$150,000 being a lot for clothing, even at expensive stores, the New York Times calls around the shops on Sarah Palin's shopping list and doesn't seem to find evidence of actual shopping. After all, you'd think they'd remember something like someone coming in and spending, for example, $79,000 in an afternoon:
Consider also the $4,902.45 charge at Atelier New York, a high-end men’s store, presumably for Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, the famous First Dude.
"Aggressively directional" being an industry term that means, apparently, "not the sort of thing you'd wear to a Republican campaign rally."
As if having Michael Jackson's shopping budget (and taste in red leather jackets) weren't embarrassing enough, could it be that some campaign staffer used the wardrobe acquisition project to spruce up his or her own look? Or perhaps some store employee padded the bill for a staffer paying no attention to actual cost?
Could this be a scandal in three acts: the exorbitant self-indulgence of the clothing itself, the ridiculous stonewalling and justification of that cost, and -- finally, in a plot twist deserving of O. Henry -- the shocking revelation of what lawyers call "conversion," but the rest of us know as embezzlement?
As Drudge says: Developing...