naked candidate

There has been much ado about Governor Palin’s $150,000 shopping spree. Is it much ado about nothing? That depends on what the meaning of ‘nothing’ is.

On the surface, it should not matter. I opened my statement for my 401K the other day – it has dropped 14% over recent weeks. I listened to economist Arthur Laffer tell Bill Maher’s audience last night that the stock market is a predictor for the economy and we potentially have two more years of economic slow down. We are still in Iraq. We are still in Afghanistan. Our enemy may be in Pakistan. Surely there are far more pressing concerns than Palin’s exorbitant shopping spree?

It does not really matter, but it is relevant. It is relevant for the same reason that Joe the Plumber became relevant. John McCain has made it relevant.

McCain chose Palin largely on what he felt she represented: a reformer with a maverick streak for standing up to wasteful government. That was the narrative he wanted to tell. With a straight face he managed to make glancing statements of confirmation that her experience as a small town mayor and small state governor qualified her for what might become the highest seat in our government. What he really wanted to talk about though was the narrative, her story.

Here was a small town girl with small town values. She did not attend any of the fancy east coast elitist colleges, although she did try her hand at five different schools. She was a self-proclaimed hockey mom, another appellation in the endless iterations of what might label ‘normal’ Americans. He has often said she is not part of the Georgetown cocktail set. She hunts wolves from helicopters, not sip drinks in the affluent suburbs of our capital. She has a large family and was to represent the average American.

In essence, what McCain needed her to be was a story. Governor Palin was hired to play a symbol – to be the arm candy of the GOP. She was to be Betty Draper to John McCain’s Don, a wholesome image of the girl next door who makes her man seem all the more real, all the more virile and all the more right American guy for the right American job.

So, does it matter that she managed to drop $75,062.63 in one stop at Neiman Marcus? Politically, I still say it is irrelevant but when you have been selling a candidate based on the narrative of her being the average American woman who is just like you and then she spends more than most plumbers will earn in a year during one stop at the epitome of high-priced luxury department stores, the narrative doesn’t flow.

If her shopping had been limited to just $75,000 eyebrows would have been raised, but she doubled that amount with stops at places such as Saks Fifth Avenue, Bloomingdale’s, Barneys and Lord and Taylor. She is not pushing her cart through WalMart. She is J-Lo shopping with a six-figure credit line footed by donors to the RNC.

Image is important in politics these days – too important. I write this post on the anniversary of the death of Paul Wellstone, Senator from Minnesota, who cared about policy and people but not clothes and image. We need more people like him. However, I understand the need for wardrobe and make-up for all candidates on the national stage and I sympathize that women such as Hillary Clinton have to face ridiculous questions and comments about pant suits and outfits. It is an absurd man’s world when you are running for President of the US.

How many hockey moms, soccer moms, WalMart moms could afford to spend $75,000 at Neiman Marcus? How many of them even live near a Neiman Marcus, the pantheon of all that is over priced? According to the US Department of Labor, the average American, whom Palin is supposed to represent, spent $1,874 on clothing in 2006. Palin spent more than 40 times what your WalMart mom spent on clothes in 2006 – in one stop. She spent a total of 80 times what your average soccer mom did. 80 Times.

Considering I had taken some time off from blogging recently, I had no intention whatsoever to return to write a post about Palin’s shopping, but when I read Ruben Navarette’s commentary yesterday something bothered me. Here is an excerpt of what he had to say about what he felt were unfair attacks on Governor Palin:

Many Americans don’t see why it’s a story. Fellow hockey mom Page Growney of New Canaan, Conn., asked The Associated Press, “What did you want to see her in, a turtleneck from L.L. Bean?”

Still, we’re told, this tempest in a Gucci bag has some Republicans worrying that shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue might undermine Palin’s everywoman image. To think, just last month, the criticism was that Sarah the Moose Hunter wasn’t sufficiently sophisticated or glamorous. Now her wardrobe signals the hockey mom is high-maintenance.

I agree that it is confusing as to why it is a story, unless we note that Palin’s candidacy has been more narrative than achievement, more style than substance. Palin is supposed to be the woman for all seasons. She has been going around to what she calls the pockets of “real America” and preaching to the party faithful. She has been stirring up the patriotic zealots in these small towns by telling the crowd that Obama does not represent their values.

In the quote above, Ms. Growney asks if we want to see Palin in an L.L. Bean turtleneck. My question to Ms. Growney is what does she wear? (I am fighting the temptation to ask you what you are wearing right now Ms. Growney) Does Ms. Growney spend $75,000 at Neiman Marcus?

I read another angry comment from a reader the other day, and forgive me because I cannot remember where I found it, asking how much Michelle Obama spends on clothes. Wasn’t the idea supposed to be that the Palin’s and McCain’s are very different from the Obama’s. Wasn’t the narrative that Palin was a regular gal and the Obama’s were elitists with questionable pasts? Saying Palin isn’t doing anything different from Michelle seems to be undermining the entire Palin experiment.

If you’re telling me that Palin is one of the common people and that is why we need her in office, then why does she need the expensive clothes? It just doesn’t mesh.

The really troublesome part of Navarette’s commentary is when he wants to dumb the issue down to liberals criticizing Palin’s lack of sophistication. We have never had reason to question her sophistication or her glamor. We have had just and rightful cause as voters to question her resume and qualifications. When she has mostly shied away from the press and served as a symbol to incite her party’s base, then we have cause to question that symbolism. When her value becomes more narrative than achievement, we are left to question that narrative.

It is a mess of your own making, John McCain. You wanted to turn her into the great American story and now voters have some questions about the plot.

If we back up for a moment we can see that this is tied to McCain’s attempt to divide the country during this election. The GOP has tried to create an Us vs Them scenario in which McCain and Palin are draped in red, white and blue, starting each day by saying the pledge of allegiance and then continuing on in their daily Norman Rockwell pursuits. Meanwhile, the Obama’s start each day with a fist pound and set off on their own nefarious agendas.

This is the reason we are talking about Joe the Plumber.

This is the reason for Sarah Palin.

This is why I spent the last 30 minutes writing about Neiman Marcus and pantsuits rather than the current state of affairs. Then again, perhaps these are the state of affairs.

Oh John McCain, you’ve come a long way baby, and you have dragged us all along with you.