I'm going to be really shallow here (you have been warned). I'm prodded by something written by Ted Rall yesterday in his piece published at Smirking Chimp and at Counterpunch.
From: The 4 things Hillary could do to close the deal against Trump:
These are not some of the most recent creations we've seen during this election go-around, but do illustrate one of my main quibbles about her style - the other quibble was the buttoned up round-necked jackets she was sporting during the primaries. The jacket she wore during the last debate with Trump - the grey job with long, lighter coloured lapels - was a big improvement. However, it's those darn trousers that, for me, take away from any total good look. Most of her trouser legs are too narrow, and almost all are too short. To my eye women's trousers should cover the front of the foot or, if not, show off a nice soft boot top (and she could afford the very best light-weight boots that money can buy!) Those narrow-bottomed trousers are out of proportion; low-fronted "court shoes" are not a good look with trousers. The trousers of the turquoise suit, 4th from left in the first photo above, are about right, but she hardly ever wears them that way. The skinny leg look is fine for slender young things who can get away with just about anything - she ain't one of those. Narrow trouser bottoms with a bit of flesh/stocking showing, on a woman of Hillary's age and size, just look bad. I'm surprised that her advisers don't...well...advise better!
Now...I am no fashionista by any measure, as I've written before when doing a bit of ranting about clothes; do feel, though, that I can tell what looks good, right and proportional.
Oh my - how shallow was that!? What does it matter what this lady looks like and what she wears? It really shouldn't matter at all. If she'd just keep us out of World War 3, I'd be happy enough if she wore an old hempen sack clinched with duct tape, a muddy pair of green wellies on her feet.
From: The 4 things Hillary could do to close the deal against Trump:
Google Image offers up several pics of Ms Clinton in her many trouser suits - or as they call 'em on this side of the Pond "pant suits".........Then there’s her incredibly ugly, unbelievably hideous wardrobe: it’s hard to like someone who makes your eyes burn. But let’s face it. Hillary Clinton, probably like you and definitely like me, can’t do anything about her personality. At 68, that stuff is baked in. Still, there’s a lot she could do to close the deal against Donald Trump.....(My highlight.)
These are not some of the most recent creations we've seen during this election go-around, but do illustrate one of my main quibbles about her style - the other quibble was the buttoned up round-necked jackets she was sporting during the primaries. The jacket she wore during the last debate with Trump - the grey job with long, lighter coloured lapels - was a big improvement. However, it's those darn trousers that, for me, take away from any total good look. Most of her trouser legs are too narrow, and almost all are too short. To my eye women's trousers should cover the front of the foot or, if not, show off a nice soft boot top (and she could afford the very best light-weight boots that money can buy!) Those narrow-bottomed trousers are out of proportion; low-fronted "court shoes" are not a good look with trousers. The trousers of the turquoise suit, 4th from left in the first photo above, are about right, but she hardly ever wears them that way. The skinny leg look is fine for slender young things who can get away with just about anything - she ain't one of those. Narrow trouser bottoms with a bit of flesh/stocking showing, on a woman of Hillary's age and size, just look bad. I'm surprised that her advisers don't...well...advise better!
Now...I am no fashionista by any measure, as I've written before when doing a bit of ranting about clothes; do feel, though, that I can tell what looks good, right and proportional.
Oh my - how shallow was that!? What does it matter what this lady looks like and what she wears? It really shouldn't matter at all. If she'd just keep us out of World War 3, I'd be happy enough if she wore an old hempen sack clinched with duct tape, a muddy pair of green wellies on her feet.
9 comments:
The pundits are full of advice for Hillary...the shoulda, coulda, woulda list. She is what she is, for better or worse, and most anoint her with the worst. I watch "Charlie Rose" a couple of times each week and most of his political-pundit guests proffer their wares as to Hillary's downfalls. The girl can't seem to catch a break when it comes to negative-centric appearance, either visually or mentally.
Astrologically, her time of birth isn't known, so a natal chart isn't possible, but I like the midnight tob...it provides Hillary with a mid-Leo rising and places Saturn in the 1st on her Asc, with Mars-Pluto in the 12th on her Asc. That would go a long way explaining voters' mistrust of her, with constant scrutiny. The image she projects isn't appealing, as one would anticipate with those planets on the Asc.
I've noticed that Angela Merkel also prefers pant-suits and is criticized for her choices, even when donning the occasional dress:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175734/The-shades-Angela-Merkel-Graphic-designer-takes-50-pictures-German-Chancellor-stepping-world-stage-uses-recreate-famous-Pantone-colour-chart.html
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130918-angela-merkel-chancellor-chic
Seems that we Americans have an inherent double-standard toward powerful women in politics compared to men with their acceptable, but ever-so-drab business suits...likewise for personality. If Hillary behaved like Trump, she'd be out on her behind in no time flat.
Roll mentions that Hillary's substantial funding should put her miles ahead. Trump doesn't need much advertising money. His fascist, bellicose belligerence begets him about double the air-time as Hillary. His deplorable, unfettered mouth in front of a camera and fingers on the Twitter are considered adorable by his Deplorables. The rest of us can't resist hearing his latest psycho abominations.
mike ~ "Can't seem to catch a break" you say! I reckon she catches more than her fair share of breaks - from the FBI, DOJ etc and from media in general who have been having a field day on Trump for the past 18 months, and not in a good way!
http://www.gocomics.com/bobgorrell/2016/10/17
LOL! Yes, if that was her time of birth the planets fit. There was an interesting thread of commentary about Clinton's birth time at Skyscript recently - if you haven't seen it, Mr Merriman's thoughts are included here
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9257&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
Double standard for women in politics? Maybe so, but I'd certainly criticise any male politician whose trousers were too short or badly tailored. Bernie had lots of criticism about his unkempt hair, early on, and his rumpled cheap suits. Angela Merkel - yes, she has a similar style to Hillary Clinton's. There aren't many full length pics of her at Google Image, but this one shows a good contrast between trouser lengths and footwear - hers and the other woman's:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/european-leaders-push-angela-merkel-for-joint-eu-army-a7211861.html
Merkel's pants are still a tad narrow but the right length, and no court shoes.
Running against Trump is an absolute gift for Clinton. Had she been running against Ted Cruz or some other Republican proper, the scene would be far less predictable. As it is, all she'll have to do is not fall over before 8 November, and we'll be seeing her wardrobe of pant suits for at least the next 4 years.
I saw the kerfuffle over Penfield's "correct" tob for Hillary presented at the ISAR conference. Penfield has since been thoroughly trashed...LOL. BTW - all six panel members selected Hillary as the next POTUS based on their astrological interpretations [ http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-astrology-election-20161018-snap-story.html ].
You said, "Had she been running against Ted Cruz or some other Republican proper, the scene would be far less predictable." I believe it would have been more predictable. As it stands, the independent and none-of-the-above voters could push a victory for either of the two.
You addressed one aspect of Trump's appeal to his constituency in yesterday's blog post. The media, whether one believes the media is against Trump, has been Trump's free, Pied Piper, recruitment tool. CNN president, Jeff Zucker, acknowledges this:
"We wanted access and Donald Trump gave it to us." Further, "Cable news channels have been under particular scrutiny for how much coverage has been dedicated to Trump, particularly the many rallies he has held. One media analysis firm put the value of the overall time dedicated to Trump at around $3 billion."
http://mashable.com/2016/10/14/cnn-donald-trump/#QQXpiUSC0aqw
Trump knows how to work the adage, "there is no such thing as bad publicity".
mike (again) As it stands, the independent and none-of-the-above voters could push a victory for either of the two.
Really - you think so?
I'm no longer as convinced of that as I was a while ago. Media people would like us to think so though, in order to keep the race "exciting" enough for more $$$$$$$$$$s to keep flowing in, more reads, more viewers, more clicks etc. I suspect it's now a done deal. Trump will go on to create a new TV channel to flaunt himself, cause trouble and and continue fanning his ego. We'll have Clinton presidency Mk2. And we'll all live unhappily ever after (if we're even that lucky, and war proves not to be on her agenda, as many predict it will be.)
In keeping balance and fairness to both candidates' appearance, no matter how shallow:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2015/09/an-illustrated-history-of-donald-trumps-hair
BTW - I liked Hillary's suit that she wore in last night's "debate". Trump's Deplorables are busily trolling sites this morning declaring him the winner in the comment sections. They must have taken Ambien, chugged-down with an X-large Bud Lite prior, then fallen to sleep in the first five minutes of the debate.
mike (again) ~ I remember, early on in the election year, seeing some photo-shopped pics of Trump with different hair styles, including the one most men would adopt when much of their hair goes AWOL, as his has done i.e. with the balding top being allowed to show. He looked fine like that, I thought, but it seems he has this odd fixated image of himself. Maybe we're all a bit guilty in that respect as we age. I still try to volumise my own thinning hair.
Clinton's debate suit jacket was nice, the buttoned up top had a slightly stand-away neckline giving an easier feel. The trousers were still too narrow and short though. As we mainly only see her top half, I guess it doesn't matter much about the bottoms, other than to critical bloggers like moi. ;-)
I had meant to do a quick blog on the debate this morning, but woke with a nasty, probably allergy and sinus-linked, headache, so gave it a miss.
We watched the "show", thought Trump did better than in the first 2 debates, but still needed to have done more studying and preparing. Clinton seemed, to me, like a mechanised doll repeating prepared lines we've heard before in exactly the same tone we've hear before. She feels plastic. At least Trump seems human, if a fatally flawed one, and in no way fit to be president of the USA - we always knew that though, didn't we?
This whole election has been a charade.
Media picked up on Trump's answer about accepting the result of the election and has been chewing it like a meaty bone from the first minutes after the debate until right now.
We listened to about 3 minutes of MSNBC as the debate ended, the first voice, Rachel Maddow's chirped up exclaiming at the awful horror of Trump's reply! Anyjazz and I looked at one another and said "Huh?" The exaggerations flowed on from there on, and we stitched off. I don't blame him for his response - it was the right response after what has been revealed about primary manipulations. He didn't say he would not accept the result, he said he wants to wait. Seems reasonable to me. He still won't be president, thankfully, but at least he has the balls to imply that he does not intend to be cheated as Bernie appears to have been cheated by media and DNC manipulation.
I disengaged from the election with Bernie's demise, now left with the obligation to vote AGAINST Trump. In the weird world extant and the fact that Republicans usually out-number others, those not voting from apathy, or voting in defiance for third party candidates, surprises could be ahead. Depending on the poll selected, the spread between the two candidates can be surprisingly narrow. Hillary appears the victor from the normal view, but nothing about this election has been standard fare. I'm leery of voting machines.
"Far too many states use unreliable and insecure electronic voting machines, and many states have made their situation worse by adding some forms of Internet voting for some voters, which cannot be checked for accuracy at all. Even in states where verifiable systems are used, too often the check on the voting system’s function and accuracy is not done. The voting equipment now in use are aging; resources are severely impacted by the state of the economy over the past several years; shortages of both equipment and human resources are likely. After all the effort necessary to overcome the other hurdles to casting a ballot, it is patently unfair that once you get to the ballot box, that the ballot itself fails you. Taken together, these problems threaten to silently disenfranchise voters, potentially in sufficient numbers to alter outcomes."
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/
Feel better! Probably the effect of the northerly winds hitting your area and the cold front. It arrives here in about two hours...can't wait. We've had red tide...P-U...it stinks, burns the eyes, nose, and throat, so a shift in wind from the north will remedy the air, plus the cool, dry air.
mike (again) ~ My heart is still with Bernie too. He's doing good work, as is Elizabeth Warren. The two of them working for us in the Senate will be a saving grace of any Clinton presidency to come. You have more doubt about such a presidency happening than I do, at present. I do see, though, that voting machine and voter manipulation, and media manipulation can be (and is being) done by both sides, so it remains a dense foggy area (all very Neptunian!) Maybe I should feel a tad less certain that Clinton has it in the palm of her hand right now.
Thanks, yes, we had a long storm last evening, it raged as the debate dragged on. I blame the atmospheric pressure difference for my headache - that usually does it for me and my head.
A little cooler here today. YUK - your red tide effect sounds dreadful!
Post a Comment