Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe

This has pretty well been done to death in the media, which is why I haven't yet bothered to comment. I feel sure that anything worth saying has already been said, ad naseum, on CNN. Nevertheless, I feel like it's my job to comment on these sorts of things, so let me throw my two cents in and be done with it.

On the issue of the appearance double standard - It is absolutely true that a female politician's appearance is much more an issue than that of a male at election time. Study after study has shown that a female politician's wardrobe and hairstyling is a constant source of comment in the media during a campaign while her male opponent's tie and shoe choice rarely comes up. In this estimation, the scandal over John Edwards' $400 haircut is merely the exception that proves the rule. It's also true that no one is obsessing over the cost of Biden's or Obama's wardrobe (McCain looks so ridiculous in his clothing that I hope he isn't spending a fortune on it; if he is, he's getting scammed). Then again, no one would have known about the money Palin spent on clothes if it hadn't been (potentially illegally) charged to the campaign.

On the issue of whether this should be an issue - Sarah Palin has absolutely every right to spend as much money as she wants on clothes. As long as it's her own money. The second she (or her handlers) started spending donor's money, she became fair game.

On the sheer chutzpah of it all - The campaign has tried to justify the expense by suggesting that Palin is a woman constantly in the public eye, and she needs to present a classy and pulled-together exterior. I don't think anyone's debating the fact that image is an issue in a television culture. However, I do resent the implication that in order to dress the part of a VP candidate, Palin has to do so in designer clothing. You spend $2500 on a silk Valentino jacket because you want to, not because you need to. And for her to suggest that she's just a small town girl who understands America's economic pain and disdains elitism while wearing such a jacket is obscene. The fact that she doesn't seem to understand the hypocrisy of it all proves my point better than anything else.

On donating the items to charity - Are you serious? How many people could you have fed with $150,000? How many people could have had warm coats for the winter for $150,000? How many low-income homes could you have heated for $150,000? What exactly is a $2500 silk jacket going to do for anyone in need? Again, if the money were hers, it would be up to her how she spent it. But it's not hers. And for anyone to suggest that donating the items to charity would somehow correct the error is patently ridiculous. If she wants to make ammends, she should donate the same amount of money to a worthwhile cause. Perhaps that would remind her in the future to be careful how she spends donated funds.

On blaming it on the handlers - It has been suggested that campaign staffers - and not Palin herself - actually purchased the clothes, therefore, it's not her fault. I have two things to say to that: if staffers spent this kind of money on her wardrobe instead of on actual campaigning in battleground states, then they deserve to lose. Double dumbass on them. And then there's the issue of Palin requesting a better wardrobe for her appearance on SNL - either the lady had expensive tastes to begin with and those purchases were hers, or she's become accustomed to her new duds ridiculously quickly.

The lesson from all this? If you have a love of fashion, don't charge it to the campaign expense account. Put on the personal credit card and regret it when you get the statement, just like the rest of us. And either way don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you kick off the Joe the Plumber bus tour in Valentino. Everyone knows that Joe the Plumber wouldn't be caught dead wearing anyone but Prada.