Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Hillary Is Subjected to Yet Another Demeaning Article About Her Wardrobe

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 4:38 PM on December 9, 2007.


Steve Benen: Fashion reporters probably should shy away from doing political analysis.
pantsuit
pantsuit

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

In July, in one of the lower points for presidential campaign coverage, the Washington Post's fashion writer, Robin Givhan, wrote an odd, 746-word piece about an outfit Hillary Clinton wore on the Senate floor showing a very modest amount of cleavage. "With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private," Givhan wrote. "You were intruding -- being a voyeur.... Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way."

It was an unusually silly article about a presidential candidate in one of the nation's most important daily newspapers, and it deserved all the ridicule it received.

Today, as Michael Froomkin noted, Givhan was at it again, with a piece titled, "Wearing the Pants: Envisioning a Female Commander-in-Chief." It is -- you guessed it -- an entire piece the A section devoted to the senator's pantsuits.

The mind, so easily distracted by things mauve and lemon yellow, strays from more pressing concerns to ponder the sartorial: How many pantsuits does Hillary Clinton have in her closet? And does she ever wear them in the same combination more than once?

The pantsuit is Clinton's uniform. Hers is a mix-and-match world, a grown-up land of Garanimals: black pants with gray jacket, tan jacket with black pants, tan jacket with tan pants. There are a host of reasons to explain Clinton's attachment to pantsuits. They are comfortable. They can be flattering, although not when the jacket hem aligns with the widest part of the hips (hypothetically speaking, of course). Does she even have hips?

And because Clinton seems to prefer crossing her legs at the ankle -- in the way girls were taught when girls were still sent to finishing school -- there is less likelihood of any embarrassing straight-to-YouTube video.

Women have come a long way from the time when wearing a pair of pants was considered "borrowing from the boys." So it would be highly regressive to suggest that the candidate is using trousers to heighten the perception that she can be as tough as a man. And yet ...

Now, I try not to be a purist when it comes to articles about political trivia. Presidential campaigns are bound to include some coverage of the candidate's personalities, families, interests, etc. Voters care about some of these details when evaluating presidential hopefuls, so it's probably not realistic to expect major media outlets to be all-policy, all-the-time.

Having said that, this piece about Clinton's pantsuits is more than just silly; it's demeaning.

If a fashion reporter wants to do a piece about candidates' choice in clothes, I suppose that makes sense. But fashion reporters probably should shy away from doing political analysis -- and worse yet, psychoanalysis -- of candidates for national office based on preferences for colors and fabric.

What would possess a woman to wear a jacket the color of a geranium in full bloom and then imply she doesn't want anyone to notice or comment on her clothes? Yes, a woman can still be taken seriously, viewed as tough and celebrated for her ideas even if she is wearing a sunshine yellow suit. But someone, somewhere, is also going to notice that she is dressed like a solar flare. Clinton is too smart not to know that.

Those are the color choices of someone who not only wants to stand out, but is happy to do so in a palette that is quintessentially feminine.... Clinton-the-human-color-wheel is wooing Ohio and Florida.

She also has made a clear visual distinction between herself as first lady and as presidential candidate. As first lady, she played to tradition, dutifully wearing skirts of an unflattering length and jackets shaped like a rectangle. But now it is not so far-fetched to believe that her wardrobe is a way of reminding voters that a woman can have as much peacock bravado as the boys.

Oh my.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, election08

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is a fashion piece. Not a political diatribe. Obviously "fashion" articles
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 9, 2007 6:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are meaningless drivel but the article shows more about the decadent and frivolous nature of American society than a pointed attack on Hillary. There are countless magazines and 'news' articles related to fashion. Heck, the Smithsonian, and other museums, have displays of fashions, including the "First Lady" dress collections! Absurd, yes, but not necessarily slander on Clinton. Sure she is pear-shaped but how many other Senators are likewise apportioned?!? There are many reason to vote against Hillary (banking connections, scandals, Bush-Clinton Syndicate, Chinese money, Big Corporate supporters, etc.) but her choice of "pants suits" is not one of them. Sure they are awful and women should wear skirts but this it the modern age and we cannot base a vote on her bi-polar obessions with masculinity resulting in pant-suits and plunging necklines

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's just about trivializing Democrats
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 10, 2007 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Write a good piece about how "manly" HC is or any emasculating one about any Dem male and you are gonna get published, get attention, and be in line for that promotion.

It's called propaganda - and that's what we get these days in lieu of political coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hate comments about politicians' fashionability
Posted by: YogiBear on Dec 10, 2007 1:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And as sexist as this is gonna sound, I've noticed that about 4 to 1 of those commentaries are written by women. Women truly are the harshest judges of women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Makes you think.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 10, 2007 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the business-casual revolution, I always thought it was unfair that women could wear whatever they wanted in the workplace.

But I suppose there's a certain freedom in the suit and tie. They can't judge us on what we wear, because we're all wearing the same boring thing. Maybe women should come up with a boring outfit for all of their politicians to wear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Makes you think. Posted by: luzmejor
Who cares?
Posted by: Basenjis on Dec 11, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because women are held to more critical standards as to dress and appearance than men, Hillary has taken pains to present herself in the best light. She has obvious figure problems of which I'm sure she's aware and doesn't need to be reminded of this by other women. I happen to like her "sunny yellow pantsuit" and I am no Hillary fan.

This article illustrates why women and women writers are not taken as seriously as they would like. Attention to her appearance is a distraction from who she is as a person. I, personally, am a lot more concerned about what Hillary might do in the oval office than how she might look.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More political bullshit
Posted by: masterjc on Dec 11, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously i don't give a fuck about what she wears

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]