Kathryn Jean-Lopez at the Corner:
GETTING A LITTLE SILLY [KJL]I hope that's the stupidest thing I read today, and it most likely will be so long as I don't click over to that site again. "Silly" isn't the caveat I'd use.
But would you wear red if you were heiress of a ketchup fortune...especially if that all was a biographical fact noone [sic] wanted you to be playing up?
I sincerely regret defining up to a trend from anything KJL writes, but it's something that I've noticed—what's the deal with female coverage of female politicians? A good number of the serious female bloggers covering this convention seem unable to let pass an opportunity to squeeze in some fashion color commentary about a female political figure. For instance:
So it's a minor trend that only strikes me as odd because, for one, I don't see the same people intoning about men's fashion—though there's probably stuff out there about our former Lothario-in-Chief that I didn't catch. There's not a whole lot to men's formal fashion, which for the most part amounts to the same navy suit cut-and-pasted onto different men. Perhaps the observation only really amounts to a trend because no men out there are really writing about jewel-toned anything. But more to the point, there's no good reason to get into convention couture when there are larger issues people want to read about (and let it be said that nearly all the women above oblige with invaluable opinions).
Unserious asides or interesting details? Bad habits? Misogyny or bad reading on my part? Do girls just want to have fun? (If you think I harumph too much, please note that I enjoyed with delight a full hour of VH1's "Red-Carpet Disasters" last night before bed—I only wish I were too good for it all.)
Posted by Kriston at July 28, 2004 3:06 PMWell...I noticed that Ayelish has included the fashion commentary into just about every post, so I think it's meant more as a running gag. Perhaps a tongue-in-cheek look at women irrelevantly examining female politician's clothing?
Posted by: susan at July 28, 2004 3:14 PMi thought this gawker post was funny
Posted by: catherine at July 28, 2004 5:06 PMAh, but you forgot Coulter's fashion commentary, which I guess fits the blogging format 'cause USA Today wouldn't publish it:
the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.
Posted by: walsh at July 28, 2004 6:16 PMNot to get snippy, but a couple of points: First, Amy and Susan are both in Boston, whereas I have been camped out in the Prospect's conference room watchin C-SPAN and CNN for the past 3 days. I should hope that they would have more substantive points to make. (Let it be said that I have beaten Amy to the punch on a couple of points, and I don't have a swanky press pass.)
Second, from a sartorial perspective, men all look the same at an event like this. Larry King, often the exception to this rule, looked like a Sweet N' Low packet last night. And I blogged that. So I'm happy to be an equal opportunity fashion critic if the men would just wear something--SOMETHING!--besides a dark suit and light shirt.
Third, the majority of my posts have been about other things--Barack's Bible references, the terrible intro music, the silly Kerry for Kids interlude last night, etc. Granted, my coverage is pretty lightweight. But that was my assignment. What, in fact, are these "larger issues people want to read about"? Conventions are noteworthy precisely because they manage to dodge those large issues and instead serve to rally the base. Rah-rah-rah, sis-boom-bah, yadda yadda yadda.
That's why our brave correspondent's on the ground in Boston end up writing about cocktail parties and random bar encounters with star bloggers and the random low-level pol. Whoop-dee-fucking doo.
Posted by: a-list mcgooshy at July 28, 2004 8:22 PMSorry, that was harsher than I intended. In a nutshell: I don't think it's a trend.
Posted by: a. at July 28, 2004 8:24 PM