Sep 20
Unfair Comparisons
Does anyone really care what John McCain wears? Or Joe Biden? Or Barack Obama?
(In answer to the latter, the answer is generally no, unless the question of an American flag lapel pin is raised.)
Hillary Clinton says that’s an example of the sexist media:
“I think you have to ask yourself and it’s a little exercise I’d like everybody in the press, and really all of us, to go through: Would the same thing be said about a man in a similar position and the answer 99 times out of 100 is no. I think it’s been a long time since anybody covered what Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain wear or their hairstyle or any other personal characteristic like that.”
So I have a little exercise for Hillary. For a full year, she should do the following:
- Stop getting her hair done. Settle on a particular, simple hair style that never changes. Nothing too poofy, nothing with any kind of dramatic sweep. The way Bill wears his hair. Just don’t follow John Edwards’ lead with the $300 haircut. Any man who spends more than $40 for a haircut — I spend $15 on mine — is going to get talked about in the press, too. (And for that matter, any candidate for president who seems to delight in calling his opponent “elitist” but wears $520 shoes is going to find his fashion choices talked about, too.)
- Stop wearing jewelry. A wedding ring is fine. Nothing else.
- Stop with the makeup. A little foundation is acceptable, because in public appearances, any politician is likely to slap on a little powder if he or she knows cameras are going to be around.
- Stop with the colored pantsuits. Navy blue, black and grey are fine. Orange, red, jade and baby blue must go right out of the closet at once. When did you see Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden or any other male candidate wear an orange suit?
In other words, if you want to be treated like a man, make yourself look like a man in every respect possible. Is that unfair? Before you answer, look at Hillary’s own words:
“I think you have to ask yourself and it’s a little exercise I’d like everybody in the press, and really all of us, to go through…”
All of us? Why, Hillary? Is it possible — just possible — that it’s not so much just the press that’s being sexist, but our society as a whole? In many, many ways, the press is a mirror on society: the press doesn’t create discrimination, but it does very often reflect what’s already there.
If women in politics really want to be treated like men, by virtue of not having their hair and wardrobe talked about, then why would they dress in a way that’s different from men? You don’t blend in by trying to stand out.
Hillary wants to project her own personal style, yet have no one notice it. She doesn’t want to look like “one of the guys,” yet resents it when it’s pointed out that she’s not one of them.
Sounds like a double standard to me.
Before the women in my audience start jumping on me about this, let me be clear: as a voter, I don’t care what Hillary wears. And I really think that most people don’t care, either. But when a candidate comes out wearing an outfit the color of a pumpkin, for example, we’ll all notice it. Most of us will notice it for a few seconds and move on.
To be fair, I don’t notice a lot of coverage about Hillary’s outfits. Letterman is always good for a laugh on the pantsuits, but no one is considering David Letterman part of the news media, are they?
But if you’re the candidate and you don’t want any notice made of it, wear something else.
It’s only human to notice what’s the same and what’s different about us. It’s unfortunate, because so many of us have hangups about individual differences that have no bearing on the person at all.
But you can’t make yourself stand out then complain when someone notices what’s different about you. If your qualifications and your beliefs are the most important thing about you, then make that the first thing people notice about you: not how well you’ve accessorized.








September 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I normally don’t pick up on things like clothing and jewelry. It’s just not something that catches my eye. Unless, perhaps, it’s really odd looking, like Hillary’s outfit on the night of the New Hampshire primary. That was a big night for her, because everyone was predicting she’d lose, and that would be Barack’s “knock out punch.” I remember watching her victory speech and being distracted by her dress or whatever that is. Doesn’t the material look like a bathroom mat or something?
(I hope that picture works. The link looks a little odd to me. Maybe you can see what I mean, Patrick.)
September 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Wow, did I ever mess that up! Sorry! I’ll hang my head in shame and leave now.
September 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
No problem, Jeff. Some extra code popped in there…could have been a Wordpress glitch. But it’s working now. And yeah, if Obama or McCain wore something like that, the media would be talking about their choice of fashion, too.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:46 am
You don’t actually believe that the other candidates aren’t wearing makeup at public appearances, or spending large sums of money on haircuts, do you? Look at McCain. Without a professional make-up artist, people would think he was already dead. And Obama and Biden are no different (aside from being obviously alive, that is). They have stylists on staff who are probably pulling down better than 75 grand a year. I don’t know how much per haircut that works out to, but I’m betting it’s more than $15.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:42 am
I’m quite certain that all of the candidates are wearing makeup and have their own makeup/wardrobe consultants. But look at your own point, Paul: let’s assume that all of them DO have a stylist on their payroll: why would Edwards still have felt the need for a haircut that expensive? The media certainly didn’t ignore that because he was a man.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Paul says: “They have stylists on staff who are probably pulling down better than 75 grand a year.”
Really? I’ve never heard that. Are you saying that they pay stylists who are, in other capacities, earning 75k/year, or that the stylists are making that from the campaign alone?
I’d be very surprised to learn that it was the latter.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Come on, Jeff. We’re talking about a government who happily spends thousands of dollars on a toilet, or hundreds of dollars on a hammer. Anyone who works for the government in any capacity is over-paid. And campaigns are worse, because there is so much seen as being at stake.
September 21st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Paul,
Are you trying to equate government spending practices to that of campaigns? I assume you are implying wasteful spending (toilets and hammers), but I don’t see the relevance. Campaigns are not government operations, they run on much tighter budgets, and I have never heard of a campaign having stylists on staff making the kind of money you mentioned earlier.
I was genuinely interested in some facts about this, because in my experience, the reality is far from what you suggest.
Do you happen to have a single name of one of these full-time, highly-compensated staff stylists? Just a name will do. I’ll Google the rest myself. Thanks.