In Paris, Shock of the New

Although most fashion editors would rather discuss handbags than healthcare, they do have a few things in common with politicians. The biggest link, of course, is the obsession with a carefully crafted image. And then there's also the continual jockeying for power and influence and the backstage bitchiness that sometimes leaks out into the public domain. And every once in a while a designer or an editor will attach themselves to a cause, like when Stella McCartney dedicates her show to "everyone who believes you do not need fur in fashion." But now that the French have a supermodel for a first lady and Monsieur le President has been spotted shopping for his new bride, the fashion flock seems more comfortable than ever turning their critical eye to politics, and, specifically, to the look and sound of America's presidential candidates.

At the fall fashion shows in Paris this week discussing Obama vs. Hillary is the big trend among the buzzy front row crowd of French editors and photographers. The fact that most of the editors I spoke to cannot even vote didn't stop them from voicing their opinions -- many of which were solely appearance-related, obviously.

"Obama for sure because he has intelligent eyes and an intelligent mouth," said Jean-Jacques Picart, a luxury consultant who was responding to the hypothetical question of who he would vote for if he was American. "Hillary is very hard," said the art director, Fabian Baron, while waiting to take in the Dior show on Monday afternoon. "If she acted more like a mother of a family, loosened up her hair a bit, and her clothing, then she would do better." Gilles Bensimon, a French-born Elle photographer who will be voting for the first time in this election thought Clinton should take a page from Golda Meir. "She was not so perfect, she looked more approachable."

Some say they cannot stand the sound of Hillary's voice, others say she is not emotional enough. "She's too strident," said Hillary Alexander, the fashion critic for London's Daily Telegraph. Almost all of the French editors I spoke to mentioned Hillary's flip-flop on the war in Iraq as the real stumbling block. "She voted for Iraq with her head, not her heart," added Bensimon. "Et ce n'est pas possible."

Is the anti-Hillary movement in the front row just a case of piling on? Or is it French male chauvinism? One female CEO of a major French luxury brand pointed out that France is still very much a male-dominated society, with few women at the top in large corporations. And yet, Segolene Royal came close to the presidency in the last French election -- beaten by a guy who, one French editor told me with disgust, visited a Louis Vuitton factory and brought back a handbag for his wife. Ce n'est pas possible. "There are many factories to visit in France, why did he have to go to Vuitton?"

Like voters, consumers want the newest, latest, greatest thing. And maybe that's why politicians and fashionistas have more in common than meets the eye. "We like Obama because he's new," said Colombe Pringle, an editor at Point du Vu, a society magazine, who was for many years the editor of French Vogue. "For us it is much more interesting."

Comments

[enoughalready]

Oh please give me a break.

Americans could care less what the French think of any of our policitians. They have their own warts to deal with.

I am a woman, 60 years old, that really wants to see a woman president before I pass on. That said I worry about our country more than at any other time in our history. Obama has been able to get a movement going that will change our country. Hillary hasn't been able to do that. Hillary's voting record on the Iraq war keeps me from voting for her. Feminism has nothing to do with my vote - just saying I'm a woman does not demand I vote for the woman in the political arena over anyone else I feel is better going to serve my country. If the feminist movement did anything for us it was to let us know that women have a view on just about anything and we are being heard and making changes.

[stanjz]

I'm a Senator Obama supporter who was raised by a single mom. Women in general have been much more supportive to me than men. Does that mean I should support Senator Clinton without questioning her character? Before the Democratic primary it was a given in the media that Senator Clinton was taking tougher centrist positions with her votes in the Senate in order to position herself for a general election win.
Does anyone remember how her surrogates like Bill Shaheen suggested Senator Obama might have dealt drugs and then had to resign from Senator Clinton's campaign? How about Bob Kerrey shamelessly trying to scare people into thinking Senator Obama went to a Muslim school( a lie). How about how Bill Clinton ( Senator Clinton must have known) used race leading up to SC and tried to create a Caucasian backlash leading up to Super Tues? How about how Senator Clinton said" now is the fun part" meaning the dirty part of campaigning has started. This is the same type of politics we have seen from the Republican Party. It seems many women want someone who shares an anatomical symilarity with them, rather than somone who represents the best woman have to offer.

[MIHOP]

If she had fought this hard against the Iraq War, there'd be no competition. People would give her a pass on all the rest. But she failed the exam, folks. The honors student failed the exam.

[lisakaz]

Is it automatically sexist to criticize a woman? That is, can one legitimately criticize a woman for any reason without it being labeled sexist? I think one needs to outline why this stuff is automatically sexist (it may be, it may not be), otherwise can I call any student who doesn't like my class a sexist?

[allentown]

Why do the Clinton supporters consistently say that Obama supporters don't know why they support him. All that I speak to say he opposed the Iraq war and can be trusted to get us out of Iraq. Not so Clinton. She voted to authorize the war, but claims she just trusted Bush too much, although she didn't even bother to read the intelligence report. Sen Graham did and voted no. She then trusted Bush again on the Iran vote. Then started the primary debates determined to prove how realistic she would be on Iraq and how naive Obama was. Just posturing for the general election? Are you really willing to trust that and believe her very late conversion to a leave Iraq position? Despite the weasel outs she still leaves herself? And if she feels compelled to act out as a macho commander and chief type to get elected now, why would she change that pose before her second term is secured? By then, the Iraq war would be her war. This is too big an issue to gamble on.

Yes, some of the criticism of Clinton by the media, including these comments from the French fashion folks, are trivial, silly, and perhaps sexist. But really, these silly things have always been unduly significant in choosing a President and despite what the Clinton supporters claim, have next to nothing to do with her being a woman. The male candidates get the same treatment. Edwards and his hair. The tallest candidate almost always being elected. Since the age of TV, the photogenic candidate having a huge advantage. The importance of voice. It is not that Clinton's is female, it is that it is not the 'ideal' female voice. Ronald Reagan was made by his voice. Voice has been very important since the advent of radio. It helped Roosevelt. Despite all his prior accomplishments, the voice closed the deal.

And what of content? The Clinton supporters keep coming back to Hillary's mastery of detail. First, detail retention not that big a deal for a President. Broader brush required. Also, back to the trivial. Presidential candidates and Presidents prosper by having poignant, memorable, or funny lines. They don't write them, they just deliver them. But we convince ourselves we see the soul of Kennedy and not of Ted Sorenson in those lines. Actually, we likely see the souls of both of them. There thinking must be very attuned for the President to want to and feel comfortable delivering the line. And then the candidate subsequently has to walk the talk. Does Clinton have horrible speech writers, or can't she deliver the lines? And why do they keep changing so much?

[suntzu]

Ooops, I meant: "She would do a lot better if she did not feel such a compelling need to SELL herself. "

[GoLeftGoDeep]

the overt sexism of Clinton's supporters lurks around every metaphor ... she voted for the Iraq war, she voted for the anti-bankruptcy bill in favor of credit card companies, she supported NAFTA until it became unpopular ... pro-Clinton supporters see their support as reasoned and pro-Obama's as vaporous ... get over yourselves

[bobdob]

Before Hillary ran, she should have gone to a speech therapist. The person who said they couldn't stand the sound of her voice nailed at least part of her problem. Petty as it sounds, the Chicago accent hurts her.

[suntzu]

To me Hillary often sounds like a hectoring school teacher. Yeah, I know this makes me sound like a male chauvinist, but she does sound like she's scolding a bunch of young kids even when she is talking about international trade and healthcare. And always the self-referential "I did this, I did that." She would do a lot better if she did not feel such a compelling need to self herself. Maybe it is because deep down she feels overshadowed by Bill, or even that she has never been credited enough for her eight years of co-presidency with Bill.

[MIHOP]

"To me Hillary often sounds like a hectoring school teacher."

Hard to say it better. No sexism in that, Al Gore had the same flaw.

[moreofthesame]

Before loosening up herself to look more like a mother, she would have to first oppose Iraq war as it is the american kids who were sent there.

[jubo]

All this fashion intelligentsia and not a word on those horrid pantsuits?

[jubo]

Please bring commentary from more interesting, if not bright, but more relevant people.

Meme s'ils sont Francais.

[cylindar]

Hillary has lost so give it up already.

[jsinclair]

I think she'll run dirty this weekend and stay in it.

As for "anti-Hillary" media--ha,ha. That's working to intimidate the tv press pretty well these days. The pro-Hillary slant seems to be everywhere, no more so than CNN which is pretty much "all Clinton, all the time"--with spin after spin misrepresenting or ignoring Obama.

Like another proud feminist, Susan Sarandon said, "I'd love to see a woman as President. Just not this woman."

Hopefully, it will be a woman who runs a clean, honest and organized campaign and has some idea where donors' $140 million dollars went (without calling in her HUSBAND to go over the books).

[DietrichMoody]

"Clinton should take a page from Golda Meir"

That quote had me rolling in the isles. Clinton would not know the meaning of authenticity.

[DietrichMoody]

aisles, not the isles...

[MIHOP]

authenticity: isn't that when you take the most politically safe position, only to find out that it wasn't, then whine about media bias and sexism when you get called out on it?

[sockman]

Obama is like a pair of the latest must have designer jeans: every liberal Starbucks sipping yuppie is sporting a pair despite the low-rise fit that leaves half their ass crack exposed with even the slightest maneuver . And every urban youth wants a pair over-sized with wide legs but really can't afford the price tag and knows embellishments and tapered legs just aren't hip and happening despite what Russel Simmons and P Diddy says. Hillary on the other hand is like a pair of Levis jeans. Authentic American made, tested, comfortable, reliable and comes in all cuts and washes and are reasonably priced. If you buy a pair of 550 34X34 you know exactly what you are getting and 8 years later despite some wear and tear that style and fit will still be in. I am not big on fashion but I like my jeans comfortable, reliable and with ass crack in.

[uberlefty]

Thanks for the insight on the ass crack. The greater insight I get from your post is the reference to Russel Simmons and P Diddy. Me thinks your racial bias is showing with even the slightest maneuver. By the way Starbucks sipping is a suburban soccer mom activity and most urban yuppies sip their lattes from indi micro roasters. They find Starbucks product to be bitter and lacking in depth. Starbucks has become more interested in its brand than in its product. They started out as being a community based small coffee shop and built that into a national brand. Unfortunately they lost their way and the product has become generic. In this way they are a better comparison to Hillary than Levis. She started out as a pioneer filling a need. Unfortunately to remain relevant in a changing market she became more concerned with the Clinton brand than with the quality of the product. Now that the market has come full circle people want the genuine article again and Hillary finds herself unable to rebrand herself as a pioneer. The fact is that there are a lot better cups of coffee to be had and a lot better candidates to be had. Starbucks recently closed all of their stores for a 3 hour retraining in an attempt to rebrand themselves. I am sure that most of the customers they have lost over the years wont come back. The sad truth is that once you sell out its hard to convince the market you have integrity. This is a reality I think that Hillary will soon have to face. If you want a really good cup of coffee try Obama!

[jackpinesavage]

You may be the only person in the world who would see that metaphor, but good on ya for it...it might be the best metaphor of this campaign season yet.

[ArchAngel]

Wouldn't it be just grand if we could actually get Clinton and Obama to have a fashion walk-off just like the Zoolander movie? Just the thought of it makes me giggle...