As if you needed another reason to vote Democratic in November, here's one more: we dress better. The first night of the DNC may have been a snooze, but its speakers' sartorial choices made up for that somewhat, with the exception of Nancy Pelosi's mandarin-collared, Diane Keaton-esque, creepy power suit.
Barack Obama's sister Maya Soetoro-Ng rocked a wide, lipstick-red belt that was more Sex and the City than Capital City, Caroline Kennedy introduced her uncle Ted in a black cocktail number with a fashion-forward, asymmetrically jeweled neckline, and Michelle Obama, who closed out the night, eschewed the colors political wives tend to favor--red, blue, icky pastels--for a bold turquoise. Plus, the dress made her butt look hot.
Yeah, yeah, we know. We're superficial. But the thing is, why shouldn't women in politics be chic? Do people really take them more seriously when they borrow only from the extremely limited tricolor palette of the American flag? Or when they wear "feminine" colors that are better suited for baby nurseries? Or when they get psychotically matchy-matchy, with the headband that matches the suit that matches the nails that matches the lipstick? Do really accomplished women with Ph.D.'s (like Soetoro-Ng) or J.D.'s (like Kennedy and Obama) need to dress down like sexless matriarchs in the pantsuit version of Garanimals in order to gain public acceptance? To prove that they can lead? (Hear that, HRC?)
If Monday night was any indicator, the answer is "no." Thank heavens! Now that's what we call change we can believe in.