have seemed inconsequential. If she had chosen something dowdy and out of date, she would have seemed provincial. Instead, she selected a beige quilted Gucci jacket and black skirt that hit the right notes--fashionable without being ostentatious, and not at all suggestive. 
For the debate, her second big appearance on the national stage, she wore a slightly lower cut but still appropriate black Valentino suit with a tight cut to the skirt (because someone had figured out that hinting at her sex appeal helped them with white men) and a slightly lower (but still not suggestive) neckline. I actually very much liked the suit for the debate and think it was a fashion home run. I also don't think it's an accident that Palin wore her hair down, not in the traditional updo, for both the debate and the convention speech. Someone told her that she needed to lose the severity of her former favorite hairstyle, and they were right.
Now, the case could be made that while a little fashion policing of her wardrobe was certainly in order, the problem is the amount she spent on her makeover. Why buy a $3500 Valentino suit when a $600 Tahari would do? Why have Prada shoes if Franco Sarto or Joan & David would have made something just as fashionable for one fifth the price? This is a legitimate question, and undoubtedly the stylist hired to help Palin shop was not sufficiently mindful of how the public might react to the notion of spending the cost of a modest 3 bedroom house on one woman's wardrobe. But you can't deny that Palin's style has improved considerably from her days back in Alaska, and that her positive personal image is probably the only thing she really has going for her with the public right now.
I wish it were the case that women's personal appearance wasn't so important to their success in professional pursuits as well as personal ones, but it simply is. Any female attorney will tell you that jurors and judges can be swayed by something as simple as whether an attorney appears attractive and polished or disheveled and unimpressive. So, too, will businesspeople respond better to sales pitches and business presentations delivered by women who seem confident, polished and attractive rather than unconcerned about their personal appearance. It is a fact of life, and one that a candidate would be wrong to ignore or attempt to defy. Dowdy unkempt women candidates simply don't get elected very often.
While this spending is being held up as a symbol of excess in an economic crisis, let's not pretend that attempts to make over Sarah Palin's image were a bad idea. We can quibble about whether it was unnecessarily expensive, but it was something that had to happen.
And maybe now you men will understand why I spend so blasted much on my wardrobe and grooming.
