Palin: an Ordinary Jane (with a $150,000 Wardrobe)

by Deb Cupples |  Earlier this year, some people shrieked like peacocks about John Edwards' $400 haircuts, especially Republican operatives hoping to get support from folks who would not even dream of spending that much at the beauty salon in one shot. 

Today's New York Times reports that the GOP has spent about $150,000 on clothing for VP candidate Sarah Palin and members of her family:

"Cable television, talk radio and even shows like “Access Hollywood” seemed gripped with sartorial fever after campaign finance reports confirmed that the Republican National Committeespent $75,062 at Neiman Marcus and $49,425 at Saks Fifth Avenue in September for Ms. Palin and her family."

"Advisers to Ms. Palin said on Wednesday that the purchases — which totaled about $150,000 and were classified as 'campaign accessories' — were made on the fly after Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, was chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate on Aug. 29 and needed new clothes to match climates across the 50 states. They emphasized, too, that Ms. Palin did not spend time on the shopping, and that other people made the decision to buy such an array of clothes." (NYT)

At least Gov. Palin isn't one of those hyper-frivolous shopping Divas that we learned about on Sex and the City. 

And her credentials as a plain, ordinary, anti-elitist hockey mom should remain intact, given that other people did the actual shopping for her -- even if there is a loose parallel between professional shoppers and the servants who used to dress Marie Antoinette.

True enough, many ordinary folks who donated to the GOP this election cycle -- e.g., Joe the Plumber, Joe I-lost-my-401k-to-Wall-Street-Republicans, and  Joe I-had-trouble-fueling-my-car-last-month -- might take exception to the fact that their hard-earned dollars helped pay for the Palin family's shopping spree.

But at least the various Joes' vice presidential candidate will look good on TV -- and she'll do them proud when she tackles tough questions and emerges victorious during a square-off with the fashion critics.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Meanwhile, Economy Continues to Sicken

* Lehman Execs Re-Distributed in Shareholder Wealth (to Themselves)

 * Execs Took Millions While Driving Companies into Ditch

* Fannie CEO Got $38 Million, Risky Buys Weren't his Fault?

* AIG's $85 Billion Bailout: see What Anti-Regulation Ideology can do?

* Pentagon Wants $450 Billion Increase, Should Cut Waste First

 

.

Comments

[nabalzbbfr]

Obama looks so much more appealing to Joe and Jane Six Pack in simple Taliban duds:
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e281/decay66/obama_anti_christ_3984.jpg

[Deb Cupples]

nabalzbbfr,

You seem to take my comments personally. Are you the one that decided to spend $15),000 GOP-donors' dollars on clothing?

If so, I mean no personal slur, I just think it was a bad decision -- esp. given that our nation is in a recession.

[Close Observer]

So Bill Ayers is irrelevant. Jeremiah Wright is irrelevant. Biden's "guarantee" of a major crisis to test the young whippersnapper is unworthy of follow-up. Obama's treasurer having multiple tax liens on him is irrelevant. ACORN (who The One gave $800,000) is irrelevant. Michelle Obama getting a $200,000 sudden pay raise right after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate is irrelevant.

Ahh .. but Palin's wardrobe is a major campaign issue! Puh-leaze.

If she wore a Walmart outfit, you would be citing it as evidence she's a backwards hick who doens't support unions.

[Close Observer]

So it's a bad decision because we're in a recession? I assume this same standard applies to Obama's campaign?

He has outfitted his campaign jet and other campaign-related stuff far more lavishly than McCain. Please tally those expenditures. (BTW - notice the media isn't scrutinizing these expenditures from The One. Hmmm...) It will far exceed $150,000, which BTW were private dollars donated to the party, not taxes redistributed by the government.

Also, where is the "He buying the election!" outrage we see every four years when Republicans have success raising money and Democrats struggle.

Indeed, the entire justification for Campaign Finance Reform was the "buying of elections" by nefarious creatures seeking to disproportionately influece outcomes. But now that it's The One ...

*Insert sound of cricket's chirping*

[Close Observer]

"Convention expenses paid by the committee included $14.1 million for construction costs, including the stage and lighting, at the Pepsi Center and $5.3 million at Invesco Field."
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/10/13/daily43.html

This is a reference, of course, to Barack's Greek column finale at the Dem convention. Hmm. I missed the post about the poor judgment of Obama to so wastefully spend money on his stadium speech while the economy is on the verge of a recession.

$5.3 million!!!! Oh, but the RNC spent 0.03% of that on clothes for the only candidate in either party who is not a millionaire. Ah, that's a scandal!

BTW - the clothes will be donated to charity or auctioned off to benefit a worthy cause. So she's not keeping them, nor did she shop for them.

Maybe that is where the political Left missed the story because they're (not you, Deb, but the NYTimes and left-wingers generally) not accustomed to charitable giving and donating things. As Arthur Brooks documented in his groundbreaking study, "Who Really Cares," people with conservative dispositions give far, far more to charity than do people of a liberal bent. (not just money but also volunteer time and blood donations)
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/B000WCTRPA/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224812851&sr=8-1

This probably explains why the Palin family gave many more times to charity this past year than did the Biden family, even though the latter makes many times more than the former.

Deb, I've long admired your research skills. Wouldn't this be a better application of them?

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Hi Close,

The reason that spending so much on Gov. Palin's clothes was a bad decision (in my opinion) is that the GOP is trying to pass her off as just an ordinary hockey mom -- you know, along the lines of Joe Six-Pack (someone lucky to be making even $40,000 a year for a family of 4).

The mistake lies in the total clashing of imagery, Close.

As for Obama's campaign finances: I agree to a large extent. If you go back and read my old posts on Obama (during the primaries), you'll see that.

[Close Observer]

Last word. Point well taken. I think the distinction I'd make is that it was the so-called geniuses in the McCain campaign that did these things, thinking it would be successful. I doubt very seriously that she was doing the shopping and I doubt that she saw the bill of the make-up artist ($23,000). These are McCain functionaries who totally bungled her efforts following the convention. The pre-postmortem, IMHO, should be focused on these dunderheads.

These are the same ones who mishandled the media dynamic, leading Sarah to look unprepared and (frankly) unintelligent.

Now, however, notice that he is more accessible to the media than any of the big 4 - Obama, McCain, and Biden. She has been interviewed one-on-one more often than any of them, including a CNN interview where the reporter deliberately misquoted to try and trap her.

In fact, as VP picks go, the only one who has been pulled off the campaign trail for really screwing up is Joe Biden, following his "guarantee" of an attack.

I think a fair-minded observer looking at the balance sheet would say that Palin helps McCain more than does Biden.