Once I finally got to watch episode 2 last night on iTunes, Janie Bryant completely replaced Tim Gunn as my fantasy shopping buddy. She’s even from Cleveland, Tennessee, which is just 30 miles from my hometown. It could happen.

The houndstooth suit on Dr. Faye Miller took my breath away. Typically, I avoid using overwrought expressions like “j’adore!” but when I saw that suit, I clapped my hands in glee and exclaimed it aloud.

While I have a long-standing obsession with anything houndstooth. (Really, I do. I love the fabric.) The outfit was utterly perfect for the setting. Dr. Miller, who likely would have a doctorate in psychology since only undergraduate advertising programs existed at the time, would have been one of the very first women in her academic and professional fields.

This type of market data is very common to American consumers now, but in 1964 this was an idea out of left field. To be a woman championing such a radical concept as correlating relationships with our fathers to the brands we purchase was as extreme as the field got.

In the early 60s, black was not the foundation color of every woman’s wardrobe. Wearing something black-and-white-checked was on the cutting-edge. While it’s in a cut similar to something Doris Day would wear in a Rock Hudson rom-com, it is not a solid color. The check makes it edgy and bold without being threatening. Something that matches her professional field.

However, the accessories tone it down. Dr. Miller isn’t dressed as severely as Peggy, who is still finding her balance between woman and career-girl. Peggy is essentially wearing the female version of the suit. There’s absolutely nothing feminine about her outfit except for the little hair flip.

Dr. Miller’s blouse and chunky pearls feminize the outfit to the point that she’ll be taken seriously, yet doesn’t emasculate any of her colleagues. Her make-up is soft, and her hair style emulates what Joan sports, the epitome of 1960s sexy.

Seriously, I want this outfit. While it’s on the tad over-the-top side of stuffy DC, I would happily wear this exactly as it is. I’d likely replace the double strand of pearls with something a little chunkier, but otherwise it is perfect.

Imagine my glee when AMC released upcoming promotional shots for season 4, which begins July 25. I adore the dresses on Joan and Betty. Both could easily be worn to a cocktail party now.

While the 60s are enjoying a resurgence, this has always been one of my favorite style periods, especially the late 50s/early 60s. I love the silhouettes. Even my apartment is furnished with vintage items from the 1940s to early 60s.

Check out this video from costume designer, Janie Bryant. Many of the clothes she highlights could be worn today. In fact, I have dresses similar to the blue Joan dress and the lavender dress Bryant designed for Betty, and I’ve always wanted a toggle coat like Peggy’s. These aren’t vintage pieces. I have a couple of Calvin Klein outfits that are similar cuts to the Joan dress. The styles that start emerging around this period are very timeless.

Bryant has a book coming out this fall on style, which I’m psyched about. (ahem, birthday present…)

Until then, I’ll have to make a few stops by Banana Republic.

Given her horrific fashion choices, I’m surprised that she’s catching flack for re-wearing clothes. This is the first sensible action I’ve seen from either wing of the White House. While most of her fashion choices are out of reach of average Americans (how many of us can afford to wear Lanvin or Narciso Rodriguez?), she shows some understanding of the economic tone in this country.

So what if she recycles clothes? The FLOTUS is photographed every single day. Wearing an outfit more than once is practical. Her fashion choices are high-end. If you’re going to invest in extremely expensive clothes, wear them more than once! Even the wealthy should show some measure of American sensibility. I agree with Mary Tomer of the Mrs. O blog:

“I think the fact that [the first lady] re-wears pieces from her wardrobe shows deference to the economy … but more so, it’s normal,” said Mary Tomer, author of the book “Mrs. O: The Face of Fashion Democracy” and writer of the blog Mrs-O.org. “Even in the White House, it doesn’t seem practical that a dress or a pair of shoes would only be worn once.”

While the fashion choices themselves are bad, as evidenced by Politico’s slideshow, well-played Mrs. O for making some attempt to be frugal with your extravagant wardrobe.

Last spring, I first heard about the possibility that the tables may be turning, and men would have similar opportunities through a new line of Spanx. While attending a Public Relations Society of America conference in Atlanta, an attendee introduced herself as an employee of Spanx and announced they were about to launch a men’s line.

The women in the room laughed. The men uncomfortably shifted in their seats.

I was intrigued. Would men embrace this? Over the last decade, male vanity products have grown more popular. Guys now go to salons, tan and get manis/pedis. In their quest to look good, would men embrace figure-enhancing shapewear?

According to the New York Times, they’re a hit:

“We are selling them as quickly as Spanx can make them,” said Nickelson Wooster, the men’s fashion director at Neiman Marcus, which was until recently the only department store carrying them. (This month Spanx for Men arrived in Bloomingdale’s, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom, and at Web sites like freshpair.com.) “Men may not be talking about it, but they’re buying it.”

Men are primarily buying these products online and clever marketing is shifting the concept from “man girdles” to “compression garments” that alleviate back pain.

While women tend to gush about what has been called the “flesh-compressing miracle of Spanx,” men are more likely to point to how super-tight tees relieve their back pain. Robert Hytner, a 51-year-old former defense contracting executive in New York, turned to Equmen shirts after a back injury, and then got hooked because they improved his silhouette. “Whatever garment I put on top, I had a tight look,” he said of his 10 Equmen undershirts. He says his back pain is gone, too.

My initial response was that this made fashion fair. As someone who loves clothes, fashion and shopping, I roll my eyes at men who complain about wearing neck ties. Try wearing pantyhose for a job in DC during the month of August! Men and women now have equal opportunities to experience discomfort to look nice.

This does present some potential red flags. The concept of male shapewear shows a general trend that society is growing more and more self-absorbed and vain. It also may be a reflection of fashion serving consumers who are literally growing larger.

Neither of those two situations are good.

CAMERA-READY: When President Obama (with Vice President Biden) announced Elena Kagan's nomination, her style was tidy but also quite frumpy. (Susan Walsh - AP)

Just when you think everything that could be said about Elena Kagan has been said, the Washington Post goes for the fashion card. I’m not surprised. I anticipated an article coming out like this. I was just waiting to see if it would be the WaPo or Politico.

The point of the article is to express once again that fashion in DC is boring because anything fashion-forward or fun makes the individual appear frivolous and silly. WaPo writes:

Looking drab has its advantages for both men and women in the nation’s capital because it insulates them from accusations of superficiality — a sure-fire political career killer. And as a society, we still cling to certain cliches about absent-minded professors whose brilliance is only matched by their just-rolled-out-of-bed appearance. We connect brains with bad clothes.

I agree with prevailing thought on this. Regardless of how much I dislike wearing business suits on regular occasions, first impressions are partially determined by appearance. Until we can rewire the human brain, people in DC should dress seriously. No amount of lamenting from journalists can change that. Can you really take Rep. Corrine Brown seriously after watching this video?

Business suits are generally awful on women. Aside from the Chanel style, they’re a drab feminine version of a male suit and was designed to make us more accepted in the working world. Aside from shoulder pads and ties, they haven’t changed that much since the 1980s. Jackets are more fitted and skirts are shorter. They’re still overwhelmingly boxy and boring. It’s a fact of life that we have to deal with. You have to go back to Joan Crawford’s in the 1940s style suits to find anything interesting. Bottom line: we’re left working with bad material. Unless you’re very tall or extremely thin, finding a suit with the perfect fit is tough.

Secondly, I actually think Kagan is doing pretty well. She’s a woman of certain age and body type. Her suits have been fitted and the skirt length appropriate. While she’s probably the type of woman who would look better in pantsuits, she’s being completely appropriate and wearing a skirt. How many times has Hillary broken this rule?!?

Keep in mind that I do not support this nomination. As Newt Gingrich pointed out last week, she’s anti-military. She’s not the worst that Obama could have picked, nor is she the best. Since I disagree with President Obama on virtually every policy point, chances are that I will never be happy with any judicial nomination that he makes. However, her fashion choices haven’t been that awful. I don’t like everything Kagan wears, but overall, she’s done fairly well. Due to a combination of age, body type and decorum, she’s picked suits that aren’t bad.

Contrast her to Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation process, and it’s a dramatic difference. Both women have similar shapes and heights. Sotomayor always looked like she bought the clearance suit off the rack from Marshall’s and TJ Maxx. She always wore boxy jackets that hit her at the widest part of her hips, and skirts that hit below the knees. It’s harsh, but when you have cankles, you need the skirt to hit either right at the knee or a hair below it. An a-line skirt would have also worked to balance out wide shoulders and hips. She also wore frumpy pumps. A higher heel with a sleeker toe would have streamlined her appearance and made her look longer. Fashion is all about balance and streamlining the lines of your silhouette.

There’s nothing wrong with clearance suits off the rack. A good chunk of my income goes straight to Marshall’s, but I’m not appearing before the country as a possible candidate for a Supreme Court. When faced with the possibility of national television appearances, pull out the plastic and hire a stylist. No one is immune to making fashion blunders and having an expert opinion is critical to making smart first impressions.

I do wish WaPo writers would read up on etiquette before completing articles:

In the photographs of Kagan sitting and chatting in various Capitol Hill offices, she doesn’t appear to ever cross her legs. Her posture stands out because for so many women, when they sit, they cross. People tend to mimic each other’s body language during a conversation, especially if they’re trying to connect with one another. But even when Kagan sits across from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who has her legs crossed at the knees, Kagan keeps both feet planted firmly on the ground. Her body language will not be bullied into conformity.

She does not cross her legs at the ankles either, the way so many older women do. Instead, Kagan sits, in her sensible skirts, with her legs slightly apart, hands draped in her lap. The woman and her attire seem utterly at odds. She is intent on being comfortable. No matter what the clothes demand. No matter the camera angle.

Technically, it’s incorrect for any woman to cross her legs if you are on a platform or before cameras. While Kagan should have crossed her legs at the ankles and tucked them under her chair, she’s more correct than the other women being described. Is it really that hard to thumb through a copy of Emily Post if you regularly write on fashion?

Update: Double X also picked up on this story here and here. Kind of sickened that I wrote on something from the same angle as them, albeit reaching different conclusions. Still…

Update 2: Per my mom’s IM, I neglected to point out that in the first WaPo picture of Kagan, she’s rather vulger in her seated position with her knees spread apart. Both stances of Kagan and Senator Klobucher are inappropriate. Do women no longer learn how to sit correctly? What’s wrong with being classy and ladylike?

When I read the fashion piece in the New York Times by Cathy Horyn comparing Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama, I was happy to see someone try to print something questioning M. Obama’s choices, even if she gets some facts wrong about Palin. She writes:

It’s hard to see now why so many columnists got their tights in a twist over Ms. Palin’s spending $75,000 of perfectly good Republican money at Neiman Marcus during the 2008 Republican convention. Have you seen Neiman’s numbers lately? After 18 straight months of declines, it wouldn’t be surprising to find a little shrine erected in Ms. Palin’s honor.

In November, the NYT, the same publication where Ms. Horyn writes, interviewed Lisa A. Kline, the stylist behind Wardrobegate. The article set the record straight that Palin had nothing to do with all of the money spent at Neiman Marcus. Palin even spends a considerable amount of time writing her side of the story in Going Rogue. She remembers looking through the clothes and being shocked to find an $80 pair of pantyhose and wondering why they were better than $5 drugstore brands. She also writes at length about wearing her own clothes, borrowing a pair of black Theory pants from a staffer and supporting Alaska designer, Paige Adams-Geller by wearing Paige jeans on the campaign. When she traveled to meet Senator McCain about the possibility of becoming his running mate, she packs two Ann Taylor suits. The last time I checked, neither Theory nor Ann Taylor are expensive brands. They make up many professional wardrobes of average American women.

I do agree with Ms. Horyn in the lack of scandal in how Mrs. Obama favors expensive labels, and by expensive, I mean expensive.

Mrs. Obama, though, has successfully separated the personal from the political. Indeed, the only thing more surprising than the storm over Ms. Palin’s “Pretty Woman” makeover is that almost no one has raised an eyebrow over Mrs. Obama’s wearing of non-American labels, which include Nina Ricci and Junya Watanabe, and some of the most expensive at that.

In the 1960s, Jackie Kennedy Onassis, a true fashion icon, gave up French designers because the public wanted her to wear American.  In the 1980s, Nancy Reagan was vilified for wearing expensive labels despite close connections to designers and a personal fortune to buy them. Barbara and Laura Bush always wore high-end, respectable labels but they  weren’t fashion industry darlings like the current FLOTUS. They did pull out the designer frocks when it counted, and Oscar De la Renta famously dressed Laura Bush.

While we’re in a recession similar the early 80s, Michelle Obama is praised for wearing expensive designers that most Americans can’t dream of wearing or even walking in their stores.*  Even her “cheap” J. Crew outfits cost over $500 each. When was the last time the average American woman spent $500 on a singal outfit? Hardly a peep is made when Mrs. O wears $500 sneakers to serve soup, orders custom-made, thigh-high boots from an elite French shoemaker or carries a $900 clutch. Because Mrs. Obama is a progressive and mirrors the politics of the fashion elite, they gush over her. As Horyn notes:

Mrs. Obama’s choices are all insider, apart from her shorts and those strategically worn plebe numbers from Target and Talbots. If she got any more insider, she’d be backing down a runway. She wears Rodarte, Jason Wu, Sophie Theallet, Narciso Rodriguez, Thakoon, Isabel Toledo and Rick Owens, labels that in terms of creativity and price are at the highest level of fashion. Go much higher and you hit couture.

That’s nearly more elite than the labels Nancy Reagan wore and she was labeled a cold-hearted fashionista. The only problem is that the Reagans clearly had the money to spend on those clothes. What about the Obamas? Neither of them have the income to afford that level of dressing. That level of dressing requires at least a $150,000 investment each year. To pull that off, you need Cindy McCain levels of income. The President only makes $400,000 plus an expense account of $50,000. Their daughters’ elite school, Sidwell Friends starts at $30,000 per kid. (It’s nice. I frequently used to walk by it when I lived in Upper Georgetown.)

What’s more likely is Mrs. O shares the same elitist, progressive politics of the design world and isn’t afraid to drop names when they gift her items. And when she drops the names of international designers, they make those snobby Europeans feel even more warm and mushy on the inside since the Obamas are “restoring” the profile of America. It’s like having a permanent red carpet on CNN. I was always led to believe that it’s in bad taste to spend copious amounts of money in a recession, even when you can afford it. But then, the Obamas are always the exception to every rule.

Interestingly, the Huffington Post attacks Horyn for her remarks about Mrs. O:

We think Sarah Palin is incredibly attractive, and looks great in a tailored and crisp style that suits her look. Michelle Obama experiments with looks, a seeming reflection of the many moods, roles, and self-images of women today. More power to them both, as they reflect, via their sartorial choices, on the multi-tasking challenge of all modern women.

Odd, “experimenting” with your style is not what’s typically praised in the fashion world. Fashion icons–Jackie Kennedy, Audrey Hephburn, Grace Kelly and modern celebrities like Renee Zellweger, Sarah Jessica Parker and Sienna Miller are known for distinct fashion tastes. In order to be a fashion icon, you’re supposed to have a recognizable style, not experiment. If Michelle Obama is still experiementing with her “style” well into her forties, she’s not an icon. And if her “style” is the frumpy cardigan and belt look, I can see why the labels are falling over themselves to save their precious liberal FLOTUS from worst dressed lists.

If Mrs. O had the politics of say, Sarah Palin, would her fashion choices be lauded?

*During my senior trip to Los Angeles, we went shopping on Rodeo Drive and quickly discovered no one could afford to buy anything. In Gucci, a salesperson closely follow us before escorting us out. The only store that showed any kind of customer service was Ralph Lauren, a plebian American designer. When I splurge on expensive clothes find them on sale at Marshall’s, I usually end up buying one of Ralph Lauren’s lines or Michael Kors, another American designer.

H/T: Don Surber

Joe Biden was standing in a brilliant black suit with an aqua tie inside a packed Gotham Hall in Manhattan one evening last week, waiting to address hundreds of people at an awards ceremony for a leading gay and lesbian organization.

Would you find that odd? How often do hard news stories describe what a male politician is wearing? However, this is normal treatment for women:

Jill Biden was standing in a brilliant aqua dress inside a packed Gotham Hall in Manhattan one evening last week, waiting to address hundreds of people at an awards ceremony for a leading gay and lesbian organization.

And this article was written by a woman, Carol E. Lee.

Why is sexism tolerated in the press? This is vague and inherent but it does display a double-standard. The same double-standard that was shown when the color of Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits were discussed or the controversy over Sarah Palin’s designer clothes were the subject of ad hominem attacks while Obama’s custom-made $1,500 suits were ignored.

Now, I’m hardly a hardened feminist. In fact, after reading books by Phyliss Schafley and Kate O’Bierne, I don’t even claim the label of conservative feminist anymore. However, why are women’s clothes, hairstyles or children discussed at length when it’s never mentioned for men?

There is also a time and place for fashion. I love fashion and gossip magazines, but I don’t read Politico to discover what Jill Biden is wearing. When Politico launches a Fashion Week blog, they can start commenting on what people wear. Until then, please report on the hard news. I have Go Fug Yourself for fashion critques, not DC news web sites.