Again, Sarah Palin’s shopping a political double standard

Sarah Palin’s Shopping Spree: A Political Double Standard?
The mainstream media and liberals everywhere are aghast at how much the McCain camp spent on an apparent fashion overhaul for Sarah Palin.

The spending on so-called “campaign accessories” included bills totaling roughly $150,000.

An anchor at a prominent network (not FOX News) rudely sniffed that for the amount of money the campaign spent Palin should look better. (For the record I’m fairly certain this anchor does not shop at K-Mart.)

This is not taxpayer money. If the McCain camp wants to blow funds on some designer duds, that’s their prerogative. Might not be the most brilliant idea when you trail in fundraising, but it’s their decision as long as they haven’t violated any election laws.

Women traditionally endure exponentially more scrutiny than men. Hillary has been under the fashion microscope for almost two decades. That’s simply a fact, but it’s hardly fair.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Hillary’s jackets cost about $3,000, her shirts run to $1,350 and her pants hover around the $2,000 mark. Let’s do the math.

That’s over $6,000 a suit. And Hillary owns a lot of pants suits! And she looks great. If she didn’t, she’d be vilified for looking frumpy and lacking style-savvy the way she was in the 1990’s.

There is no question excessive primping and preening by presidential candidates is riddled with risk. John Edwards was lambasted over his $400 hair cuts in 2007 as was John McCain over his $520 Ferragamo shoes. We expect our candidates to look good, but not too good. We like a put together politician but have adverse reaction when we hear the price tag. For a newcomer like Palin, it’s par for the course that she’s stepped up her look. Imagine if she didn’t? She’d be the subject of more ridicule than she is now.

It’s not just Palin who realizes the benefits of being sharp dressed on the stump:

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that friends of Obama say the biggest change in him since his recent success on the national political scene is that he’s dressing better and shopping at the ultra-fashionable Barney’s because, for the first time in his life, he can afford to. Apparently “the fierce urgency of now” includes killer threads.

And how about Michelle Obama? The New York Times Style section published an entire article praising her new, and likely very pricey, sense of style. The purple Maria Pinto sheath she wore at a campaign rally retails for $900, and as the New York Times put it is: “not the kind of garment most working-class voters can reasonably aspire to.”

The current issue of Harper’s Bazaar notes that the Democratic presidential candiate’s wife wears Valentino, among others. Looks like when the Obamas say “spread the wealth around,” they mean at top shelf department stores.

I’m not outraged at this. The pressure of being in the public eye is understandable. What’s disturbing is the double standard. Michelle Obama gets hailed by the fashionistas while Palin gets crucified and mocked by the fashion police.

These same liberals who are now appalled at the Palin shopping spree are the same ones that thought it shallow and superficial to discuss Newsweek’s obvious recent cheap shot cover of Sarah Palin because we have more important fish to fry. Where are these people now to shout that this issue is trivial? And how do they manage to get so fired up about Palin’s appearance all of sudden?

I’m waiting for the left to condemn the insignificance of this story and I’m not holding my breath.