Kamala Harris’ acceptance outfit

[HoxtHun]

Vanessa Friedman nicely outlines the motivations behind political dressing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/style/kamala-harris-dnc-suit.html?unlocked_article_code=1.FU4.f8qP.a6qWBDwIq1Pt&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

All subjective of course but the tan suit is horrible.

Looking at the navy one again, it's a bit better but not that great. The tan suit looks as if she's wearing a man's suit- i.e cut for a man's shape, not a woman's

You had a tea lady in every job?
Or do you mean the receptionist or secretary who are not really employed just to serve tea?

Thatcher got voice trained to speak in a lower key, more like a man. Or at least that is claimed and I think she denies it, but there are differences in how she spoke before and after.

I've worked in 2 offices over the last 34 years. In both ensuring that tea, coffee ,biscuits and water were provided in client meeting rooms was a function of the facilities team, who were men a and women.

Pouring the coffee in the meeting rooms is done by the most junior or oddly the most senior person attending or both to get it done , regarless of sex.

Oh and btw you do realise receptionists and secretaries (usually called PAs these days can be men?)

Condoleezza Rice held a non elected role in a Republican administration. Her wardrobe choices were not subject to nearly as much scrutiny.
George W’s voters were not going to switch their vote or stay at home because he Secretary of State wore feminine clothes.

Trumps supporters already claim that Harris slept her way to where she is and Trump has said foreign leaders will treat her like a plaything. Her position and the consequences of her choices are much more important.

Me too! He looked grown up and professional, with a touch of playfulness. Go Tim!

When did I say they couldn't be men?

I don't think you can look at her clothing divorced from the reality of American politics. It's just imposing yet another expectation on her.

Whether or not racism and misogyny stop her is different from whether it can be used to distract the voters. She's already being portrayed by the other side as deeply unserious, much of which centres around her being a woman, not to mention a non-white woman. Her laugh, the fact she dances, the fact she occasionally trips up in answering a question, an historical relationship (I have literally seen people on this site saying she blew her way to the top). The very last thing she needs is for people to be discussing her outfits. The tan suit, which was an homage to Obama's much-abused tan suit, was sort of an inside joke, and, I suspect, as far as she's going to go.

I will also say, that the rigours of an American presidential campaign aren't comparable to anything Thatcher, Condoleeza Rice, Theresa May etc. had to take on. She's constantly criss-crossing a massive country, across time zones, speaking to crowds, wooing donors and having to get up to speed on a presidential campaign all day every day at the moment. She doesn't need the distraction of thinking about her clothing. Yes, she'll have a team on the campaign coordinating, but one incident of the wind blowing up a skirt when coming down the steps of a plane and she'll lose 5 days of being treated like the serious person she is.

She also strikes me as someone who might not be terribly interested in clothes beyond functionality? Whenever I've seen pictures of her in off-duty wear, it's pretty unexciting - jeans, quilted jacket, converse hi tops. Being a woman doesn't necessarily obligate her to satisfy our interest in fashion.

Soooo aspirational! Bloody love it. Chefs kiss.

She also strikes me as someone who might not be terribly interested in clothes beyond functionality?

I recall what happened when, for her first Vogue US cover, they used a photo of her in relatively cheap casual clothes rather than the serious, high status designer outfit one might have expected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/style/kamala-harris-vogue.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk4.U6Xr.ihlxnUV--PJZ&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

I doubt the media will make that mistake again.

I agree.

We’ve never seen Trump’s or Obama’s etc legs, shoulders, knees (thank goodness) and we don’t need to see Harris’s. Some women like to weaponise their femininity and it works to their advantage in their careers. There’s absolutely zero hope of that for a presidential candidate because it alienates voters. And honestly you wouldn’t get anywhere near the greasy pole, let alone be able to climb it, if you did (unless you’re a Trump acolyte like Lauren Boebert or MTG). Nancy Pelosi has stuck to her own uniform all her political career, it’s proven that her appearance hasn’t been relevant.

To my mind the president should be for all voters, male and female. Too much of either doesn’t work well in the 21st century. Trump tried it with toxic masculinity and look what happened. He has corralled approx 50% of voters behind him, male and female, but he’s turned the rest so fully against him that never has any candidate raised as much money, so quickly, as Harris so desperate are they to not have a repeat of Trump. And the rest of the world, including Putin and Orban and Netanyahu and Kim Jong Un, laugh at him. Toxic masculinity is just a cover for cowardliness, as any fule kno. Toxic femininity is too easy to ridicule.

Only the shoes are casual there.

You think?

Scoop neck cotton vest / t shirt and what look pretty much like joggers?

In the circles she moves in that may or may not be good enough for the school run - it doesn’t semaphore ’Vice President’.