Sarah Palin received $150,000 worth of new clothes from the Republican National Party since her nomination was announced in September, according to a recent Politico story.
The public and the media confused beauty with money upon Palin’s debut, heaping praise on Palin’s good looks, a mistake made so often in the United States that beauty and money have been long indistinguishable. Palin dazzled because she was covered in staggeringly expensive designer garb. Stylists know that small town beauty queen fashion sense does not make true loveliness on a national stage. I wonder what Palin looked like before the GOP got a hold of her, shaped her hair and makeup, and literally clothed her in money.
If the point of Palin on the ticket was her down-home appeal, why not let her continue to take a curling iron to her bangs, and wear outfits from the local Anchorage or Wasilla shopping malls? Why outfit her in a way that few hockey moms (and only about 5% of people in this country) could afford?
Perhaps because without the class status her clothing conferred, she’d run the risk of looking like what she is: an untutored woman and an unpolished small-time politician. And how would her nutty right wing views read coming out of a package like that? Would our perception of her moose hunting, woolf-shooting ways change if her class status presented differently?
Campaign spokespeople poo-poo stories about Palin’s wardrobe, suggesting that the clothes are on loan to Palin and will be donated to charity once she is finished. Imagine the lucky work-to-welfare Mom, or abused woman who fled her house without her clothes, who would benefit from Palin’s cast-off Armani suits.
Is it just me, or does the McCain campaign’s dismissive suggestion evoke a “let them eat cake” ethos to you too?
Funny that the McCain campaign, for all of their Joe-the-Plumber advertising, still can’t manage to disguise their Marie Antoinette ways
John McCain and Bill O’Rilley say “no way” to the destruction of white male Christian power structure!
Ok, so maybe I’m paraphrasing a bit. But I’m not fudging the white male Christian power structure part; that’s verbatim. Check out the wacko exchange below, and notice how McCain appears to be scared of O’Rilley. Maverick my ass.
This exchange took place in 2007, but I think it deserves a resurgence of youtube popularity, given that way that McCain supporters dug out that old footage of Obama introducing Kwame Kilpatrick. (Funny, I always thought it was ok for politicians to be buddy-buddy with crooks before their public unmasking. Or maybe such associations are ok only if they involve money funneled to politicians from dirty people through indirect channels. It’s hard to keep these rules straight).
This is via our friend Consciousness Razor. Try taking her sexism and racism quiz, posted on her site along with this video; it’s a good comeback in the unfortunate event that someone you know starts talking that you-just-can’t-say-anything-anymore nonsense
Citing their efforts in support of women’s rights, N.O.W endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket today.
NOW supported Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary, and now we join with her in saying “NO” — No Way, No How, No McCain! And we proudly stand arm-in-arm with her in putting our hopes and our dreams, our hard work and our hard-earned money, behind the next President of the United States — Barack Obama, and his running mate, longtime friend and ally of women, Sen. Joe Biden.
You’re probably voting for Obama anyway if you’re reading this feminist blog, but do spread the word if you know anyone reluctant to support Obama, particularly on Hillary’s behalf, that McCain is the devil’s spawn, especially in terms of women’s rights.
In this NYTimes video Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says that the McCain-Palin campaign has peaked.
Are we ready to move beyond lipstick, pigs, and pitbulls? We’ll see.
The first presidential debate is about two weeks away – Friday, September 26th.
Remember when feminism meant talking truth to power?
Joy Behar, the resident comedian and proud feminist on the View, shows us what feminism looks like when she looks Presidential Candidate John McCain in the eye and asks him how he can approve campaign commercials that are based on lies.
Barbara Walters also reminds McCain that he has used the “lipstick on a pig” cliche before.
Did you notice that McCain seemed angered by these tough questions from the ladies of the View? I wonder what words were running through his head as he thought up a defense for himself.
Maybe Behar and Walters should moderate one of the upcoming debates?
As I was watching the Republican convention, I had a serious feeling of SLN deja vu.
Since the end of the convention, the details of the skit causing the deja vu swam around at the edges of my mind, not quite breaking the surface. I mulled.
Sarah Palin’s description of herself as harmless hockey mom.
John McCain’s description of himself as a maverick yet benign war hero.
Their insistent knock, knock on America’s door. as two happy do-gooders, here to provide. Country First!
The absurdity of wrapping their bloodthirsty, do-anything-for-power-ethos in banal wreathes of smiles, and the pain of watching Americans open the door for them, perhaps to get their heads bitten off down the line. When all they have to do is look out of their peepholes and see what’s right in front of them.
Finally I remembered: the land shark skit.
I googled around to see if anyone else had noticed the striking connection between Republicans and Land Sharks.
What I found instead was a quote from a Republican congressman comparing Democrats to Land Sharks this summer.
Preempted by the party of doofy old white people. Really, did you see the crowd at the RNC? They probably think John McCain is young, and that’s why no one’s too worried about Palin.
They must pay some young’ns – you know, people in their 30s and 40s – to come up with these pop culture references for them.
I wrote the following as part of a letter to the editor recently (it was cut, even though the letter was published):
In joining those who imply that feminism’s work is done, this writer forecloses investigation of some of the most significant and damaging ideas that arising from responses to the Clinton bid for presidency: that Clinton failed to represent change to voters not only because she was a Washington insider married to a former president but more importantly because feminism itself is too old a story, a played-out narrative which has accomplished its goals and which, as a result, can no longer serve as a vehicle for voters’ utopian hopes. If it is true that feminism no longer signals transformation to voters despite its status as a largely unfinished project, we should be asking ourselves how to make its goals once again seem intrinsic to the programme of Left politics, rather than insisting that it has had and fulfilled its brief moment of promise.
I was responding to one of those self-congratulatory pieces written by Obama supporters at the end of the primary season designed to explain why we need have no regret about Clinton’s loss. What struck me about the piece was how neatly it encapsulated what seemed to be a prevailing view: having a woman in the White House doesn’t look like change, because we’ve already got gender equality. Whereas, to borrow the sort of rhetoric often found in such articles, having a black man in office suggested an America unimaginable thirty years ago.
Of course, it can and should mean something; of course I’m not suggested the US has achieved racial equality–far from it. But the Left’s failure to embrace feminism as a symbol of change only seems to have allowed the Right to pick up the slack. Palin might be making her career out of attacking everything feminism stands for, but when the Republicans pick a woman, they still send out a signal of change, just by doing the thing usually associated with the other team. For them, even the slightest bit of gender equality reads like a big step forward, whereas for the Democrats it read like a step taken way too long ago to be worth anything.
In effect, in writing feminism off as a symbol of national progress, the Left has allowed the Right to put its own horrific, ‘hockey-mom’ version of women’s rights on centre stage; the Right seems to have become be the sole owner of the feeling of openness and possibility once associated with changes in gender roles on the Left.