Would Clinton be the Democratic nominee if she had dressed as stylishly as Palin?

[davefoc]

A lot has been made of the $150K or so that Palin spent of RNC money on clothes and makeup, etc.

Now a lot of you probably think this is kind of funny (myself included), sort of like a John Edwards haircut on steroids, but to my eyes she is the most stylish and best looking candidate to ever gain national prominence.

I think this is probably a net plus for her. It certainly doesn't hurt Obama that he makes McCain look like a potato.

So my question is if Clinton had been as well dressed and coifed as Palin would she be the Democratic nominee now (assume there is no scandal over the source of funds for Clintons fashion makeover)? She didn't lose to Obama by much and could a little style make over been enough to put her over the top?

ETA: Special request to female JREF posters. Please feel free to let your feminist rage out here at the sexist nature of this topic. Any rants on this topic will be appreciated, but well done rants will be particularly appreciated.

[Ausmerican]

Palin is attractive sure. But she has a habit of wearing jackets that have an almost military cut and drab colors. The grey one she is often shown wearing is a prime example. This has the effect, for me, of making her look like she is giving a speech in an old Soviet state or on the set of a sequel to V for Vendetta. The crowd sometimes help with that last comparison. Hillaries pantsuits, while often damn ugly colors, made her look more 'of the people' IMHO.

[mortimer]

Hillary spending $150k on wardrobe and makeup would have been like, ahem, putting lipstick on a pig. :D

[Ausmerican]

Hillary spending $150k on wardrobe and makeup would have been like, ahem, putting lipstick on a pig. :D

True that. However if you added in Janet Reno and Madelaine Albright you could have the three little pigs. Any or all of which would be preferrable to the Big Bad Wolf-hunter in this kind of competition. Which one would you rather have for your lifeline on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'?

[leftysergeant]

Hillary is a feminist, not eye candy. Fashion is about form, rather than substance.

GOP is about form rather than substance.

[Cicero]

Hillary spending $150k on wardrobe and makeup would have been like, ahem, putting lipstick on a pig. :D

Hillary didn't prefer business "beleive me" pants suits to dresses and skirts because she didn't have the coin to dress in designer duds. If Hillary thought she could get the cankel constituency she would bring back the ultra mini look. Ugh!!

Since Obama is thinking of making Gov. Napolitano his Secretary of Homeland Security, a bizarre choice in itself, SNL can gear up for some more Janet Reno type sketches.

[Cicero]

Hillary is a feminist, not eye candy. Fashion is about form, rather than substance.

GOP is about form rather than substance.

You have been reading too much Naomi "hungry like the" Wolf. Hillary is definitely no threat to diabetes of the eyes.

[mortimer]

Hillary is a feminist, not eye candy. Fashion is about form, rather than substance.

GOP is about form rather than substance.

Are you positing that no feminists are interested in dressing fashionably?

[jj]

You have been reading too much Naomi "hungry like the" Wolf. Hillary is definitely no threat to diabetes of the eyes.

Who suggested otherwise?

Hil3ary, on the other hand, very much put appearance before content when she went after Obama in the primary.

Then again, it's all back to the old "form vs.function" argument. GOP is presently concentrating on "form" and ignoring function altogether. That's why our economy "functions so well" right now.