Sarah Palin's $150,000 Wardrobe Malfunction?
Sarah Palin, small-town hockey mom and everywoman? More like Sarah Palin, pampered princess. Jeanne Cummings at Politico reports that the RNC’s monthly financial disclosure reports reveal that the Republican National Committee has spent tens of thousands of dollars on the vice presidential candidate's wardrobe and accessories since she was nominated, including $150,000 in September alone.
So it seems you can take the girl out of the beauty pageant, but you can’t take the beauty pageant out of the girl.
Palin's clothes came from retailers such as Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy’s, Bloomingdales, Neiman Marcus and Barneys New York, and expenses included nearly $5,000 for hair and makeup. Maybe this is actually her one-woman economic stimulus plan. Lord knows the retail sector needs it.
Still, voters must find it unfathomable for Palin, who has been presented as a woman “like us,” to spend that kind of money on clothes in these difficult financial times, to see her speaking so passionately about Joe the Plumber while plumbing campaign coffers for Valentino jackets and pencil skirts. And yet, they’ve eaten it up, tittering on chat sites about Palin’s Kawasaki eyeglass frames and her Naughty Monkey red peep-toe pumps. (See our earlier take on Gov. Palin's style here.)
Palin’s spokewoman is saying this is much ado about nothing, that we should be talking about more important issues. But can you imagine the outcry if it were revealed that Hilary Clinton’s rainbow of pantsuits was paid for by campaign contributions? Or if college kids’ $50 checks to the Biden/Obama campaign were putting those men in $5,000 custom suits? (Obama’s suits are by Hart Schaffner Marx out of Chicago, and cost in the $1,500 range.)
In Palin’s defense, being a woman in the public eye has its own kind of pressures. And it’s unlikely she has been stepping off the campaign trail to join the ladies who lunch for shopping sprees at Neimans. Instead, she is probably working with a wardrobe stylist, who brings her things to try on and choose from. But the issue of clothing and hair expenses has always been a land mine for politicians (John Edwards' $400 haircuts), and someone should have been sensitive to that.
You also have to wonder how it feels, as a woman, to have everyone know that you really have been dressed up and trotted out like a beauty queen for the American public to wag their tongues at. Caribou Barbie indeed.
-- Booth Moore, Los Angeles Times Fashion Critic
Photo: Republican VP candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin at a campaign rally in Carson, California on October 4, 2008. Michael Robinson Chavez/Los Angeles Times.












A pig with a S10,000 robe is still a pig.
Posted by: Tomahack | October 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM
The Los Angeles Times?
I don't get the question.
Isn't Los Angeles on Pacific Standard Time (PST)?
Posted by: Kevin from Tolleson | October 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM
re Caviar slander
Retracted by that bastion of journalism the NYP here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/gossip/pagesix/room_disservice_134490.htm
Posted by: truth will out | October 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM
At least the Palins got some shopping done before their big party and fiasco comes to an end on November 4 :-)
Posted by: Srini | October 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM
$150,000 worth of clothes= to a beautiful parrot programmed to repeat the things its taugt! ask the parrot the meaning of the words it used! and the answer is CLUELESS.
Posted by: bragger | October 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Donate to charity?
Let them eat cake!
Posted by: Cycledoc | October 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Not only a waste of paper, but also a waste of my time. Look at the lobster feast at the waldorf(or some such ritzy place). Get Real.
Larryayjay
Posted by: Larry Jeffrey | October 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM
um... who cares??
we care about if she will be a good leader, not how much her clothes cost. if this is all you can come up with for "dirt" on sarah palin, kudos for her.
Posted by: lyssa | October 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Hey everyone who's thinking Obama spends too much remember that he isn't taking taxpayers money! PAL!
Posted by: Johnb123 | October 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM
One tube of lipstick: $3
One designer pair of go-go boots: $400
One pig... I mean, pitbull, to mock while the GOP takes a nosedive: PRICELESS
Vote for that terrorist socialist one!
Posted by: rckstrdave | October 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I bet Mrs. Six-pack doesn't wear $4,000 suits!
Posted by: thisiscrazy | October 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Seriously, I used to be "for" this lady and her cohort but, stories like these are making me look the other way. I feel as though she's been duping people like me who are undecided. She just spent more on clothes in 1 month than what I make in almost 5 years. That is pretty pathetic. And I consider myself "Joe the manufacturing guy"
Posted by: Paliniscute | October 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM
This is incredibly unfair.
What was the cost of the Demcratic National Convention Pillars?
Obama has been preping for the presidency for quite some time so I doubt he had to go buy a bunch of suits at one time like Sarah Palin.
McCain and Biden already had wardrobes.
You really need to be realistic in your criticisms
Posted by: paul hastings | October 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM
If I paid $5000 for hair & makeup and still looked like that, I would want my money back.
Posted by: Best Cuts Babe | October 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Yeah yeah LA times, don't talk about the fact that this country could go socialist. Prey on petty jealousies by talking about wardrobes as opposed to the numbers of people that work for small businesses that will lose their jobs if Obama gets in. Typical of the propaganda machine that used to be known as the press.
Posted by: Kathy | October 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM
If Sarah is supposed to be the GREAT reformer I do not understand why she would partake in this obviously way over the top expenditure for her and her family. What did she wear at the Goveners office? She gets paid $120,000.00 a year why can't she buy her own clothes? I DON'T WANT TO BUY HER ANYTHING !!!
I want my money back.
Posted by: Lorette LeMond | October 22, 2008 at 11:03 AM
No problem, she'll just put them on EBay.
Beltway Greg
Posted by: Beltway Greg | October 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM
So sad how the liberal press focuses on personal attacks instead of real issues that should worry the American public.
Isn't anyone concerned that we are a whisper away from putting a socialist into the White House? Anyone with close ties to a self-described Marxist such as Ayers should scare all of us.
Posted by: Mark | October 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM
And just think about all the fuss that was made about John Edwards spending $400 on a haircut. One can't say those Republicans don't think (and spend) big. It's funny that they love to toss off stuff like "tax and spend" liberals. George Bush was simply tax-and-spend without the tax. So, look where our deficit is now.
Posted by: Abarafi | October 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM
A new headline is in the news: Palin is not nude and she is dressing expensive clothing. The media keep attacking her without any basis that she is corrupted. The only issue here is if she is doing things illegally. The media or the Democrats are going to win the election in an unprecedented way for the first time in history; this campaign is the media versus the Republicans. Democrats voters will regret later voting for Obama. Why? At least you know how is MCCain and Palin; but you do not know Obama secrets. Americans has not learned the lesson from George Bush secrets. Obama is just another George Bush.
Posted by: Earney | October 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM
You're all a bunch of b*i*t*c*h*y little girls!
Who cares about any of this...you hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see as long as it bolsters what you've decided is right or wrong.
Also, "lose" means to not win and "loose" means not tight. If you want to be taken seriously, learn how to spell. Otherwise, you just look like a loser that can't spell!
Posted by: mary | October 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM
ok I want to see an article on all the money Obama is spending...come on!
What happened to news outlets actually reporting...maybe this is why the newspaper is dying...so is network news.
Posted by: matt | October 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM
The fact that the RNC would spend $150K on "Caribou Barbie's" wardrobe is appalling not only for the amount of money spent but because they took unsuspecting supporters donations for that. People donated money for the campaign to spend on usual costs as advertising, staffers, etc. Maybe if their losing, hateful and nasty campaign spent their money wisely they wouldn't be losing.
I would like to know if the Palins plan to pay income tax on this $150K gift that was bestowed upon them by the RNC? My guess is no. Apparently Ms. You Betcha has a sense of entitlement. Palin has traveled on government junkets where her daughters were not invited yet she requested to bring them and she charged the state for their flights, hotels, etc.
If this is the way McCain and Palin would run our country then we will be in bigger trouble than we expect.
Posted by: Marilyn | October 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I am not sure how a self described fiscally conservative and maverick person that claims that she knows us because she shops at wallmart would not rebel against this. That money would have been better spent in sending her to college (or perhaps her kids to school? what is that 10 year old doing carrying the baby all day, shouldn't they be in school?) or perhaps abroad so that she can get an idea of what real problems look like and improve her foreign experience. Better yet, she could have used this money to purchase rape kits in Alaska so that their residents do not have to pay for them or to clean up the lake in her house that is now dead thanks to her pro-business agenda.
But hey, Joe the Plumber is happy to pay for this and it is their money and they can use it however they want. It plays very well with their anti-elitist message!
Posted by: Annie | October 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Trophy Vice!
Sarah Palin acts exactly like a trophy wife is suppose to act. Give her a credit card and she's off to the races! She can talk about hardworking small town Americans just as long as she gets to be fashion forward and spend $150G on clothes at Saks 5th and Nieman Marcus.
That's why Big Daddy Johnny McCain, sire of many a trophy wife, can totally "be proud" of her.
Posted by: Richard | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
When the Obama is running the most expensive campaign in history, we write an article about this... that's the hypocracy
Posted by: tdan | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I'm actually more bemused by the socialist Governor of Alaska's willingness to take the taxpayers' money to bring her kids on trips. Oh, and I love the socialism of being paid EXTRA to work at home -- all those per diem payments. If the federal government were that supportive of working women, all moms could be successful working moms. But that would be socialist! And scary! And un-American!
Hypocrisy, thy name is Palin.
Posted by: Jean | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I have been a Republican voter since Ronald Reagan. However, this is the year that the NRC lost my vote.
Posted by: Art | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
"It's Obama's fault. The fact that he is a "socialist" is so distressing to Sarah that she has to regularly indulge in some retail therapy to relieve the stress.
Anyone against Sarah wasting donation money at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue is anti American and probably a terrorist."-Joe the Whiner
PRICELESS!!!
I don't like the woman AT ALL! However, I don't think this is really news worthy. There's enough dirt under her moose skin rug to build a bridge to nowhere...someone should tell her to get on it...
Posted by: Chantelle B. | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Anybody ever hear how much Hillary spent on clothes? Anyone hear about how much Obama spent on those suits? Anyone care that Obama has spent a billion bucks on advertising in video games (who's he targeting?).
Look, I don't care how much she spends. She's been tasked with helping McCain win the election. She doesn't pick out her clothes. They are purchased and brought to her by wardrobe staff.
And I suppose the stores where she bought those clothes from are upset about making the sales. And I bet their staff are PO'd about the commission they will make. And the folks whose IRA's include stocks in these companies are upset that they made a sale.
WHO CARES. I'm not electing someone who dresses like me. I'm electing someone who can lead. You can argue that she's not prepared. That's a fine argument if you want to make it. But let's not be this petty. Dollar for Dollar, she's been more generous with her dollars than anyone else on the ticket.
This stuff is SOOO petty. What a friggin distraction. There are MUCH more important things to spend our time on.
PEACE
Posted by: SMC | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Hmm, I really can't believe the level of hate being espoused here. Why are all of the liberals going nuts about Palin? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Seems to me that she could be the poster-child for the present day liberated woman - moving up in a man dominated world, has the courage to stand up for what she believes in, etc, etc. Oh, sorry. Forgot that she must be bad since she doesn't agree with your point of view.
$150,000 paid for by the campaign. Hmmm, $800,000 paid to acorn. Yeah, I agree, there is a discrepancy here. One's blasted all over the world by the very biased media, while the other is only known about if you listen to talk radio.
I would have more respect for all of your liberal comments if you actually would stand up for once and acted the way you talk; equality for all, tolerance for differences, etc. But I guess that only applies to people that only agree with you, doesn't it?
Posted by: Rick | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Senator Obama got so much money in donations, most of them under$100. I could only give $25, but for the first time in 8 years I consider my vote worth a million!
Posted by: AML | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Had enough yet? Vote Obama/Biden in '08.
Posted by: Truth Seeker | October 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Thanks for the laughs!
Posted by: lfmorgan | October 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM
In the spirit of full disclosure, the LA Times should add the words, "A Liberal Newspaper" to its name. There was a time the editorial pages were the place for the paper's political views.... now those views are page one every day. My condolences on the passing of a once great paper.
Posted by: Clear and Obvious | October 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I find it interesting that this liberal newspaper finds it newsworthy to report on Sarah's clothing costs, but doesn't consider it newsworthy to be fair and report on Obama's $500 snack in his hotel recently. When Edwards was running in the primarys it wasn't newsworthy to let us know that he spends several hundred bucks on his haircuts, and so on. If you are a liberal everything is good, and if you are a conservative it's jump on them with both feet for anything they do.
Fair & balanced news reporting.....not hardly!!!! Where are the unbiased news reporters? There are very few left. No wonder the readership of newspapers is dwindling alnog with viewers of network news.
Get a job working for a gossip rag...you'd fit right in.
Posted by: Aubrey | October 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Hmm, I really can't believe the level of hate being espoused here. Why are all of the liberals going nuts about Palin? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Seems to me that she could be the poster-child for the present day liberated woman - moving up in a man dominated world, has the courage to stand up for what she believes in, etc, etc. Oh, sorry. Forgot that she must be bad since she doesn't agree with your point of view.
$150,000 paid for by the campaign. Hmmm, $800,000 paid to acorn. Yeah, I agree, there is a discrepancy here. One's blasted all over the world by the very biased media, while the other is only known about if you listen to talk radio.
I would have more respect for all of your liberal comments if you actually would stand up for once and acted the way you talk; equality for all, tolerance for differences, etc. But I guess that only applies to people that only agree with you, doesn't it?
Posted by: Rick | October 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I'm no fan of Palin, but who cares?
Professional musicians don't cinch on their instruments, professional photographers don't cinch on cameras.
Why does anyone think that a person whose professional career depends on looking good should cinch on h/er wardrobe?
Posted by: Paulv | October 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Does Sarah Palin understand that she will have to pay income tax on all those clothes?
Or that if she is elected, she won't be able to accept gifts?
Oh yes, they will be loans like her Senator from Alaska claims to have taken all these years?
Posted by: Musicman | October 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I can not believe how hateful, one-sided and blind you all are. First of all about the clothes, go look at the financial reports of the Democratic Party. How does Joe Biden afford that $4million house on a $170,000 salary and speaking engagements. Because everything is paid for him! The meida, a.k.a. Hollywood and Disney started this bias reporting because when you feel good about the economy you spend more in their world. Go look up the facts for yourself, Bush didn't even start this mess research how Obama, Biden, (other Dems like Todd) and McCain voted in 2003 and 2005 regarding the crisis with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You can say what you want about your boy Obama but one thing I am CERTAIIN of McCain won't sell me out. And one more thing coming from a "younger woman" in an authority position.... men can not handle a woman with intelligence and "power" they are so intimidated they will critize with no merit!!
Posted by: urjoke | October 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM
yeah well what about the 7.5mil obama spent on strippers while he was planning the 9/11 attacks on america with Osama Bin Laden
T. Boone Pickens
Posted by: t-boone | October 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM
OK she spent republican money on what is important to republicans. Not much story here. Its good she recognizes the average poor American, those of us making < $100,000 a year would feel that was an excessive amount to spend. She does have empathy for the poor.
Posted by: Tuba Guy Texas | October 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I don't care that she spent $150k of campaign contributions. Those contributions are for campaigning...see how that works?
Clothes, travel, advertising, lodging are all campaign expenses. You contribute the money to be used by the campaign.
What I am offended at is AIG using MY money to have a $400k company event. I want the executives to return MY money. I had to bail out you idiots that put your company at financial risk. I say you are not allowed to waste my money to celebrate your incompetence.
Posted by: Inverse137 | October 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM
The truth is coming out. She can stand there and lie and spread hatred. Whats that saying about glass houses?
Posted by: joan Pa. | October 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM
If you want to read what the Dems have spent just read the AP report - it speaks to the things the Obama campaign has spent as well. It's excluded from this story though. And no, in no way does it come close - no dresses for Michelle...
Posted by: Deb | October 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM
As usual, the media is making such a hype over this! It's the campaign's funds to do with as they choose. What's she supposed to wear? a gunnysack? I donated to the campaign and I am STILL 100% behind them. It is so much more expensive to shop for a woman as opposed to a man. After the campaign the clothing will be donated to charity anyway. Get back to the important issues, PLEASE!
Posted by: Jennifer | October 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Um, GEAH, I cannot be a racist as I am an African-American, and simply someone who stated the fact that Oprah's designer, Maria Pinto, has stated on the record that she has donated many pieces to Michelle Obama, thus eliminating the need for MB to go buy them herself.
But I don't believe the press considers that important.
Posted by: Mary | October 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Tommy G is a moron, I agree.
However, I also think this article is petty. This only reassures my belief that elections should be blind. We should have to make our decisions based on the written words of qualified people. If you can get us out of this mess, who cares what you look like? What would elections be like if you actually had to have a plan to be elected?
Posted by: kbk3 | October 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM
yeah well what about the 7.5mil obama spent on strippers while he was planning the 9/11 attacks on america with Osama Bin Laden
T. Boone Pickens
Posted by: t boone | October 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Well, the right wingers are foaming at the mouth again. This new report is such a terrible, brie-eating, media elite, vast Liberal conspiracy aimed at this humble "hockey Mom" who thinks only of Joe the plumber.
Her hypocrisy piles high upon her abuses of power and her squandering of Alaska tax money for selfish purposes.
Well right wing screamers...what would you do the evil Obama did something like this at taxpayer's expense?
Foam at the mouth.
Exactly
She is dragging you ticket down to the Bering Sea from which you can see Russia. Happy trails!
Posted by: Geo. Lupe | October 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM