The apolitical clothing thread of politicians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one chooses an outfit like that by accident. She's being deliberately disrespectful to her office, her constituents, and her Senate peers.

She is the ONLY one who dresses like that.

She would never be allowed to dress like that in a corporate law firm.

Lucky for her she got elected Senator and doesn't have to work at a corporate law firm

I appreciate that she makes bold choices and owns her style, even if I don't always like how it comes up

AOC has a totally different style. Much more traditional. She looks gorgeous in everything, and chooses good clothes for herself. But it's sort of bananas to compare her style with Sinema, who is just off on a frolic of her own. One I usually enjoy! Even that weird black dress and denim outfit - I would love to have a conversation with her about how the heck she ended up wearing that to work. I bet there's some story.

The story is that she's white and entitled. No woman of color could dress or behave like she does in that setting.

That's your version of the story. I guess I'd like to talk to her. But it's fine if you want to dismiss her based on her race. I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one chooses an outfit like that by accident. She's being deliberately disrespectful to her office, her constituents, and her Senate peers.

+1
OP. It is absolutely meant to be a middle finger. I just don’t think teenage rebellion is cute on the edge of 50. I posted a pic with Sen Murkowski in my OP and she definitely is not fitting herself to the corporate “look like a man and god forbid don’t look feminine or like you have a personality,” but she did so in a respectful manner, aware of the importance of her office.

Sinema is just rubbing our noses in her disdain for us.

And I agree with the PP who said that no woman of color could get away with this. Absolutely not. The rules are always enforced differently for minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one chooses an outfit like that by accident. She's being deliberately disrespectful to her office, her constituents, and her Senate peers.

She is the ONLY one who dresses like that.

She would never be allowed to dress like that in a corporate law firm.

Lucky for her she got elected Senator and doesn't have to work at a corporate law firm

I appreciate that she makes bold choices and owns her style, even if I don't always like how it comes up

AOC has a totally different style. Much more traditional. She looks gorgeous in everything, and chooses good clothes for herself. But it's sort of bananas to compare her style with Sinema, who is just off on a frolic of her own. One I usually enjoy! Even that weird black dress and denim outfit - I would love to have a conversation with her about how the heck she ended up wearing that to work. I bet there's some story.

The story is that she's white and entitled. No woman of color could dress or behave like she does in that setting.

That's your version of the story. I guess I'd like to talk to her. But it's fine if you want to dismiss her based on her race. I guess.

DP here. It's kind of weird to pretend like a grown woman who was elected to the Senate doesn't understand some of the basic language of fashion. Under-dressing for a setting is a deliberate form of expressing disrespect. If you're trying to understand why she wants to convey that, it's a reasonable question to ask. It's completely unreasonable to start with the assumption that she's just confused about how she's coming off or there was some kind of dry-cleaning catastrophe that left her with only a denim vest, sneakers, and a weird skirt to wear into work. That's a textbook example of assuming zebras instead of horses when you hear hoof beats.

As to PP's point about race, I don't think that Sinema is dressing the way she is because she's white. And I don't think that's what PP was saying either. I think that if Sinema were Black, this would be a very different combination. For example, consider the language used about Michelle Obama who was always dressed appropriate to the occasion but just happened to like sleeveless dresses. [Aside: One of the articles shared upthread mentions that another senator actually approached Schumer to suggest they should change Senate rules to allow sleeveless dresses, as a way of being welcoming to Sinema's fashion preferences.]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one chooses an outfit like that by accident. She's being deliberately disrespectful to her office, her constituents, and her Senate peers.

She is the ONLY one who dresses like that.

She would never be allowed to dress like that in a corporate law firm.

Lucky for her she got elected Senator and doesn't have to work at a corporate law firm

I appreciate that she makes bold choices and owns her style, even if I don't always like how it comes up

AOC has a totally different style. Much more traditional. She looks gorgeous in everything, and chooses good clothes for herself. But it's sort of bananas to compare her style with Sinema, who is just off on a frolic of her own. One I usually enjoy! Even that weird black dress and denim outfit - I would love to have a conversation with her about how the heck she ended up wearing that to work. I bet there's some story.

The story is that she's white and entitled. No woman of color could dress or behave like she does in that setting.

That's your version of the story. I guess I'd like to talk to her. But it's fine if you want to dismiss her based on her race. I guess.

DP here. It's kind of weird to pretend like a grown woman who was elected to the Senate doesn't understand some of the basic language of fashion. Under-dressing for a setting is a deliberate form of expressing disrespect. If you're trying to understand why she wants to convey that, it's a reasonable question to ask. It's completely unreasonable to start with the assumption that she's just confused about how she's coming off or there was some kind of dry-cleaning catastrophe that left her with only a denim vest, sneakers, and a weird skirt to wear into work. That's a textbook example of assuming zebras instead of horses when you hear hoof beats.

As to PP's point about race, I don't think that Sinema is dressing the way she is because she's white. And I don't think that's what PP was saying either. I think that if Sinema were Black, this would be a very different combination. For example, consider the language used about Michelle Obama who was always dressed appropriate to the occasion but just happened to like sleeveless dresses. [Aside: One of the articles shared upthread mentions that another senator actually approached Schumer to suggest they should change Senate rules to allow sleeveless dresses, as a way of being welcoming to Sinema's fashion preferences.]

Of course she understands! That's why I'd be curious to talk to her about what she's doing.

And yes of course she can only dress this way because she is in a position where no one can tell her not to. There's all kinds of privilege wrapped up in being able to wear whatever the eff you want. I don't know why we have to say that because her ability to do it is rooted in privilege, that means we can't be curious why she chose THAT outfit.

It's weird holding Michele Obama up as a counter example. She wasn't an elected official - she had to be in a support role for her husband. And her clothes reflected that - like her primary objective was not to be objectionable. (And yet, of course she still was.) She's gotten much looser and more expressive since Obama left office. That's a story, too. That she is now free to let her clothes freak flag fly regardless of the criticism she knows she'll get for it - and I love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one chooses an outfit like that by accident. She's being deliberately disrespectful to her office, her constituents, and her Senate peers.

She is the ONLY one who dresses like that.

She would never be allowed to dress like that in a corporate law firm.

Lucky for her she got elected Senator and doesn't have to work at a corporate law firm

I appreciate that she makes bold choices and owns her style, even if I don't always like how it comes up

AOC has a totally different style. Much more traditional. She looks gorgeous in everything, and chooses good clothes for herself. But it's sort of bananas to compare her style with Sinema, who is just off on a frolic of her own. One I usually enjoy! Even that weird black dress and denim outfit - I would love to have a conversation with her about how the heck she ended up wearing that to work. I bet there's some story.

The story is that she's white and entitled. No woman of color could dress or behave like she does in that setting.

That's your version of the story. I guess I'd like to talk to her. But it's fine if you want to dismiss her based on her race. I guess.

DP here. It's kind of weird to pretend like a grown woman who was elected to the Senate doesn't understand some of the basic language of fashion. Under-dressing for a setting is a deliberate form of expressing disrespect. If you're trying to understand why she wants to convey that, it's a reasonable question to ask. It's completely unreasonable to start with the assumption that she's just confused about how she's coming off or there was some kind of dry-cleaning catastrophe that left her with only a denim vest, sneakers, and a weird skirt to wear into work. That's a textbook example of assuming zebras instead of horses when you hear hoof beats.

As to PP's point about race, I don't think that Sinema is dressing the way she is because she's white. And I don't think that's what PP was saying either. I think that if Sinema were Black, this would be a very different combination. For example, consider the language used about Michelle Obama who was always dressed appropriate to the occasion but just happened to like sleeveless dresses. [Aside: One of the articles shared upthread mentions that another senator actually approached Schumer to suggest they should change Senate rules to allow sleeveless dresses, as a way of being welcoming to Sinema's fashion preferences.]

Of course she understands! That's why I'd be curious to talk to her about what she's doing.

And yes of course she can only dress this way because she is in a position where no one can tell her not to. There's all kinds of privilege wrapped up in being able to wear whatever the eff you want. I don't know why we have to say that because her ability to do it is rooted in privilege, that means we can't be curious why she chose THAT outfit.

It's weird holding Michele Obama up as a counter example. She wasn't an elected official - she had to be in a support role for her husband. And her clothes reflected that - like her primary objective was not to be objectionable. (And yet, of course she still was.) She's gotten much looser and more expressive since Obama left office. That's a story, too. That she is now free to let her clothes freak flag fly regardless of the criticism she knows she'll get for it - and I love it.

You're the one who dismissed the PP who suggested that only a white person could get away with effectively wrapping themselves in a giant FU flag for work everyday. It's completely naive to pretend otherwise.

Regardless, she is a sitting Senator about whom there are at minimum 5 articles a day written. If Sinema wanted to explain what her issues were, beyond just her daily, sartorial FU, then she could easily have done so by now. She hasn't, so I am doubtful that sitting down and talking with her would yield a different result. Regardless, though, I'm curious what her thing is as well...but only so much. If she weren't single-handedly holding up legislation in exchange for "what?, nobody knows and she's not telling"...I would not give one F about an arrogant lady who cannot be bothered to explain why she holds her colleagues and our democratic institutions in such disdain. She's literally not worth my time, aside from her elected role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one chooses an outfit like that by accident. She's being deliberately disrespectful to her office, her constituents, and her Senate peers.

She is the ONLY one who dresses like that.

She would never be allowed to dress like that in a corporate law firm.

Lucky for her she got elected Senator and doesn't have to work at a corporate law firm

I appreciate that she makes bold choices and owns her style, even if I don't always like how it comes up

AOC has a totally different style. Much more traditional. She looks gorgeous in everything, and chooses good clothes for herself. But it's sort of bananas to compare her style with Sinema, who is just off on a frolic of her own. One I usually enjoy! Even that weird black dress and denim outfit - I would love to have a conversation with her about how the heck she ended up wearing that to work. I bet there's some story.

The story is that she's white and entitled. No woman of color could dress or behave like she does in that setting.

That's your version of the story. I guess I'd like to talk to her. But it's fine if you want to dismiss her based on her race. I guess.

DP here. It's kind of weird to pretend like a grown woman who was elected to the Senate doesn't understand some of the basic language of fashion. Under-dressing for a setting is a deliberate form of expressing disrespect. If you're trying to understand why she wants to convey that, it's a reasonable question to ask. It's completely unreasonable to start with the assumption that she's just confused about how she's coming off or there was some kind of dry-cleaning catastrophe that left her with only a denim vest, sneakers, and a weird skirt to wear into work. That's a textbook example of assuming zebras instead of horses when you hear hoof beats.

As to PP's point about race, I don't think that Sinema is dressing the way she is because she's white. And I don't think that's what PP was saying either. I think that if Sinema were Black, this would be a very different combination. For example, consider the language used about Michelle Obama who was always dressed appropriate to the occasion but just happened to like sleeveless dresses. [Aside: One of the articles shared upthread mentions that another senator actually approached Schumer to suggest they should change Senate rules to allow sleeveless dresses, as a way of being welcoming to Sinema's fashion preferences.]

Of course she understands! That's why I'd be curious to talk to her about what she's doing.

And yes of course she can only dress this way because she is in a position where no one can tell her not to. There's all kinds of privilege wrapped up in being able to wear whatever the eff you want. I don't know why we have to say that because her ability to do it is rooted in privilege, that means we can't be curious why she chose THAT outfit.

It's weird holding Michele Obama up as a counter example. She wasn't an elected official - she had to be in a support role for her husband. And her clothes reflected that - like her primary objective was not to be objectionable. (And yet, of course she still was.) She's gotten much looser and more expressive since Obama left office. That's a story, too. That she is now free to let her clothes freak flag fly regardless of the criticism she knows she'll get for it - and I love it.

You're the one who dismissed the PP who suggested that only a white person could get away with effectively wrapping themselves in a giant FU flag for work everyday. It's completely naive to pretend otherwise.

Regardless, she is a sitting Senator about whom there are at minimum 5 articles a day written. If Sinema wanted to explain what her issues were, beyond just her daily, sartorial FU, then she could easily have done so by now. She hasn't, so I am doubtful that sitting down and talking with her would yield a different result. Regardless, though, I'm curious what her thing is as well...but only so much. If she weren't single-handedly holding up legislation in exchange for "what?, nobody knows and she's not telling"...I would not give one F about an arrogant lady who cannot be bothered to explain why she holds her colleagues and our democratic institutions in such disdain. She's literally not worth my time, aside from her elected role.

No, what I dismissed was the pp's assertion that because only a white senator could get away with this, there's nothing else to talk about. "Bad outfit," "she's white" - end of conversation.

[Anonymous]

This author pushes back on Senators Shaheen, Murkowski and Collins complaining that comments on Sinema’s performative wardrobe choices is sexist.

[Anonymous]

It's embarrassing. It's an institution. Do you go church in hot pants?

[Anonymous]

More from Sinema

[Anonymous]

This is 🍌🍌🍌

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m her age and have admired some (not all) of what she wears but this is completely inappropriate, reaching disrespectful.

dear lord, what a trash bag.

And behaving like a bratty teen with the hair.

[Anonymous]

She looks like an oligarch’s wh0re’s mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She looks like an oligarch’s wh0re’s mother.

That or the White Witch. The symbolism from either example fits really well.

[Anonymous]

Ladies and gentlemen, the Governor of Arkansas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, the Governor of Arkansas

She can wear whatever she wants as long as she stays in Arkansas.