Inaugural Fashion: Beyond the Clothes

 

The real news about Michelle Obama’s fashion choices for the Inauguration is not, ironically,  in the details you will surely not be able to avoid today but in the larger picture you might have already missed.

 

As of yesterday, there is a very good case to be made that, amid the rumors about whether Anna Wintour, the uber poweful editrix of Vogue magazine is about to be replaced,  America’s new First Lady  is now the de facto most important and powerful  champion of American fashion.

 

Only fashion insiders keep score of Ms. Wintour’s  conspicuously short list of designers for whom she serves as cheerleader in chief. (Well, okay, those on the longer list for whom she does not cheerlead keep  even closer score.) The average American consumer, and dare I say even but the most attentive of Vogue readers, can’t tell you who curries her favor and who doesn’t. Read Cathy Horyn’s excellent New York Times piece  ”Citizen Anna” if you need to catch up.

 

By contrast, women all over the country and the world, can tell you not only which designers and brands  Mrs. Obama favors (J Crew, White House Black Market, Maria Pinto, Narciso Rodriguez, Maria Cornejo),  but wait with baited breath for whom she will add to her expanding list of favorites. Anna Winour may be an  elite kingmaker behind the scenes, but Michelle Obama is a populist kingmaker who can  make household names out of relatively obscure designers like Maria Pinto and, as she surely did yesterday, with Jason Wu and Isabel Toledo.

 

But she can also make merchandise  fly out of showrooms and store shelves, in large part because like people of real  contemporary style she is adept at navigating  and mixing high and low pricepoints  with  enviable ease. In the current dismal retail environment, Mrs. Obama’s power is, as Guy Trebay reports, remarkably important, whether you’re courting favor by impressing her with your merchandise at the mall or by knowing Ikram Goldberg, the influential Chicago retailer who  (unofficially but  with glaring  business savvy –and Isabel Toledo and Jason Wu inventory!) has the First Lady’s ear.

 

This is not to say that all of her  fashion choices are always right. She has made plenty of mistakes but that is to be expected of anyone who goes out of their way to think (or in this case, dress) out of the box. An economic analogy  will  make the point of Mrs. Obama’s true success. When you take risks, as long as more of your risks pay off big, the risks which fail are easily overshadowed.

 

As for the clothes she wore yesterday, here’s my take: the  color of the Isabel Toledo ensemble was beautiful and extremely flattering (which is what I think people are responding to when they rave about how good she looked) but apart from that, if you added a handbag and goofy hat, it was essentially a Princess Margaret outfit or a mother of the bride outfit.

 

The Narciso Rodriguez designed  camel skirt, black silk blouse and black silk lined camel coat she wore to the concert at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday was the real show stopper of the Inaugural events. 

 Right down to the belt, earings hair and makeup , I don’t think I have ever  seen her look more chic and sophisticated. (Both designer and client needed to right the wrong of the election night dress in Grant Park and what a more fitting place to do it than in front of Lincoln.  Irony noted. Apology accepted.)

 

The Jason Wu gown was a clearly a labor of love and craftmanship as it was in naivite. Its color choice certainly brought to mind the inaugural choices of the two chicest First Lady’s of the 2oth century, Jackie Kennedy and Nancy Reagan.

 

As far as Inaugural ballgowns go, it was one of the best ever, if that can be considered a compliment.  But it  also came dangerously close to looking like a wedding dress. The train made it visibly awkward to dance in, and even a casual viewer of Project Runway would easily and gleefully point out that is not a minor flaw in a ball gown.  Finally, I’m not convinced that a column dress of such volume  was the most flattering choice for her figure.  

 

That said, the good news is really that this is only the beginning of her look for formal events on the international stage and it was impressive enough. She’s  already proven that she can engage both the public and the design world with her choices. I hear they both send  their best wishes for a picture perfect marriage of style and politics. 

TheBestDressedLIst.com

 

The Golden Globes 2009: The Tuxedo Redux

Tom Kolovos, NBC Chicago Street Team

I usually start these lists by talking about the women’s fashion first. But last nite I was repeatedly struck by how the tuxedo or what a Hollywood actor considers to be  formal wear has undergone an almost seismic shift. And as with all seismic shifts, there are losers and there are winners.

What was once the obligatory penguin suit with bow tie has now become just a starting point from which to riff as many silhouettes, shirt and tie/less combinations as possible, making the men’s choices appear almost as vast as the women’s. And with this newfound lattitude, the mistakes and the successes, it seems to me, are now as noteworthy as the women’s.

Last nite you saw jackets with shawl collars, peak lapels, notch lapels, narrow lapels, one button and more traditional two button closures and, in the case of Tom Cruise, a beautiful double breasted model–that was unfortunately the wrong style for him since a double breasted jacket with wide lapels looks best on someone tall.

The teen musical sensation The Jonas Brothers best personified the trend  towards experimentation as well as the risks that are involved in riffing on the classic tuxedo. Only Kevin got it  absolutely right,  in a velvet cropped blazer, white shirt and a bow tie. The other two young men fell into the trap of of the trend: they looked goofy and if as if they were getting dressed in the dark.

At least you can blame their mistakes on the folly of youth. But how is one to explain the outfits of Alexandre Desplat, Sting, Robert Downey, Collin Ferrell, Rainn Wilson and, most quizically, Mickey Rourke?  

The best rule of thumb one can offer about how to break the tuxedo out of its constraining box is this: take the process seriously. If you look like you’re dressing in a costume from some odd period film or like Keith Richards , you need to start again. (And perhaps demand that your stylist get you  a few beautifully cut pieces you can mix and match from Neil Barrett or Band of Outsiders.)

That said,  along with Kevin Jonas, Aaron Eckhart, Chris Pine,  Zac Efron, andPatrick Dempsey looked especially good, most noticeably because their tuxedos had the perfect fit and proportion, Mr Cruise.

TheBestDressedList.com

 

The Best and Worst Dressed List: The Golden Globes 2009

Drew Barrymore, Marissa Tomei, Kate Winslet, January Jones, Laura Linney,Brooke Burke, Mary Louise Parker, Jennifer Lopez, Evan Rachel Wood and, dare I say it, Miley Cyrus.

That’s my list of the best dressed women at last nite’s Golden Globe’s presentation and I must confess it was a very easy list to make.

Let my list be a cautionary tale to  designers who have the task of presenting their Fall 09 collections next month,  Conventional wisdom has it that they will err on the side of caution and produce collections of all black clothes. But who needs any more black? As Zac Pozen proved with his brilliant pre-Fall collection, what we need now more than ever is quality of design, imagination and an uplift that only color can provide.

I bring this up because last night  the black  dress seemed  a nearly outdated choice. As a matter of fact, four of the worst dressed women wore black: Tina Fey, Susan Sarandon, Sally Hawkins, Renee Zellweger. With the exception of the stunning tiered gown worn by Evan Rachel Wood and the drop dead gorgeous simplicity of Kate Winslet’s off-black strapless dress, everything else seemed like….. resale.

It wasn’t too many season’s ago when white was the refreshing color of choice on the red carpet, but the danger of a white gown–or even an off white gown– is that it can easily be mistaken for a wedding dress–Beyonce, Sandra Bullock, Kate Beckinsdale, Demi Moore–or even worse, as in Eva Mendez’ case, a clamshell and in Angelina Jolie’s case, a dingy nightgown. Brooke Burke was a stunning exception to this line of thinking with a knockout pale cream goddess gown.

The only white dress that looked perfect to me was the one worn by Miley Cyrus. She looked appropriately grown up, evoking an elegant insouciance, unlike  Blake Lively or America Ferrera who looked dowdy and completely age inappropriate.

There’s nothing like  a jolt of color to lift the spirits and rid one of the blues— and through sheer irony 3 different and deepening shades of blue on Drew Barrymore, January Jones and Mary Louise Parker did the trick most impressively. (Whatever shade of blue  was Maggie Gyllenhaal  wearing in that print dress, you ask? Please, don’t remind me about the worst dress of the night when I’ve just told you about 3 of the best.)

And to round out the list, Laura Linney and Marissa Tomei glowed with the stunning elegance and confidence that comes from dressing  for your age. But then, again, JLo looked stunning despite it.

TheBestDressedList.com

 

2008 IN REVIEW: The Year in Color

 

IN FASHION :

Grey is the new black.

IN RETAIL:

Everyone’s got the blues.

IN POLITICS: 

Black is the new white. Red states are now the new blue states.  

IN CALIFORNIA:

Gays got played by the Mormon Church and by the black vote and are now singing the blues.

IN CELEBRITY ADOPTIONS:

African orphans are the new ralphlaurenpaint.com

IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:

Two white women nearly made history running for the White House. One of them was actually qualified.

IN SUBLIMATION:

Elitist is now the correct term for uppity negro.

IN THE LYNN CHENEY “MY DAUGHTER IS NOT A LESBIAN” TRADITION:

White political candidates who believe in Virgin Birth still believe in teaching their children–and yours– that abstinence is an effective form of contraception till they’re blue in the face.

IN ROMANCE:  

Among those folks for whom shotgun weddings for expectant white teens are all the rage, gay weddings between consenting adults still make them see red. 

IN FINANCE:

“In the red” is the new “in the black.”

IN MUSIC:

Pink is red hot.

IN PHARMACEUTICALS:

Pfizer turns blue to green with sustainable wood. VIVA VIAGRA!

tomkolovos.com

 

10 things you can’t afford to live without

We are all being forced to cut back on the non essential things in our lives. Here’s my list of things you can’t afford to live without:

10 New York Times Select. The online version of the newspaper of record. If you were part of the 70% + of people who thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11, don’t worry, you won’t hate everything. The Op Ed page has Bill Kristol who convinced John McCain to put Sarah Palin on the Republican presidential ticket. You’ll like him. 

     

9 indianmathonline.com  You can’t afford those damn American Girl dolls anymore for your children/other people’s children? Good.  You are not the only one that thought they were always a transparent antifeminist waste of money. American girls don’t need dolls, they need math skills. Come to think of it, so do boys. Playing with dolls or soccer balls will not be a valued skill set in the 21st century global economy. If that surprises you, then you need to fork over $150 a year, per child, ASAP–before their math score turns out to be 150 on their SAT.

                    

8 Window shopping. You go to a museum to educate yourself about the history and quality of art. You don’t go there to bitch that you can’t afford the art or to ridicule the artists. Try the same logic in a high end department or specialty store. 

7 A museum membership. Museums exist for a reason. If you are unsure why, now would be a good time to find out for yourself and for any children in your life.

6 A good hairstylist/colorist. Length is not a hairstyle. Peanut brittle is never a convincing shade of hair color even if you are the governor of California and are married to a Kennedy. Oh, and ladies –male and female alike–highlights are not a hair color either.

5 A great pair of  shoes and jeans. I mean ones that other people consistently compliment you on and not the ones you’re wearing while you are reading this.

4 A friend that will bring you chicken soup when you have the flu. That eliminates everyone from your Facebook/bigmuscle/jdate account. Now what? 

3 Your own personal Gayle King: Someone who (or something that) would have no real reason for being if it were not for you.

2 A loving mother. Just like she keeps telling you: you really are going to miss her when she’s gone.

 

1 The knowledge of what  the hell has happened to Nicole Kidman’s face.  Did anyone catch a glimpse of Clutch Cargo Kidman on “Oprah” this week? Caveat emptor.

tomkolovos.com

 

 

Azuca’ pa’ tu amargura

Live long enough–or hear the theme song of “The Facts of Life” often enough– and you eventually learn “you take the the good/you take the bad/and there you have the facts of life.” Yes, more than 70% of the gay vote went to Barack Obama–more than went to Clinton or Kerry–and yes, 70% of our black brothers and sisters in California voted to deny gay men and women the fundamental civil right to marry.

Quite honestly, it’s been a bittersweet week for me.  While I fully share the abundant joy of the historical moment with my black brothers and sisters as we finally bore witness in Grant Park to Martin Luther King’s dream, 70% of the black voters in California embraced the nightmare logic of this country’s miscegenation laws that would have made the marriage of Barack Obama’s mother and father illegal in America and just applied it to gay people.

Thanks. Does Hallmark make a card for that? 

Early in June of 2002, I found out that the Cuban singer Albita was going to play at Ravinia so I called a good friend of mine, who happens to be Nigerian, and told hershe simply had to go to the concert with me. I had seen Albita  perform two years earlier at RFK Stadium at the concert for gay rights which coincided with the March on Washington. Though much bigger names played that night–Melissa Etheridge, Chaka Khan, Garth Brooks, George Michael among them–Albita who came on early in the night simply blew me away with an amazing voice and an infectious Afro-Cuban sound. I came back to Chicago and immediately bought her CD “Son.” If it were vinyl, I would have surely worn it out in the first week.

Please, I implored my friend, come with me to hear this woman. “Ok, I’ll make you a deal,” she said. “I’ll go if you come with me to the Miriam Makeba concert later this month.”

Um. Sure. And who is Miriam Makeba? When is the concert? Wait a minute, the tickets I have for June 19 have some woman named Miriam as the opening act? It’s this Makeba person!

Amazed at the coincidence, I listened as she explained about “Mama Africa,” and why I had better get my skinny white behind to Ravinia even if Albita weren’t on the bill.

So we went to Ravinia together, curious about what we would each discover and just to make matters even more interesting we dragged along a mutual friend who had heard of neither woman.

Needless to say, it was a magical night of music. We went to see a concert but Albita and Miriam put on a celebration of life. Despite the fact that most of the songs were in languages we surely didn’t fully understand,  there was no mistaking the universal language of joy, heartache and exile in their music and in their voices. We all walked away that night not as people of different races, genders and sexual orientations but as celebrants of a common, and yes, a sometimes deeply flawed, humanity. I was deeply saddened to hear that the truly amazing “Mama Africa” died this week. But despite the sadness, I was able to find solace in the hope, fearlessness and tenacity of a life lived by example and against injustice.

Her struggle makes mine a little more bearable today. As Albita sang on that magical night, “Azuca’ pa’ tu amargura,” Tom.

Sugar for your bitterness, Tom. 

tomkolovos.com

 

What you see is what you get (Nixon/Kennedy redux)

 

So, it was my good fortune to  be the first person to point out more than a 13 months ago that in this  political year image would be as crucial a factor in determining the  presidential election as it was in 1960.

Since then, requests for interviews invariably, and very quickly I might add, boiled down to “what do the candidates wardrobes say about them.”  Shortly after I was quoted in USA Today, a producer for WGN pre-interviewed me for a segment.  I tried to explain to her that it was much  more complicated than that. Could I go on air and briefly discuss the complexities? (Sure, that sounds funny now but at the time I was serious.)

She never called back and I learned my lesson. Give NBC, FOX, and CBS what they want.

Of course, though I was certain of the statement I made, I certainly didn’t know exactly how it would play out.   As the nominees of each party emerged, lots of people  jumped on the Nixon/Kennedy paradigm and they’ve pointed out the obvious similarities. One candidate is young, attractive and magnetic but lacks experience.  The other candidate is old, not so telegenic, prone to soporific public appearances but chock full of experience.

(The role race has played in the campaign is beyond the pervue this blog entry, although you can bet the farm I have a lot to say  about how it has been sublimated. Perhaps reading my blog “Sarah, Plain and Tall(tale)” might give you some idea….)

The Nixon-Kennedy debates were  historically significant because they were the first to be televised and that very fact  made it possible, if one were inclined to do so, infer something not only from the answers the candidates gave but how they looked while they were giving them. We all remember form high school history class that people who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon had won, but those who listened and watched on television thought Kennedy won.

I’ve been waiting for 13 months for the moment in this campaign that would make the issue of image as compelling– and decisive– as it was in 1960.

I think that finally happened in last night’s televised debate. 

I think we saw last night, for the first time in this election, how filtering a town hall meeting through television affected the candidates’ message and chances for victory. 

The conventional wisdom  had it that  McCain was supposed to have the home court advantage in the debate because he had built his campaign on town hall style meetings.

Obama on the other hand was supposed to be at a disadvantage because he excelled as the rock star/politician in front of tens of thousands.

The conventional wisdom (an oxymoron, if there ever was one) got it all wrong. 

Last night Senator Obama looked  calm, cool and collected, in control and in command. . His youthful energy was contained but obvious in his statesmanlike posture. . John McCain on the other hand looked, anxious, jittery, scattered–aimless even– and inescapably old from what appeared  to be a dowager’s hump as the cameras gave us panoramic views of him roaming the stage.

So what leads me to this conclusion? Watch the debate again and you will notice, if you didn’t already get the vague feeling when you watched last night, that Senator Obama’s choices in presenting himself to the studio audience and to the home audience contrasted sharply with Senator McCain’s.

Obama’s choices underscored his claim that in these turbulent times he is the leader whose judgement is superior to McCain’s while McCain’s  choices undercut his claim that he is the safer, more experienced steady hand to lead us through this crisis.

Why do I say this? What specifically did each candidate do that we could see on television that could possibly affect how we perceived their message?

Senator Obama consistently focussed on fewer that three studio audience members while he was answering questions in a soothing voice and he minimally moved his entire body in order to do this. He usually pivoted slightly or he simply turned his head in another direction. This meant that not only was he connecting with the studio audience but he looked as if he were speaking directly into the camera, and therefore to us at home. The cumulative effect of this over 90 minutes  allowed us to see Mr Obama as  a calm, thoughtful, caring and decisive candidate.

In stark contrast, Senator McCain, roamed the stage, addressing multiple audience members and sections of the stage, haphazardly changing his tone and demeanor and repeatedly (and inexplicably) twirling in place, even walking backwards for no apparent reason other than to be closer to ( but not at) his podium.

If you were watching the debate on television, you saw that Senator Obama was always within the frame of the screen and the cameraman did not have to chase him around  as he did with Senator McCain. At one point, out of what must have been sheer frustration on the part of the director, you saw both candidates on a split screen, and even then McCain couldn’t be contained in the frame.

The fact that the camera had to make such an effort to follow Senator McCain, he came off as erratic, uncertain and unfocussed. It didn’t help matters any that, unlike Obama, he never moved the microphone from his right hand, which meant that he was always forced to move his left arm only in order to make a point. This meant that his gestures were at once more highly exaggerated and repetitive.  He could clearly be seen gripping the microphone tightly which made him look stiff and unnatural, as if he had suffered some sort of stroke which only affected the right side of his upper body.

On television, he came across as one of those grandpas who spend their spare time trying to keep someone (perhaps,”that guy”) off his lawn. This is hardly the image one wants to portray to an electorate looking for leadership in a crisis. 

If it’s the case that Mr. Obama won the debate last night, as is the consensus, it is important to understand that it was in good measure because he was able to make us see him connecting to regular people and the television audience, undercutting any of the doubts that he is elitist, unprepared, and of unfit judgement to be Commander in Chief. He was able to accomplish this because of what he said, yes. But the image he projected on television underscored his message. The same cannot be said for Senator McCain. 

TheBestDressedList.com

TomKolovos.com

 

 

Sarah, Plain and Tall(tale)

With my apologies to Patricia MacLachlan, let me tell you a tale about loneliness and abandonment.

John, a “maverick” who, in 8 years of political marriage to his party’s president voted for 90% of the president’s legislative agenda, finds himself saddened by his chances to successfully distance himself from the selfsame disasterous economic and military agenda he voted for so he can now become President himself.

Somewhere in one of his eight homes, he is also saddened that his opponent, an elitist African American upstart half his age and who was raised by a single mother on food stamps, picked a champion of the working class and expert on foreign affairs as his vice presidential candidate.

Even his couture clad, brewing-fortune heiress wife is unable to console him from his public admission that he knows very little about economic matters, which suddenly matter very much to the voters.

Clearly unable to to handle the the burden himself, he decides to put out feelers for an upstart half his age of his very own to put on the presidential ticket.

He asks a few buddies, perhaps some randy buddies, and they tell him that putting a woman on the ticket would show the other side that he meant fundamentally sound business.

So they look around for a political bride.

They find a really good one in Maine, but decide that she isn’t young enough or much of an upstart, so they send her packing.

Suddenly, as if she were a credit card sent through the mail without a FICO credit check, someone pops up on their radar. Her name is Sarah.

She is from Alaska and she is eager, really eager and more than willing to travel down to the lower 48 to take the job immediately. The randy friends like that she was a former beauty contestant, and although she is married with children and a potential future ex son in law, it means that she has plenty of practice in the interview portion of her pageants to give confusing, nonsensical answers to difficult questions, and such as.

She seems like the kind of gal that can really read the heck out of an electrifying speech, which some friend of John’s could write and pepper with truthiness. No need to bother the FBI to do a background check.

Just as John had hoped, his plan succeeds beautifully. Within hours of the political marriage, they manage to steal the political thunder from their elitist community organizing upstart opponent. Everyone is talking about Sarah!

Oh, and how Sarah loves talking about her Alaska homeland, which she misses very much. To relieve her homesickness, she paints beautiful, fanciful pictures with words about her life there and the shores of Alaska and their proximity to a far away land called Russia. She even talks about the strategic proximity of her homeland to the exotic land of Canada.

But after a severe economic crisis threatens to force the entire world to party like it’s 1929, John is afraid they may lose the election and he may be forced to sell the entire country to China.

When Sarah leaves to go to the United Nations and on national television with Katie Couric to talk more about Alaska, John panics. Fearing Sarah may not survive the return trip, he declares that he will suspend his campaign and cancel the scheduled debate with his upstart opponent to go to Wahington to help fix the economic meltdown that a week earlier he had declared didn’t exist.

In his haste to get to Washington, he forgets to close down any of his campaign offices or stop running any of his campaign ads on television. He also forgets his haste, since, having cancelled an interview with David Letterman because he has suspended his campaign, he goes to Katie Couric’s CBS office instead, where it turns out he decides to be interviewed. David Letterman feels lonely and abandoned..

In the end, John’s fears are well founded. Sarah does not survive the return trip. Actually, she is politely asked not to return, abandoned really, by one of her most influential admirers at the National Review. She’s had enough of Sarah’s tall tales. She admonishes that “if BS were currency, Sarah… could bail out Wall Street herself.”

Sarah is now working on learning to print currency, and in her spare time, cold fusion. (It’s cold in Alaska and her parents say there’s nothing that their daughter can’t do.) She plans to report on her results this Thursday nite.

TomKolovos.com

 

The Sarah Palin School of Resume Building

 

During the past few days I’ve been trying to put the finishing touches on the redesign of my website. A Higher power willing, the new home page will be up today with the rest of the pages gradually coming along in two weeks.

One of the pages I still have to redo is the “about tom” page, which essentially serves as my virtual/online resume. 

Watching Sarah Palin speed date her way to foreign policy cred at the United Nations yesterday made me think how much more impressive my fashion credentials would be if I followed her example:

I met Calvin Klein once in Chicago and saw him once walking the boardwalk on Fire Island with David Geffen.  I’ve stood in line with Christy Turlington at O’Hare waiting for a limo. I’ve met Todd Oldham and Zac Pozen. I’ve had dinner with Rubin Singer and his staff. Rubin worked for both Oscar de la Renta and Bill Blass. 

I’ve dished about Condoleza Rice’s wardrobe with Albert Kreimler of Akris.  

I’ve  rescued away Thierry Mugler from hangers on by asking him to tell me how his then recent interview in Time magazine with the art critic Linda Nochlin (whose essays I used to teach, not ban) came about. I was wearing a Dolce and Gabbana vest. This happened on Mykonos, no less.

You can, if you wish really hard, see parts of Turkey, our strategic NATO ally in The War Against Terror, from Mykonos.

I’ve slept with someone who’s slept with Marc Jacobs (and who hasn’t, you say) and no one got anyone pregnant.

Probably because none of our mothers were hockey moms.

I introduced Narciso Rodriguez to Michelle Obama. I styled the first magazine cover with Michelle who favors Maria Pinto’s clothes. Maria Pinto used to be an assistant to Geoffrey Beene. Geoffrey Beene reprimanded Narciso for copying his clothes. So, by Palin logic, I’ve also met Mr. Beene, twice(!)–although he’s dead.  

Geoffrey Beene’s signature fragrance was called Grey Flannel, and tonite I will be wearing a grey Band of Outsiders three piece suit to the Giorgio Armani party sponsored by W magazine, which this month has Anne Hathaway on it’s cover. She was one of the stars of The Devil Wears Prada. Prada used to own Helmut Langwhich is now designed by Nicole and Michael Colovos.

As Bette Midler (who I have seen in concert) would say: “Shall I go on?”

see KATIE COURIC’S INTERVIEW  part 1

part 2 

TheBestDressedList.com

 

Back in Black (from the bridge to nowhere)

I’m back!

I have not blogged for almost 3 months and over the next few moths maybe I can find the time to tell you why.

Let’s start with why I’m back to begin with. Since I started blogging for nbc5.com, I’ve been posting my picks for the best and worst dressed celebs at the major awards shows. Hey, it’s frivolous fun and at the end of the day not a dumb thing to do when your website is called TheBestDressedList.com.

Since the Emmy Awards will be handed out tonite, I will post the obligatory list tomorrow.

But in a week in which the headlines have been about the  surprise(?) enormous mismanagement of the U.S. economy and the reality that we face an international global economic collapse that would make the Great Depression look like a trip to Disneyland, I’ll be honest with you, the list of who is wearing what will be frivolous.

As an image consultant, I’m sometimes asked a really important question: “Can a client who has very little substance, make up for it by finessing great style?” Quite frankly  I’m surprised I’m not asked this question more often. My answer is always: “No. Not in the long run.” 

The reason I believe this to be true is because if great style, or any style at all, could be a substitute for substance, it would have to be based on smoke and mirrors, misrepresentations and, a word we are uncomfortable using publicly, lies. Eventually, the truth will come out and the charade is over.

Or maybe not. Maybe not if we all really want to collectively continue to believe the charade because it’s more comforting than the truth.

As I write this, I defy anyone to suggest to me that ordinary Americans have the slightest clue about the global economic implications of the last week. While I’m at it, I defy anyone in the Bush administration to have explained it to me sometimebefore this week.

It’s going to take a long time and, OMFG, a lot of my money and yours before the charade is exposed and we can go back to hitting our collective “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” snooze button. 

Funny enough–well, funny only in a black comedy ( and I don’t mean TheJeffersons)– the political landscape in the country is facing an equally crucial wake up call. I had no idea how utterly naive it would seem in 2008, when it seemed perfectly logical in 2007, for me to tell USA Today that: 

“This is an election, maybe the first one since Kennedy-Nixon, where appearance really does matter, because we have credible female, black, Hispanic candidates, style and substance may actually be competitive, or even equally important to the public.” 

Suddenly, it doesn’t really matter how many sources have picked up that quote or in how many foreign languages. As of the day Sarah Palin joined the the Republican presidential ticket, substance has taken a seat at the very back of the political tour bus. How Ms. Palin, and therefore John McCain,  has been packaged to the public in this election will make it possible for those of us who grapple with image, either for a living or academically, to think, rethink, publish, blog and (maybe even blush) for years to come.

After a lot of thought and head scratching, I have lots to say on the subject ofimage and politics in this election. I will share them with you in blog size bites in the next few week/months. (Yes, Marcus, I know this blog is too long….)

Enjoy the Emmys tonite.