Sarah Palin's $150K political trousseau

Just when things are starting to settle in for the final grind to the finish line, somebody comes forth bearing a luscious little tidbit on a silver platter.
Evidently, the McCain campaign went through some bookkeeping legerdemain to make the $150,000 it spent on Sarah Palin's wardrobe legal (you see, the Feds take a dim view toward the purchasing of personal items with campaign funds). As if that weren't enough, her shopping assistant is the same guy who dreamed up the robocall campaign. It says something about what the McCain people think of Palin's judgment that they can't even trust her to choose her own wardrobe properly.
What, were they afraid she'd just take the hundred and fifty grand and go straight to Frederick's of Hollywood? That's a lot of bustiers.




CHAN LOWE has been the Sun Sentinel’s first and only editorial cartoonist for the past twenty-six years. Before that, he worked as cartoonist and writer for the Oklahoma City Times and the Shawnee (OK) News-Star.
Comments
do think that palins wardrobe is a bigger issue than what biden said yesterday about terrorists testing obama within 6 months creating an international crisis.or his association with acorn...or ayers who is at first just a guy who lives nearby him...or his public embarresment of reverend wright ...who obama said he could never disown just like his white grandmother...and then 2 months later he did what he said he couldnt do...and that he has no association with acorn....oh except the fact he gave them 800k just a few months ago and 230k in 2002..and served as councel for acorn forcing banks to give home loans to low income familys...and training the management for acorn.do they actually pay you to give your opinion and write articles
Posted by: LOU | October 23, 2008 1:16 PM
This is Federal campain funds = your tax money and my tax money. It's probably more than the value of Joe-The-Plumber's house. This blows the Hokey-mom-just-like-you-and-me image the McCain campain is trying to project.
Posted by: afloridian | October 23, 2008 1:55 PM
John Kennedy campaigned in $2000 suits (considering what $2000 was worth in those days (1960)..did he relate to the common man?)
Hillary's custom made suits cost $6000 each..she got them for free! How many suits did she have anyway...more than 20, I suppose.And that doesn't include hair and make-up.
The $150,000 was spent on the WHOLE Palin family and came to about $21,000 each.(includes hair and make-up.) I'd say the Republicans are very frugal!!
Posted by: Mary | October 23, 2008 11:48 PM
Why is this an issue?? Of course she might need a more suitable wardrobe for campaigning--I can imagine they dress differently in cold Alaska. Since the other candidates aren't dressed in Walmart duds, this is stupid to even talk about.
Posted by: Eileen | October 24, 2008 9:39 AM
Let's see if I understand this:
Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and other Democrats raided the Treasury of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and we are to worry about Palin's wardrobe?
What kind of bad, retro, 60s style acid trip are you on?
Posted by: Harry | October 24, 2008 10:46 PM
John Kennedy's $2000 suits, Hilary Clinton's $6000 suits and the Palins $150,000 shopping spree are glaring examples of how out of touch with reality politicians are. All politicians should be forced to live on the median wage in this country no matter how much money they have!
Posted by: John Acker | October 25, 2008 12:03 PM
The point here about Palin's wardrobe is that it's just more evidence her being nothing more than a political and intellectual fraud and has no business being anywhere near the Presidency of the U.S.
And if you need any more evidence of her moral dishonesty, philosophical disingenuousness and political insincerity, now she's 'going rogue'...and throwing the guy who put her on the ticket, John McCain, 'under the bus'!...just like she has everyone else back in Alaska who helped her rise to where she is today.
Posted by: George Q. Public | October 25, 2008 3:48 PM
The campaign for some reason thought the public wouldn't respond well to Gov. Palin showing up in clothes purchased at Wal-Mart. Strange, since most of us working class people shop there. I can't believe this is an issue. I am more upset that the Obama campaign is spending in excess of a million dollars (you read it right.) to build a stage for his acceptance speech should he win. That much money for a stage. Talk about arrogance and elitism. When John Edwards paid over $100 for a haircut from his funds, not much was said about it, and he couldn't donate that to charity or return it. The clothes the Palin's are using will be returned or donated to charity. The man who wants to take my money that I earned and give it to others would be better using a stage that was less expensive and giving the million dollars to the people he wants to give my money to.
Posted by: DeeDee | October 25, 2008 9:54 PM
Strange !!! I just went into Michell Obama's CC account, don't ask, and she has spent nearly $252,120 in the last month ! Why isn't someone reporting that ??
Posted by: Ping | October 26, 2008 9:27 PM
It has been reported by Arizona news media that Cindy McCain regularly charges between $250K and $750K per month on her American Express card. By the way "Ping", the Secret Service would like to talk to you about trying to hack into Mrs. Obama's account. Since you can't spell her first name correctly, the information you provided was obviously about someone else :)
Posted by: Observer | October 26, 2008 10:47 PM
A few years ago, I lost enough weight that I had to buy a new wardrobe. I spent about $15,000 over the course of that year -- all casual clothes since I don't wear suits to work. For a VP candidate constantly in motion who needs to look sharp and cannot wear the same outfit every day, it doesn't strike me as a lot of money.
Posted by: Joe the Tailor | October 26, 2008 10:48 PM
it is illegal for political candidates to use campaign funds to purchase clothing
Posted by: hope | October 27, 2008 4:50 AM
Her wardrobe's an issue? We'll be be wearing potato sacks if Obamarx wins. Because that's what's fair. Equally opportunity isn't good enough? He wants equal results, which we all know is not possible.
Posted by: dave | October 27, 2008 10:51 AM