The Chicagoist will be launching later but in the meantime please enjoy our archives.

Wiser on Palin

By Margaret Lyons in News on Sep 15, 2008 6:23PM

2008_9_15.palin.jpgPaige Wiser's column today about how Sarah Palin "could look even better" doesn't even make the claim that changing her look could earn her ticket more votes. Don't we all just want to be the prettiest princess at the party? C'mon, girls!

"The former beauty queen is unquestionably attractive. Her signature look, however, is proving more divisive than her politics," Wiser writes. I think "unquestionably" is a stretch, though hairdos and shoes do indeed divide Americans more than book-banning or definitions of life. But is it Palin's "'propensity for wearing light colors'" that prevents her from presenting "'the gravitas she needs,'" or could it be that she doesn't appear to know very much? Palin's eyeglasses "can cost up to $700 a pair, depending on the lenses." Not mentioned is that for those of us reliant on prescription eye wear, the choice isn't exclusively one of fashion; It's also one of insurance coverage. But please, tell me more about how just-folks Palin is. Oh wait. This story doesn't get anywhere near that. Instead, it's a head-to-toe analysis of what Sarah Palin should do if she wants to be prettier, how to "'boost her sex appeal;"—because if a female politician can't have the courtesy to be a boner machine, then she's not really worth the party-line rhetoric she rode in on.

Stories like this degrade women, and even though Sarah Palin makes my skin crawl, that's secondary to how much I can't stand reductive, objectifying bullshit columns about how she looks, if she's sexy enough, what she should do to be more attractive. It's not Sarah Palin's job to be sexy.

And if you're going to write an entire article about how Sarah Palin looks, and include two whole paragraphs about what kind of make-up she wears, but not make a single a lipstick joke...well, that's just lazy.

Photo via Palin's Facebook page