Clinton and the Vogue controversy

We all know that politics are seldom about politics. Why else would it be such a big deal when Bill Clinton committed adultery? Or when Barack Obama does- well, pretty much anything in his personal life? People focus on the weirdest things when it comes to political figures. I’ve even seen Michelle Obama featured in those weird Us Weekly sections “Stars- they’re just like us!” complete with pictures of her walking the family dog.

I remember this huge (okay, maybe not HUGE) controversy regarding Vogue magazine in 2007. Hillary Clinton had agreed to an interview and photoshoot with the esteemed magazine. However, Clinton backed out last minute apparently worried about being portrayed as “too feminine.” Editor in Chief Anna Wintour expressed her astonishment, stating:  

"The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying.  Thatcher may have looked terrific in a blue power suit, but that was 20 years ago. I do think Americans have moved on from the power-suit mentality, which served as a bridge for a generation of women to reach boardrooms filled with men."

Clinton, who had appeared in Vogue during her time as first lady, was no doubt influenced by the presidential race occurring that year. 

So, here's the big question: was Clinton right to back out? Or was Wintour right in that women have come too far to be afraid of appearing effeminate?

While I understand and agree that any female politician (or professional female in general, for that matter) should maintain a professional look and reputation, I don't think embracing one's effeminate side is such a bad thing. And I certainly don't think appearing in the magazine would have done much damage- if any. 

I would also like to note that Clinton appeared in the  magazine two or three years later, finally giving the magazine their promised interview and photoshoot.