Becks, defending the undefensible, arguing Palin’s 150,000 dollar shopping spree is a feminist issue, not to mention confirming the stereotype that liberals are on everybody’s side but their own:
Until then, the right for a campaign to take their candidate on a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus is a feminist issue. As it is, this is a dangerous enough juncture as the parties realize that fielding women candidates is going to cost them more money.
Proper professional politicians like Hillary Clinton do spend serious money on clothes, sure, but unlike Palin there’s substance behind the individually tailored pantsuit, nor do they pretend to be a Wal-Mart shopping hockey mome while pulling down a not at all bad six figure salary as governor of Alaska. They need to spent that much money for pig lipstick precisely because she’s an empty figurehead, a refutation of the idea that a female politician can be anything but eyecandy, something for the boys in the press corps to drool over.
Update: A much better quote from the same site, from Di Kotimy:
The important thing to remember, though, is that even her new wardrobe will get a tax cut under Obama’s plan.