<p>Nancy Pelosi’s clothing is very well tailored. She also looks great in her Hermes scarves, but I just can’t justify parting with $500 to have one of my own. I also like the neckline of that collarless high white blouse that Bachmann has been wearing under her dark suit.</p>
<p>Everything from Hermes is wonderful. I have long been a huge fan of Hermes ties.</p>
<p>I don’t like Romney’s looks. Too perfect. If he were chubby or more wrinkled or shorter . . . but he’s too handsome to be my candidate. I just don’t trust a good-looking politician.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL…have to admit I’ve had that same thought.</p>
<p>Well, that makes no sense. Shouldn’t you evaluate them on the issues? Not how they look? (presuming they are professional in how they dress and groom themselves, which is the case for everyone we are talking about)?</p>
<p>I wonder if being uber well-groomed, skinny, coiffed, etc. can send out the wrong signal for both men and women. I know there is a whole lot of discrimination against people who are obese, and that attractiveness in general brings huge advantages. However, when it comes to some situations, might all that attractiveness be a disadvantage? Is it different for men versus women?</p>
<p>Is our gut-feel reaction to women who might be even slightly fluffy, like Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, or Barbara Bush, or just average looking, like Condoleeza Rice, more positive in general than how we might react to the extremely skinny or high-styled (Nancy Reagan or Cindy McCain)?</p>
<p>Let’s consider Michelle Bachmann’s case - politics aside. Her actual life is extraordinary (23 foster children: remarkable, unselfish, world-class goodness in that). However, somehow her physical appearance - her upscale, uber-skinny, high-styled, overly-coiffed good looks - gives us a different impression than reality. Even the shape of her very large, attractive blue eyes. Just looking at her appearance, would we expect that she actually did walk a path which is hugely more compassionate and highly functional (goodness-wise) than the one walked by most of us? </p>
<p>Would I expect someone more dowdy or chunky or plain or frumpy to have made so many sacrifices in the interests of helping their fellow man?</p>
<p>Someone on this thread mentioned that they saw her with one false eyelash half off. What if I had seen a beautifully groomed women in church with five biological children, who had served 23 foster children, and she had one false eyelash gone awry? I am sure I would find it endearing, as in how could a woman who had taken on so much not look a little disheveled sometimes? But what if I did not know what she did in her real life? Would I think she was crazy or mean spirited? </p>
<p>Do we treat women differently than men in this way? Do we like to instantly go to the “c” word (sorry folks, “crazy”)? From a historical standpoint, aren’t we beyond this? This has nothing to do with politics, as I think it really does happen to women, no matter who they are or what they believe. I know, for example, that folks have had a lot of fun talking about Nancy Pelosi’s appearance in general, and eyes specifically. Pelosi has that same thing going on - skinny, stylish, probably updated with surgery, etc.</p>
<p>Would a male politician of either party be called “crazy” if a poor photo was intentionally published of him? Even if he was extremely handsome, slim, and super well-dressed?</p>
<p>Are attractive women rewarded for their looks only up until the point where they actually try to use their brains?</p>
<p>It was maybe 10-12 years ago when I saw M. Bachmann. It was at a kids school event and she was wearing blue jeans…albeit ironed, creased and with heels and perfect hair. Some folks are just that way. The only time I iron my jeans is if they sat in the dryer too long - even then, I don’t do creases.</p>
<p>I know two people who (to my knowledge) have had blepharoplasties. One was a man who had severely drooping eyelids; the other an attractive young woman whose eyes I never took any particular notice of.</p>
<p>Both now look perpetually startled. I suppose it was an improvement for the man, although his current appearance is somewhat unsettling. The woman… well, my personal opinion in hindsight was that it was not a good idea.</p>
<p>Am I the only one here who noticed that the poster who was most adamant that comments about Bachmann’s appearance must be politically motivated is the same one who said of a politician on the other end of the political spectrum: “…there is a lady who would leave no stone uncovered in her quest for the sanitized conventional facial features – whatever the surgical intervention needed. Not what I look for in my friends and certainly not what I vote for.” :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m telling you… find out who Barbara Walters plastic surgeon is!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have met her three times (worked on both of Bill’s campaigns) and was always struck by how petite and lovely she is in person, kind of china doll-like. She is not photogenic in the slightest.</p>
<p>^That’s interesting about Hillary Clinton. I do think some people just don’t photograph well. I don’t think she looks bad for a lady who’s 64.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously? I thought Hillary was known for her chunky legs, which is why she supposedly always wore the pant suit.</p>
<p>Good points spidey girl, but I think male politicians who look “too perfect” become handicapped by that just as women do. Several posters have brought this up about Mitt Romney (and I agree). FWIW I don’t think Michelle Bachman looks overly polished, but her eyes are too startling to be comfortable. </p>
<p>Woman are judged and discussed too much based on their appearance rather than deeper qualities. Not saying that we should subject men to the same treatment, but how to dial down that sort of superficial attention? We are living in a supersized high-definition time and every little feature is examined thoroughly 24 hours a day. TV news people have become just as plastic looking as the celebrities and politicians they report on. </p>
<p>I had a high school teacher who insisted that people who had listened to the Nixon Kennedy debate on the radio thought that Nixon had won, while people who had watched it on TV thought Kennedy had won. Nixon was wearing a bad color, was standing in front of a bad color, had pasty skin and was far less attractive than Kennedy (even on a B & W TV). The image war began. Then again, this teacher was pretty tricky and may have been fooling us about Nixon winning, even on radio.</p>
<p>" However, somehow her physical appearance - her upscale, uber-skinny, high-styled, overly-coiffed good looks - gives us a different impression than reality. Even the shape of her very large, attractive blue eyes. Just looking at her appearance, would we expect that she actually did walk a path which is hugely more compassionate and highly functional (goodness-wise) than the one walked by most of us? "</p>
<p>I’m sorry, this makes no sense to me. How does her appearance give a “different impression than reality”? She looks exactly like what she is - a well groomed and well put together, professional, upper middle class fifty something woman. She looks no different from – and probably better than most – other professional fifty somethings. What, because she has had foster children, she should be wearing spit-up stained clothing or something? Pelosi looks like a well groomed and well put together sixty something. I am not comprehending how this is not reality. They look just like their private-sector contemporaries.</p>
<p>In case you haven’t seen this, I found a slideshow of Michelle Bachmann’s crazy eyes throughout history. [Michele</a> Bachmann’s crazy eyes in world history - Minneapolis - Slideshows](<a href=“http://www.citypages.com/slideshow/michele-bachmanns-crazy-eyes-in-world-history-33969893/]Michele”>http://www.citypages.com/slideshow/michele-bachmanns-crazy-eyes-in-world-history-33969893/)</p>
<p>Can we get the politics board reopened?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remember you said you’re liberal so you are too charitable to her… Pelosi is seventy something, if I am not mistaken!!! LOL - Joking aside, yes, she’s has an impeccable appearance all the time.</p>
<p>I wondered the same thing about reopening the politics forum, say from November 2011 to November 2012. I never went on it when it was open, but I think it fulfills a need for a lot of cc folk who are itching to talk politics.</p>
<p>ETA: Pelosi is 71. Looks darn good.</p>
<p>A non-political, celebrity - Raquel Welch is 70 something now. She admits to “maintenance” but won’t say what kind. Google a recent picture of her.</p>
<p>
Oh thats priceless. Best one I’ve heard all day! Seems one of the goals in closing it was to get rid of all the acrimony. There is enough seeping under the door of other threads in recent days. No one wants more. </p>
<p><strong>Edit</strong> take that back-- blackeyedsusan’s link above (#135) is a riot!! LOL!</p>