Actually, better example, recall the days of former Vanderbilt Chancellor Gordon Gee. A contingency of people got all huffy because he renovated the Chancellor’s mansion for $6 million so as to better entertain potential donors to the university. Of course, he was also raking in $1 billion. Sarah Palin majorly, majorly contributed to the RNC shattering its one-month fundraising record with $66 million in September. That’s 0.25% of the September total. Or, as Ed Morrissey points out:

Was this a good use of funds for the RNC? They have had more than a $100 million on hand between the campaign and the RNC in September. They spent around 0.15% of that on Palin’s wardrobe. It’s less than they’d pay for a single network-TV spot, and they’ll get more use out of it.

Let’s be clear: these people are photographed every single day; I’ve seen Hillary Clinton wear the same pantsuit on only two occasions over the past year (and trust me, there was a time, I was checking her Flickr page daily to see what sort of sartorial gift she was blessing me and then this blog with, so I know). One time it was that horrible Price Is Right Carpet pantsuit, and the other was the Violet Beauregard one.

It’s a no win situation for Palin — she and the other six people in her family come out looking sharp and pretty on the RNC’s dollar, then she’s an elitist; she comes out with her hair up everyday, in the same suits she wears in Alaska all the time, then all it does is contribute to the image of the inexperienced bumpkin from the sticks. Republicans like a hot woman, though, remember this gem from Robin Givhan?

“Palin has been referred to as America’s hottest governor by sources as varied as Alaska Magazine and button-wearing Republican conventioneers. But Palin’s power isn’t in her physical looks as much as in the packaging.

“Palin seems to dress for pretty rather than powerful. She is willing to be sexual, with the occasional fitted jacket and high heels. She wears dangly earrings. Campaign photographers can’t seem to resist shooting her legs, as if they’ve never seen an American female politician with bare gams wearing three-inch heels. (Then again, they probably haven’t.)”

But let’s play around with the numbers for a second, with some general estimates from Saks. Bristol and Willow each needed dresses the night of the Convention, presumably shoes as well. That’s $1000. Another $1000 for what they wore during the day. For everyday campaign wear, I’d bet they’ve dedicated an additional five to eight thousand dollars for the sisters. Another four thousand for Piper. They got Levi Johnston slacks, a dress shirt, a sweater, and a suit and tie (with presumably shoes, and another dress shirt). That’s $1800. Let’s say they bought Todd five suits, with five shirts, five ties, and three pairs of shoes: that’s basically $7500 (at $900/suit, $300/shoes, $250/shirt, $150/tie).

And, let’s say they bought Sarah Palin ten suits. That’s ten thousand dollars! Right there! (And you know they bought her more than that, probably pieces, with pencil skirts and jackets). Ten pairs of shoes? $4000! Three new coats (because the giant North Face parkas can’t be worn on the campaign trail, and I’d wager most of her wool or cashmere coats are too heavy for the lower 48)? $2500 at least. Hair and makeup for her? Probably averages to $200/day. (Factor in coloring, cut, a whole new set of Bobbi Brown makeup, and someone to put it on Gov. Palin). That’s $6000. (Not far off the Politico tally).

We’re now at around $42,000 and that’s really, really lowballing the amount of clothing Sarah Palin would need for 60 days with multiple appearances. Put it this way: $150,000 comes to about $2500 a day. Ask people who maxed out for the party: If you knew your $2000 bought the outfit Sarah Palin’s wearing today, would you still have given your money? I talked to a few people who were fine with that proposition. Captain Ed references Jazz Shaw, who does drink the Palin Kool-Aid:

“People spend what the can afford to spend on clothing. Personally, I tend to wait for a good sale from Joseph A. Banks when you can get a very nice men’s suit for two hundred dollars. But that’s because I’m not exactly made of money. Were I some sort of high powered CEO with a seven figure income, I’m sure that my suits would cost five grand and I’d have some Armani in the closet.

“I have no idea what Sarah Palin spent on clothes when she was the Mayor of Wasilla, but now she is in the public spotlight and running for Vice President. She also strikes me as an attractive woman who cares about her appearance and probably likes to dress and look her best. The campaign obviously wants her to look her best for the media and is spending accordingly. They can afford to do it, so why wouldn’t they?”

Ann Althouse concurs:

“She suddenly needed to look perfect for numerous high-profile appearances. How could she possibly have paid for all that herself? Imagine how she’d have been ripped apart if she’d relied on what she already had in her closet by all those folks who want to say: It’s like McCain just picked your mom for VP.”

Those in her comments raise an interesting point: by that standard, only wealthy women can run, because women are, awesomely most of the time but not so much in this instance, expected to dress with variety, unlike men.

Republicans want Sarah Palin to look hot. The rate of return sure seems worth it. And I still want that coat she wore to the Flyers game.

Katherine Miller is a junior at Vanderbilt University. She blogs daily at Right-Wing Vitriol.