Sarah Palin spends $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup.

That is ridiculous. That's the equivalent of four teachers’ salaries, or a nice house.

I don't even think she is looking that good. I mean, how many white coats and red jackets did she get? And a lot of her little power suits make her butt look weird. (If I could find a picture it would be awesome, but you’ll have to take my word for it.) She should have just called the "What Not to Wear" folks, Clint and Stacy. They could have done way better. And they would have only spent, like, $15,000 and she would be looking great (and wearing colors other than red and white).

What, is Sarah Palin shopping with $300,000-outfit Cindy McCain? That must be the answer. I think Sarah and Cindy were just running up Daddy's card like Cindy's used to.

It is disgusting that throughout this campaign, so far, both of them have been calling Obama an elitist! What nerve. What kind of hockey mom shops at Neiman Marcus, anyway? So much for that persona. (Aw, snap! I guess that now everyone will know I watch “WNTW”; so much for my tough-guy persona.)

Plus, don't down-ticket Repubs need money really bad? It seems strange to spend that much on clothes when your party is in such serious trouble. Like polishing the bass on the Titanic.

Now all the conservative talk show hosts are making excuses. Mika Brzezinski said if she looked bad, we would all be talking about that.

But I think that if she looked bad, people would pay more attention to the fact that she talks like the Miss Teen USA contestant from South Carolina, with absolutely no sentence structure or underlying argument. It's just a bunch of catch-phrases strung together.

Today, the jerk in the fancy suit on “Morning Joe” said, over and over, "The game changed on McCain. Sarah Palin was the ‘American Idol’ pick, but because of the economy, the game has changed to ‘Jeopardy.’ ” I think he's onto something. Suddenly Obama's professorial manner is looking really good. I can't wait to have smart people in charge of America.



The preceding piece appeared originally, in slightly altered form, at http://tadbarker.com/blog.html. — Ed.