God, no. If any of the male candidates don apparel that seems to have been thrown together out of carpet remnants, you can be sure I'll comment on their sartorial excesses, too.
Men have less range--less scope to look good, and therefore, less scope to look bad. This is in some sense unfairly restrictive, suppressing their right to self-expression, but it also means that they never venture into the carpet zone. Women can achieve the same effect by dressing very, very conservatively. When they don't, I think their wardrobe choices, like their haircuts and their verbal tics and every other superficially amusing characteristic, are fair game.
Hailing from the greater Youngstown region, I'm reminded of our incarcerated former Congressman Jim Trafficant, who was constantly berated for his consignment shop leisure suits as well as his terrible haircut. The latter was even funnier for 2 reasons: his wife is a stylist at a salon, and once he was incarcerated, we found out it was a hairpiece.
It's possible that a grooming faux pas contributed to Richard Nixon's defeat by JFK in the 1960 election. The campaign featured the first-ever televised debate, and under the bright TV lights Nixon's heavy beard growth (he had last shaved many hours earlier) made him look somewhat disreputable. Of course all the dead people who voted for JFK in Chicago no doubt would have given him a victory no matter what.
If you said Obama's suit was so loose he looked like a panhandler, it would carry a tinge of racism because he's the only black guy in the race; if you said the same thing about one of two black candidates for the presidency of Kenya, it probably wouldn't be. You've got one woman out there running, and it's the first time a woman has ever had a serious shot. Calling attention to her clothes may not be overtly sexist, but it is uncouth.
Not necessarily. I still remember when the Economist spent an inordinate part of its first profile of Angela Merkel commenting on how dowdy and unfashionable her dress and (lack of) makeup were. Her choices may have been less than fashionable, but they were hardly a matter of daring or a deliberate attempt at self-expression. Given that I was never given any idea what they thought of Helmut Kohl's wardrobe, I was pretty disgusted.
There's clearly a point at which style choices become worthy of comment. (If one of the candidates decided to campaign in a chicken suit, or dressed as Uncle Sam, that would be news.) On the other hand, I do think that shining the spotlight on women candidates in particular this way does place an unfair and unnecessary handicap on them. I say this as someone who can't imagine actually voting for Clinton-- but not because it seems relevant whether she wears white shoes after Labor Day or mismatches colors. (Not, I hasten to add, that I've heard that she does.)
Candidates and officeholders already are arguably expected to spend too much time on their physical appearance in the TV age (remember the flap over Bill Clinton reportedly delaying flights by having his hair cut on the LAX tarmac? Edwards' $400 haircut?)-- and a woman is already likely to be pressed into doing more in that direction. There's probably no way to eliminate that handicap, but (barring an actual preference for electing men over women) it seems as if it would be best to minimize it as much as practical.
It's okay for you to comment on it. Hillary was encouraged to drop the persona and act like a real woman. Why not apply the same rule to bloggers? If you think it's worth commenting on, then out with it. Enough with people pretending to be something they're not just so they avoid offending someone.
Yes! I responded correctly in the previous thread without even having read your response.
Again, it's not sexist, just shallow and irrelevant.
Next, please, tell me what kind of car they drive so I can make stereotypes about whether they're going through a mid-life crisis or not!
WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT SHE WEARS?
If any of the male candidates don apparel that seems to have been thrown together out of carpet remnants, you can be sure I'll comment on their sartorial excesses, too.
So how does Giuliani measure up?
I'm with Nutella. Just like Edwards' troubling haircuts and Gore's suit buttons. I just don't understand this need to comment on candidates' appearances. WTF does it have to do with anything? Yet the Washington Post devoted part of its series of articles on the candidates to this very topic. This isn't Project Runway!
"Hailing from the greater Youngstown region, I'm reminded of our incarcerated former Congressman Jim Trafficant"
Mike - haha, being from the Akron area, I remember those suits and that hair all too well. I enjoyed the reference.
"Men have less range--less scope to look good, and therefore, less scope to look bad. This is in some sense unfairly restrictive, suppressing their right to self-expression"
Yeah, it's somewhat a shallow issue, but now that we're talking about it, I totally disagree that men have less range and less scope. The generic blue suit or grey suit has always been the staple of the sartorially uncreative president/candidate. Unfortunately, this is the go-to resort due to it's neutrality and safety. After all, one mustn't appear a dandy or the like. This is one thing I always liked about Reagan. While I wouldn't characterize his wardrobe as chic per se, he was never afraid to wear a khaki suit or a Glen Plaid sports coat in lieu of the all too familiar civil servant navy blue two-button. He rarely looked like a president or a politician, and more often just looked like a human being - someone who hadn't changed his wardrobe just because he was the leader of the free world. I know Peggy Noonan would agree.
It's possible that a grooming faux pas contributed to Richard Nixon's defeat by JFK in the 1960 election. The campaign featured the first-ever televised debate, and under the bright TV lights Nixon's heavy beard growth (he had last shaved many hours earlier) made him look somewhat disreputable.
It is true that Nixon had a slight shadow, but there were 4 debates in that election (only one of which featured the shadow), the polls were even before the debates, and they were even after the debates. The beard didn't cost Nixon anywhing.
Beam me up!
I would say the televised flop sweat and nervous demeanor cost Nixon more than the beard.
My original intent in my first post was to draw attention to two things: firstly, it doesn't matter what Hillary looks like. People, Hillary could be our next president.
Secondly, Megan, that was a low blow. If you remember, you compared her to a piece of furniture. Plastic on the couch notwithstanding, we're not going to be able to beat Hillary without pointing out the ridiculous plans she has for the country.
Seems to me Hillary needs to fire Bill and get him off the campain .Hes hurting her .seems as though he wants her to lose.