correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't John Edwards pay for his $400 haircut out of his OWN POCKET?

This is like comparing $400 worth of apples John Edwards bought with his own money to $150,000 worth of oranges the RNC bought for Sarah Palin that she has no intention of paying the taxes on.

What is so sexist about pointing out improper use of campaign funds for over-priced designer duds at a time when many Americans are losing EVERYTHING? I just heard from a Chicago friend last night that conscientious renters have been evicted on to the street with no notice by banks when their landlords default on mortages! Palin has more in common with Marie Antoinette than Joe Six Pack.

I can understand Palin needing some new duds for the campaign, and a couple of particularly nice outfits for big occasions like the convention. But $150,000 worth? With all her executive experience, you'd think she'd already have some suitable clothing, heh? The money would have been better spent on some education.

No, see, this is because you're just an elitist snob, who begrudges an authentic, hard-working, Main-Street-America hockey mom a chance to look nice.

Typical librul media. Why do you hate ordinary people so much?

I read this post, and that quote, immediately after spending a few minutes at www.TheOnion.com. Seriously, read this quote again and tell me it was not ripped from the pages of The Onion:

"She had a legitimate need to purchase clothing to get her through three months of grueling campaigning in the constant spotlight of television cameras," said William F. B. O'Reilly, a Republican consultant in New York. "No one would blink if this was a male candidate buying Brooks Brothers suits."

I don't believe that is a quote from an actual McCain campaign aide. I believe it is one of the patented made-up quotes for which The Onion is famous.

Truly, satire is dead.

No doubt there are republicans out there thinking that the problem isn't that 150K was spent on clothing and make-up, but that we found out about it.

I'd be curious to learn a bit about the disclosure laws and regulations that allowed us to learn about this. This is a great example of why we need transparency in elections and in governance.

The Gospel of St. John

McCain is like the Bible.
You can find quotes from him supporting or condemning every instance of human behavior.

correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't John Edwards pay for his $400 haircut out of his OWN POCKET?

This is like comparing $400 worth of apples John Edwards bought with his own money to $150,000 worth of oranges the RNC bought for Sarah Palin that she has no intention of paying the taxes on.

Haven't you heard? Sarah said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the shopping spree. Then she took the money and bought herself an SUV.

It appears that Sarah Palin likes to live the high life on other people's money whether it be the RNC or the Alaskan tax payers. The pattern is obvious: $150,000 for clothing, 5-night stays in luxury hotels for a five-hour event, bringing her daughters along on state business at taxpayer expense. Maybe she thinks that she is entitled to these things because she is beautiful or because she is popular or because she has a large family. Actually, I can imagine her thinking that God wants her to have all of these things and that she would be ungrateful not to accept them. Regardless of the reason, I believe that she will continue to abuse the public trust if elected vice president. She is plainly more interested in serving herself and her family's wants than serving the nation.

The convention was right at the beginning of September, the election is at the beginnign of November--seems to me TWO months, not three!!

That's $2500 per day!! Not much re-wearing or dry-cleaning involved. Were multiple copies of the same item bought?

Where are these bales of clothing stored? How are they hauled around?

This is not a snark.

Would not have gained her huge points with her target audience if she had dressed herself out of Wal-Mart, Target and J.C. Penney and trumpeted the fact?

How many Brooks Brothers suits would $150,000 buy?

Edwards's campaign paid for the haircuts originally, but I think he reimbursed the campaign for the expense. And Hillary's campaign paid for stuff like that, too, but not $150K worth.

That $150,000 would buy Joe the Plumber 3580 pairs of overalls. Seriously, what did Palin wear while campaigning for governor? What did she wear while serving as governor? I could understand some expenditure for clothes but the price of a condo's worth seems a bit excessive for a "Just like us" hockey mom. I'm guessing that most hockey moms and many Americans don't spend a total of $150,000 on clothes over their entire lifetimes.

The $150,000 would've been better spent sending her to a good college between now and 2012. Maybe she'd then be able to answer some questions coherently.

The $150,000 would've been better spent sending her to a good college between now and 2012. Maybe she'd then be able to answer some questions coherently.

This is such a case of "country come to town". I just hope that the comparative examples we've seen on the blogosphere get more of a mainstream mention - the 150K buys so much health insurance, is so many times what the average family makes, etc.

I could work for 4 years at my current salary and still not make that amount of money. And sadly, I'm a poster child for what the Repubs want to show as "family values" -- I am married, starting a family, I have a steady job, we have a mortgage, are active in our church and community, are educated, and have relied either on our own money or loans to get where we are....and we are struggling just like the rest of the middle class to make ends meet.

BTW, can you still be called a Joe Six-Pack if you're drinking a sixer of Heineken?

Slappy,

IIRC, Edwards' haircut was initially charged to the campaign, but later those charges were reversed to come out of his own pocket. I don't know if that was done before or after the price became a target.

Matt W: Actually, $150,000 would have been best spent sending two bright but under-privileged kids to college. Or paying a few mortgage payments. Or some body armor for her son in Iraq.

And CatFish: Absolutely! Nothing would have said "I'm one of you" more than a business suit from JC Penneys.

This all goes back to Matt Damon's comment that her candidacy is like a really bad Disney movie. I can just see her in a huge hotel suite, opening bag after bag, box after box of high-fashion togs. Then there's the rapid-fire shots of her smiling and turning in front of a three-view mirror. And of course, "Walking On Sunshine" is playing full blast.

Accepting gifts, clothing, etc from the 'good old boys [and girls]' doesnt make one a reformer I can believe in.

. "No one would blink if this was a male candidate buying Brooks Brothers suits."

The most expensive Brooks Bros. suits cost $1,900 while the typical one costs about $1,000. At those prices, $150,000 would get you 75 - 150 suits.

Do you mean to tell me that Obama, Biden, and McCain each require 75 - 150 suits?

Of course there's a little sexism involved here, not because we're calling her on her expenditures but because of the level of interest shown in her looks -- and the accompanying willingness among some audiences to excuse her intellectual, educational and judgmental insufficiencies because of the way she looks.

That I-don't-care-if-she's-dumb-I'd-love-to-fuck-her effect was calculated when McCain's team hauled her out and packaged her like a shiny Christmas present. It's exactly what they were striving for. This isn't a case of a smart, capable candidate who's also gorgeous, in which case most of us would say, "Work it, girl." This is a case of offering someone's looks and silly biography as a supposed replacement for job qualifications or preparation.

So, since the GOP has specifically and energetically marketed her as the pretty lady in the very high heels with the beautiful legs and the big hair, rather than as a candidate for the vice presidency who doesn't make everyone laugh, they can damn well take their medicine now that their cynical strategy has gone west on them. The problem with appealing only to voters' most visceral instincts and prejudices is that sometimes those instincts and prejudices turn on you. See John McCain, houses, number of.

Regarding the "we were always going to donate the clothing to a charity after the campaign" retort, I have to ask what charity specializes in placing $5000.00 women's clothing ensembles in the hands of downtrodden, destitute and impoverished women? I've never seen a $2000.00 Coach handbag offered for sale at a Goodwill or Salvation Army resale store (outlets I donate items to often). Ever hear of a pair of Jimmy Choo slingbacks available for sale at the American Cancer Society thrift shop? I'd like to see this explanation dissected a bit further. Anyone?

That $150,000 would buy Joe the Plumber 3580 pairs of overalls. Dennis - SGMM

Yeah, but at least they didn't make her get a nose job like Paula Jones, Greta Van Sustern and Linda Tripp.

"She had a legitimate need to purchase clothing to get her through three months of grueling campaigning in the constant spotlight of television cameras."

Three months = 90 days
$150,000 / 90 days = $1,666.66 per day

Poor dear. And this "constant spotlight" the gentleman wept about -- will it involve a press conference? Ever? I think even a Republican would want at least one press conference to qualify for an adjective like "grueling."

As for the rest of the country? Hockey moms, NASCAR dads, or whatever the millionaire newsies are calling us these days?

Do you guys spend $1,666 for clothes? In a year?

90 days. Grueling.

"The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain."

I do believe SNL and Tina Fey is going to have a field day with this one. Like the script that used her own words, this on writes itself. I can't wait.

Regarding the "we were always going to donate the clothing to a charity after the campaign" retort, I have to ask what charity specializes in placing $5000.00 women's clothing ensembles in the hands of downtrodden, destitute and impoverished women?

None. "Donate to charity" likely means they'd auction it off to well-heeled collectors of campaign memorabilia (there really is a market for this, although Sarah's duds aren't going to fetch what Hillary's or Jackie's would) and the proceeds would go toward some charity of their choice. The Kill the Wolves Foundation or Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be High-School Graduates Association, perhaps.

Steve Duncan: I imagine they'd be auctioned off at one of those ladies-who-lunch charity events. Or perhaps donated to a museum, like Nancy Reagan's gowns were after she came under criticism for her free-spending, tax-dodging ways.

Steve duncan,

The latest rumor was that they would be auctioned off with the proceeds going to charity. If we even hear about what happens to the clothes it will probably be like that photo shoot with Britney spears where she either ruined them or just took the clothes with her. My bet is she may sell a few pieces that she does not like and keep the rest. I would not be surprised if they did it before the election.

"John Edwards, a man, spent $400 on a haircut... It had nothing to do with gender, and everything to do Edwards' image as someone working families can relate to."

No. The haircut was part of the "Edwards is a fag" narrative. Edwards was the Breck Girl, remember? It had everything to do with gender.

"I have to ask what charity specializes in placing $5000.00 women's clothing....I'd like to see this explanation dissected a bit further. Anyone?"- steve duncan

I thought that too, except the GOPers will say they will auction the clothes off. But that's also a problem since it would imply a great deal of narcissism.

Either way, is the GOP acknowledging their defeat?
Wouldn't Sarah need those clothes as VP?

An SNL campaign commercial/skit I'd love to see:

Pallin' Around With Palin

Scene 1: A pit bull watches a kids hockey game - zoom in to reveal lipstick and glasses.

Scene 2: Sarah shops at Nieman Marcus, then Saks. Zoom in to reveal the RNC charge card. Zoom-out to show the same card being used at an airport First Class counter with her whole family.

Scene 3: Sarah gives a speech to the Alaska Independance Party, wishing them good luck.

Scene 4: Sarah target practicing at an indoor range, then shooting wolves from helicopter, then shooting a moose.

Scene 5: Sarah studying the Constitution, then lecturing the Senate, berating them by slamming an expensive high heel on the podium.

Scene 6: Sarah on the phone, screaming at someone to fire a state trooper

Scene 7: Close-up of Sarah being healed by a "laying on of hands" at church. Zoom out to reveal that the hands belong to a witch doctor.

Scene 8: Sarah walking prim and proper, zoom out to reveal the runway in a beauty contest

Scene 9: Sarah knocks on the door of an expensive house. It opens and she is greeted by a smiling John McCain. Sarah knocks on the door of a different expensive house, greeted by John McCain. Repeat 5 times, then fade to black on the last.

So the Governor of Alaska doesn't already have an executive wardrobe? Her husband doesn't already have a business suit? Her children don't already have suitable "sunday-go-to-meeting" attire?

Another thing that struck me about the Republican talking points was the rationale "We're planning to give the clothes to charity after the campaign."

Oh, really? So she needs to dress up like a VP, but only until November 4?

Why is that? Because they know she's going to lose?

Seems as though the implanting of Sarah has not brought in the women's vote - However, her support appears to be from white males who think she's a "Hottie" - So, this money probably would have been better spent at Frederick's of Hollywood and Victoria's Secret - Then, when she speaks to her adoring crowd, she could use a runway with the speakers blaring "The Stripper".

For her crowd, please put in a pole, as well.

McCain made the worst choice in a running mate and now he he has to sleep knowing she caused him to lose the race.

McCain made the worst choice in a running mate and now he he has to sleep knowing she caused him to lose the race.

McCain made the worst choice in a running mate and now he he has to sleep knowing she caused him to lose the race.

The Seattle PI had it on the front page this AM with wonderfully juxtapose photos of Palin then and Palin now.

Nice floral print

Be sure to check out the slide show the next column over. The expression, "Cleans up real god," comes to mind.

And this "constant spotlight" the gentleman wept about -- will it involve a press conference? Ever?

Good point. Other than a handful of interviews,
all her other appearances have been in front of crowds at rallies - you suppose she needed Versace jackets to impress the good folks in North Carolina or the Real Virginia?

And can I just ask - for all that money, why does she wear those tacky, cheap-ass patent leather shoes?

Re: shortstop (at 9:56)--well said.

So the Governor of Alaska doesn't already have an executive wardrobe? Her husband doesn't already have a business suit? Her children don't already have suitable "sunday-go-to-meeting" attire?

See here for before-and-after on Palin's wardrobe. Her existing wardrobe was mostly hideous.

William F. B. O'Reilly??

Come on! You can add fancy initials to a pig, but it's still Bill O'Reilly. Seriously though, how sucky would it be to have been a Bill O'Reilly, just to have the jackass Bill O'Reilly come along and ruin your good name? Hell, it's not enough that this dude had to go by William, he had to add two extra initials in there too, just to keep things straight. And this guy's a Republican.

I'm just hoping that another Doctor Biobrain doesn't come along before I get to be famous. Otherwise, I'll have to become like Doctor F.B. Biobrain, which would suck, because my real middle name is "Money."

As for Palin's $150k, I'm of the opinion it was hush money. She'd keep her true opinions under wraps as long as they give her some fancy clothes to wear. And having a guess at what those opinions are, I'd say it was a good bargain for both sides.

Anyway you slice it, it looks really bad. Is it legal even?

In any case,it's just more pretense, after touting her 'small town' image to the hilt.

$150,000 is just a heck of a lot of money to spend on suits and cosmetics. I know. I shop enough to know that there are plenty of good bargains out there. I could see maybe $5,000 for a few new things--but $150,000? That's a down payment on a house for most (or even an actual condo for some).

In a time when people are losing their homes, their jobs, having to cut back on basics for themselves and their kids-- this is just obscene.

I was at the hair salon the other day and they told me business was really slowing-- folks getting less extras done like color and extras...

Festooned.

Last night I returned home to find a letter from John McCain beseeching me to donate to the RNC "Victory Fund" - wonder what the response rate to that mailing will be? ;o)

An auction would be rich. Wealthy Republicans bidding up used loser Palin clothes after bitching for months an Obama victory would drive them into penury. "Mrs. Thurston Howell III, you must have more confidence in the future of the economy than you let on. Pray tell, why hasn't the prospect of the coming, crushing tax burden dissuaded you from paying $10,000 for a pair of slightly scuffed Ferragamo pumps?" Something tells me the Ladies Equestrian Club of Dallas (or some other auction venue) wouldn't be too keen on News Channel 9 broadcasting the event. Then again, these are a breed of people lacking any sense of irony or shame.........

Let's not go on and on about this. Let us instead just let the Republican donors decide if it's such a great idea.

i'm not a republican, so i don't care where the RNC spends their money. i guess those who fund the RNC think it's worth it. when one of their many small contributors sees palin on tv, he probably sighs, thinking "Gee, I helped fund part of one of those earrings."

I will say this for Palin; most of the low information "six-pack" voters she tries to seduce would win the lottery and spend their money in a wild and thoughtless way too.

She is simply a lazy, selfish and manipulative woman who would have gone nowhere in teh democratic party. She won the lottery because Republicans are suckers for talking points and babes. Candy from a baby.
Still waiting for her medical records too . . .

Joe the Plumber makes $44,000 a year. She's spent three years of Joe's salary in three months.

See here for before-and-after on Palin's wardrobe. Her existing wardrobe was mostly hideous.

Other than the pink jackets nothing looked that substantially different between the before and after VP pick pictures. She wore the same type of boots, same type of jackets, same black skirts. Other than expensive brand names it really was not a huge makeover. Nowhere near the transformations one sees on "what not to wear" or other "make over" shows.

$150k - wow - couldn't she have found herself a
respectable Republican cloth coat?

Maybe someone noticed this--but there's an ad on this page for not one but two Brooks Brothers' suits for 1k!

The fake controversy over Edwards' $400 haircut had little to do with "Edwards' image as someone working families can relate to." The expensive haircut (and the "I feel pretty" video, and the "Breck girl" comments) were all about implying that he was a homosexual. Maureen Dowd couldn't use the word faggot, so she and other journalists had to find other ways to make their point.

Others said the issue was tainted with sexism, given that male politicians often spend thousands of dollars on suits.

Uh-huh. For the kind of money Palin spent I could buy about 60-70 suits.

actually, i think the john edwards $400 haircut was a big deal precisely because it had to do with gender. the reason it's "ridiculous" for him to spend so much money on his hair is that it's something a woman would do, not a man. republicans used it to imply that edwards was effeminate.

"Her existing wardrobe was hideous"

Mr Blackwell passes.

Hmmm?

i sometimes see black helicopters but here's my take on the spending spree.

This can't really be for clothes. could anyone really spend this much in that short of time? given the names associated with the purchases, it's probably a way to pay off some RNC operatives, dirty-tricksters, donors, etc. I'll bet there is no list of items purchased.

One thing I'd like to mention is this: The Republicans have been claiming that their intention was to send these clothes that Palin got to charity after the election. This strikes me as a rather odd thing to claim. Either the Republicans believe McCain and Palin will lose in November and the clothes will go to charity, or they seem to just be flat-out lying. I mean, once she's Vice President she's going to go back to her Governor of Alaska clothing? I don't think so. She'd need the fancy duds even more as Vice President, wouldn't she?

A co-worker pointed out a viable reason for Palin's excessive sartorial upgrade: She has to share a stage with Cindy McCain, whose wardrobe could purchase a Manhattan condo. Perhaps the prospective VPOTUS felt a little insecure in such company.

-TTm

More importantly, which of the talking heads that slammed Edwards have actually covered this? For those that haven't, we need to nail them to the wall in a two-fer. Somerby can't do this on his own.

Nothing but deceptive product marketing.

Pimp my ?????

It had nothing to do with gender, and everything to do Edwards' image as someone working families can relate to.

It also had a bit to do with the Republican's attempts to make Edwards look gay in the minds of voters. Coulter had some "Edwards is a fag" comment around that time as well. So it did have something to do with gender. Gender issues, anyway.

I'm sorry, but gender is an issue here. The expectations for a female candidate's appearance are completely different from those for a male candidate's. If Obama shows up Friday in the same black suit he wore Tuesday, no one will notice. Female candidates have to do their best not to rotate the same few outfits all the time; they have to meet standards both of femininity and of professionalism; and even then they get all kinds of criticism (Hillary Clinton's cleavage, anybody?)

Does this dynamic necessitate the levels of spending in this case? No. But it does inform the level of attention and investment her appearance has received. I remember when she first hit the stage, people were talking about how the RNC had better get her highlights redone.

Again, I'm not saying gender made them spend THAT MUCH money. But to deny the gender dynamic on this issue is simply wrong.

What's amusing (or sad, depending on your partisan point of view) is that Michelle Obama, operating in a spotlight that's just as glaring, has been quietly winning a lot of attention and praise by looking good on the campaign trail while being quite economical in her purchases.

The Budget Fashionista has several features applauding her style, and there's a web site devoted entirely to The Fashion of Mrs. O.

Clearly, Palin's campaign wardrobe demands more suits and changes of clothes than Michelle Obama's, but she could have won herself a lot more votes if she'd been equally economical.

"She had a legitimate need to purchase clothing to get her through three months of grueling campaigning in the constant spotlight of television cameras," said William F. B. O'Reilly, a Republican consultant in New York.

If I'd been McCain's advisor, I'd have said the above and nothing else, then moved on to focus on the real issues of the day.

Wonder why that didn't happen?

Well worth looking at Bob Somerby's "Inanity Serves Power" at http://www.dailyhowler.com

Maybe she will donate it all to Goodwill after the election. Yeah, right.