- $595 pantsuit and sweater, Margaret O'Leary, San Francisco.
Edward Klein
The Truth about Hillary:
What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President
- "What Klein doesn't understand is that Hillary's success today depends not on an ability to be aggressively masculine, but on the exact opposite. That black pantsuit is the power woman's burqa -- a disguise for screening out, not extinguishing, distracting gender"
unny. My Margaret-O'Leary ensemble doesn't seem to "screen out" my gender....
Tina Brown is onto something with her 'burqa' reference, but as is the leftie wont, she has it exactly backwards.
While Brown is correct to suggest that the swath cut by missus clinton isn't "aggressively masculine," she is wrong to imply that underneath the self-imposed burqa, missus clinton is female. Genderwise, missus clinton is exactly what you see: submissively male.
Brown's reason for the pantsuits is, thus, wrong. Missus clinton's gender has nothing to do with this particular clinton coverup. (NB: Tina Brown's 'theory of the hillary pantsuit' is also easily disproved by two counterexamples: missus clinton's burqa-length dresses and her reflexive use of the victim pose.)
The reason pantsuits are a must for missus clinton is that she must screen out her lower (NB: as opposed to 'lowest') extremities. (That she is also screening out her submissive affect remains viable, however.)
Do you recall ever seeing hillary clinton during, say, the last ten years, wearing a skirt or dress whose hemline fell between knee and shin (such as they are)?
Early in the clinton 'presidency,' a photo of a knee-to-shin beskirted clinton made the rounds. Even the Times ran with it, as I recall.
A clinton poll wasn't needed to determine that with her legs and low center of gravity, hillary-in-a-knee-to-shin-skirt as a political construct disturbs the aesthetic sensibilities of virtually every male voter extant.
Never again, therefore, did this purported feminist wear anything shorter than a burqa....
