5 Comments   
When news broke that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 on Gov. Sarah Palin's wardrobe, people freaked out. Some wondered whether it was too much, while others protested that Palin, the only woman left in the race, was getting too much negative attention for her clothes.

Critics charge that Palin is a hypocrite for spending $2,500 a day (or more than Joe the Plumber might make in a month) on clothes. But supporters argue that it's a legitimate expense for a professional who's been quickly elevated to the national spotlight.

Of course the candidates have to look good. Explains Susan Scafidi, who teaches fashion law at Fordham, "In our image-based society, the packaging of a candidate requires strategic spending on visuals, from stage makeup to backdrops to podiums at a flattering height -- and, yes, costumes."

It's not just Palin who has received negative press for fashion spending: In 2006, Sen. Hillary Clinton got hassled for two $3,000 hair-styling sessions. John McCain caught some flack over $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year. And who can forget the indignation over John Edwards' $400 haircuts?

But should candidates' wardrobes or how much they spend on their hair matter? "With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," says Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign." Wait, she has to give the clothes back!? Take us off the bill.

Tell us: Was Palin justified in spending so much on fancy clothes?