Standard Disclaimer: I despise Sarah Palin's politics, but that doesn't mean I can't point out sexist double-standards where they exist.
Sarah Palin is apparently in trouble for spending shitloads on clothes during the campaign. My question is, why the hell apart from the fact that the candidate has ovaries is this newsworthy?
As Cactus Kate has noted it costs shitloads to be a well-dressed woman and right now Sarah Palin needs to be well-dressed at all times because every time she is in public she needs to look her best because the world wide media is on her ass 24/7. It will be noted by a newspaper if she wears the same outfit and if her make-up runs we are all going to know about it within a few minutes because like it or not her personal appearance is fair-game in this election. Of course she is not alone. There have been merciless attacks on other woman candidates' appearances over the years because a woman's appearance, whether she be a VPILF or an ugly troll, is seen as campaign fodder in a way that no man's ever is.
Nobody stops to ask McCain how much his Suits are. We don't ask Obama where he goes shopping or which hairdresser puts in Joe Biden's hair plugs. I can guarantee that in all three cases they weren't cheap and the only reason that the male candidates' clothes bills are cheaper is because men can get away with changing only their shirt and tie between outfits whereas women's wardrobes require far more variety hence cost.
Of course if Palin was wearing her 'regular clothes' she'd have been labeled dowdy and frumpy but that is a moot point. In the end when it comes to personal appearance for women politicians there is always someone who thinks you look like shit because they don't agree with you. So perhaps instead of blaming women candidates for playing the beauty game, whether it be spending money on expensive clothes, makeovers or photoshopped pictures, we need to be pulling up those who use a candidate's apperance as a form of political attack.