THE WOULD-BE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

Hypocrisy is only bad when it is improperly used.—George Bernard Shaw [lifted from an Anna Quindlan article]

This $150,000 designer clothes issue has been gnawing at me since I read about it. There had to be another side to the story, something other than what the liberal mainstream media gleefully reported. Something that would clarify it all for us.

And then it came, via the AP:

Palin denies accepting $150K in designer clothes:Brendan Farrington, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 24, 1:19 am ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_el_pr/palin_clothing;_ylt=ArHpPXIrYpXdGSzFe2Z1P1dh24cA
Here are some excerpts from the story and the HCO take on it:

Sarah Palin is blaming gender bias for the controversy over $150,000 worth of designer clothes, hairstyling and accessories the Republican Party provided for her, a newspaper reported Thursday.

"I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race," Palin said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune posted on the newspaper's Web site Thursday night. "Do you remember the conversations that took place about her, say superficial things that they don't talk about with men, her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that? That's a bit of that double standard."

There is a double standard. In this predominantly sexist civilization, women are often judged on their looks. In crass retail terms, women generally spend (must spend?) more on their clothing than men (or perhaps the men who price the clothes exploit this societal fact by charging more). But Palin misses the point here. The point is that, as far as we know, Hillary spent her own money on her own clothes.

Palin, who is John McCain's vice presidential running mate, said the clothes were not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention.

This makes it better, somehow? That approximately $150,000 was spent (this was not denied by either McCain or Palin), but that they weren't "worth it"? Or that instead of buying a wardrobe that she "needed" for a months-long campaign, they were bought so she could have multiple fashion options for a four-day event? And why did they have to shop for the Alaskan governor in New York City for an event in Minneapolis-St. Paul?

Most of the clothes have never left the campaign plane, she told the newspaper.

Because some clothes were left on the plane, and she didn't use them, that means she didn't "accept" them. The Couture to Nowhere.

"It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported," Palin said. "That whole thing is just, bad!" she said. "Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are."

In light of the revisionist expense report glitch (Trig on official state business!), the cynics might say she's complaining here that $150,000 was too tight a budget for wardrobe. No, this must mean that that they'll return the stuff that wasn't used…

News of the purchases of designer clothes, largely from upscale Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, contrasts with the image Palin has crafted as a typical "hockey mom."

McCain was asked several questions on Thursday about the shopping spree - and he answered each one more or less the same way: Palin needed clothes and they'll be donated to charity. [HCO: He also said this was the plan all along.]

Dare we ask which ones?

-------

So let’s try to pull this all together into a cogent lesson. First, some perspective:

1. $150,000 buys this cute house in Wasilla:

1. 

2. Let's say I'm running for office, and other people are paying for my wardrobe. I go out and buy high-end, perhaps even custom-made stuff…I'd spend something crazy-over-the-top like this:

$ 5000 Shoes (10 pairs at $500 each)
6000 Ties (20 at $300 each)
45000 Suits (15 at $3000 each)
6000 Shirts (20 at $300 each)
$ 62000 TOTAL

I'm looking rather fly, and with the money I have left, I can buy this (very) modest log cabin in Wasilla:

Here we go now…

• The objections to the spree at Needless Markup are not SEXIST…they're EXCESS-IST. We recognize that Palin can't wear her lit-up reindeer sweater to campaign in…but c'mon! Her governor clothes weren't nice enough?


• This is the party that hammers on the point that they will trim the pork and end the excesses of the elitists. They'll take care of other people's money. (As if it were their own, we suppose.)


• McCain and Palin have taught us that the un-American elitists live in New York (we guess here they mean New York City, not the good real American folks upstate). Booo on the elitists! Boooo on New York City! Except for the shopping part, the Neimans and Sakses and what have you.

And the big finish…

This wardrobe point, overall, seems too trivial to harp on. But it's one shard in a mosaic that's been assembling over the past few months about the Republican side—and it fits the picture.

This episode flows out of the same addled mindset that brought us McCain's superficially charitable remark that Obama isn't an Arab, but a decent family man. And that Ayers was/is--and by extension the secretive Obama might well be--a terrorist, but those who bombed abortion clinics were not.

How else can can you say it? For this team and the organization surrounding them, their actions simply aren't matching their words about who they are, or their core values. (Joe the Plumber's throwing in with these guys?)

At this point, which rings more true: That Palin boarded the Straight Talk Express? Or hopped on the gravy train with the same drunken disregard for common sense--and for the inherent trust that comes with power over other people's money--as the spa-loving execs from AIG?

This campaign isn't just testing character, it's revealing it.