attorney general ... of fashion!

the front page of the washington post today critiques janet reno's turn before the 9-11 commission. no wait, just kidding. they critique her CLOTHES.

Her jacket hung loosely and the skirt was long -- reaching to the mid-calf as always -- and without any fetching details. Her lapels were two uninterrupted plains, free of American flags or any other conspicuous announcements of patriotism. Notice the neckline of the jacket -- open, unadorned, practically crying out for a scarf, a strand of pearls, some tasteful Redbook kind of accessory. Albright would have tucked something in there, just to finish off the ensemble and give it a little polish. Not Reno. All of that nothingness speaks of refusal. She will not pretty things up with a few beads.

On her jacket, there were no seams to emphasize her waistline or bosom. There was nothing to remind the viewer that there was a body -- a person -- hidden underneath that gold-buttoned cloaking device.

"a body -- a person"? wow. that hadn't been made explicit to me in a long time. and honestly, so reno has no time for "fetching details." so she doesn't care whether you can make out "her waistline or bosom." what is this, 1955? is it really that noteworthy anymore?

even though the author pays reno's "refusal" some necessary respect, the fact that the wp would print a fashion column on the front page makes me spit.