Spending $3,000 of campaign funds on underwear . . . a mean tipper . . . Vanity Fair dishes the dirt

The October issue of Vanity Fair has just published an explosive profile of Sarah Palin. We've picked the highlights . . .

She managed to spend $3,000 on underwear

"The number and range of items purchased for the entire Palin family – more than 400 in total – is mind-boggling. For Sarah, the campaign bought roughly $3,000 [£1,940] worth of underwear (including many Spanx girdles)."

Angels protect her

"When Palin thanks prayer warriors for keeping her covered, she is thanking them for calling on angels to shield her from demonic attacks."

She is a bad tipper

"Of the many famous people who have stayed at the Hyatt in Wichita (Cher, Reba McEntire, Neil Young), Palin ranks as the all-time worst tipper: $5 for seven bags."

Her Facebook and Twitter feeds may be ghost-written

"Often it sounds less like Palin herself than someone else's fantasy version of Palin at her most vitriolic. On one occasion Palin's virtual voice contradicted remarks she made in a TV interview two days later."

She now says she wants to meet the Iron Lady, but back in 2008 . . .

"When John McCain's aides discovered that Alaska-size gaps existed in Palin's general knowledge (among those previously unreported: she had no idea who Margaret Thatcher was), they from time to time would give her some books to read in hopes of improving the candidate's learning curve."

She doesn't hunt

"'This whole hunter thing, for Sarah? That is the biggest fallacy,' says one long-time friend of the family. 'That woman has never hunted. The picture of her with the caribou she says she shot? She got out of the RV to pose for a picture.' The friend goes on to recall that when Greta Van Susteren came to the house to interview Palin "[Sarah] cooked moose chili and whatnot. Todd was calling everyone he knew the day before—'Do you got any moose?' Desperate."

Her reply

In response to the VF article, Palin said: "Those who are impotent and limp and gutless and they go on their anonymous – sources that are anonymous – and impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references." Just as well she was able to add that clarification.