Snap!!

Picking on Hillary Clinton while she’s down may seem cruel and unnecessary. But it will also be fun, so let’s do it anyway! On Monday’s episode of Late Night with Conan O’Brien, fashion maven Tim Gunn appeared. Most women know Tim Gunn as the amiable presence at the center of “Project Runway;” most men know him as the

amiable presence at the center of that annoying reality show that their wives are addicted to. Sitting next to O’Brien, Gunn assessed the fashion sense of a certain lagging presidential contender. His commentary was withering:

“When she was in the White House I really thought there was hope for her. And then she became the senator from New York and I thought ‘hurray, hallelujah, she’s from New York, she’s representing us, her fashion will really be ramped up,’ but I think she’s confused about what her gender is. She’a so mannish in her dress, and I believe the suits are probably made out of Kevlar. I just don’t get it. There is one Capitol Hill leader whose fashion I think can’t be beat and that’s Nancy Pelosi.”

I found Gunn’s observations made a nice pair with a front page Boston Globe story from yesterday titled, “Clinton’s Struggle Vexes Feminists.” Granted, feminists are often easily vexed, but their vexation over Hillary’s struggles is noteworthy for its especially out-of-touch with reality characteristics:

“A female candidate with a hyper-substantive career is now threatened with losing the nomination to a man whose charismatic style and powerful rhetoric are trumping her decades of experience. The style-vs.-substance clash is common to presidential contests, and has hurt wonky male candidates as well, women’s leaders say. But they argue that Clinton has a peculiar burden in this year’s contest because she never would have been able to reach the final stages of the nomination process unless she had spent her life emphasizing her professional record over stylistic abilities.”

“Hyper-substantive?” Because she’s spent seven years in the senate? Then what term would one use to describe Hillary’s erstwhile competitors in the presidential race, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who between them have spent a combined 70+ years in the senate (although it’s felt like longer*)? Mega-gigantour-super-hyper-substantive? And just for the record, precisely what massive “stylistic abilities” has Clinton eschewed emphasizing? See Tim Gunn’s comments for instruction in that regard. If we’re supposed to accept the notion that Hillary’s career truly is hyper-substantive, then we have to believe that she came by her hyper-substantiveness by dint of her spouse. I thought that was the kind of thing that feminists didn’t like, viewing wives as mere appendages to their husbands. But the times I guess are changing. Besides, if Hillary were really “hyper-substantive,” the race wouldn’t have boiled down to who gives the best speech. But where does she have substance that Obama doesn’t? Specifically, what policies does she propose that Obama opposes? Combining Gunn’s comments with the Globe‘s report on feminist anguish, it’s safe to say that Hillary’s lack of fabulousness combined with her lack of real substance have doomed her campaign. *Joke stolen from James Taranto HT: Mary Katharine Ham for the Tim Gunn footage

Related Content