When Al Gore and George Bush ran for President, media commentators compared and commented on their clothing choices...how more relaxed they were wearing polo shirts and casual pants instead of the traditional dress shirt and tie. They even discussed the fact that Gore sometimes deviated from wearing red, white, or blue polo shirts.
Fast-forward four years: Kerry vs. Bush. Media commentators compared not only the dress styles of Kerry & Bush (Kerry wore casual dress shirts with the sleeves rolled up), but also of their wives and daughters (the daughters all posed in designer magazines).
So now we come to 2008, where Hilary Rodham Clinton has finally wrapped up her campaign, and one of the things her supporters keep complaining about is the sexist media and how they wanted to focus on Hil's clothes. ?!? Um, where were these people for the last 8+years?
I did find it interesting that Hilary was always dressed to the hilt while campaigning...especially considering the fact that her 8 years as First Lady the administration was often called "Kids in cut-offs" for their lack of decorum and classy dress at the White House. So I find it interesting, if not bizarre, the the media DIDN'T comment on her dress more.
When a person such as I, who is not overly observant about clothes and is a function over form kind of gal, notices the absurdity of Hil campaigning at the gas pumps about outrageous prices wearing a really nice pantsuit that probably cost more than the priciest section of Belk's, accompanied with this HUGE pearl necklace (I think all the ladies in our church could combine our necklaces just to equal the largest bead on that thing), does the irony of the situation not grasp anyone?
I'm just failing to see how the media, who is appearance oriented, is being sexist by commenting on things that people such as I, who could care less about appearances, notice?
Fast-forward four years: Kerry vs. Bush. Media commentators compared not only the dress styles of Kerry & Bush (Kerry wore casual dress shirts with the sleeves rolled up), but also of their wives and daughters (the daughters all posed in designer magazines).
So now we come to 2008, where Hilary Rodham Clinton has finally wrapped up her campaign, and one of the things her supporters keep complaining about is the sexist media and how they wanted to focus on Hil's clothes. ?!? Um, where were these people for the last 8+years?
I did find it interesting that Hilary was always dressed to the hilt while campaigning...especially considering the fact that her 8 years as First Lady the administration was often called "Kids in cut-offs" for their lack of decorum and classy dress at the White House. So I find it interesting, if not bizarre, the the media DIDN'T comment on her dress more.
When a person such as I, who is not overly observant about clothes and is a function over form kind of gal, notices the absurdity of Hil campaigning at the gas pumps about outrageous prices wearing a really nice pantsuit that probably cost more than the priciest section of Belk's, accompanied with this HUGE pearl necklace (I think all the ladies in our church could combine our necklaces just to equal the largest bead on that thing), does the irony of the situation not grasp anyone?
I'm just failing to see how the media, who is appearance oriented, is being sexist by commenting on things that people such as I, who could care less about appearances, notice?
Comments
Now please join me in rooting for Hillary in 2012!!! Who's with me?
Don't imagine that was cheap. I don't think I'll join your little fan club. I'll vote for Obama before I vote for Hil.(Yes, that noise you're hearing is Bobby gasping in horror.)