Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan is once again larding up her so-called fashion critiques with political critiques. In Thursday's Style section, Sarah Palin’s Trump endorsement was faulted for being too flashy. The headline? “Notice Sarah Palin’s sweater? You were supposed to.”
Anti-Trump conservatives thought Palin endorsed Trump as a "look at me" moment. Givhan described the outift as “a black pencil skirt topped off with a mini black cardigan studded with what resembled needle-thin, glistening stalactites. On television, as all that black blurred together, she looked a bit like she was wearing a bedazzled choir robe.” It was all designed for egotism, implied Givhan:
The entire speech — constructed in Palin’s particular syntax — was filled with demands for attention as she picked at the wounds of her 2008 campaign. But nothing cried out louder than her choice of attire. The fashion industry may have long argued that spangles are not just for the cocktail hour and beyond, but that philosophy has made little headway in the world of campaign politics. So to see a politician — someone who is ostensibly not the star of the rally but a supporting player — dressed in such a bold manner, was to see someone who has come to steal the spotlight rather than share it.
One can imagine this is exactly how Donald Trump likes to display the women by his side -- looking flashy and TV-camera-ready. He clearly knew her flashy looks and populist hooks were part of what scared the pundits back in 2008. Givhan's prose had the sound of looking down the nose...sorta like Charlie Gibson:
Palin’s cardigan was not ugly — not exactly, not terribly — but it was distracting. It took one’s attention away from her actual speech....The cardigan was flashy. It was proudly outside the realm of vetted political attire. It wasn’t safe and it wasn’t decorous.
It was vaguely gaudy, with a hint of kitsch. And for a political affair it was inappropriate — which in the politically disruptive universe of Palin, made it perfect.
