I did a little research, and it seems that the first inkling of this came in the Page 6 column of the September 17 New York Post. New York Magazine followed up in their blog "the Cut". Both publications noted that the McCain camp had hired stylists who had encouraged "the governor to purchase pricey designer clothes to wear at public events.
At this point it is unknown whether Palin or the stylists were the ones making the purchases.
What is known, however, is that the media and the blogosphere are having a field day with this. Strangely, though, all we have heard from the Democrats is the sound of crickets.
One explanation could be that the media is doing such a great job they do not feel that they can top it. This doesn't sound like a political campaign though.
Could the Democrats have their own problem?
First, comparing the wardrobes of men to women is not quite apples to apples. The closest the Democrats have to Palin is Hillary. What, you may ask, can we deduce about Hillary and her spending habits in regards to clothes?
As a subscriber to the LA Times, I seemed to remember that there had been an article around the conventions about one of Hillary's designers. A quick Google search, and there it was.
"Turns out that many of Clinton's signature campaign suits were stitched on the first floor of a boutique in the heart of Beverly Hills by Susanna Chung Forest, who has made a name -- and a sizable business -- for herself by dressing female execs of Fortune 500 companies and Holmby Hills socialites."
I would guess that the blue collar voters of Ohio haven't been doing too much shopping here. If they couldn't make the drive, perhaps they would be be able to purchase remotely? Maybe if they can get another mortgage on the house:
"The clothes aren't cheap. Jackets are about $3,000, shirts run to $1,350 and pants hover around the $2,000 mark. For first-time clients, there is a minimum three-suit requirement, simply because it costs so much to make the mannequins."
So the suits start at $6,350.00, and go up from there. What could make the price go up? From my experience with menswear, I know that custom features such as changes to collars and lapels (remember some of her suits had a "Elvis at the Sands" look), details such as hand sewn pick stitching, and different types of fabric can affect the cost. For menswear, fabric upgrades can increase the price by up to $1,000.00. For women, the increased options of fabrics that are considered acceptable for a women's suit expand the potential price greatly (colors like the tangerine she wore to the convention can get especially pricey due to the cost of dyeing).
So lets say that, with some upgrades, her average suit costs $7,850.00 ($1,000 for fabric and additional materials such as trim, $500.00 for details such as collar changes, and labor to stitch trim - remember, this is Beverly Hills). The next question is how many did the Senator purchase?
"For first-time clients, there is a minimum three-suit requirement, simply because it costs so much to make the mannequins."
So this means that an estimated first time order would be in the neighborhood of $23,550.00.
Did she purchase more? Well, the designer wouldn't say exactly how many, but the story did say:
"Forest continues to send packages containing three or four suits at a time to Clinton on the road. She is finishing a bright red silk suit and has already sent along a black ensemble with a skirt instead of pants."
Each package of four would run about $31,400. Adding skirts to the suits (as mentioned in the quote) would be about $1,400.00 per skirt.
So lets just run a theoretical tab for the initial order, and four additional orders of four suits each (we'll assume no skirts for this calculation), and we come up with: $149,150.00
This may explain two things. First, it may explain why the Democrats are being quiet. Second, it may explain why the RNC, the McCain campaign, and the stylists felt emboldened to spend a little on Palin's style. They might have figured that with the money that Hillary was throwing around, the order of the day was designer candidates. Furthermore, they might have felt that there would be no blow back, especially from a mainstream media (I think that the LA Times qualifies as MSM) that was practically fawning over Hillary's couture.
However, they should have seen the risk developing in "the Cut" piece that talked about the criticism the Cindy McCain received; noted the stylists fears of having the high end shopping discovered; and the concluded that, "if we were running for vice-president, we'd like to think we'd defer to tastefulness and restrain ourselves in These Economic Times, despite Valentino's powerful forces (and we mean powerful)."
Was there a double standard in how this was treated by the media relative to how Hillary's spending and couture were treated? Yes. Could the initial reporting in the Politico on this have been more balanced, and included context on Hillary's purchases? Yes (Google "hillary clinton pantsuits", and the third item is the LA Times story).
However, the McCain camp had long ago concluded that the press wasn't going to give them a fair shake, and $150,000.00 is an awful lot of money to explain away to a press corp that is not inclined to treat you fairly.
A bigger question might be: How did Hillary pay for her purchases?
