The RNC’s Stimulus Package
No more making fun of John McCain’s expensive shoes for me — $520 for a pair really does look down-home and working class compared to his everywoman running mate:
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.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
I’m a little bit surprised to learn that expenditures of that sort are legal. They appear on the disclosure forms, so apparently they are, but this seems to open the door to candidates using party committee money as a personal slush fund. Although now that I think about it, there was a story about John Edwards getting an expensive haircut that’s like a rounding error compared to Palin’s September hair and makeup expenses. The total bill is well over double the median household income in the United States.
110 Responses to “The RNC’s Stimulus Package”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 21st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
So much for “Wasilla main street”. It’s amazing she found the time to lampoon the big city elites in between her shopping sprees on 5th Ave.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I would love it if this story gets traction in the MSM. I sort of doubt it will, since I think they’re starting to think they might be piling on at this stage.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Never thought I’d end up defendaing Palin, but if you are going to do a lot of public appearances, and be on television a lot, you have to have the wardrobe.
When I was a wee lad, Nixon and Kennedy debated on TV. Kennedy got made up like a TV star while Nixon just showed up looking like his usual self, and the result was a disaster, which may have influenced the outcome of that very close election.
The Edwards haircut, and the earlier Clinton haircut, were defensible and defended on the same basis.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
That’s not maverickyness we can believe in.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:43 pm
rea,
I actually agree with you that it’s defensible, but the defense illustrates how ridiculous her pretensions of being a small-town outsider with small-town values are. She’s as much a big-town and media celebrity as any politician.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I’m at a loss even thinking about how one would go about spending 150k on clothing etc in such a short amount of time.
It must really suck to be a woman and having to wear different stuff all the time. Not having to think about dressing myself and just buying a mess of different colored button ups as well as some jeans/slacks sure is nice.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
This is worth a little more attention. Expenditures like this are per se illegal when made by a candidate committee, but that statutory prohibition only applies to funds accepted by a “candidate,” which RNC funds arguably are not. (There’s a potentially interesting argument about whether party expenses like this could be subject to the personal use ban if treated as party coordinated expenditures under 2 USC 441ad, which I bet these clothing expenses were.)
When you really think about it, the personal use prohibition is just about the only thing separating campaign contributions from legalized bribery, so extending this prohibition to cover party committees and leadership PACs really strikes me as a no-brainer.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
“I’m at a loss even thinking about how one would go about spending 150k on clothing etc in such a short amount of time.”
Really? You must have a pretty limited imagination.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
The relevant comparison would be with Hillary Clinton, and whether she billed her campaign for her appearance-related expenses. It not Palin’s fault (or Clinton’s) that female politicians are held to a different standard looks-wise than male politicians are.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
But lfv, what do you do when you want to feel beautiful.
I’ll agree with people hoping this gets some traction, and also agree that it probably won’t.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Joe–there might be an interesting argument that buying clothes doesn’t count as “personal use” if the clothes are only used while campaigning.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
It not Palin’s fault (or Clinton’s) that female politicians are held to a different standard looks-wise than male politicians are.
It is, however, Palin’s fault that she has nothing beyond her looks to recommend her.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
So she needs to spend the same amount of money in three months that someone spends to buy a cheap house in the suburbs? Edwards wasn’t getting those hair cuts every day for three months.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
On the one hand, I don’t really care. Like it or not, womens’ clothing, accessories, hair, and makeup are more expensive, more complicated, and more scrutinized than men’s. So it makes sense that Palin (or the RNC) would have to drop a huge bundle on this, way beyond what any male candidate would.
On the other hand, DANG that’s a lot of money. I wouldn’t even begin to know how to spend that much. And this is why I live in jeans and tee-shirts.
Like kth, I too would be interested in seeing a comparison to Hillary Clinton’s expenditures. I suspect Palin’s are higher just because her needs prior to this would have been less – Hillary, after all, has sixteen years of being on the national stage and would, presumably, already have a substantial collection of accessories and make-up to draw upon, if not clothing. It would be difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I’m at a loss even thinking about how one would go about spending 150k on clothing etc in such a short amount of time
Although if you look at the article again, you’ll see that’s for the whole family, not just her.
I wonder what the costume budget is for a 5- or 6-character family sitcom?
October 21st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I doubt that would work. One would expect the election code to track the tax code, where one can’t treat formal dress as a deductible business expense. The idea is that one could wear that formal dress elsewhere, even if one chooses not to. Same goes w/ Palin: her clothes would be socially acceptable off the campaign, so they’re not business expenses.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I guess Clinton and the Republican Congress didn’t end welfare as we know it.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Question: does she get to keep the clothes after the election?
October 21st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I’m going to have to side with Palin on this one as well, especially without a reference point from a non-ridiculous female politician (Pelosi, Clinton, et cetera).
I used to live with 3 women, and when I compared my beautification budget (shaving cream, haircuts, soap) to theirs (hair and skin products and treatments that I don’t even understand) it made me feel really lucky that none of that is expected of me when I go to school or out to dinner. I imagine it gets incomparably worse when you multiply that out to “being on national television”.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
lipstick on a pig
October 21st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
1. Yes she must look appropriate.
2. No it doesn’t cost 150k to do so.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I read an article a while back in the New York Times about the clothes of professional women, and it included a lot about Nancy Pelosi. She apparently buys a lot of her clothes from online sites that sell used designer duds. Of course, she did not have to outfit herself overnight as Palin did, but still…
October 21st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I would have thought that after years of her much vaunted “Executive experience,” she would have already had a sufficient one month’s supply of suitable attire. Sarcastic comments about wolf pelt sarongs aside, it is not as though Alaska is that far out of the mainstream in terms of clothes for executive working women.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
To be fair, for the first few weeks on the national stage Palin looked like an admin assistant who was just getting ready for a night out at TGIF.
The makeover was decidedly necessary.
Still, I am surprised it cost so much. 150K? Jeebus.
.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I’m half-inclined to say, as I did when the Edwards haircut stories circulated, that a modern presidential campaign requires the same kind of hair/clothes expenses as a pop star or TV personality, and you know that the budget for Katie Couric’s clothes and hair isn’t small.
But what’s sauce for the philanderer is sauce for the moose, and if the GOP is going push the idea that presidential candidates should live in shacks and be outfitted at Goodwill in order to speak on behalf of ‘regular folks’, there’s a $75k Neiman-Marcus bill for them to justify.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Someone should ask how much the prosthetics to cover up McCain’s scars cost; they’re not saving money on him either.
All in all, an enormous waste of money. If she had half a brain in her head, she wouldn’t need 150K to distract people’s attention. Hell, she’d be taken more seriously if she dressed more like the average-Joan hockey mom she claims to be.
The time she spent shopping she could have better spent reading the fucking Constitution.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Filchyboy: 1. Yes she must look appropriate.
2. No it doesn’t cost 150k to do so.
Exactly.
One would think that it could be easily accomplished somewhere in the 30-60K range. The higher end of that range includes some upgrades for Todd and the kids as well.
Palin must have had Cindy McCain as her couture advisor. I can only think that someone who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about money, and never had to, would run up a 150K tab that quickly for clothing and makeup.
.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
It took 19 comments until someone finally came out with #20.
My look is what is commonly called “sloppy subrubanite”, so Target and the Gap, with a little Express thrown in, is usually fine for me. But I really do think an incredibly attractive woman like Palin does not need to spend Cindy McCain-type amounts on her looks. Half the time, these female politicians don’t just look professional, they look like Federation High Command. Your typical big time male CEO *is* wearing $5,000 suits like Bush does. But your female CEOs are not wearing $30,000 suits like Palin is.
As for haircuts. Male politicians’ hair is almost always immaculate. $400 for that is not unreasonable.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I hope she wins the GOP primary in 2012; over a year that’s 1 or 2 million dollars not spent on ads or GOTV.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
then maybe the GOP should STFU about how much a Democratic pol paid for a haircut.
As always, whatever the GOP is screaming about, they’re doing the same thing only 100 times worse. Projection, anybody?
October 21st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Did she get a $500 HAIRCUT?
October 21st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Atrios linked to this post with something like “RNC donors, this is what you’re paying for.”
To which I would respond that I imagine seeing Sarah Palin all purteed up is exactly what psychosexually entranced RNC donors want.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but Michelle Obama wears very expensive designer duds too, notwithstanding the dress she wore on the view. She’s not shopping at Walmart, Target or J.C. Penny for her clothing. In fact, there have been many “news reports” about her favorite Chicago designer – I think her name is Maria Pino.
The dresses she wore just during the Democratic convention were very expensive, the least expensive starting at about $800. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know if she pays for all of her campaign appearance clothing out of her own pocket, or if the campaign pays for it.
Of course, everyone is seeming to forget that the first “style icon” first lady was a Democrat – Jackie Kennedy, and she was followed later by another, a Republican named Nancy Reagan. Both wore clothing from the most exclusive designers of their time.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
it’s the hypocrisy, s…illy person.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
My wife goes to work every day in business attire and looks great. It doesn’t cost 150k to do that. Perhaps 10k over a year, not including dry cleaning.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Lynne –
I’m pretty sure Jackie O didn’t claim to be just another small town middle class girl. That’s a pretty big difference. We didn’t make this an issue the McCain campaign did.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Story made the NYC Nightly news. Along with her charging Alaska for her kids airfare to events to which they weren’t invited (the kids, that is).
Entitled much?
October 21st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
The double entendre in the title of this post is pure win.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Production is expensive, so is being camera-ready. I’m no fan of Palin or the RNC by far, but 4k for hair and makeup is actually v. reasonable. Clothing costs probably could have been curbed somewhat and maintained quality, however–but if they’re wardrobe-ing the entire family I can understand that figure. Unlike Cindy McCain, the Palins don’t have the money to prepare themselves for these appearances. Running for office could break you in that regard. Many public figures have to deal with this. Presenting yourself for camera when you’re starting a business (actors, musicians) or running for office (politicians) is (unfortunately) expensive. Hair/makeup/wardrobe is a legitimate expense as long as it’s not abused.
And yes she had fake lashes on during the debates.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Agreed, but neither of these wealthy and style conscious women were trying to sell themselves as “Joe Six-packs” from the real America. It looks bad to me, and I don’t even live in a trailer park. Tough sell!
October 21st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Honestly, the fact that she needed 150k of sprucing up makes her less elitist, not more.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:44 pm
If I were Obama, I would be sorely tempted to show up on Inauguration Day sporting a 50K diamond-studded grill and a gigantic gold necklace, just to needle the racists.
And that’s why I’m not Obama.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
I think everyone can understand a considerable budget for costuming and makeup – it is, sadly, genuinely important for a pol look their best. But $150K is just nuts. Someone upthread pointed out that Michelle Obama not infrequently wears $800 dresses as if that were comparable – but in fact it’s a useful frame of reference to show how insane this spending is. Remember, Palin has been on the ticket for 6 weeks, and the race is over in 2. I can totally see a dozen $2000 outfits, or two dozen $1000 outfits – but $75,000 in one shopping trip? That’s about $1500 of clothes for each day of the campaign from that one trip – and there was another shopping trip nearly as pricy. Maybe someone could tell her about dry cleaning?
P.S. (1) Yes, indeed anyone who ever complained about Edwards’s haircut had better put up about this one or henceforth shut up; and (2) there is a long tradition of politicians putting their living expenses on their campaign or foundation budgets (I recall Santorum put his daily coffee-and-a-doughnut on his).
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
lipstick for a pig
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 am
couldnt she have saved money by shopping on ebay like all maverick sally lunchpails do?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
I’m kind of wondering what candidates have traditionally spent on such things. Quite honestly, it never occurred to me that politicians would spend a bundle on new clothes and what have you, though now that I read this article it seems kind of expected. I mean, they do have to look their best…
$150,000 is quite a lot of money though to buy interview clothes…
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
. I can totally see a dozen $2000 outfits, or two dozen $1000 outfits – but $75,000 in one shopping trip?
I suppose the point here is that the people doing the shopping with her are, well, people who buy if-you-have-to-ask-you-can’t-afford-it things. So, yeah, probably Cindy McCain, who buys condos like we buy coffee, and a bunch of wingnut welfare GOPpers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 am
Looking good on a national stage is expensive. This is more of a gothca to all those people who thought $450 dollars for a hair cut was outrageous. Every time you watch the tv some one is getting paid a good wage to make sure the talent is looking good and they get paid more than $450.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 am
In the end, the article of clothing that will matter most to Sarah will be the “I ran for Vice President and All I got was this lousy T-Shirt” t-shirt.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Is there any doubt that she’s going to keep the stuff? Wasn’t she the one begging for some “glamor” in Alaska or something?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 am
Palin’s outfits have been driving me crazy for weeks. She has only worn the same outfit twice as far as I can tell. And the suits fit superbly and are very well done – ie expensive. While I read she had two “stylists” immediately overseeing her transformation after her selection, and could see the results immediately (check out AK “before” photos of her in track suits, screamingly bright colors and tacky earrings) I kept wondering how she could possibly be affording the makeover. But she can’t – even at over $200,000 a year! She is not the small town girl at all – another “creation” meant to overwhelm common sense and the inclination to look beneath the surface.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 am
… so, is the inevitable mashup using the Rodeo Drive scene from Pretty Woman on YouTube yet?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 am
She no doubt gets professionally made up a couple of times a day. With someone to take care of the hair, $160/day doesn’t seem incomprehensible.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 am
$150,000 on shopping sprees at Saks is fucking obscene when people can’t afford to fill up their tanks and Rx drugs. I didn’t think it was possible but I hate this slimey racist bitch even more.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 am
On Neiman Marcus.com, one women’s small Cartier roadster diamond watch sells for $32,450.
The woman’s got to be able to tell time, for God’s sake!
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
I’m stunned at the continuing incompetence of the McCain/Palin campaign.
Really?
A hundred and fifty thousand dollars?
That’s…perfect.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 am
Oh, please. I could dress my entire family just as nicely for three or four years on that much money.
It’s obscene.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 am
Between the free clothing for she and her family by the RNC, courtesy of voter donations and the free travel and lavish hotel stays for family members and per diem pay to stay at home at the expense of Alaska taxpayers, I think she has made out like a Maverick Bandit!
I hope she gets to see Russia from her house real soon!
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 am
The RNC should have subcontracted this whole thing out to _What Not To Wear_.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 am
The hair and makeup costs seem reasonable. Low, even. But $150k for clothing? Even for a whole family (the kids need designer originals?!), that seems awfully high.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 am
Did that have to buy the clothes at the most expensive stores in the country-Saks and Niemans?
Would not Macy’s and Lord and Taylor sufficed?
If I donated to the RNC I would not be very happy that it went to Niemans and Sacks. That doesn’t sound very Main Street. Sounds more Rodeo Drive
It doesn’t sound very small town either. It sounds very big city and not from pro-America parts of the country.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 am
I hope none of the clothes were European or France. That would be very socialist and not pro America.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:29 am
Since Republicans are thieves, she should have gone the Winona Ryder route and just shoplift a few grand worth of good clothes.
For the record, poor Winona was framed, actually, by an LA prosecutor who got elected on being hard on celebrities (after the Robert Downey circus his predecessor presided over) and also is the son of an FBI agent. Ryder has been known to wear “Free Leonard Peltier” buttons to major events, which doesn’t go over well with the FBI – not to mention being Dr. Timothy Leary’s god-daughter.
Anyway, it’s nice to see Palin changed her hair style. As I always say, women look better with their hair DOWN, not UP or BACK.
Now, if we’d run Angelina Jolie for President or VP like I suggested, she’d already have a ton of hot clothes and wouldn’t have had to spend a dime of the Democratic campaign’s money.
And she could kick Palin’s ass any time, verbally or otherwise.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 am
Did the Nieman-Marcus bill include $250 for a cookie recipe…?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 am
Looking good isn’t cheap, but it doesn’t require going to Saks and Neiman Marcus either. You can accomplish the same thing going to Macy’s and Banana Republic, and pay less.
Look, I’m one of those who thought the Clinton and Edwards haircut issues and Edwards’ big house and McCain’s 7 houses were legitimate too. This all looks bad. A nice form of self-control that some, but not all, wealthy people learn is to not constantly be flaunting your consumption habits. And since you are trying to get middle class and poor people to vote for you, I’d say it’s a really good idea.
We all know that every one of these people is a relatively or extremely wealthy, greedy SOB (or DOB). Asking them to live more like the people they represent is not too much to ask.
No, this isn’t the biggest issue in the world. (I have much bigger problems with Sarah Palin than this.) But yes, it’s a legitimate issue. There’s no particularly good reason that these people MUST live high on the hog while they are seeking our vote.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 am
Since Wolf Blitzer and Co. reserve this type of ventilating for Democrats, I guess we’re going to have to rely on Jon Stewart and Dave Letterman to get this out there- I hope the Youtubers are gearing up, as well.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 am
Hockey mom goes to town! See this great cartoon at the Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part 3 blog…
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 am
There ya go again, Matty, with your America-hatin’. It’s like ya don’t want Joe the Couturier, Jane the Jeweler, and Henri the Stylist to make an honest livin’!
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 am
Just another perfect example of trickle down according to the Palin campaign. The clothes will go to charity after the campaign. Maybe some lucky mom will come across a Palin pantsuit hanging on a rack at a Goodwill Thrift store in the heart of real America. Man what a “let them eat cake” moment.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 am
Now we know why Powerline’s John Hinderaker said she “looked like a million bucks” at that Flyers game.
I was thinking of having a Milky Way, but I’m switching to Snickers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 am
No one would complain if she spent 10,000 for clothes, but 50,000? That’s absurd.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 am
I am proud of my dislike of Palin, but this is what it costs to run with the big dogs as a woman. It can be done on a lower budget, but not putting it all together at once. As for Saks and Neimans – the stylists know those clothes are going to hold up on the road, hotel dry cleaning, etc. You can get the same look in lower priced lines, but they will look “cheap” compared to what the female newscasters are wearing.
Actresses can count as business expenses any clothes that they wear in their line of work (or they could when I dealt with them). Newscasters pay for the wardrobe of their on-air talent (or get it donated).
The extra cost that women are demanded to pay in terms of upkeep, combined with lower salaries, is a real drag on the female gender. And don’t pretend that it doesn’t have to be done. In certain fields, it just does.
One of the other thing striking about this thread is that people are unaware of how much money the people further up the food chain have, and are spending.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
This is a gift. Just as John McCain can never again use the argument that he is the “experience” candidate, Republicans can never again rail against heightened personal expenses in a campaign.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
This helps explain why First Duse is such a sharp dresser for an oil field worker/fisherman.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Paying $150K for her clothes in six weeks is over the top. The fact that the clothes were for her AND her family is beyond ridiculous. But she’s used Alaska money for her family’s travel during her entire administration, so why should we be surprised? I love the term, “She’s her own earmark.”
Of course, Cindy McCain probably took her shopping. That’s why the prices are so high.
I hope this story does get wide play. At a time when many American families can’t afford to buy ANY new clothes for their kids, she’s getting a new wardrobe.
And no, the Obama campaign doesn’t pay for any of Michelle’s clothes. The dress she wore on “The View” was around $180 (published everywhere, because it sold out of the White House-Black Market store immediately). Her favorite Chicago designer, Maria Pinto, charges less than many other designers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Of course there are double standards and partisan hypocrisy abounds. Yet what people are missing in complaining as to why the Edwards haircut story was played bigger was this Palin business is that the Edwards story tapped into a pre-existing view of him as a slick, “pretty boy”, “The Breck Girl” (a phrase picked up by Maureen Dowd) etc.
Beyond that, the right-wing critics (aided and abetted by Dowd of course) were able to use gender norms and homophobia against Edwards. This video is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
There is a reason that Ann Coulter called him a “faggot.” Of course he was pretty obviously not gay, but she still chose him for that slur and not, for example less “pretty” straight male Dems like Harry Reid or Steny Hoyer. Every Democratic male candidate is coded as at least an effete “metrosexual” by Republicans, even a tall war hero like John Kerry, except Bill Clinton and then he is seen as a degenerate.
Long ago an alleged Bill Clinton haircut was also a cause celebre. In that case it was about his entitlement. Supposedly he disrupted traffic at LAX or caused a traffic jam or something just to get his haircut. They needed such an allegation to make it a story with Clinton, who, while good-looking, was not as easily boxed in as Edwards.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
and the free travel and lavish hotel stays for family members and per diem pay to stay at home at the expense of Alaska taxpayers,
Well, that’s just the flipside of the Alaska Way. When you’re a federally-subsidised petrostate, and you give away the bennies in near-zero taxes and per capita handouts, then there’s the implicit presumption that Sheikh Sarah’s lifestyle gets expensed.
As I said, I’m mindful that ’styling’ (clothes, hair, makeup) for those who face the cameras is only tangentially related to that in everyday life: Courtney Hazlett did some good work on MSNBC this morning to compare it to a season’s worth of per-episode, per-character budgeting (over $4k) for a prime-time network show. Even outside campaign season, a woman in high office wouldn’t be able to do a Paul Wellstone.
I think the best approach is to acknowledge it, compare it to the other bits of set-dressing that have to be paid for as part of a national campaign that appeals to those attending events as well as on-camera, and try to mitigate it by supporting local designers and manufacturers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Regarding Michelle Obama’s $800 dresses, 1) does she bill them to the campain (I doubt it); and
2) did she buy 180 of them within a period of weeks? Because that is the only way to run up a comparable bill.
That said, I hope she continues to drain RNC coffers at this rate. Shop till you drop!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
She wanted clothes, not a jet.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
To echo an earlier poster, yes, it sucks because women are held to higher standards then men. I mean the male candidates need, what, three or four suits of neutral colors, ’cause really, you change shirts and ties and who can tell whether that black suit is different than other black suit, etc. But, it’s more obvious of a woman repeats clothing often. However, spending more than double the average income for a FAMILY in this country in less than a month AND having it be a campaign expense — sorry, but when a guy spends his own money to have an expensive haircut, fine, it’s a bit much, but it IS his money — that’s gross. Especially for “Joe six-pack, hockey mom.” Sorry, Sarah, you are NOTHING like me. Or anyone I know. GO BACK TO ALASKA!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Palin also looks like she has had cheek implants since the photos of her as a youngster.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
There is a reason that Ann Coulter called [Edwards] a “f*****.” Of course he was pretty obviously not gay
Yep. We know that much, don’t we?
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I reiterate: she spent so much money that she could easily but enough top-quality outfits at these premium prices to never even have to dry clean them. She spent enough for a brand-new $2000 outfit for every day of the campaign. It wouldn’t matter if the dry cleaners put them in a shredder by mistake.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I guess they were trying to make a silk purse out of a s…. no, I don’t think I’ll go there!
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I’m a liberal and an Obama supporter, yet I have no problem with $150,000.00 in clothing expenses. And I didn’t care about John Edwards’ haircuts either. Campaigns are about image. And if you’re a woman people will notice your clothes more, so you need to spend more.
I’d like to think that the reason people are so focused on Palin’s clothing expenses is payback for the ridiculous focus on John Edwards haircuts, but I detect a whiff of hypocrisy as well.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
You don’t need to spend that much money to look good, and looking at Palin’s campaign wardrobe, I think she got ripped off. Or she has crappy taste.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.”
She still comes in below Runway John’s $5,000+ makeup and purse budget.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“JOHN EDWARDS HAIRCUTS!!!”
Wow, I just realized: that $150,000 would keep John in haircuts for over 14 years!
Stay the course, you Fiscal Conservatives! Small wonder they got the world into this total financial meltdown.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I don’t think anybody would have made a big deal about spending money on some new outfits, even for the family to make them look good on stage. But “real americans” know how be more responsible and could have achieved the same look for quite a bit less. $150,000 is just an obscene amount. But I think that is the basic difference between ordinary folks that identify themselves as republican or democrat. The republican “free trade” and “capitalism” is basically get as much as you can whenever you can. Democrats want to make money, but realize they have a social responsibility to help others out.
As far as comparing Michelles or Hillarys clothing costs, if they were charging the campaign for anything, I would think the wingnuts would have found it in the financial reports by now.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Right! She is a woman. They need makeup and hair styling services.
How much for one of Omama’s suits? How much for one of Hillary’s
custom made pant suits? If Palin looked unfinished and unfashionable,
the media would tear her apart too.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:19 am
haiq05lyaa8ykutq
December 16th, 2008 at 8:05 am
NEW YORK — Denis Leary’s Why We Suck: A Feel Good Guide to Staying Fat, Loud, Lazy and Stupid isn’t even out yet, and already the book has caused something of an uproar. His biting tome of tirades and rants about relationships, race and
December 16th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
The gang is back for
January 19th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 13th, 2009 at 7:47 am
February 13th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also…
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:55 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Great site. Good info
March 17th, 2009 at 3:14 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:10 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
This kind of thing really ticks me off.