Candidates' colors part II

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day debate in South Carolina had the Democratic presidential candidates dressing close to type. In anticipation of the more clearly-drawn battle lines of this debate, the campaigns dressed their candidates in ways that sought to visually pinpoint their unique strengths.

First, the ties. Edwards went with a bright-blue tie that looked very similar to the one he wore at the New Hampshire debate. Could it even have been the same tie? Actors going for call-backs are often advised to go ahead and wear the same outfit they wore to the initial audition, the reasoning being that this will help the casting director remember his/her first (good) impression of them. Maybe Edwards wore a similar tie to help voters remember how he looked back when he was doing relatively well in the polls.

Obama's tie was possibly another showbiz trick -- one cleverly adapted from some classic on-air no-nos. On television, certain colors and patterns don't come across well: specifically, bright red tends to "bleed," or look fuzzy, and small, high-contrast patterns, like stripes, can appear to wiggle. Nevertheless, Obama wore a red-and-white thinly-striped tie. He clearly has some good wardrobe people; they finally got him a jacket that fits, for one thing (in the previous two debates he had some collar-gap issues). They must be aware of the problems with red and stripes on T.V. I think they deliberately put him in that tie, knowing how it would look: on my screen, it glowed and scintillated, drawing attention straight to him in the wide shots of the three candidates. It was almost as though you could see straight through his chest to his burning, passionate Democrat heart. Brilliant.

Clinton's "tie" in this debate was a bright-orange scarf. Yet another bold color choice! Orange's greatest strength as a color is its power to conjure up a feeling of exuberant happiness (think of the ads and packaging for Clinique Happy). Particularly during this week of bad economic news, Clinton's people wanted to give her an aura of cheerfulness and optimism. Orange may have also been a ploy to increase Clinton's desirability: it has notoriously been used in the decor of fast food restaurants because of its proven power to stimulate the appetite. Were we supposed to feel "hungry for Hillary?" I found the effect of the tucked-in scarf to be a bit off, making Clinton seem a little too bundled-up. Still, it was much better than the distracting necklaces she wore in the previous two debates.

Grooming: Didn't the candidates look lovely? Everyone's makeup looked fantastic. Edwards's skin looked like a newborn baby's! Obama's looked like sweet milk chocolate! Clinton's makeup was much better than in Nevada. She looked a decade younger. They've switched her to shiny lipstick, which makes her mouth look fuller, younger, and more pleasant, even when she does her disapproving pursed-lips thing. Her eyeliner was better, too -- less harsh than it has been in the past. She was positively doe-eyed! Good show!

I can't write about the men's suits, because I really don't know anything about men's suits. They were...dark navy blue single-breasted suits? That's all I've got. Of course, there's much less to say about their suits, since the men's suit is such a standard garment. But there's tons to say about Clinton's suits! Her suit at this debate was very nice. I applaud her return to the nehru jacket after two debates of traditional jackets with lapels. The high, collarless neckline makes her look secure, put-together, streamlined, and modern. It's a great personal signature. I had a problem with the single button at the neckline, though: it was a neat touch, but bunched in there with the clip-on mic and the scarf, it made her neck area look cluttered. The suit was beautifully fitted to her, though. You could really see this from the back -- and weren't there a lot of shots of her from the back! I thought that was really unfair. Did we see any shots of Obama's or Edwards's behinds? Clinton's figure looked lovely, especially considering her jacket broke the cardinal rule of jackets for pear-shaped women: Thou Shalt Not Wear A Jacket That Ends At Your Widest Point. Her jacket fell right at the widest part of her rear. I understand her wanting to cover her backside, for professionalism's sake -- but at the cost of emphasizing being broad-in-the-beam? The horror! A cropped jacket that shows more leg is a necessity for elongating this type of figure! The color and fabric of the suit were the best part. The fabric looked really refined -- maybe a silk/wool blend? It had a subtle, light-absorbing texture. And the color was perfect: a flattering but serious brown: earthy, sophisticated, and just dark enough to project authority.

The poor candidates were forced to abandon the security of their podiums for a ridiculous faux-casual chair-sitting set during the second half of the debate. Each of them sat in a very distinct and characteristic way: Edwards, the populist, let his legs hang open casually, revealing a little too much crotch; Obama, cool as ice, crossed his legs; and Clinton, the proper professional lady, kept her knees together and her ankles crossed. Both men's socks were, thankfully, long enough to conceal leg skin. But only Obama's people were thoughtful enough to give him brand-new shoes with perfect, unblemished soles (not so for Edwards, whose scuffed bottoms made a couple of brief appearances).

The set was the typical red, white, and blue, in a patchwork pattern. In close-up, Edwards and Clinton were in front of blue squares on the mosaic, while Obama was in front of red. Obama's red background probably made him come off as even more aggressive during the points in the debate when he got all riled up. Clinton's scarf was not such a good match with the decor this time. She was right to pick a softer, "pumpkin" shade of orange, though, instead of primary orange to go with the set, which would have been horrendous next to her face.

At this point, with the green, pink, and now orange, it's clear that Clinton is making a point of excluding red and blue, the more obvious colors. I actually think that's a smart choice. Women so often find themselves choosing between too-masculine and too-feminine versions of business clothing. By breaking out of the box with her collar shape and colors, Clinton makes it clear that she is not trying to look like a man, but does so without looking too much "like a woman" in the wrong way. That's a truly difficult task, and she, or her handlers, are doing a great job at it.

One more debate to go... For my coverage of color in the previous two debates, see Their true colors.