I'm sure the brocade suit looked charming in the store. But the last thing you want to do, when you are trying to humanize your candidate, is to dress them up like your grandmother's furniture.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Ouch. You just gave extra ammunition to those who believe that women are much more brutal in their critique toward other women.
Hillary's ideas are bad enough on their own but is it really necessary to criticize her on her wardrobe? You're supposed to be above that. When was the last time you heard someone publicly comment that the lapels on Bill's suits make him look like a waiter at a three-star restaurant?
They do, by the way. His lapels, that is.
No, you see, but just like how it's okie for women to cry and not men, it's okie to insult their clothing even though it doesn't matter for men.
Oh wait, but Hillary was the exception to the okie to cry rule so I'm confused, does this mean now Hillary is a man and is an exception still, or is Hillary no longer an exception?
Or is it just that Megan doesn't really think too hard before she hits the post button?
I actually thought that was an exceptionally nice and classy suit. If Hillary holds to societial expectations for women however, it probably will be the last time we see it. To bad, really.
My grandma's couch was black leather. Might not work so hot for a political candidate, but you'd look badass if you were a Terminator.
You've let yourself down with this. Edwards can, at least, say the interviewer was hassling for the quote. This is deeply disappointing from you.
Having just accomplished a political miracle--down by ten points with less than twenty-four hours to go and then wins!--the candidate visits her wardrobe for that perfect sartorial ensemble that will communicate her message to the entire planet: Brocade? Uh-oh. We are what we wear, and we are what we drive. No wonder she lost the youth vote to Obama, and no wonder she won the elderly vote.
But then, it's the elderly who decide elections, not youth, so just perhaps the lady knows exactly the message she wants to send to the precise electorate she wants to capture.
All in all--the crying included--it is a remarkable win.
Women have more wardrobe scope, which means more scope to go wrong. It's annoying, but there you are.
I'm not interested in her wardrobe, but I am interested in her corruption and her disdain for liberty. The Clintons were very nearly dealt knockout blow last night. It's sad that they've come back.
What does this tell us? There are an awful lot of stupid women in New Hampshire who were swayed by Hillary's (possibly fake) emotional display.
It's not surprising that Hillary's support is mostly with the uneducated.
Tony -- remember the whole Gore wardrobe flap? The Kerry hunting clothes fiasco? The wetsuit debacle? The biking shorts screwup? The bunnysuit blunder? The Clinton jogging shorts flabitude? The Dukakis helmet farce? Carter's stupid sweater tricks? etc. etc. etc.
The only reason men don't get much criticism on their clothes is that there is a standard uniform with minimal variation that is "safe" for men. Try something different, get hammered. Wear a dark suit and a power tie (the last couple of years it's been powder blue, I think) and you're safe.
The question is why I only remember Democratic wardrobe malfunctions. This could be 1) I disliked all of the above politicians and so look out for negative reporting about them. 2) The media gives Republicans a wardrobe pass. 3) Republicans don't try stupid wardrobe tricks. 4) any other ideas?
BladeDoc-
How about Bush's Mission Accomplished jumpsuit?
Max & Blade - I can think of a number of deserved and undeserved wardrobe attacks on Repubs - Flightsuit (stupidly overoptimistic - under promise and over deliver, not huge epic media piece that thn look sincredibly foolish when the insurgency gets it together - but not a bad choice), Rudy's holiday sweater, any candidate in a sweater...
Repubs are going to be more comfortable in suits and their target audience is going to want them in suits. Since every second of a campaign is "big meeting with clients" day, it's fairly easy for a Repub guy to pick the right thing. Dem guy is more likely to have an offbeat background (activist lawyer, professor, etc), has a decent chance of wanting, and wanting to be seen, to be fighting "the man" including standard attire, and is going after a target market that won't be as responsive to the power suit look. Thus you end up with Earth-tone Al.
Women have more options, and get static for being boring if they go for corporate colors like the men, but they use the freedom at their peril. You see Pelosi, Liddy Dole, et al in jewel toned suits, etc. Everyone looks better in a blue or black suit, and women can go black without looking funereal. A far better option, especially for those female politicians that don't need to wear a pantsuit all the time.
There are an awful lot of stupid women in New Hampshire who were swayed by Hillary's (possibly fake) emotional display.
That might be part of it, but more likely it's the older women who just want to see a woman president before they die. Among younger women that doesn't matter so much, but they don't vote in the same numbers.
Let me see if I understand the rules correctly:
1. If a man criticizes Hillary's clothing, it is sexist.
2. If a woman criticizes Hillary's clothing, it is evidence of woman-on-woman verbal violence.
Where do I get a criticism-indemnity policy like this? Especially when running for the highest and most visible public office in the United States?