“Like an LBD”. I like that.
Toronto, the bit I could read said basically what you said. I don’t think I agree, because of the shoes. But I think people are generally over the whole notion of judging women’s politics based on their style. HRC’s pantsuits are made fun of, but so are cliches about her pants suits. RBG’s collars were a thing because she made them one. But Katie Porter, E Warren, the entire “squad”—sure, they get criticized for what they wear more than they should (which is zero). But I think (hope! But never say never ) we are past the time when people are willing to pay attention to that kind of thing over the record of everything she has done and said. Harris has been around a while and has a record in California that’s worth examining critically. Chucks and Butters aren’t going to change that. I’m hopeful that we are at a point in time when there are enough women in professions that there isn’t so much questioning about what they ought to wear. HRC started out back when women were wearing bows to try to imitate ties but somehow soften them. Pants suits were still new-ish, and by the time she ran for office, the ones she was known for were way out of date. I don’t mean that in a “last years model” kind of way, or the way men’s ties get wider “ narrower. The “what should she wear” question was much bigger and more significant when she started with the pants suits. Now it’s pretty much just a sartorial question, same as for anyone else in any other line of work
