Washington Post style writer Robin Givhan on Sunday gave her take on Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's appearance: "Exceptionally ordinary. Nothing about it connotes authority. No detail announces that she is in charge. And that's what makes it so powerful." According to Givhan, others dress with a motive in mind of what they want to convey, from Michelle Obama's "sophistication" to Cindy McCain's "heiress wardrobe" to the assertive Hillary pantsuit. But is it a reluctance to fit into a mold through dress, we wonder, or a desire to not intimidate constituents through dress? She calls Palin's look of three-inch heels and fitted jackets "pretty" more than "powerful". We'd like to hope with female political candidates in 2008 that, of the two, the latter wins the race. Although what's wrong with both?
Comments
Actually the clothes that Palin and Clinton wear are remarkably similar, the difference is their jewellery. Clinton wears big necklaces, Palin doesn't and visually you frequently see politicians from the chest up. The neckline makes a huge difference and Clinton looks more authoritative because of her accessories.
Quote of the Day
Posted by: Nina at September 30, 2008 5:42 PM