I can halfway-understand the need to expend some campaign funds on a female candidate's wardrobe in preparation for a long season of daily public appearances.

For all our good intentions in regard to gender equality, it's sad but true that a man can show up in the same suit every day (or a suit that looks the same), maintain a rotation of clean white shirts and a couple of ties, and look respectable.

It truly is different for a woman. I have no problem with the GOP spending their money on their Vice-Presidential candidiate's wardrobe. Now, if they're embarrassed about the amount that they spent, they should have thought about that before setting Sarah loose in the Minneapolis Nieman-Marcus with a no-limit expense account.

But this bullshit about how it is somehow justified by "donating the clothes to charity" as soon as the campaign is over ~ I don't get it!

The clothes purchased as part of a $150,000 shopping spree undoubtedly include a few outfits costing four figures or more apiece. Nothing remotely like that is likely to be of much value to any woman in circumstances that require her to turn to charitable insititutions to clothe herself and her family.

Palin should just keep the damn stuff. If she actually becomes VP, she'll need to continue making good impressions upon the public, and upon foreign leaders and other major players as well. If she goes back to Alaska, she's still Governor and will have plenty of public appearances where she can show off her fancy duds.

The fact is, she can use that stuff much better than any charity can. NO dress is worth more than about ten bucks to Goodwill or the Salvation Army, no matter whose name is on the label or what number was on the price tag when it was new.

The recipients of donated clothing are in need of something to keep them warm, or at best, something presentable enough for a job interview. Wearing Sarah Palin's campaign castoffs is not going to help such women any more than wearing something from last year's Sears catalog.