A male politician could wear the same grey suit every day from New Hampshire to Election Day and nobody would notice or care. Maybe alternate between 2 neckties.
If a female politician did that, she’d be slammed. “What, you only got 1 suit?”
If she wore something different and stylish every day: “Damn, how much do you spend on clothes?”
If she wore something different but ugly: “C’mon, pay somebody to pick out your clothes!”
She had every right to look smug in this debate.
Seriously, how could she not? It’s like accusing the Harlem Globetrotters of showboating.
Having seen recent pictures of Ms Marchado “Universe”, I would like reassure her that not all men would find her physical configuration disqualifying. I have no doubt, for instance, that many of us men here on the Boards will be willing to overlook such imperfections. Well, one for sure, and if the rest of you don’t see it that way, so much the better.
Ah, the golden romantic moments before the restraining order arrives!
While I agree that female politicians are more likely to get clothing criticism, you are taking a myoptic view. A male politician isn’t allowed to wear the exact same thing everyday - he’s required to. You think if a male politician shows up in a light brown or blue suit people aren’t going to raise eyebrows? Men have an established business uniform, women have not quite settled on one.
I Know, Right?
Look, I can’t speak for Board Posters, but IRL by me… the only people in this campaign who Lie More Than Trump are his supporters…
Sure, but it’s way easier for a male politician to satisfy the double standard than it is for a woman. So men can’t wear a leisure suit? Big fat hairy deal. So they pick a suit at the start of the campaign and forget about it. The end.
A woman, on the other hand, is under constant scrutiny over their appearance. They have to put active effort into planning their look. And they certainly don’t have the flexibility to do anything interesting or attempt to make a statement. The added variety is a liability, not an asset.
A man has one look that’s guaranteed to be safe, and they have to stick with it. It’s like walking a marked path through a minefield. A woman constantly has to select appropriate looks, and a mistake could be costly. It’s more like walking through an unmarked mine field.
Here’s the tan suit controversy Tzigone remembered:
[Esquire: One Year Ago Today, Obama Wore the Worst Suit in Presidential History
“You are not the president of Sears,” revisited.](http://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a31265/obama-tan-suit/)
The summary :
"Stick with navy! You look good in navy!
Also, lose the jeans."
I am not denying that women face more decisions wrt wardrobe, I was just taking issue with “a man could wear the same suit everyday” when the reality is he HAS to wear the same thing everyday.
Just saw Trump talking about last night’s debate. He said virtually every poll has him as the clear winner.
Now, I hope he really believes that and changes nothing.
I read CNN’s fact check and I thought it was WAY too kind to Clinton on that one. When I was listening to the debate I was like, “Which analysts?” Turns out she was referring to one, rather than “people” as she claimed, and even that one she misled on.
If one cares about the facts, one should know to discount any macroeconomic analysis about job creation from tax and spending plans. Might as well ask Nate Silver to give you the November vote totals for the 2020 election right now.
CNN also dinged Trump on his accusation that Clinton would approve TPP when she took office. How the hell can you fact check a prediction? Is there anyone who actually thinks she’s against TPP and won’t approve it once she’s in office after purely cosmetic changes have been made?
I actually thought it was good to just let them go. Clinton stood up for herself just fine and wisely knew that letting Trump talk was actually just fine even if it meant he got more time. Letting him talk to millions of viewers is the best way to beat him.
I agree. That’s also why her “smug”* smiling look was not, imho, remotely damaging. Everyone watching knew he was riding over her time and she was just waiting for big blowhard to run out of air.
*personally I’d characterize it as bemused patience.
It probably wasn’t damaging in this context, and the media isn’t really making a thing of it like they did Al Gore’s behavior at the first debate in 2000.
One of Clinton’s strengths is that she doesn’t feel the need to hear herself talk. Her ego can let Trump speak for the entire 90 minutes I’d imagine.
“The blacks?” I bet he also says, “the ladies.”
Man on the street interview with my daughter Sophia reveals that since last night, girls are for Hillary, boys are for Trump, but not all boys.
So sayeth the future professionals and pundits as represented by the Freshman class of Antonian College Preparatory School.
For Sophia, last night may have been a transformative experience. A sharp kid who likes to argue, she was transfixed by Hillary, appalled by Donald, and said at the end “I can’t wait to get into politics.” This morning she was dusting it up with the Trumpets (all boys) at school.
I recently saw a Facebook post saying that this was the first time EVAH that a Presidential candidate bragged about being proven to be a liar!
CNN just reported Giuliani is recommending Trump skip the remaining two debates. No word on if the Trump camp is actually considering this.
That would be because the moderators are so meeeeaaannnn to Trump. I thought he was going to start crying at the end of this debate because Hillary was so, so mean to him. It was pathetic.
He should. This is obviously not going to work for him. As a matter of fact, I’d advise Trump to just leave the campaign trail entirely. Pre-FDR, candidates actually didn’t campaign much, it was almost all surrogates who did it for them. Trump is someone who seems to benefit from not being in the headlines at this point, and his surrogates can sell him better than he can.