Friday, February 1, 2008

Hillary Clinton, middle-class hero?

Hillary Clinton's political cynicism is spilling over into sartorial cynicism.

I have admired Clinton's skill at putting herself together so that she looks feminine and approachable without appearing unprofessional. But after seeing her outfit at last night’s debate, it’s become clear to me that her campaign is not just trying to make her look pleasant; they are deliberately dressing her up to look middle-class.

Clinton was born, perhaps, into a middle-class family. But now, as a graduate of Wellesley and Yale Law, a former lawyer, and a senator, she is a happy member of the upper-middle class. Yet in every respect, her clothing in last night’s debate rejected the upper-middle-class aesthetic in favor of a solidly –- and, I’m pretty sure, deliberately –- middle-class look. Here’s a rundown of how her ensemble broke the rules of upper-middle-class dressing, as set forth in Paul Fussell’s Class:

Her suit: The casual and untraditional style of her jacket, which had a small collar but no lapels, sent a message similar to the one Fussell saw in Reagan’s flouting of Eastern Establishment standards of dress. By eschewing the upper-middle-class professional look, which would have her wearing very conservative, man-tailored skirt suits, Clinton distances herself from the taint of elitism. Her choice of suit color is also key. For the upper-middle-class, Fussell says, “the color toward which everything aspires is really navy.” And yet Clinton has consistently avoided navy as a neutral in favor of black and the brown of last night. Finally, the fabric of Clinton’s suit was on the cheap-looking side. On the topic of fabric, Fussell writes, "Middle-class clothes tend to err by excessive smoothness, to glitter a bit, to shine even before they're worn. Upper-middle clothes, on the other hand, lean to the soft, textured, woolly, nubby." By this measure, the jacket Clinton wore in the previous debate was upper-middle-class; the one last night was much more middle. Finally, Clinton's outfit seemed to explicitly avoid the upper-middle-class look of layering. The matching color, and perhaps even fabric, of her jacket and shell made her look un-layered and therefore less classy.

Her jewelry: According to Fussell, upper-class women wear "very little jewelry" and have "a tendency to understate." But last night, as throughout her campaign, Clinton wore more than her share of jewelry, and none of it understated: a multi-strand beaded turquoise necklace with big oval turquoise button earrings. Nothing could convince me that Clinton would pick this jewelry out for herself; it's just too tacky and ridiculous. Worn together, the pieces looked like a matching set hawked on the Home Shopping Network. Not only were the necklace and earrings oversized and inelegant, but their turquoise stones lent them a Southwestern flair which Fussell repeatedly derides as very lower-class.

Her hair: According to Class, "the classiest women wear their hair for a lifetime in exactly the style they affected in college." I wouldn't expect Clinton to hew to that standard, since in her case this would mean a too-hippieish mass of long, frizzy hair. But she doesn't even meet Fussell's relaxed guideline for upper-class hair: "a hairstyle dating back eighteen or twenty years or so." If she had just held onto one of the styles she sported during the early Clinton years, she would be set. But her hair now is ultra-updated, complete with tawdry clashing ash-blond and caramel highlights, which again make her look very middle-class.

Perhaps if men had as much leeway in their formal dress, Barack Obama's people would be fiddling around with his clothes, too; but they don't, so they're not. Clinton's camp has, I believe, made a definite choice to make her look just like the soccer moms who carried her husband to victory. I have to say I don't like it. I want my politicians to dress for serious business, not a PTA meeting. But I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that. Clinton's style probably has the broad appeal her campaign is going for.

3 comments:

bitsy said...

An important choice for male politicians is their necktie color. I suspect that Obama's handlers devote a lot of energy to finding the one which expresses his message of the moment. I thought that the pale violet he wore for the debate perfectly conveyed his wishy-washyness - whether or not that was intended.

Regarding another male politician, John Kerry wore the wrong color of winter jacket during his presidential campaign. His bright yellow "barn" coat was quite attractive, yet it was not a color that inspired confidence in voters. Whenever I saw him in it, I thought, "You are not solid; you are a dilettante."

fencebreak said...

lol, bitsy. On Obama's violet tie: its color was wishy-washy, but its import may not have been. I noticed that it was the same color as the "CNN" logos behind him. A subtle signal, perhaps, that Obama is not just a man, but a brand?

Prospero said...

Hillary grew up a little yesterday, wearing a true upper middle class outfit as described by the Futurist: a navy blue suit, buttoned up tight, with a tasteful scarf (?) or collar (?) in a sort of coordinating polka dot, and small, understated earrings. One hopes the outfit included a skirt, but we couldn't tell seeing her just from the chest up on the morning ABC interview, and totally immobile so as not to muss the perfect hair. She looked great, almost good enough for me to vote for her. Had she read Fashion Futurist since the debate?