New RNC Expense Reports: $110k for Sarah Palin Stylists

For two months work, Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist and hair stylist were paid $110,000, according to newly filed RNC campaign expense reports.

The clothing total, previously at $150,000 is also expected to rise, but the final numbers weren't available when the Times posted its story tonight. Stay tuned.

< Most Fascinating Person of the Year | 533,000 Jobs Lost, Unemployment Rate at 6.7% >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How are they breaking out the clothing reports? (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:58:08 AM EST
    Are they showing that they may have bought the same suit in 2 sizes? Or 3 blouses to go with a suit to see which worked best? Maybe the same jacket in 2 colors? What they returned? And how many assistants were included in the stylists pay, etc? Did the pay include their airfare, hotel, daily expenses? Did any of the stylists, makeup and hair also include the family? What about when it was only her that needed tending to vs events with the family that would require more hands to arrive on site?

    Why the heck are we even discussing what it cost to parade her out there? How about the Obama/DNC campaign still asking for money to recoup what they spent? Where's the breakout on those expenses? I think the figures there might be a bit more shocking. Especially if we ever got to look at an audit that included who donated . . .

    Bottom line, why does anyone care? Waste of space. They lost. We elected a guy that spent an obscene amount of money and the nation is in deep sh!t economically (among other things), is it really smart to harp on the expenses paid out for a woman VP nominee who lost? Are we willing to hold Dem women to the same scrutiny? Or our President Elect?

    To the extent that Palin (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by byteb on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    and certain forces in the Republican Party are busy positioning her as a leader and possible nominee for 2012, it matters. This was a person who portrayed herself as one of the people:a Regular Joe/Jill Sixpack kind of person. There's nothing wrong in beginning to knock down the creation of the myth of Palin before it becomes an established narrative.

    I guess that explains the PDS (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    to which so many, including Jeralyn (disappointingly) seems to have succumbed.

    Jeez, people...


    It matters because (3.00 / 2) (#38)
    by eric on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    a person who and wantonly spends this kind of money is dangerously reckless.  She is the governor of a state and a person that many repbulicans seem to think is a really great person.  Spending money on this scale and in such a careless manner demonstrates some very severe problems with her character and her sense of reason.

    This isn't about expensive shoes or an expensive haircut.  This is $110,000 for a stylist and $150,000+ for clothes.  This is so over the line it is almost not believable.  One has to ask, if she is capable of this level of prodigality, what else is she capable of?


    I didn't realize she actually hired the people (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    and went into the stores and ran up the charge cards.

    And when you think about it, would the clothes have been necessary if she had already had a "fancy" wardrobe? One of the designers of Hillary's pant suits has a mannequin made to Hillary's specs. Wonder what ol' Nanc spends on her clothes? How about that ring Obama is buying Michelle? Oh, and speaking of Michelle, isn't she going to need a whole new wardrobe? And the kids . . . .

    As a former stylist, I KNOW they way over spent on Palin's clothes. They had to. They also return a good percentage of it. If she needed a black suit, they bought several to see what worked, etc. This whole thing is complete manufactured B.S., imo.


    I Agree (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    Palin is complete manufactured BS. A trojan horse. Good thing she is not in line for Pres. as VP.

    Ring? (none / 0) (#58)
    by eric on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:58:08 PM EST
    I hope that is snark, or something.

    Doubt It (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:12:28 PM EST
    Seems to me she has warmer feelings for Palin than the Obamas.
    Or to put it better I have seen her defend Palin but never a nice word about Obama.

    I've said some neutral/nice things about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:25:39 PM EST
    but in general, I'm too jaded for hope and change  ;)

    I won't defend Palin on political issues. Ain't gonna happen. I will call BS and I do think as a person/woman she has some good qualities. I admire that she can hunt and fish for her family's food. She doesn't seem afraid to get in there and get her hands dirty* and can hold her own with the "boys". I happen to prefer that to the "little woman" role you see with some republican women. Also, she has governed against her beliefs in instances because of the will of the people. I can respect that.

    A nice word about Obama: I was glad he chose Hillary for SoS. I think she'll be as best as she can be. I think it was a wise choice (gonna miss having her as my senator though!) and I think all the BS about how he's going to shut her down, is just that. BS. He's no fool. She's an asset and he knows it and is willing to not be swayed by CDS. I am in wait and see mode with him though. Mostly because of his vagueness. Just gotta wait and see what he does in office. Would be super if he earned my vote  ;)

    *not talking politics, but real live dirt that nature supplies.



    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    That seems consistent with how I understand your position. The jury is still out on Obama for most of us. Perhaps the biggest difference that I have with you, I imagine, is that I believe Hillary and Obama are about the same on policy. And yes she is my senator too. Both are somewhat to the right of where I am at, particularly as regards foreign policy. I am as wary of Hillary as I am of Obama.

    One big asset you have, among others, is a good sense of humor. A huge plus for anyone afflicted with even the smallest amount of CDS or ODS.


    I felt Hillary was more clear in her plans (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:19:06 PM EST
    and consistent. And I felt pretty comfortable about where she stood on some matters important to me. I have no clue as to Obama's views on some of the same issues. Yes, they are similar on most days, I kinda hope. I think?!  ;)

    Lordy, if we can't laugh, I believe we would be totally screwed. And not in the desirable way  ;) Plus I live with a Dalmatian, sense of humor required, lol!~


    Did they spend tax dollars? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:05:44 AM EST
    I'm just jealous that I can't have all those goodies.

    My fantasy life includes:
    personal trainer
    personal chef   (eat healthy without all the work)
    personal tailor (those big name designers aren't making clothes for 5'1" women)
    personal masseuse  (who needs Ambien when you have a good massage?)

    Now where's my fairy godperson?

    Run against a Republican incumbent (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:53:17 AM EST
    and I'll see what I can come up with :)

    Let's see.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:23:29 AM EST
    Will you support an unlikely run?  I'd have to run against Kevin Bacon for my State Rep.  (Yes, that's his name.  No, not THAT Kevin Bacon.)  The odds of unseating him are pretty slim unless I primary him and run as an (R).

    (Yes, the Oho legislator went (D) this election but my district didn't.)


    I was going to say (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:28:28 AM EST
    I'm not sure if I can help you whoop on Kevin Bacon, it's a girl thing.  You are a perfect set up though.  Doesn't matter how unlikely, we need to challenge all incumbents.  If we start now we could probably have a tidy a little war chest for you :)  You may not win but I think I could get you some between stumping massages and a perm.

    I would have to go (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:37:24 AM EST
    beg an audience with MJ Kilroy.  I don't know how she did it, year after year, fighting like a champion.  She may not be the most skilled pol in the world, but she's a fighter!

    Not sure what would impress people in my district.  Moose hunting wouldn't.  I've got special needs kids - does that work if they aren't Down's but are cute with a capital "Q"?  I don't have Palin's good looks though.  Gonna have to run on my brains.  

    I'm sure they'd be all for lower taxes...right after I fix the economy.  That's it!  I'll run on my Secret Plan for Winning the Economy!  That's something Palin/Bush/McCain would say, isn't it?


    You left out housekeeper. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    Along with a cook, that's number one and two...which means, of course, that I need 'a wife.'

    I have a wife, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Lil on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    sort of and I get none of this. Maybe we need a throwback wife. If not then a sugar daddy would do.

    Gimme the sugar daddy (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    Heck, give me three!  

    Hmmm...maybe it's me... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    When my husband retired, he took over ALL the 'wifely duties' which we had previously shared for 25 years...shopping, cooking, cleaning...the works.  He didn't last five years.  That homemaker crap is a killer and men seem to be too fragile for the whole load.

    Than, for a few years, I had a sugar daddy...sort of.  He died.

    They both died.

    Maybe it's me.

    Or I've got to take up with younger men...yeah, that's it!


    My mother's advice on husbands (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    when young, I needed an older man who could appreciate and take care of me. When I get older, I need a younger one who can keep up with me. lol!~ yes, my mother actually said that to me {grin}

    I'm well past (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    the 'husband thing.'  Did that for 30 years...got the best and you don't get that lucky twice.

    What I really need is a personal assistant...or a mom!  I'd like to revert to childhood dependency.  Wonder if someone would adopt me?


    Did you follow either strand of (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:50:21 PM EST
    her advice?

    How much did (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by AlkalineDave on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:39:40 AM EST
    Sarah Palin know about the expenses.  I doubt that she personally reviewed and approved the money for her hair and makeup.  At least it's not taxpayer dollars.  Like a private jet for an environmentalist.  I'm pointing at Nancy Pelosi.

    Ah (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by eric on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:31:58 PM EST
    the private jet lie again.

    Who cares??? (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    Only the most obsessively PDS-infected would give a rat's ass, really.

    How much did Obama's suits cost? How about Biden's? John McCain's? How much did all these men pay for manicures, haircuts, and makeup? Nobody ever talks about it because it's assumed that politicians have to look good. We all know that Hillary needed "six black pantsuits" to win her Senate seat but we have no idea how many suits Al Franken bought to run in Minnesota.

    Jesus F. Ebbing Christ on a Cracker, give it a rest already.

    Obama wears Armani (4.25 / 4) (#25)
    by Pacific John on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    ... something well beyond a US senator's salary. The suits may have come from his own personal wealth raked in from his quasi-autobiographies, but they may have come from a benefactor. Who knows? The press hasn't trumpeted it.

    This is again a class and sex issue. HRC was heavily scrutinized on her clothes, but the Village boys get a pass.


    Do you have something to back that up? (none / 0) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Seems a bit odd that someone who "wears Armani" would be buying a HS&M tux.  

    OBAMA'S NEW LOOK: It's been 15 years since President-elect Barack Obama has bought a new tux -- and his inauguration is the perfect time to break that string. Obama, who during the campaign touted U.S. competitiveness and decried the plight of the American worker, plans to wear a union-made tuxedo by Hart Schaffner Marx to the inaugural balls on Jan. 20, said Bruce Raynor, general president of UNITE HERE



    Is that a fact? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    My suits are HS&M.  I had no idea they were a union shop!  That makes me happy.

    If you can't trust... (none / 0) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    ...Women's Wear Daily, who can you trust?

    BHO does not stand up to these questions... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pacific John on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    ... at least not when double standards are involved. He doesn't "own" a tux? I wonder where he got the clothes he wore at the Smith Dinner?

    I trust my source for the Armani story, a long time Bay Area clothier. I'd wonder if he "owned" any of his campaign clothes, but you know, we may never know.

    The issue here is reasonable standards. They're all out of whack in Obama's favor, and against people outside the Beltway crowd.


    Sorry... (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    ...but given the amount of over-the-top ODS exhibited in your previous comment here, I don't think you have any credibility.  

    Heresay from some "clothier" in California?  Please spare me.  


    I'm just asking for even standards (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Pacific John on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    ... sorry you had to make it personal.

    ODS is a new one for me. I'm not sure it exists.


    Oh, it exists... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    ...and here is a perfect example of it.

    It's not that simple (4.50 / 8) (#191)
    by Pacific John on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST

    I'd be happy to email you the affidavits I helped gather showing that the Obama campaign is clearly criminal. I have it in black and white, but many others have it in their gut, that Obama represents something un-Democratic, often worse than the GOP.

    I'm having a very hard time figuring out if Obama's Nixonian personality traits are better or worse than  what we would expect from a McCain presidency.

    And that's saying something. I have been an officer in this party. I was a proud Dem long before this quaisi-religious hijacking, and I will be after. But what I see now does not look like the Dem party.

    Classic (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:49:14 PM EST
    Case closed.

    So how much did the Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    and Republican parties pay for all those little cardboard ads that went directly from my mailbox to my recycle bin?  And how much did all that recycling cost my city?

    And how much did they pay for oversaturation of ads in markets that didn't need oversaturation of ads?  
    I'd say clothes are a better way to spend the money. They can be used for awhile rather than being an ecological nightmare.

    Wonder how much they typically pay for a politician's clothes.  Wonder why it's never been reported until the woman was running.

    I like to think of it (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:35:04 AM EST
    as a sort of economic stimulus, albeit one that only occurs every four years.

    Sarah Palin's spending might have been the only thing preventing a collapse of the US retail sector.  She's an American hero, in my book!


    Let's team up and buy J the (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    new 2009 Sarah Palin calendar.  (See Huff Post.)

    But who gets the stimulus? (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    With TV ads, the revenues go mostly to big cats, and unless you believe in trickle down economics (I don't), such revenues mean nothing to the rest of us.

    Think of how many people we could feed on completely wasted ad revenues.


    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    the money came from the RNC in the first instance.  So think about who the RNC raises money from.

    Sarah Palin's dollar in Neiman-Marcus looks exactly like my dollar.  If that's what enables Neiman-Marcus to hire their full complement of seasonal staff this holiday and keep the economy afloat, well then I say she's doing God's work.  Spend spend spend!


    Uh, seriously, (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    they spent buckets of dough on tv ads.

    My biz's bread and butter is a little tiny trickle-down crumb that I'm able to secure of tv ads. tv advertising was already in the sh1tter due to the economy and absent the election ads, it would have been mo' worser.

    The economy is, in the main, a big pile of money that sloshes around from bank to bank, biz to biz, person to person. If it stops sloshing, people lose their jobs.

    Today's unemployment #'s are the highest in 30+ years becuase the money pile has stopped sloshing.


    Thank goodness... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lambert on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    ... we're not descending to trivialities like "Breck Girl" and "$200 Haircut"!

    Addition info... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    ...from Politico:

    Salons and spas, including $350 at Escape Skin Care and Day Spa in New York, were the latest unusual expenses to appear in the Republican National Committee's coordinated expenses account with the McCain-Palin campaign, according to November reports released late Thursday...

    ...The RNC's post-Election Day report documented another $30,000 at outlets that read like a suburban shopping directory.

    Dick's Sporting Goods, The Limited, Foot Locker, Wal-Mart, Toys R Us and Victoria's Secret are all listed in between the expected payments for media buys, direct mail and polling...


    The TalkLeft chapter of the Sarah Palin Fan Club would have you believe that she's being singled out because of her sex by golly and that all of the expenditures are campaign related and therefore totally justified for sure.  

    I would say that she's being singled out because she is a narcissist and a grifter out for everything she can get.  

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JThomas on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    Obama is a notorious penny-pincher with campaign funds and paid for his half dozen HS&M suits out of his own pocket.
    Palins clothes tab is up to 180k, and when you add the makeup expenses that comes to 290k for two months worth of clothes and makeup.

    The Palins are millionaires, not regular Joe and Jill as portrayed. Just like regular republicans, they soak others for their largesse.
    Fine, free country, but lets not allow them to be presented as something they are not...and that is Sarah the Plumber.


    "The Palins are millionaires" (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST

    I think it's pretty well documented that Barack made some few millions or so from the books he wrote, but you're saying the Palins are millionaires too?!

    Love see some substantiation of that one. A link or two would do.


    Google Is Your Friend (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    Gov. Palin, who's hinged much of her reputation on being a homespun candidate has total assets worth $1.2 million dollars



    Thanks. Couple quibbles. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    If she has assets of 1.2 million and mortgage debts of more than 200K is she still a millionaire? No.


    Add up the couple's 2007 income [est. at $230K) and the estimated value of their property and investments and they appear to be worth at least $1.2 million.
    Sorry, income does not count, it is not an asset. You are not "worth" your income.

    A millionaire is someone who is worth at least 1 million - a millionaire is not someone who has assets + income (& ignore debts) of 1 million.

    Absent their not-an-asset 230K income and subtracting a 250K guestimate of their mortgage debt, that leaves them worth at around $700K.

    Still, doing pretty well for the hinterlands of AK...


    Campaign Perks (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    May have made up the difference.  Anyway, the point is that she is not a lower middle, or middle class hockey mom, aka joe sixpack, contrary to how she has been hyped by the GOP, and herself.

    That is why the over the top packaging expenses are an issue.


    She certainly came from a fairly middle class background though she and her family did climb the ladder, income-wise, over the last decade or so. The American dream.

    If she hadn't gone into politics all those years ago would she have had even close to the same income potential in Wasilla? Would she have even been working?

    Likely she'd been he same stay at home mom with 5 kids and a fisherman and oil field worker husband that she started out with.


    Well, Republicans will really (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:17:36 AM EST
    regret making such a big deal out of Edwards's $400 haircut.

    Wrong, because making a fuss is just a tactic ... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by cymro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:06:36 AM EST
    ... to undermine a strong Democratic opponent (remember Monica Lewinski?) They don't really care about that kind of thing.

    If you think Republican politicians really cared about scandals, how do you explain their routine acceptance of the many scandals within their own ranks over the last eight years?

    In Edwards's case, if they have any regrets at all, it will be the possibility that by making a fuss about his haircut they helped to knock him out of the race too soon. If instead they had treated him better he might have gone on to win the Democratic primary before being undermined by a far bigger scandal -- an outcome that would have been much more desirable for Republicans.

    It's just a game of public posturing, and in that game, hypocrisy is not an issue, because the only rule of the game is expediency. The game does not require its players either to care, or to be consistent in the public posture they adopt towards different politicians.


    Well (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:12:56 AM EST
    I think all such examples get lumped together in the public mind and everyone loses because politicians and politics are placed in a bad light.

    That candidates find it necessary to declare nearly two years before an election should tell us that we've created a garish circus to pick our nominees in lieu of a more reasonable discourse.

    A lotta stuff brought us to this point and 'blame' can't be fixed with any one entity or development of the process.

    Certainly 50 state primaries/caucuses have been a contributing factor as well as the technology that makes candidates visible at all times. Neither is necessarily a bad thing in itself but the enormous expense of satisfying those requirements can taint a candidate and force a tawdry image on politics as a whole. Coiffing, powdering and clothing a candidate who's constantly on display and subject to ridiculous criticism for any personal appearance flaw is an integral part of the monster we've created.

    It's not an entirely new phenomenon.  It was probably John Hancock who laid out a bundle to insure that Samuel Adams was presentable at the first Continental Congress.

    I paid for several of John Edwards' haircuts and probably a few of Hillary's pantsuits. I don't like it but I also don't resent it because I know it's what the evolved process now demands and if I feel strongly about a candidate I'll pay whatever I can.

    In the end I suppose we have to look in the mirror to find the culprits.  We get what we ask for and deserve what we get.


    I think most see the difference between (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    a man getting a astronomically expensive haircut and a woman having an astronomically expensive hair/makeup/stylist-type person.

    I'm sure someone will claim it's sexism, or reverse sexism, or something...


    $110k for Sarah Palin.. (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:41:25 AM EST
    $750,000,000 AND a "fortuitous" depression for Barack Obama, to slip by a deranged dinosaur from the worst administration in history.


    Been out of the loop on this topic (none / 0) (#8)
    by Saul on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:07:09 AM EST
    What's the big deal if the RNC gave her this money to Palin?  As long as it was not from taxpayers tax money I have no problem with it.  If the Rep party wants to dish out 110k out of their kitty to give to Palin then that's their stupid privilege. I am pretty sure Palin told the RNC,  
    Hey you want me to run for VP with McCain that's ok but I do not have the money for these expenses.
     The money used by both Dem and Rep in campaign contributions could have been used better IMO.  I'm sure Obama squandered some of DNC money in a very stupid way also.

    Saul (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:31:59 AM EST
    This is a Palin Wailin thread and you are mucking it up :)

    Love that - Palin Wailin! (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM EST
    Does Palin (none / 0) (#13)
    by WS on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:36:25 AM EST
    not own her hairstyle and makeup too?  That its the RNC's property like the lighting and the staging?

    So, I suppose (none / 0) (#21)
    by robert72 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    you believe that Michelle paid for everything in her wardrobe and her hair styling and the gang that went along with her out of her own pocket? That all those people and services were her responsibility to pay for? And maybe you think she got up every morning and ironed her old suit and did her own hair..... BTW, what did that especially ugly black dress with the red spot on the stomach cost? Have you heard? Me neither.

    Relax, (none / 0) (#22)
    by WS on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    it was snark.  She used the RNC excuse for the outfits that was bought for her and I wonder what new excuse she'll have now.

    But I do think someone at the RNC doesn't like her.  Why release this information?  And smart political operations know how to hide these types of politically embarrasing expenses.    


    gov. palin, the campaign (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:42:07 AM EST
    and the republican party presented her, and itself, as social and fiscal conservatives. spending nearly a quarter million dollars, in roughly 2.5 months, to dress, coiffe and otherwise prettify her is totally at odds with that whole "fiscal conservative" thing.

    a $400 haircut pales next to a quarter million dollar makeup job. keep beating that drum for the next 4 years.

    You must be kidding.... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    the Republican so-called fiscal conservatives don't mean THEY should watch their spending...they mean YOU should.  And the government, of course...except for defense and faith-based initiatives...

    Order more flags, please...and charge it.


    Time to Let Go (none / 0) (#23)
    by mudlark on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:28:46 AM EST
    But maybe next time Palin should just put all the clothing, jewelry and flashy bobbles she "needs" on her Amazon Wish List and hope that some rich admirer springs for it all.

    why no, no i'm not. (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    You must be kidding....

    of course i recognize the base hypocrisy of the republicans, that was kind of my whole point, as obvious as i made it. geez!

    here's kind of frightening thought to ponder: it took somewhere in the neighborhood of 180K to dress this woman, and her family, for 2.5 months. it required another 110K to make her physically presentable to the teeming masses, for that same 2.5 months.

    she must look like the grimm brother's troll under the bridge, if it required that kind of nearly 24/7 working on her, so that she didn't scare off old ladies and small children, when they saw her.

    frankly, even with all that, she still doesn't look that great, on a purely physical attractiveness scale.

    with that kind of cash spent on me, i should make brad pitt weep in despair.

    Pickin' on Palin (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    Business is business.

    How about the Obama campaign collecting 750,000.00 bucks and trying to put out there that it came from little folks shaking nickels and dimes out of their piggy banks.

    Oops (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:04:20 PM EST
    I mean 750,000,000.00 bucks.

    I'll make a wild guess or 2 (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 04:11:05 AM EST
    *Toy's R Us = amusement for the youngest children. They can become easily bored.

    *Victoria's Secret = she may have needed specific types of undergarments to go with some of the suits, blouses etc. A lil' sumpthin we women have to deal with  ;) There's a reason Hillary adopted the pantsuit uniform.

    *Dick's Sporting Goods = casual wear for her or perhaps outerwear for rain/cold. Or perhaps the guys needed something? (At least she didn't buy new hunting clothes and a gun and go off into the field like what's his name, lol!~)

    I would hazard a guess that Obama's wardrobe has increased in both volume and $$$ over the past year. His wife and kids revealed his lack of attention to wardrobe in the past. Media isn't interested in men's clothing expenses though  ;)

    gee, what did women do, (none / 0) (#70)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:00:14 AM EST
    before victoria's secret opened its doors, knit them by hand at home? perhaps "Frederick's of Hollywood" filled the bill before then?

    *Victoria's Secret = she may have needed specific types of undergarments to go with some of the suits, blouses etc. A lil' sumpthin we women have to deal with  ;) There's a reason Hillary adopted the pantsuit uniform.

    in fairness to gov. palin, she alone, of the 4 major candidates, was probably in the worst position, financially. women's fashions change annually, men's perhaps every ten years. as the mayor of wasilla and gov. of alaska, she probably didn't really require that much of a wardrobe, so a upgrade was probably in order.

    that said, i get the distinct impression that she and her horde took the campaign fund for a ride; absent a full accounting of all non-perishable items, of a personal nature, purchased and returned, we'll never really know.

    so much for that staunch republican fiscal conservatism.

    if i were a democratic party strategist, i'd be storing this stuff for potential future use; they couldn't control their profligate spending during 8 years in the white house, they couldn't their vp candidate's profligate spending on the campaign trail, why should anyone seriously believe they'll do it in the future?"

    The business? (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    The RNC considered it a business expense to have her look a certain way. They were selling their candidate.
    That's what they do.