In just a little over two months, John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee together spent a total of almost $340,000 on Sarah Palin's appearance, including clothes for her and her family.

The final total comes in the wake of disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday. First, there was the $150,000 on clothes for the Palin family that sparked the initial interest and controversy in this spending. On top of that, the disclosures show that, overall, Palin's makeup artist was paid $68,400, while her hair stylist got more than $42,000. Her fashion stylist recieved $54,900. In addition to that, as previously reported, there are new charges for clothing for the vice-presidential candidate and her family, which come out to about $23,000.

Politico says those latest charges come from stores including "Dick’s Sporting Goods, The Limited, Foot Locker, Wal-Mart, Toys R Us and Victoria’s Secret" as well as major department stores and "Brooks Brothers, the Gap, Express and J.C. Penney." According to Politico, the disclosure filed by the RNC's joint expenditure committee with the McCain campaign also shows money spent at salons and spas, "including $350 at Escape Skin Care and Day Spa in New York."

Barack Obama's campaign brought in more than $100 million in the closing days of the election, according to a disclosure filed with the Federal Election Commission Thursday night. That brings the total Obama raised to $745 million, a new record that exceeds what the 2004 candidates raised combined.

By comparision, John McCain's total, including public financing, was about $320 million. As Jake Tapper points out, those numbers don't include money from either of the party committees; he says that once that is factored in, "we expect the Democrats to have raised closer to one billion dollars, compared to roughly $630 million for the Republicans," giving Obama a total advantage of around $400 million.

You'd think Washington, D.C. could manage to open a simple tourist attraction like the new Capitol Visitor Center without too much controversy. But no.

First, conservative bloggers jumped all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for noting that tourists in D.C. tend to smell during the summer months. (Apparently, it's unpatriotic to acknowledge the fact that even Americans sweat when walking around all day in what might as well still be a swamp.) Michelle Malkin even posted a letter from a reader who wrote Reid, "As a visitor to the Senate and a history buff I am insulted by your remarks. They clearly show you are not worthy of your position and should resign... You, sir, are the one who stinks."

South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is causing some controversy of his own, saying the CVC "fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success" and that its displays "are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history." Here's his statement:

The Capitol Visitor Center is designed to tell the history and purpose of our nation's Capitol, but it fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success. While the Architect of the Capitol has pledged to include some references to faith, more needs to be done. You cannot accurately tell the history of America or its Capitol by ignoring the religious heritage of our Founders and the generations since who relied on their faith for strength and guidance. The millions of visitors that will visit the CVC each year should get a true portrayal of the motivations and inspirations of those who have served in Congress since its establishment.

The current CVC displays are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history. Exhibits portray the federal government as the fulfillment of human ambition and the answer to all of society’s problems. This is a clear departure from acknowledging that Americans’ rights "are endowed by their Creator" and stem from "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." Instead, the CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government. Visitors will enter reading a large engraving that states, "We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution." This is an intentional misrepresentation of our nation’s real history, and an offensive refusal to honor America's God-given blessings...

The fundamental principles of the freedom we enjoy in this country stem from our Founding Fathers’ beliefs in a higher power, beliefs put forth in the Declaration of Independence and manifest throughout our Constitution. If we cease to acknowledge this fact, we may cease to enjoy some of the freedoms we take for granted. We must not censor historical references to God for the sake of political correctness. And we must truthfully represent the limited form of government the Constitution lays out so that our "government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." So help us God.

It’s comeback week for America’s political johns. First, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer got himself a column at Slate. Now, on the other side of the aisle, it seems that Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter has started to line up support for a run at a second term in 2010. (Hat-tip to Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central.) 

Vitter, you’ll recall, is the senator who admitted to having “a very serious sin in my past” when the trail of the D.C. madam scandal started to lead back to him. All indications are that he escaped the scandal relatively unscathed, with his political career intact, and that he's got a good shot at reelection.

As the heads of the Big Three auto companies face the Senate to beg for a bailout, those hoping for a little tough love for Detroit (or anything, really, other than unconditional love) should be thankful that, over in Congress' lower house, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., is no longer boss of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

As committee chair, Dingell was notorious for faithfully serving Detroit’s interests, infuriating environmentalists and eventually prompting the challenge from Henry Waxman that toppled him from the post. Last month, Tom Friedman wrote of Dingell,

The blame for this travesty not only belongs to the auto executives, but must be shared equally with the entire Michigan delegation in the House and Senate, virtually all of whom, year after year, voted however the Detroit automakers and unions instructed them to vote ... Indeed, if and when they do have to bury Detroit, I hope that all the current and past representatives and senators from Michigan have to serve as pallbearers. And no one has earned the "honor" of chief pallbearer more than the Michigan Representative John Dingell, who is more responsible for protecting Detroit to death than any single legislator.

Dingell’s ability to stick up to the Big Three, it turns out, may have been compromised in more ways than one. Dingell’s wife, Deborah, is a former General Motors lobbyist. After the two wed, she moved into a non-lobbying administrative position inside the company. On his latest financial disclosure form, Dingell listed G.M. stock worth up to $300,000, between $500,001 and $1,000,000 in stock options, a vested G.M. pension and his wife’s G.M. salary, the value of which was undeclared. On top of that, CBS News reports, the Dingells had G.M. options worth up to $5 million as recently as 2000, and in 1998, they sold options worth as much as $1 million.

Of course, considering the state he represents -- and the almost $1 million he's gotten in campaign contributions from the company -- it would’ve been in Dingell’s interest to act like the congressman from General Motors even if he didn’t have a dime invested in it. But this doesn’t look too good.

Republican National Committee chair Mike Duncan hasn't had much to gloat about over the past month or so. But to read an op-ed he wrote for the Politico on Thursday, you'd think one new election result had changed all that.

Writing about Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss' win in a run-off election held Tuesday, Duncan says:

Georgians refuted any notion that the ideology of the country has shifted to the left... Notably, Chambliss won in spite of strong support by President-elect Obama and Democrat organizations for Jim Martin. Georgian’s clearly sent a message that any rhetoric about a liberal mandate is nothing but hot air...

In the first contest since the presidential election and what many believe is the first race of the 2010 cycle, Republicans won because we coupled a strong, conservative candidate in Saxby Chambliss with a solid ground game that reached out to millions of Georgians and turned out the vote. Chambliss’ reelection sends a message to all those who believe the Republican Party and its core principles are anything less than strong and competitive.

As I wrote in a post on Wednesday, this sort of talk really reads way too much into Chambliss' victory. Georgia's a red state; that Chambliss even had to face a run-off was really a testament to the size of Barack Obama's coattails on Nov. 4th. It's no surprise that, without Obama at the top of the ticket, election results in the state would revert back to the status quo. And yes, despite the Senator's margin of victory -- about 15 points -- which surprised some people, that really is the status quo there. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry in Georgia 58-41. The same year, Republican Johnny Isakson won his Senate race 58-40.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews is reportedly getting even closer to making a run for Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter's seat, Politico reported Thursday. Matthews has reportedly discussed the possibility of a campaign with family members, who approved of the idea, and has picked out a house in Pennsylvania, which he needs to do in order to establish residency. He's also been asking advisors about whether he should stay at MSNBC as he gears up to run -- and at least one has told him it's time to quit.

Politico quotes one unnamed "Democratic operative" as saying, "We talked about the value of doing this now and six months from now. I advocated that he do this as soon as possible. It’s the MSNBC stuff that’s going to jam him up. I said, 'if you want to be a U.S. senator, step up and get into the race.'” Some people within MSNBC are reportedly hoping Matthews takes that advice, because of the appearance of bias caused by the rumors.

That said, though, there's also some speculation that Matthews is making these public gestures towards a campaign as a negotiation ploy. His contract expires in June, and next time around he might not get as much as the roughly $5 million he's making now, which is still less than what colleague -- and, it's rumored, rival -- Keith Olbermann is paid.

With time running out before she would, if confirmed, take office as secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is putting new effort into the fundraising that's necessary for her to pay off her presidential campaign's debt.

Hillary Clinton for President Debt Relief sent out an e-mail Thursday morning inviting supporters to "Hillary Live! A Conversation with Senator Hillary Clinton," which will take place in New York City on Monday, Dec. 15. The event will feature a special guest -- Bill Clinton, natch -- and will be hosted by "Ugly Betty's" America Ferrara. (Jerry Lewis, apparently, was unavailable.) They're asking between $50 and $1,000 for tickets.

As of the end of October, the campaign still owed almost $7.5 million. The campaign can still raise money if and when Clinton takes office as secretary of State, but by law she could no longer be directly involved, and the lack of the marquee name would likely hamper fundraising efforts.

On Thursday, the Republican National Committee will file a disclosure with the Federal Election Commission that shows even more money spent on clothing for Sarah Palin during the course of the presidential campaign.

The initial revelation of the $150,000 spent on clothes for Palin and her family caused no small amount of controversy. This new disclosure is smaller, but still potentially embarrassing, especially since Palin has attempted to distance herself from the expenditures.

The National Journal's Edward T. Pound quotes an unnamed RNC official as saying the spending that will be disclosed is "less than $30,000."

WASHINGTON -- The political world is looking for some lasting significance out of Georgia's Senate runoff, which Saxby Chambliss won easily Tuesday night. And there is some, in fact: The result means, definitively, that Al Franken is now irrelevant -- Democrats can't get to 60 seats even if he wins the recount under way in Minnesota and takes Norm Coleman's place in the Senate.

Beyond reducing the importance of the Minnesota recount (at least for anyone who's not a resident of the state, a Coleman staffer or, like Franken, a comedian hoping to branch out into other lines of work), though, there probably won't be much in the way of lasting implications for the 111th Congress out of the Georgia runoff. The Democratic dream of 60 seats -- and therefore, an end to Republican filibusters -- may be dashed, but it was probably an illusion from the outset.

That's because over the last two years, Democrats have knocked out nearly every Republican who was willing to break with the GOP on anything approaching a consistent basis -- and replaced them with moderate Democrats who will probably feel heavy political pressure to peel off from the majority. The big margin that Democrats will have next year, ironically, probably made it harder for Majority Leader Harry Reid to hold the caucus together on tough votes. People like Nebraska's Ben Nelson and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor already split with Democrats frequently; chances are, incoming freshmen like North Carolina's Kay Hagan and Alaska's Mark Begich will start doing the same thing. Not to mention Joe Lieberman, saved by Barack Obama's fiat from being punished for his own frequent meanders into the Republican column on votes.

But even though Republican moderates are a vanishing breed, party discipline may be tough to enforce on both sides. At least three Republicans still should be willing to join Democrats on some issues -- Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter (who may be worrying about a unique challenge in two years).

"I always thought that 60 was kind of a phony number," said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks the Senate for the Cook Political Report. "Its real power was psychological -- not that [Democrats] needed any more of a self-esteem boost, but they would have gotten one. It probably would have been more demoralizing for Republicans [to be at 40] than having just 41 or 42 seats."

Democrats claim they aren't too worried about the exact number they'll have, though, obviously, they say more is better. "Fifty-eight is the largest majority that we've had in decades," one leadership aide said. "We feel confident that we'll be able to enact a very robust agenda." Even without getting 60 votes, they expanded their numbers by enough to win larger majorities on every committee (and the extra staff and money that goes along with them), though negotiations about the exact makeup of the panels aren't finished yet.

Republicans have been making conciliatory-sounding noises since Obama's win last month, but it's not clear how long that friendly spirit will last. GOP leader Mitch McConnell sent Reid a letter a couple weeks ago, signed by every Republican senator, that indicated he'd be willing to go along with Democrats -- to a point. "When senators are permitted to fully debate and amend, we can work together to pass bipartisan legislation," he wrote. "Republicans will insist on our basic right to participate in the legislative process. The Republican Conference intends to protect the Senate's history of full and open consideration of major legislation, which includes a fair amendment process and the opportunity for debate." If you think there's a veiled threat in there, you're probably right. But the scale of Obama's win and the crisis the economy faces may have bought him some room to maneuver on policy early next year. (Transition aides, though, declined to comment about the Senate margin and what that might mean for Obama's legislative agenda.)

Besides, Democrats think Republicans only hurt themselves when they block legislation. "For two years, they tried the strategy of obstruction," said the leadership aide, who wanted to remain anonymous to discuss the partisan rivalry in the Senate. "Obstructing everything big and small -- it obviously didn't work out for them."