As I mentioned over in the Community post on this topic, it's not SO much a double-standard because the source of the funds is at issue - Palin is the only one of the four who didn't pay for her campaign clothing out of her own pocket. Biden, Obama, and McCain all did, and I could really care less how much of their own money they spent on clothes (and the same would go for Palin if she'd whipped out her own checkbook).

The big issue, for me, is WHY that's the case, why would the RNC buy her clothes and not McCain's? And that directly related to your sentence about "The Republicans are using her look as part of her appeal..." which is just a shame.

I don't care what the candidates wear. But I do find 150k an appalling amount of money on fashion for a candidate who paints herself as an everywoman hockey-mom and can only speak in folksy aphorisms.
In fact, can we have enough of the folksiness from all the candidates? I want a candidate who's smarter than me, not someone pretending to be like me. I *want* someone elite for the president.

I can totally understand the concept that she has to maintain a certain image in order to attempt to help her party win the election, but $150K is a bit much. I hate that they haven't announced what the men are spending, but somehow I get the feeling that they didn't go out and spend $150K, and I totally resent the GOP for going out and turning Palin into a political beauty queen. Not for nothing, but I look at Michelle and she looks beautiful and not overdone like Palin. If this is how the GOP wants to spend their campaign contributions, that's on them, but I hope those who are contributing to the GOP realize that their money is being misspent.

it's not SO much a double-standard because the source of the funds is at issue - Palin is the only one of the four who didn't pay for her campaign clothing out of her own pocket.

I do find 150k an appalling amount of money on fashion for a candidate who paints herself as an everywoman hockey-mom and can only speak in folksy aphorisms.

Those are the only two reasons I've heard for bringing up the $150K wardrobe (I read they only got, like, 5 suits out of that $150K, too) and I think they are completely valid.

The McCain campaign used campaign funds to purchase her wardrobe. And, they spent $150,000 which is 3-5 times the average American's yearly income and that is in direct contradiction to them claiming they understand and connect with the average American, particularly as many of them are losing their homes and some are losing their jobs.

To me, those are valid criticisms, not a double-standard – I know I would be just as outraged had I found out that McCain, Obama, or Biden used campaign funds to buy themselves a ridiculously expensive wardrobe (espcially McCain - he has to be the biggest hypocrit when it comes to calling others "elitist").

Actually, the Chicago Tribune had an article today where they did talk about the cost of items in McCain and Obama's wardrobe and who paid for them. (Obama--Hart, Schaffner & Marx suit, $1500, paid for by Obama himself out of his private money.)

Though Campbell Brown makes a decent point, I find 150K rather excessive.

I wonder how much Tina Fey spends to look exactly alike?
I don't thinks it's a 150K. ^^

From my comment on this topic on the community post:

My understanding is that it is being reported because there has been a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission. The complaint is based on the limitation in the Federal Election Campaign Act that prohibits candidates from converting campaign funds to personal use and specifically states that purchases of clothing are not allowed.

Some of the reports are written in a sexist tone, but it does seem like there is a legitimate legal complaint.

Robbert, I remember reading that Fey's red costume cost $125. I don't know if that's just for the jacket, or if it includes the skirt as well. I think SNL had a very strict wardrobe budget.

A few articles on the expenses:
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/10/the_mccain_campaign_should_hav.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/sarah-palin-on-snl-costum_n_137248.html

Everywhere I go, people are talking about What Not To Wear, saying Stacy and Clinton could have made her over for $5000!

I think Campbell Brown is full of the brown-and-lumpy stuff on this one. Give me a break; this is about hypocrisy, Campbell.

And yer right, Campbell should have done a story about how the McBu$h campaign uses her as a “hot-ass” neocon attraction piece. It’s the grampy and vampy show. Instead, Brown goes for the milquetoast, “tried-n-true” angle. Yawn.

You should have Brown’s job, Samhita---yer much more interesting.

Anyone know why I'm having trouble posting this on my myspace blog?

If she had not pushed the "average American" angle so hard, it wouldn't be as a big a deal. Her campaign money spending spree (or her handlers spree) is something we can point to and say "No, not average American, more like politician on the hustle- big time!"

Thanks Trees.

Just wanted to say thanks, Samhita -- couldn't have said it better myself.

Palin is a political confectionary.

She's a MILF-esque window-dressing Sexbot designed to set off the receptors in the brains of the yahoos who look to the "Girls Gone Wild" DVD's & subscriptions to "FHM/Maxim/Men's Health" for their Sex Ed. Period. Full Stop. End of story.

When she's not throwing rhetorical red meat to the not-so-closeted Klansfolk waving the stuffed monkeys & "Obama Bucks" food stamps @ GOPig rallies, she's imploding under the stress of answering the questions put to her by a journalistic titan like, oh, say Katie "Colonscopy Cam" Couric, fer instance.

If she had not pushed the "average American" angle so hard, it wouldn't be as a big a deal. Nailed it. I'd like to add to that, saying that the same party that has just finished blowing $150 000 of taxpayer-supplied campaign money dolling up a Christian Reconstructionist sock-puppet is the same one whose flacks were pushing the "Edwards-is-a-faggot-with-a-$400-haircut" meme earlier this year.

Sara Robinson over at Group News Blog nails it even harder w/ her piece on how to read a wardrobe, titled "Let Them Wear Valentino". An excellent piece that contains several "a-ha" moments. I cannot say enough good things about it.

http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/10/let-them-wear-valentino.html

Millions of dollars worth of lipstick couldn't cover that pig.

You know, I'm a gung-ho Democrat with no liking at all for the GOP ticket, but I have a real problem with people calling Palin a pig, a sexbot and a MILF on a feminist site.

@bifemmefatale:

I think "sexbot" and "MILF" were thrown out because that's how the GOP are trying to portray her, rather than actually calling her that directly. Though I'm also upset about the "pig" comment.

Anyway, this whole thing reeks of (obvious sexism and) intellectual dishonestly. "Vote for me because my running mate is hot!"

kind of related: http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/9-25-08/Shadowbolt.jpg

Salon had an excellent article about this (link: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2008/10/24/palin_stylist/index.html). Although I think the cost of her wardrobe is relevant given that she's giving off this persona of being all down-home, just like you guys! (as the vast majority of politicians do), and the $150,000 price tag is proof that she's really not a fellow member of the middle class or working class. At the same time, the attention given to this clothing spree compared to other, more important things that have surfaced about Palin is kind of ridiculous. Would we care this much if Palin were a dude? I kind of don't think so. Granted, there have been similar cases-- Edward's haircut, for example--but those haven't been as long lived as this. And let's not forget to the attention that was payed to Hillary's wardrobe ("she shouldn't have worn so many pantsuits!"), it's not hard to see that female politicians are under a unique scrutiny.

This is not an obvious sexism issue. The issue is populism. Palin paints herself as a populist and then has her image managed with expensive clothing. This is the same issue as John Edward's $400 haircut in during the 2004 race or Bill Clinton holding up air traffic at LAX by getting a haircut on the tarmac.

There are also class issues. Her own wardrobe may have been deemed too "bumpkin-like" to project her as a credible national or international figure. I think that a southern male politician who wears seersucker and Panama hats would be pressured in the same way.

Finally, there may be campaign finance issues. Is wardrobe a seemly expenditure for a political party? Does is constitute an illegal gift? What are the tax implications for Palin and will the party cover those as well? etc. etc. etc.

I recently ran across a slideshow showing Palin's style before the VP pick, and with a few exceptions it didn't look that different from what she's wearing now. Which makes me question the whole point of the "makeover".

Personally, I think they could have filled out her wardrobe with some pieces from Ann Taylor and it would have been fine.

$150K is just ridiculous in a time like this when our country is in an economic crisis, but I guess you have to been in a fashion crisis to receive money from the government. But anyway we shouldnt be talking about appearances, because they dont matter, what matters is what policies the candidates are for and what they can do to make this country better, because I think everyone could use a wake-up call.

There is so much talk about women being all dolled up to go on tv. The media cares mroe about this than the real issues that are going on. I agree with a comment a few above about how we should not care what the candidates wear but how they are going to help our country.

It’s the grampy and vampy show.

I think that's one of the best things I have ever read.

Right. The RNC burned through $150,000 in two months while their donors are taxed by a bad economy and they're HUGELY OUTFUNDED BY THE OPPONENTS THEY EXIST TO BEAT but it's sexist to point out this use of scarce, donated RNC resources because, well because it's apparently fun to call things sexist.

Anyway, $150,000 still doesn't buy enough lipstick for that particular pig.

why is everybody so worried about what palin is wearing. I got a laugh out of it everynight when they talked about it when she was running for vp. The news is just to much sometimes.

japanese fashion

Not for nothing, but I look at Michelle and she looks beautiful and not overdone like Palin. If this is how the GOP wants to spend their campaign contributions, that's on them, but I hope those who are contributing to the GOP realize that their money is being misspent.
club penguin cheats