So when is Palin giving back all the clothes?

Really? Has Palin said all of that? Or is there a lot of you filling in the details in there?

Because, really, if you can show me that Palin has described the whole situation in that much detail, I (and only me, I can’t speak for all the others) would be willing to take her word for it, until and unless any contravening evidence showed up. But, the main thing that seems to be keeping these allegations alive, at least for me, is the fact that I haven’t heard any good explanations from anyone close to Sarah Palin herself.

Well, you can watch her interview with Matt Lauer here: Palin Interview. It’s actually rather interesting - it shows her positive side, but she also comes across as annoying from time to time. To me, anyway.

Anyway, from the transcript:

Seems like a fairly straightforward account to me.

So you believe the RNC may have filed false information in their financial disclosure documents? Because that is where the $150,000 number came from. That’s a pretty serious charge.

The problem with the $150k is that it comes from campaign records. Either the campaign spent it (and spent more than that originally as returns would have been deducted from the line item), or they spent that, misapplied the returns to another account on the books, misapplied other expenses to the account, or someone was embezzling from the campaign. Any one of these things should come out when the RNC does an audit.

Yup, finally. All we need now is an acknowledgement from the RNC that they got the clothes, and if they value their word, news of their disbursement to charity.
It’s good to see the Republicans following the letter of the campaign finance laws like this, don’t you think?

Is Palin arguing that it’s a “time-honored tradition” for huge amounts of campaign money to be spent on a candidate’s wardrobe, or are you?

If it’s you, I’d love an example of this being done before. I asked for one earlier in the thread, but I don’t remember seeing one presented.

Yes it does. I guess we have to decide whether we think it’s true or not. Should we consider the stories we heard about her use of taxpayer funds to pay for family travel and the rest when deciding.

It doesn’t strike me as a big deal except to reveal a pattern of behavior and an attitude that convinces me she shouldn’t come anywhere near the presidency. For that reason I’d like to see the* facts * come out, if not about this specific incident then about how she governs. I get the feeling she’ll be encouraged to run and stay in the public eye. Let’s get real thinkers and problems solvers in office, conservative or not.

Oh, come on. No one’s saying it’s impossible that it was $150,000. Palin is just saying that it didn’t look like $150,000 in clothes to her. It could be that she just doesn’t have a clue what clothes cost at upscale stores in New York. Or it could be that the really expensive stuff was in the 1/3 that was sent back that she never saw. I have no idea. But no one’s accusing anyone of falsifying documents.

BTW, if the RNC actually flew in stylists and image consultants, I imagine that’s probably a pretty big part of the $150,000. How much does a high-powered image consultant or top-drawer stylist cost? How many days did they spend working on her image? I have no idea, but it can’t be cheap.

That’s just my commentary. It wasn’t specific to the amount of money spent on clothes, but just on the idea of ‘framing’ a candidate by presenting him or her in a certain way. You’ve never heard of image consultants?

Oh man. Watching certain posters try to defend Palin on this is pretty damn funny.

Keep it up. I’m enjoying this theatre of the absurd.

Why?

I said in the original thread about this that it’s basically a non-story. It’s the RNC’s money, and if they think it’s better spent on Dolce & Gabbana than on attack ads, bully for them.

Plus, the RNC (and DNC) spend plenty of money prettying up their male candidates too. At what point does the spending get labeled “excessive”? $10,000? $20,000? $50,000?

I bet at least $20k was spent on Obama’s suits and makeup artists, and probably twice as much on making sure none of Biden’s hair plugs fell out.

There are much better things to be going after Palin for.

There were official Democratic Party financial filings with line items for Hillary killinig Vince Foster and Bill engaging in crooked land deals? News to me…

I’m sure everyone here has heard of image consultants. What we’ve not heard of is spending $150,000 to decorate your VP candidate during a 2 month campaign. I’ve also never heard of a campaign where the highest paid person was a makeup artist, though I do know what a makeup artist is.

Which I’m figuring will be the Thursday after “never.”

The Pubbies are great at taking credit for doing noble things (donating clothes to charity, saving money by selling airplanes on e-bay, etc.) but on the providing evidence part, not so much.

If someone else has to go through the transcript, cherry pick certain lines, and bold them, that’s not my idea of straightforward answers.

I have indeed heard of image consultants. To repeat my question:

Do you have a cite for campaigns spending this sort of money on a candidate’s wardrobe?

ETA: Or even a cite that shows what campaigns have spent at all on a candidate’s wardrobe would be illustrative, since people keep arguing that there’s nothing unusual in this.

Twenty thousand dollars spent by whom?

Who are the 9 people? She said the clothes were for “her and 8 members of her family”. I only count a total of 8, her, the husband, five kids and the redneck babydaddy. Who’s the other person?

Jesus.

It may not be cheap, but you are definitely math-challenged.

Try re-reading, Sam, but this time do it with your eyes open, not shut.

Feel free to argue that $4,716.49 is “a pretty big part” of the issue. I know I love to watch a contortionist at work; it’s fascinating to see people bend and twist to such extreme postures.

Nice spelling of “condescension,” you phony-literate moron, you vile pretentious scumbag, you world-class fraud and would-be elitist.