This is not careless image management.Palin's choice of clothing was supposed to represent some barrier between her and the common person, unacceptable to the media.
This is ill-advised and ill-informed.
Or, to use this election cycle's phrase of choice: This is some seriously bad judgment.
One assumes that her campaign is populated by some of the brightest minds and they have spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing over mind-numbing details, right down to whether the candidate would stand or sit during the debate and who gets to hover behind her for photo ops. But Palin's handlers would do well to occasionally read a fashion magazine, skim a fashion blog or at least ask themselves why women are willing to spend upwards of $10,000 on a handbag known as the Birkin. It's not because that famous Hermes bag is so pretty. It's because of what it represents: exclusivity, success and classiness.
Well, what about Michelle Obama? Turns out, that her decision was one of the greatest in American history.
The first lady stepped out in a sophisticated blue Thom Browne coat and J. Crew shoes for a visit to St. John's Church on the morning of Inauguration Day, accessorizing with a Cathy Waterman necklace. Browne, an American designer better known for his menswear, designed the coat based on the style of a man's silk tie.And that exclusivity that dogged Sarah Palin's choice? Instead, it is a mark of high culture:
Experts said her style choices, particularly the fact that she sought out Thom Browne, show the first lady is a fan of fashion. "This is not a designer that you would wander into your local mall and find," fashion critic Robin Givhan said on TODAY Monday. "He's hard to find; he's very unique."Well, even though the outfits are outrageously expensive, at least they will be used for four full years, right? Maybe even passed down to the Obamas' children?
Let them eat Versace.
According to the White House, at the end of the inaugural events, the outfit and accessories will be donated to the National Archives.