Speaking of My Fair Lady, don't forget the comparison of Barack Obama, the penniless lawyer in the 1990's, to Alfred P. Doolittle. Morals? Can't afford 'em.

That's why Barack took his first $400,000 from Tony Rezko, in consideration for services unknown. And why, after Billy the Bomber finally found a board that would take both him and his father's money (most would decline, not wanting a person who gloried in the killing a police officer in their midst), Barack had no trouble convincing Billy to sponsor his career and introduce him in to his father's wealthy friends. And why, if you can believe what you see in Jeremiah's *promotional video* for his church, Barack sat through 20 years of dangerously paranoid rants against America and the white race (and exposed his children to same, hoping they would grow up to be loony tunes too).

With a lit'l bit o' luck, Alfred P. Obama finally hit the big time, cashed in rich to the tune of 600MM, and can now take his whole gypsy gang of crooks and miscreants with him to Washington. As I said before, I congratulate you folks on your victory. It certainly is *historic* -- I liken it to several negative turning points in the long march downward for ancient Rome.

Based on the analysis above, Sarah Palin would be deemed to *convert* the clothing purchased for her campaign appearances to *personal* use if she is, in fact, using such clothing for *personal,* non-campaign uses. I have not seen any suggestion to that effect.

The law recited by Gwain52 refers repeatedly to *personal* types of expenditures, including personal home mortgages, personal vacations, and personal theater tickets - unrelated to the campaign. If your campaign needs to rent a home, go to a campaign retreat, or take its team to a theater event, that is permissible.

My understanding is that Palin and the Republicans concluded she did not have a wardrobe well suited for national staged events. To take an extreme example, suppose Joe the Plumber ran for office, had no suits, and no ability to buy them. So, in turn, the RNC bought or rented some suits and made them available for him to wear - strictly at campaign events. Would this be a *conversion* to personal use. It would have a personal component, to be sure, but only to the extent he personally used them during the hour or so that he appeared at the campaign function.

In Palin's case, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Washington Post criticized her in a lead story after her RNC speech for appearing too homespun, kind of like Joe the Plumber without a suit. So, she and the RNC decided to spiff it up for campaign events - if I understand the story correctly. Let's be honest here, folks. Someone mentioned Eliza Doolittle earlier. If Eliza wears a ballgown and a rented diamond necklace for an hour, is that really a *conversion* to *personal* use?

Gwain52, what you need is evidence that Palin is wearing her new clothing to church, or to other events of a non-campaign nature. Take SNL for example. If she showed up in jeans, put on the 20K RNC duds for a nationally televised broadcast, and then left in jeans, I don't see how that is a *conversion* to *personal* use.

All of that said, knock yourself out if you want to start filing complaints. Make a proscription list of your new emperor's enemies. He and his gypsies from Chicago are going to have their hands full on more important matters, like figuring out to hustle Washington.

Look also at the definition of prohibited expenses, before getting to the word "including."

It is defined any "commitment, obligation or expense" which would exist "irrespective" of the campaign. Then there is a list of examples, including clothing.

I have not seen any suggestion that the expenditures here were for anything other than short-term appearances at campaign events. Thus, they appear to have been made *because* of the demands of the campaign, not *irrespective* of them.

Your move. I'll get back to you later, should you respond.