Friday, January 9, 2009

The appearance of Caroline Kennedy

[Photo from TV Guide]

There has appeared a very curious little article at the guardian.co.uk by one Tracy Quan. Ms. Quan raises the issue of Caroline Kennedy's appearance. She begins by asking "Why isn't the mainstream media as obsessed with Caroline Kennedy's looks as they were with Sarah Palin's?"

Why, indeed?

Appearance, apparently, for Ms. Quan, is important. Thus, Hillary Clinton, while her appearance was meticulously dissected by the press, "never traded explicitly on her looks," but she did use "her appearance to connect with us."

Unfortunately, Ms. Quan does not elaborate, so we're left wondering just how Senator and soon-to-be Secretary of State Clinton used her appearance as a connection with the public.


Ms. Quan then jumps to Caroline Kennedy. While people are excited about Kennedy's possible appointment to the Senate, they are not talking about her "hair and accessories." Why not? "Could this mean she's not being taken seriously?"

Huh?

The fashion choices of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin tell us a lot about the person.

Well, says Ms. Quan, "Clothes, hair, nails and lipstick -- these bits and pieces of a persona represent some aspect of what Sarah and Hillary have accomplished. They've gone out of their way to construct themselves for public life, and we reward them by caring how they look."

Hillary and Sarah "invented" themselves, says Quan.

Caroline Kennedy did not. She was made be other "forces." And her "looks" are a problem; distracting. "She looks more like her uncle Robert than her mother Jackie..."

And that's good? Not good?


Quan says "Caroline's looks are as inconsistent as New York's weather..." There are times when she "glows, but she has also appeared in public looking furrowed and wan."

So what? you ask.

Well, looks matter. And Caroline looks like she isn't all that excited about being a Senator. When she "endorsed herself in front of Sylvia's, there was no pleasure in her smile." Her face doesn't "light up" when she talks about becoming a U.S. Senator.

"As Senator John McCain demonstrated," says Quan, "there's nothing more disheartening than a candidate who doesn't want to win."


What do you think? Are Caroline's "looks" a problem? Is there "no pleasure in her smile"? Could it be that she really doesn't want to be a Senator and that is reflected in her facial appearance?

Or is Ms. Quan just a little batty?


Quan's article is here.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this Tracy Quan is any relation to Cookie Quan, who is number one on the West Side?

Anonymous said...

Why not have a beauty contest insteade of voting?
There are ugly people in a variety of electe4d offices. Let's get rid of them.
Bob Poris

Anonymous said...

What a relief that Caroline Kennedy removed herself from the upcoming New York seat. She lacks appeal. Her appearance is haggard and blank; noticeably deminished when she opens her mouth and speaks. She needs a long-term political and physical--"you know" makeover.

Bob Poris said...

We will never know if she would have made a good senator. She has a very impressive resume and is rich enough to refuse bribes. Someday we will judge people by their abilities and not their looks or personality. Until then, we will elect people like Bush.

opinions powered by SendLove.to