Have you heard the old joke about what separates a hockey mom from a pitbull?

Lipstick.

And $150,000 worth of clothes, hair, and makeup.

Politico reports that the Republican National Committee "has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorise vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family" since August, with shopping bills at stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Barney's and Bloomingdale's totaling as much as $75,062.63, and a one-month hair and makeup total expenditure of $4,716.49.

There is some question about the legality of such extravagant wardrobe expenditures under the Federal Election Commission's guidelines on the use of campaign contributions to procure personal items, although my completely proletarian opinion is that securing an appropriate wardrobe for a female candidate in particular is a necessary part of campaign branding. Given the truly preposterous amount of attention that has been given to Palin's hair, glasses, shoes, accessories and every other little detail of her clothing and makeup, it's tough to argue that the campaign had no reason to invest in Palin's look.

(Arguing that women shouldn't be subjected to such scrutiny is a whole other argument entirely.)

The question isn't whether they should have spent any money. It's whether they should have spent what my grandmother used to describe as "that kind of money."

It certainly wasn't a necessity with regard to the availability of fashionable clothes for modest prices. As Pam Spaulding aptly notes, "Michelle Obama buys off-the-rack (eg, the dress that she wore on The View was $148), and looks damn good in it without costing the campaign a fortune."

I can't imagine the campaign calculated it was a necessity with regard to their audience. The McCain-Palin campaign's governing principle is easily and succinctly précised as "What would Joe Six-pack do?" One guesses he wouldn't spend a cool $150k at Bloomie's. Even if Joe Six-pack had that kind of money to spend these days, the small towns in "Real America" populated by Clans Six-pack and Plumber, about which Palin gushingly enthuses on the campaign trail, generally trend less toward Saks and more toward Marts: Wal and K to be precise.

And so, predictably, the scheme has failed miserably with their base. Marc Ambinder reports, "Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures."

Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt tried valiantly to spin the complaints: "With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses." The point, you have missed it. It's remarkable that with all the important issues facing the country right now – economic morass, homelessness increasing, the majority of states now in recession – you're spending three times the US median household income on pantsuits and blouses, and didn't have the foresight to consider the average American might find that objectionable.

That's beyond tone deaf. That's completely out of touch with the very people whose champions the McCain-Palin ticket purports to be.

Who could have guessed that the emperor wearing no clothes would be an improvement?