Robin Givhan is the only fashion writer whose name ever gets mentioned in the political blogosphere. That's because Givhan, as the fashion critic for the Washington Post, is in the unenviable position of writing about how politicians dress. That means, usually, surveying an endless stream of dark suits and patriotic ties. At times, Givhan has gone a bit overboard in her attempt to break the monotony, as in her piece on Hillary Clinton's non-existent cleavage. But really, she's correct that Condoleezza Rice is the best dressed political woman on the world stage. And when she pilloried Dick Cheney for dressing down in a ski cap and parka for a solemn Auschwitz memorial ceremony, Givhan proved that sartorial commentary can be serious stuff -- the analysis of how our political leaders choose to present themselves -- and by extension, us -- to the world. So I'll gladly defend Givhan's latest column from Sam, who yesterday called it "idiotic over-analysis" with "no actual useful take-away point whatsoever." Whoa, there! It's a fashion column! I know most lefty bloggers don't read the fashion rags or even the style section (hmm, wonder why?), but fashion criticism is, believe it or not, an established and legitimate form of journalism, even though it won't tell you who's ahead in Iowa. As a fashion critic attuned to politics, Givhan is absolutely right to note the marked change in how Hillary Clinton presents herself. When Clinton ran for Senate in New York, my mother and I used to joke that she owned two black pantsuits, and just rotated bland business shirts beneath them. But during this presidential campaign, Clinton's suits have been brighter-colored and more feminine than ever before. Givhan concludes that Clinton is signaling that a woman doesn't need to blend in with the boys to play hardball with them. That sounds right-on to me. Of course, it seems unfair that female politicians have to worry about what the Washington Post will say about their clothes, while male politicians can relax if they just don a suit and American flag lapel pin. But the simple truth is that in our culture, women have many more choices in how to dress than men do. Some women find that a burden, others consider it a privilege. But there's no doubt that the fashion choices of women in the public eye are meaningful -- and to some of us, fascinating. Givhan herself isn't blind to the complicated ethics of chewing over a female candidate's wardrobe. She muses in the piece, "Is even considering the senator's clothes a kind of chauvinistic assault? Or is it merely the intellect trying to wrangle some sort of order out of the imagination?" To be fair and balanced, she follows up today with a biting take on Mitt Romney's helmet head. Feminists have long disagreed about Givhan's coverage, but I, for one, enjoy the critical eye she brings to political fashion. The real fashion story of this campaign (IMHO) is that Hillary Clinton has never worn a skirt. If you don't think that's a conscious choice, you're kidding yourself. --Dana Goldstein
