Report: RNC Pays $150k For Clothes for Sarah Palin

Update: Via Ambinder, Republicans are "disgusted" by the expenditures.

Since September, right after John McCain nominated Sarah Palin for Vice-President, RNC expenditure reports show more than $150,000 in payments to Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Ave, and other retail establishments, apparently to clothe Gov. Palin and her family:

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.


According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

I was wondering how she got so many outfits so fast and whether she dressed that well back in Alaska -- and about her daughters' clothes. I wonder if the bills for the stylist who picks the outfits are included in that amount, or extra. Here's a slideshow. Whoever the stylist is, s/he has excellent taste.

By contrast, the $5,000 shelled out for her hair and makeup seems downright reasonable. John Edwards' $400 haircut pales by comparison.

I wonder, though, how this will resonate with Joe the Plumber types and those who are struggling economically, facing foreclosures and unable to pay their bills, or even those concerned about wasteful government spending.

If Palin doesn't win, I won't feel sorry for her knowing she has that great wardrobe to take home with her.

< Only Two More Weeks | SC Prison Officials Want to Jam Cellphones >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Regular home-town folk, eh? You betcha! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    At 150K!!


    Now, that's amusing!

    (insert inappropriate wink -- here -- )

    I don't recognize any of the designs... (none / 0) (#5)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    I'm betting Sarah Palin's clothes are from more generic, less-recognizable mid-level designers like Liz Claiborne, Anne Klein and Ellen Tracy; otherwise she's shopping from the low profile, low end collections of big name designers like Michael Kors, Donna Karan, Calvin Klein etc.

    It's a smart move: the clothes look pretty good, the money goes farther and, unlike Nancy Reagan, you can't look at Palin and say OMG she's wearing a freaking Valentino couture coat that I saw in a runway show on TeeVee.

    I'm also assuming the services of a stylist.

    Still, I don't think this story will get traction. Republicans are allowed, nay expected, to break the bank while talking out of both sides of their mouths.

    I don't like that we're obsessing on yet another female candidate's clothing. But, I can't resist talking about clothes.


    I can't resist either (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:46:31 PM EST
    because I really like the clothes she wears and I'm also very into clothes and having a stylist pick them out is so much fun.

    From my experience (which was pre-computer and digital photos), they do all the shopping, bring it to your  house (or hotel room), you try it on and when you have decided to keep an outfit, they then accesorize you from jewelry to belts, shoes, etc. Once you have the whole outfit on, they take a picture (polaroids were popular) and paste it in a journal type book. You get up in the morning, look at the photo and presto, are dressed perfectly. You also keep a record of when you wore what so you don't repeat yourself.


    Stylized, dressed and accesorized with polaroids! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:23:40 AM EST
    That is HEAVEN ON A STICK.

    When I travel, on business, I have a little (moleskin) notebook with a standing list of daytime and evening outfits for x number of days. I detail it down to all the accessories; and I always include the option of weather-dependent outerwear.

    I'm really pleased when a particular pair of pants (or skirt) can be worked into a couple of different ensembles.

    In my notebook, I keep track of the cities and events where I've worn each of the outfits. Can't show up at a MOMA opening (seriously, I've shown there) wearing the same thing I wore last year!


    Can you write event clothing off? (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:45:54 AM EST
    It's been a long time since I did taxes where I did events/photo shootsetc, so fuzzy memory. I used to use "my" clothes on shoots, so I had that write off. I just had to by that 20's beaded flapper style top ya know. lol!~ Shopping with photo shoots in mind was fun  :)

    Good question about whether (none / 0) (#34)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:00:27 AM EST
    "event clothing" can be a tax write-off. I'm not at that level of career related, obligate visibility. Sarah Palin definitely is.

    Like you, I've written off props and miscellaneous items that I've purchased to use in photo shoots. It's especially nice when it's stuff you want to keep afterward.


    According to LAT blog, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    the purchases will be donated to charity after the election.  

    I bet they decided to donate (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by byteb on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    the clothes after the story broke.

    I doubt that she would have (none / 0) (#103)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:45:40 PM EST
    places to wear more than a couple of those outfits in Alaska even on official business.  My best friend lived in Alaska for years and I saw her wardrobe which looked like the winter Lands End catalogue.  Even her dress up stuff was pretty "down home."  Had Sarah and her kids shown up in their usual clothes, I am sure people would have criticised them as being "hicks."

    That not-repeating an outfit (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by andrys on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 04:21:24 PM EST
    is sheer tyranny!  Guys can wear the same suits every other day (some, everyday).

      When I first read this I saw the outrage because she is supposed to be a Walmart mom, and then Morning Joe folks said it was important she then shop at Walmart for the campaign. !

      But they may be missing she's a .... Republican! ....
    Let'em eat cake!  

      And of course, she's now running for the 2nd top job in the country.

      It's so hard to pick from all these distractions !  This one is definitely more entertaining.


    I assure you... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    99% of us fellas wouldn't notice if Sarah repeated an outfit.

    why don't you check Neimans and Saks online (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
    and find her outfits from the slideshow in the link in my post. Since they were just bought in September, they should still be in stock. Let me know what you find out. Doesn't look like Ellen Tracy, Ann Klein or Liz Claiborne quality to me  (looks better than that) but it also doesn't look like Armani or Donna Karan or the top end, as you say. It helps that she's got a great figure, that's  part of it for sure.

    I really like the short red leather jacket she wore the other day but I've liked almost every outfit she's worn.  (See, I am capable of complimenting Sarah Palin.)


    I am always trolling around the major (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:41:50 AM EST
    department stores online.

    If you're looking at the full high-low price range, you would have to slog through, literally, thousands of articles of clothing to find a particular unknown piece. Still, if I get lucky I'll be more than happy to spill it.

    Only one of the slide show pics showed Palin in pants. Unlike Hillary, she apparently didn't get the memo: when millions of people are scrutinizing your pants (front and back), it's better if the blazer hits below the hip. The menswear department always gets that one right.


    The jacket she wore to the (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:01:07 AM EST
    Republican Convention is a Valentino Garavani. Saks-$2500.
    I like the red outfit with the black boots in the slide show. Helps that she has a great figure (that too after having 5 kids)!

    You've got to be kidding! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:08:45 AM EST
    That's serious bank. Do you have a link for that?

    I wish women in the Democratic Party could get away with being as showy as Palin. There was Jackie O, but those days are long gone.


    Hillary Clinton's pantsuits (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:45:58 AM EST
    are custom-made, for her only by a wonderful seamstress -- I read a story about her -- who recommended Clinton start wearing the bright jewel colors.  

    Each pantsuit cost several thousand.  The total expenditure far exceeds this bill, as I recall.  I was stunned.  


    That Explains It (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by daring grace on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    Those 'pantsuits'  always looked better than any other pantsuit I've ever seen before on anyone.

    And Senator Clinton--let's face it, no Governor Palin in the figure department--generally looked fabulous on those grueling campaign marathons during the primaries.

    And lest anyone take offense at my Hillary-Sarah body comparison: I mean Clinton has more of the Everywoman body for a woman her age compared with Palin's more youthful and fashion friendly tall, slender form.


    Yep -- silk, wool . . . not polyester. :-) (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    And I also would bet big bucks that Clinton's new 'do for the campaign cost big bucks -- this is not a woman who ever cared about her look (remember the headbands?!).  What cracked me up is that Clinton's is the Gerry Ferraro 'do again, almost exactly -- the cut, the coloring (that had to require that Clinton get weekly and costly touchups) . . . so cred to Palin for going her own way with her hair.

    I also think that Clinton must have had a makeup expert.  All in all, compare the look to earlier photos of her, and she exemplifies what Steinem said about 60 being the new 50.  I take hope from that. :-)

    (Sorry I can't find the story I read about the seamstress/tailor/designer -- one in Hollywood, as I recall, and a Filipino or Indonesian, I think? -- as I tried googling for it.  But of course, putting in the keywords, all that comes up is criticism of Clinton's look, costs for it, etc., quite similar to this criticism of Palin and the RNC.)


    The criticism here is about the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    trying to create the impression that their candidates are representative of main street America.  Soccer mom, veteran, good down-home folks like Bush...

    The reality is that people vote for bad leaders because they feel akin to them, and the Republicans win elections when they play to the culture wars.  Dressing Palin, keeping her away from the press while they train her to resort to Us vs. Them sound bites and policy avoiding responses is strategic trickery that degrades our countries political discourse.  

    ...all that comes up is criticism of Clinton's look, costs for it, etc., quite similar to this criticism of Palin and the RNC.

    This isn't about Palin's looks, it's not anti-woman and has nothing to do with Hillary.  It's about political mirage.  People who are struggling in this economy and who gave money to the GOP might just be displeased about this, and might stop voting for the guy they'd like to have a beer with.  

    Frankly, if Sarah palin came down to the (none / 0) (#106)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    lower 48 wearing the usual Alaska attire she would look just like the people she is talking to in the small towns.  The GOP gussied her and her family up because they didn't want them to look like backward "hicks" IMHO.  Can you imagine what the new media would have said about that?

    they probably would have loved it (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by byteb on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    it would have fit the media narrative perfectly...hockey mom, espousing Joe Six Pack values, wearing 'real' American clothes.

    Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#48)
    by WS on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:16:32 AM EST
    likes to wear designer clothing.  

    nancy pelosi (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:43:47 AM EST
    is not on the campaign trail talking about reforming warshington and eliminating waste in warshington and saying she is a regular joe six-pack.  Walk the walk don't talk the talk, isn't that what she said?

    What does it say about all of our politics that they need to dress that way?

    I'll tell you what it says, they are completely out of touch with joe the plumber who happens to be out of touch with hisself.


    Appearance is part of doing the job. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    Given the hundreds of millions these campaigns are burning through, $150,000 is a minimal cost to the operation. I'm sure if you could track down what other women in the national public eye on a daily basis (say, Oprah Winfrey or Katie Couric) spend on clothing in a year, it wouldn't seem exorbitant.

    Katie Couric is not a pol (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    And I am on record on this site saying I would love to see a total end to campaign financing in its entirety.  I think the money spent on campaigns in light of the poverty in this country is disgusting.  

    If no money can be spent on campaigning... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    ... how would candidates campaign?

    debate format funded (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:58:14 AM EST
    by the tax donation spread equally amongst the parties for travel and expenses audited by the gov't.  We are buying presidencies and I for one would like to see the issues addressed in the debates as opposed to ad buys.  

    Which is ridiculous with the ratings (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    that bring in the big bucks to the networks for the debates.  If we're not going to have nonpartisan League of Women Voters debates, let the networks pay all the costs, since they reap the profits.

    hear hear (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    corporate america has been getting what they pay for, for too long.  

    We are still suffering tremendously and will continue to suffer for the next year as a result of the last 9 months of layoffs and impending mass layoffs.  And our reps have taken care of the market BEFORE taking care of the people.  

    All this talk about how it will take too long to get a jobs bill passed is ridiculous.  Emergency spending for the corporations happened immediately and if our representatives cannot hammer out a jobs proposal with a great degree of urgency, than really who are they representing?


    I am for public funding or at least limiting the (none / 0) (#110)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 03:23:20 PM EST
    time a campaign could run (which would restrict the amount of money being spent) but we will not get reform anytime soon.  The Obama campaign is screaming with joy over the money they are pulling in and all without a nod to the ethics of it.  No we will not have campaign funding or caucus reform in our lifetimes IMHO.

    hear hear (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    and we are saying this when our party is the benefactor.  When a candidate like Palin gets this type of financial support we will sit back and watch the dems scream for reform.

    I am thinking of taking a sabbatical from my business and starting a revolt for representation for the people.


    Maybe we could find out what a suit (none / 0) (#107)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    costs a man on the campaign trail.  Anyone know?
    I've seen men's shirts for $125 per throw.

    John McCain's shoes cost over $500 (none / 0) (#112)
    by byteb on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    someone call Joe the Plumber

    my two best suits cost (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 05:15:44 PM EST
    2500 each and the shoes 400.  and they are not custom tailored.  I cannot belive the men are buying off the rack

    That's good to know... (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:21:02 PM EST
    I'm clueless about menswear. Who designed your suits? I mean, at that price they'd have to be by a known designer, right? What about the shoes? (If you don't mind my asking.)

    steve harvey (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:15:56 PM EST
    suits, the shoes are an english brand that I will have to look inside them.  Got them at nordstrom.  the bulk of my wardrobe though is abboud and brooks brothers which run about 800 to 1k per.  The "money suits" were stupid thinking if I looked like a million they would spend a million, which of course has never happened

    true (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    But Pelosi's clothes always looks like they're wearing her.  She looks well dressed without looking naturally stylish.  

    Palin's wardrobe shows extremely good taste without being showy.  Whether that's her own taste or that of a stylist I have no idea.  

    And I guess it doesn't really matter.

    As far as the cost of her wardrobe.  I'm not sure how I feel about that.  I guess it doesn't seem excessive really.  And she is unlikely to have that kind of money personally.  So making it an expense of the RNC is OK with me.

    Especially since I'm perfectly happy that they don't have that money for advertising or downticket races.


    This is a men v. women thing right? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    Because if Obama bought like 20 $4000 dollar suits, a Rolex, accessories, and a couple pairs of custom shoes (say 2 grand a pair), he'd still have 20 grand or so left over, and I'm willing to bet he'd get excoriated for this kind of spending.

    Not in my case (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    It's not so much a man/woman thing as it is a DNC/RNC thing.  I'm perfectly happy with them squandering their money.

    Actually the article said that it also (none / 0) (#108)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    included clothing for the family.  So husband, three daughters and maybe some baby travelling stuff could add money on to that total.  The young girls got nice dresses and shoes too.

    Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    Is also rich, heck Cindy McCain wore a quarter mil plus outfit at the convention, and while it made her and McCain's pretensions of ordinariness all the more laughable; it doesn't stink like this. Sarah Palin has a net worth probably slightly above Joe Biden's (maybe a bit below) probably around 750,000 (including her home- you can get a nice one when contractors give you that "Stevens Discount") and yet she got 150 grand in wearables in 8 weeks, that doesn't just seem excessive, it seems criminal.

    I noticed her clothing and thought that they were (none / 0) (#43)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 05:33:28 AM EST
    high-end items and was 99% certain that the campaign was funding her wardrobe.

    I've looked at photos and videos of her before she became the VP candidate, and she definitely looks better now! Also, the haircut helps. That glob of hair on top of her head looked matronly.

    She's probably had the help of procedures to smooth out facial lines (even small) even though she's young.

    It just goes to show you how having $$ can definitely enhance one's appearance.

    BTW, the type of demographic that she appeals to will not necessarily applaude those types of expenditures. They feel as though she's one of them. Ha! Now, the business Republicans understand the need for those types of things, but they aren't her biggest fans. ;-)


    I read St. John's (none / 0) (#63)
    by CCinNC on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:09:14 AM EST
    I don't have any St. John's clothing, but I've looked at the price tags and they are high end

    Indeed, they are! (none / 0) (#65)
    by BlueDevil on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:16:44 AM EST
    I think part of the reason you don't rec anything (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:53:17 PM EST
    is she's bought well tailored clothing, but nothing that makes a statement on it's own. And much of it has many years of wear ahead. I do like the black suit with the boots.

    Ya know, this may be the first time that no matter who gets in, we will have less rigid style of/on the women. And all 4 have a sense of themselves aside from their husbands. A Gov, a Phd, a Lawyer and Businesswoman. Not bad!

    Oh, and I'm allowed to talk about/notice clothes. Spent years in the biz  ;)


    yes we can definitely talk about clothes (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:56:06 PM EST
    and the first person who says our appreciation of clothes is sexist or superficial is going to be told to take it elsewhere.

    Reminds me of the Oscars, which I live blog every year and put up pictures of the dresses and  no one ever comments but I never care.


    Heh, I may drive my hairdresser/friend (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:04:59 AM EST
    over the edge and ask for Palin bangs. lol!~ I do the clip up "do" also (works for dog walking first thing in the AM!) and up until recently had long bags. I have one haircut left before I chop it all off, so why not?

    She does dress and wear clothes well. I generally only like a few of the Oscar dresses. Some years I get lucky though and I like the overall trend. I just can't imagine getting all decked out like that on a SoCal afternoon.


    I don't think it's sexist to talk about clothes. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 05:47:07 AM EST
    I always notice when someone is well-dressed. And, it doesn't have to be really high-end clothing. Anyone who has a sense of style can put together an attractive outfit without spending thousands.

    And I always notice men's clothing too--especially shoes and ties. I love shopping for my son, if he'll let me.

    FWIW, I think that Palin looks very handsome in her new clothing, haircuts, etc. I just don't like her politics.


    But we can think it, right? (none / 0) (#41)
    by cymro on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 03:33:07 AM EST
    150,000 in what 7-8 weeks?! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:55:26 PM EST
    I would be more inclined to see sexism here if we hadn't been hammered with stories about John Edwards $400 haircuts (and Bill Clinton's before that-- heck even a Republican Icon was judged on his hair google "Ronald Reagan, hair dye"), or heard crap about Obama shopping at Whole Foods (an Arugala reference-- its so elite they serve it at Mickey D's). You think if Obama was dropping 20 grand on suits a week we wouldn't hear about it 24-7?  This is far more fair than the attack on Cindy McCain's quarter mil plus convention outfit, that was excessive, but spouse attacks always seem out of place-- especially if they're spending their own money.

    The story that's being buried here (and that the press and the GOP would have just annihilated Obama for) is John McCain dropping nearly more than 8 grand on "the makeup artist from American Idol" to make him look pretty for one appearance. It first came out after the appearance (his convention speech or a TV interview, I can't remember which) and basically disappeared-- this same thing would have been a hammer against our guy:
    makeup- is Barack Gay? (hypocrisy would have been ignored)
    $8000+ - what an elitist!
    American Idol- A gay elitist (run picture of Clay Aiken)
    "Barack Obama, he's pretty boy who doesn't understand real Americans-- vote McCain!"

    Its times like these that I regret that Obama is our canidate, the "play to the better angels of our nature" thing means we can't run the best attack line of 2008 (I'm a bit unsure of the best formulation so feel free to chime in)-

    John McCain- He spend's more on makeup than he'll give you for healthcare!


    Just out of curiosity... (none / 0) (#124)
    by stevea66 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:31:55 PM EST
    Just out of curiosity, of the middle-income earners out there.  How many years of your life did it take to purchase $150,000 worth of clothes?  Or have you not yet reached that pinnacle?  I know I'd have to live 1,000 years to get there.

    I guess in the end I'm just wondering if this turns off some people who can't fathom spending like that on clothing.  Will it make people wonder about whether she's actually conservative or not?

    I think $150,000 is the asset amount on Biden's house.  Which is his only real asset.  Hm.


    I never buy outerwear..... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    only socks and boxers when necessary...I feel like I'm wasting money that could be better spent on a night on the town or a few spins of roulette.  All I buy is shoes every 2-3 years.  

    My wardrobe gets upgraded with a couple pairs of pants and a couple shirts every Christmas from my family.  My current dress shoes are 3 years old, my sneakers 2 years...I'm still wearing alotta the same sh*t I wore 10 years ago.

    I won't spend 5 grand on clothes/shoes in my whole life...not even close.

    Needless to say, I never bought into the whole clothes make the man thing.


    Cindy McCain reportedly spent more (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:17:21 PM EST
    than that on one outfit.

    But she spent her own money (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:37:10 PM EST
    and paid more than 1 million in taxes on her 4 million income. And she always has dressed that way.

    Palin is dressing a part. People are led to think she has great taste and style, when it's so obvious it's a stylist who picked her clothes. I wonder what the real Sarah dresses like.

    Cindy McCain must have a stylist also, but it's probably one that's worked with her for years and knows her taste. Whoever is dressing Palin is dressing her in the image of what a VP candidate should look like and it's not real. Just another political mirage.


    Hey, any of us can use the personal (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:40:18 PM EST
    shopper at Nordies and look better than we usually would.  Palins family traveling on the state tax dollar is a better expose.

    You really have managed (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:45:17 PM EST
    not to see any of the video from Palin's pre-nominee days?  This is the way she dresses generally, from what I've seen-- classy and conservative style, skirts and blazers or jackets, mostly, surely less expensive materials and workmanship.

    I continue to be amazed at the things being found to  beat up on her about.


    I like her outdoor wear! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:58:25 PM EST
    She wears clothes with ease and is comfortable in situations. The pics of her with the NG where she's just kicking in a t-shirt are great. Non of this faux relaxed (or hunting) crap we usually get  ;)

    Now, to be fair, we should discuss Obama's clothes. And who's dressing him and how much has been spent. He sure as heck wasn't all that before.


    John McCain's clothes too (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:06:28 AM EST
    His suits are really expensive looking lately. Obama  had some criticism early on, when his neck collars were too big. I wouldn't be surprised if except for big donor dinners and debate nights, he hasn't fallen prey to the disease.  He also needs to remember to sit on the tail of his suit jacket when he's on camera so it doesn't bunch up around his shoulders.

    Hehe, too funny (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:32:19 AM EST
    yes, we should, but I have a hard time paying attention to McCain long enough to evaluate his suits. I'm kinda fine with him running around in shirt sleeves. Same with Biden. I'm more fascinated by the way Biden flashes his grin. Keep waiting for a lens flare off a tooth  ;)

    Obama really did need better tailored suits, they were really working against him. I think in the case of his collar fit it was legit. Same with his speaking style. He seems to have finally made headway in both areas and I think it helps him a lot.


    Look what he plays ball in (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    That stuff would look cheap and out of place at my campus gym, the guy probably still has the fiscal discipline that comes with having $100 to $200 thousand in student loans outstanding (and this is just him, and doesn't include mortages, etc.) being a professor and part-time state senator probably didn't pay great I'd be shocked if even with book royalties the Obama's combined income exceeded 250,000 in 2002-2003.  

    Heck Michelle's dress that everybody raved about at the convention was off-the-rack for like $150.


    Actually, I've read he made (none / 0) (#105)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    a mil or two off his books in the last year or two.  And, FWIW, Mrs. working at Sidley results in (a) a good salary and (b) not a lot of time to spend it yielding (c) student loans paid off.  Or that's what happened with my classmates (we're all contemporaries of theirs) who went to work in Big Law Firms.

    How much money he has/made was a topic of heated discussion here during the primary*, but it has since faded in the brilliant light of Cindy McCain's pile o' beer money.

    *  Why, I forget.  But I think some PUMAs or then-future PUMAs were trying to argue it made his civil rights/community organizing work background somehow less genuine.


    I first heard of that (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:14:09 AM EST
    in Broadcast News:

    Tom nods and gestures that he proceed.  Aaron begins reading
        the news.  Barely a sentence in, he is interrupted.



            Your coat jacket is rising up in


    Aaron ignores the tip.

            When you sit down -- sit on your
            jacket a little -- that gives you
            a good line.  Look at yourself in
            the monitor.


    Aaron looks but is unimpressed and resumes reading the news.
        Tom, not about to be ignored when he knows it's important, moves
        behind Aaron and begins to force his jacket down.

                (very uncomfortable)
            I don't like being handled.

            Sit on it!  Now look.

            Just don't physically...
                (he sees himself in the
                 monitor and is suddenly
            Fantastic tip -- fantastic.


    He starts to read again.

    it's television 101 (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:17:47 AM EST
    for pundits. The last thing I do before they go live is make sure I'm sitting I'm on my jacket tails.

    Well, I have a fashion sense for radio, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:20:26 AM EST
    so it was news to me!

    The White Tie, (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:08:18 AM EST
    Al Smith Dinner this past week  at the Waldorf Astoria, was a good case in point.  

    That's work clothes (none / 0) (#72)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    Some occasions, when one is in politics (or many other professions) require black tie or white tie.

    A relative is a pianist.  He has tails and white tie and black tie in his closet - they are part of his work clothes.


    A relative of mine is a D.C. lawyer (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    and argues before the Supreme Court, so he had to get a morning suit, I think it's called?  A tux sort of thing with tails.  And of course, he took a tax deduction for it as work clothes.:-)

    Well, where else does one wear (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    a morning coat and striped trousers anymore?

    The S.Ct. is the only place (unless maybe you're a diplomat) and, even then, not everyone wears them.


    Obama's style is straight-up... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:25:27 AM EST
    Malcolm X, retro, 60s era. The close-cropped hair, always the white shirt, tie and dark suit. Check it out. (Malcolm's suit also looks big on him, like Obama's shirts sometimes look.)

    I think it's quite striking and iconic. The nostalgia angle really works for Obama. I don't know why he doesn't get any commentary about it.


    It is. But he was lacking some (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 03:36:10 AM EST
    quality, by my eye  ;) Plus, it's not really his. It seems to be part of his created "character".

    His "girls" in that one celebrity type interview were quite revealing about his clothes. It was cute  :) I've also seen photos of him all casual in a parade etc. I thought he looked nice (and more approachable). I thought it was interesting that he didn't pull it off as well when trying to do the "rural thing".  


    I always picture his "real style" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:07:10 AM EST
    As that photo of him riding a bike with a helmet on.

    As in, super-nerdy.  That picture really was priceless.


    He could always (none / 0) (#99)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    Pop a 'Fro, though that might no go over well with middle America.

    Obama apparently wears Burberry (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by GeekLove08 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:13:34 AM EST
    The focus on how much people spend to "look the part" should be a non-issue.  Otherwise, we should also look into how much the Greek columns were.  At least clothes can be worn more than once.  I doubt that we will see the columns at another DNC event.  

    What's Obama wear by Burberry? (none / 0) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    Suits, shirts, shoes? I don't know their mens line.

    What Palin wore before? (none / 0) (#115)
    by andrys on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    In old videos I've seen, just about anything and she always manages to just look natural.  (Now, the voice...)

      I think she just carries clothes well.  

      McCain has had one big change - hair styles.  Much more relaxed, and in her interview with Greta the other night, a more natural make-up job too.


    I hate these kinds of stories, really I do (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:26:51 PM EST
    But I know it's fodder. . .

    It may be (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:57:01 PM EST

    The shopping spree described (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:03:41 AM EST
    sounds like my younger sister's idea of a dream weekend.

    Honestly, I think many women would (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:08:05 AM EST
    be beyond dream to get "styled" for their next step up. Just to have expert advice and knowing you're stepping out all put together right.

    'scuse my english there. Can't seem to make that thought coherent!


    Oh yea (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:16:44 AM EST
    I would take the haircare alone.  I have never found anyone who really knew how to handle the out of control, super frizzy, curly even when wet, hair (sometimes referred to as the "Jew-fro").  Regular curly they can do (my sister), but I swear I go to a hairdresser and just see fear in their eyes.  Luckily, it doesn't matter much, since if it's uneven no one can tell.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:57:31 PM EST
    it's a meaningless story but I'm sure those that contributed to the campaign will be happy to know their money was spent on something that will have staying power after November 4th...that is as long as they let her keep the clothes.

    $150,000 in clothes... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by white n az on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:37:34 PM EST
    I suppose that she will pay the taxes on that when she pays the taxes on the taxable income from the state reimbursed travelling costs for her kids.

    That's it (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:29:46 AM EST
    I'm running for president

    Forget the fact that I am not constitutionally qualified yet, I want some new clothes!

    Supposedly Alan Keyes makes good money (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:45:14 AM EST
    as a perpetual candidate.

    Dunno about his wardrobe, though.


    I always thought I'd rather be appointed (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:52:17 AM EST
    To some high level position than actually run for office.  But I might have to rethink that position.

    I always saw myself as secretary of state.  Not sure how to get there from engineering, but hey, anything can happen right?  As long as they don't ask me to spell something I should be fine...


    Dude (none / 0) (#96)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    Dresses well, he's a nutbar but he's a natty looking nutbar.

    Correction. (none / 0) (#46)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 06:39:34 AM EST
    Forget the fact that I am not constitutionally qualified yet,

    You are Constitutionally not qualified.  It's Palin who is constitutionally not qualified.


    Haha (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    Proof of my second point.  I'm all set as long as no one wants me to spell anything.

    the markup on clothes astounds me (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:41:55 AM EST
    imagine eggs costing from $1 to $100 -- that's comparable to a top ranging from $30 to $3,000.  I just don't see how designer clothes are a hundred times better than regular clothes.  Where is all that extra money going?  I understand that politicians need their costumes as well but there's got to be a happy medium.

    Then again I'm a somewhat-reformed hippie who sees regular showers as optional.  I'd rather spend my extra dough on healthy food, personally.

    It's in the quality of materials, the cut, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 03:27:29 AM EST
    the craftsmanship and of course the design.

    There's a huge difference between 200 thread count sheets and the higher thread counts. Types of cotton etc. Translate that into clothing (taking the simple approach here!) I do think we tend to max out on prices, but there is def a difference in  clothing as you go up the line. I'm picky about fabric and craftsmanship. I have found inexpensive brands that fulfill those 2 for everyday wear (I work at home, comfort zone), but have also bought very expensive cotton pieces that have lasted years. A black cami that was still a decent black 20yrs later, for example. It was timeless and was a good work layering piece. Once I thought it was time for it to retire to casual weekend, still got years out of it. Then it went to studio wear. Finally started getting holes in it when I was taming wild shelter kittens, lol!~ It's still around . . .  

    Seriously though, for certain items, it's worth finding the pieces that will wear through trends for many seasons and go for the quality and cut. And it can still be done somewhere way below that $3,000 top. Eggs only last one use ;) I basically live in cotton t-tops and USA made army issue cargoes (those are some quality pants!), but if I'm  needing to put on a certain look for a mtg, that's where you want "the costume". It pays  ;)


    As a hippie (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    It might work better if you look at it like Bikes, you can get a $100 dollar bike and a $2500 dollar bike, for the extra $2400 dollars you are buying a name, but also quality, materials and design expertise.

    Like you, I think the money for designer (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    clothes is outrageous.  But...when I try something on that is design quality, I can feel it the minute it hits my skin.  Fabric, cut, detail, simply wonderful.  Unfortunately I cannot afford the high end ones. Even the middle ones are high for me.

    This comment is only for you... (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    Maybe you know this already. Anyhoo, go to the MAJOR department stores online: Barney's; Bergdorf Goodman; Neiman Marcus; Saks; Bloomingdale's; Nordstrom's. There are always sales; i.e. Neiman's always has the Last Call Clearance where stuff is 65% off minimum; everybody has end of season sales.

    If Sarah Palin's $2500 Valentino Garavani jacket were 75% off, we'd be in business (maybe). Elle Tahari is a great mid-price designer, and very affordable on sale; say a $700 coat for $250. On the high end: when a pair of $500 YSL gloves went on sale for $125 - I GOT them.

    Shipping and return shipping are often FREE; and the return policies are unbeatable at those places.

    Happy hunting.


    Thank you. This sounds good. (none / 0) (#122)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:51:08 PM EST
    Correct spelling: designer Elie Tahari (none / 0) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    Imagine eggs costing $10-$100 ...... (none / 0) (#52)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:33:18 AM EST
    They do. You can buy your basic factory farm eggs for a buck. You can also buy some exclusive chinese 1000 year old-eggs for over a $100 or you could spend a few thousand dollars on Beluga caviar (fish eggs)!

    Fact Check? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by bslev22 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:27:45 AM EST
    I don't want to rain on the parade, because it is quite a bit of money to spend on clothes for someone to be claiming to be a hockey mom, but I understand--from that great source Morning Joe (hee)--that the clothing gets donated to charity.  That said, it is Sarah Palin, and we, the unity party, hate her with a passion, so let's pile on!!!! :)

    Legally (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:33:11 AM EST
    She can't keep the clothes as they belong to the RNC. They don't have to be donated to charity however.

    With the future in mind, the RNC can start recruiting candidates for political office that wear the same size and trot out the clothing on future candidates in future elections.

    This approach would fall in line with how the Anheuser-Busch ad team picks the Bud Girls.

    By following this new approach, the RNC could go Green and show their environmental side by recyling the clothing and dressing up future candidates to help win over future Joe SixPacks.


    Her wardrobe cost more (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:27:17 AM EST
    than my house.

    A friend of a friend is a professional makeup artist (movies, TV, for names you'd know).  The makeup services that appear to have been charged (or the prices disclosed) are more in line with the cost of the materials - the professional stuff is ghastly expensive.  The services of the makeup artist are probably being covered by the campaign as a full-time gig for the artist, under a different line item.  I know my friend's friend would not have spent the last seven weeks or so working for only $5k;  that's nowhere near what a pro makes.

    Turns out I was right about the makeup (none / 0) (#88)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    That doesn't reflect... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:50:42 AM EST
    ...Main Street Wasilla values!  You can bet that they don't have a NM or Saks up there--only Walmart and K-Mart.

    Not to mention that St. Louis/New York/Minneapolis aren't part of the "pro-America" America that Sarah cares so dearly about.  

    Why is she supporting the economy in these decidedly anti-American cities?

    They don't make the clothes here bro.... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    she is supporting sweat-shops in Central America and the Far East.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:10:31 AM EST
    The comedy and value of this is when you look at the stink the right makes over the price of a haircut.  I know they did it to John Edwards and I think it's been done before.

    This kinda dwarfs a $400 haircut.

    Also, at this point it's about demoralizing the other side and depressing turnout.  Maybe even reducing contributions by a tiny bit.

    I'm obviously hanging with the wrong party! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:39:20 AM EST
    I guess I'll have to hang out at the Goodwill waiting for my trickle down.

    You are right, but (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:07:43 PM EST
    my response referred to the comment of sitting on your coat-tails for a good fit. Senator Obama looked good at the Al Smith Dinner  but his collar needed attention.  The coat-tail tip will serve him well as such attire will soon become a frequent part of his work wardrobe.

    Give me a break (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Exeter on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    The Palin family is not wealthy.  If anything, this shows the elitism of the RNC and the McCain camp-- they obviously bought her and family clothes b/c they felt the family NEEDED them and would make her a better candidate if they were dressed up.

    have to add... (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by white n az on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 06:53:03 PM EST

    Shop Baby Shop !

    Actually (none / 0) (#4)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:30:32 PM EST
    I don't have any problem with this and I despise today's conservative movement, a movement that's spawned all too many Sarah Palins.

    Small contributors to the RNC may have a beef, I know I'm not too happy to have paid for several of John Edwards' haircuts.

    Someone, probably Hancock, bought Sam Adams a new suit of clothes to make him more presentable at the first Continental Congress.

    I seem to remember reading that other Senators assisted Paul Wellstone with his wardrobe.

    Although, in the Sam Adams and Paul Wellstone cases individuals paid the bill knowing exactly where their money went and why it was spent.  In the Palin case contributors paid without knowing.

    It makes ME gag (none / 0) (#9)
    by zyx on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
    but I have no fashion sense. I probably have negative fashion sense. I suppose if I were in charge of the country, I'd make everyone wear Mao suits or something. I don't get the clothes thing at all--not when they cost more than the basic kind that cover the parts so the children and horses are calm and you stay warm when it's (sigh) not.

    I find that touching... (none / 0) (#38)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:27:49 AM EST
    and I sometimes wish I cared so little about appearances.

    I guess now I know (none / 0) (#101)
    by zyx on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    ...who it is who cares so much about clothes (everybody) and why the stores have so many of them.



    Seriously, I really appreciated what (none / 0) (#116)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    you said. I miss my old art school days; when we'd all zip ourselves into neck-to-ankle workman's coveralls for the entire day - to weld, to paint, whatever. It was a uniform and I loved it. But, I'm so vain, I also thought I rocked the look.

    ME too. (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    I am such an outcast in my hometown of Napa

    i certainly hope the RNC or (none / 0) (#27)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM EST
    mccain campaign isn't deducting the cost of the clothes, stylist, etc as an expense of the campaign, they aren't.

    as well, the cost of the clothes, stylist, etc. are taxable income to gov. palin, i expect she'll be receiving a 1099 for 2008, so she can correctly report it on her personal tax return.

    i suspect the clothes both the mccains and obamas wear were purchased with their personal funds, not campaign donor's monies. both couples are well off enough to afford them, the palins aren't.

    On topic request for Help! (none / 0) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 06:47:09 AM EST
    Now that we're discussing Sarah Palin's outfits.

    My seven year old daughter has announced that she wants to be Sarah Palin for Halloween.  Any suggestions on how we can make her look like Sarah Palin?  (Alas, my daughter has what I think is called a "page boy" hair style, cut just above her shoulders).

    Oh, the memories. I used to love dressing my son (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:21:18 AM EST
    for Halloween.

    Answering your question. You can get a really inexpensive wig (they're in lots of stores now) and some non-prescription eyeglasses. You might be able to find a small suit-like outfit at a thrift store that she could wear. Also, if you could find those little girl shoes with a bit of a heel on them that would be great. When I was a girl, they were everywhere. Alas, that was decades ago.

    I would also let her wear a bit of makeup too (that is if you approve). And if I were trying to outfit a girl as Palin, I'd make a small pin (for the jacket) with paper that says something that would identify her (as Palin)...like, "Vote for me, Nov. 4th." If you could find some old or thrift shop jewelry with a polar bear or some other equivalent identifier that should do it.

    I can get lots of neat things at the thrift store in Chapel Hill. Hope you have one nearby.

    Hope that helps. It was great fun for me!


    If her hair is long enough, you could put it on (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:26:47 AM EST
    top of her head and not have to buy the wig.

    In the thrift store, look for a size 2 or 0 in a petite, if possible, depending on her size. And you could let her wear a belt. Palin often wears belts.


    Larry, I've given this some (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:47:41 AM EST
    thought after first reading your request for help.  I'm afraid if your daughter is too, too cute, she may sway a few undecided voters to the McCain/Palin ticket. Are you worried?

    Hairpiece! (none / 0) (#66)
    by liminal on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    Is your daughter's hair brown already? If it's long enough to pull back into even the smallest of ponytails, you could pick up an inexpensive hairpiece to augument the volume of her hair at the dollar store, or Sally's Beauty Supply.  

    And if you can't find the non-prescription glasses Deborah suggests, you can pick up inexpensive reading glasses at Dollar General, Family Dollar, or any discount store.  If they're side-jointed, you should be able to pop out the lenses and just have the frames.  


    Clothes yes, ads no (none / 0) (#53)
    by white n az on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:52:17 AM EST
    According to Politico, "As Clock Ticks, Hope Dims for McCain Savior

    Why doesn't Cindy just open up her checkbook?

    Why didn't Cindy take her shopping for clothes instead of having the RNC because this is certain to bring embarassment to the RNC?

    Palin's tax burden . . . (none / 0) (#54)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:04:29 AM EST
    . . . will be increased if Obama gets in, too, as that $150K plus her income and first Dud's income, plus per diem rip offs all totaled would put them in the Obama 250k plus region depending upon deductions. Poor Sarah ;-{

    This is FantasyFest Week (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    in Key West and the theme is political party animals. There are, of course, many, many Sarah Palins around.  Some of the drag queens seem to have spent more than the RNC on their attires.   A lot of fun still coming this weekend with the graveyard parade on Friday--the Bushs and Cheneys have assumed a different stripe this year--- jail bird costumes.

    But... (none / 0) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    for those familiar with Fantasy Fest, you can bet most of those Palin dressed females (please not the drag queens) will be wearing painted on couture rather than real clothing. And the only actual item worn will be the glasses.

    We gonna hope, (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    you betcha.

    Republicans are disgusted (none / 0) (#89)
    by s5 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    that they got caught.

    "With all of the important issues... (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    "With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

    They had to give her a spree (none / 0) (#92)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    Think about it this just confirms that the cinematic Archetype the GOP is going for isn't Capra-- it's Disney, specifically the "hidden princess" idea, its a bit of wish fufillment dross. You have the woman picked out of nowhere, told she's special, etc. and then you have the obligatory scene where our heroine has a shopping spree with her new found wealth(see: A Princess Diary, etc. or the male equivalent see: Harry Potter- gold, the Matrix- the guns).

    Also interestingly, we don't have to wonder what the GOP would do if the shoe was on the other foot (like we did with the teen pregnancy bit, or the recovered drug addict wife thing), we know exactly how they would react: witness the hysteria that abounded after a false report of Michelle and Barack ordering room service caviar in New York surfaced just days ago (a report debunked when someone pointed out that neither Obama was even in the Empire State at the time).