Through my avid blog reading just this morning I was taken to a website I have never seen before, devoted entirely to the style of Senator Hillary Clinton. Since it's usually her aide that gets the fashion spreads (twice in recent issues of Vogue) I find this fascinating. Lately there have been some interesting discussions about how a woman can be fashionable and electable (is that a word) at once. It's like a tightrope act that women in the public eye have to perform very carefully every time they leave the house. I mean just the fact that the price of a haircut makes the front page makes this Smithie cringe, maybe it shouldn't, but it seems clear to me that a woman in the public eye should, and must look as good as she can which often means expensive suits and haircuts. I can't remember anyone criticizing the cost of a male politicians clothes -haircut, yes (we all remember Edwards' $400 cut) but not their suits.
anyway, just a quick note. Thoughts?
Addendum: Insta-pundit mentioned Obama's suit!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Totally agree. AND with the excess emphasis placed on a women candidate's appearance, it's a little tricky to then criticize her for spending money to do it right, isn't it(and this from a non-Hillary fan)?
I think you're right...the women in politics are dissected for what they wear (Hilary's outfits, Condoleeza's stiletto boots), whereas the men are looked at for their "sexiness" (although I remember something about whether or not Clinton wore boxers/briefs...but I don't count that as fashion!).
I read an interesting article in the Huffington Post about these sort of things if you're interested:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/hey-good-lookin-the-ri_b_76651.html
~Feefs
Post a Comment