Democratic Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. gestures while speaking at the Democratic National Committee Winter Meetings in Washington, Friday, Feb. 2, 2007. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should tap into her feminine side and wear dresses and skirts instead of trousers, fashion designer Donatella Versace was quoted as saying on Thursday.

“I can understand (trousers) are comfortable but she’s a woman and she is allowed to show that,” Versace told Germany’s weekly newspaper Die Zeit in an interview.

“She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics,” Versace said.

Skirts should reach to the knee and be worn with a short jacket or coat, she said. The best color would be black rather than the blue Clinton currently favors, she added.

“I admire her for her determination, which will hopefully take her to the White House,” Versace told the paper.


Jeese Louise Donatella. Coming to the defense of Hillary is unfamiliar territory for me but your advice is most likely not well taken by the Hillary team. Give Hillary and all of us a break on that one. The truth is, Hillary could try wearing dresses but she (putting this gently) doesn’t have Tina Turner’s legs.

Donatella Versace has obviously never seen Hillary’s legs. They must be covered if she is to have a chance of winning and Hillary’s in it to win it, doncha know.

Hillary’s not much of a fashion plate. There’s a wing in the Arkansas Old State House devoted to clothing of former Governor’s wives. Hillary was really into hippie granny gowns back in the day.

Hillary has always chosen her clothing like a theater wardrobe mistress. If she needs to seem feminine and helpless she wears soft pastels. Hillary’s always worn her colors like an accessory. Who could ever forget Hillary’s pink press conference? Or the screaming yellow she wore in her Vast Right Wing Conspiracy press conference? Many of us consider Hillary’s choice of color, fabric and style extremely stage managed.

Robin Givhan reminded us of Hillary’s 1994 pink press conference in this piece, comparing her wearing of the pink with Vice President Cheney’s choice of a pink tie in an interview with Fox News after his hunting accident. Naturally, Cheney suffered in the comparison.

In April 1994, Hillary Clinton – then the first lady — held her “pink press conference.” She sat in the State Dining Room dressed in a pink-and-black St. John knit suit to answer questions about Whitewater, her family’s finances and the $100,000 in profit she’d made trading cattle futures. During the course of her 66-minute exchange with reporters, she expressed regret for being less than forthcoming with the public.

Observers parsed Clinton’s pink suit for meaning and it was read as deliberate costuming. A tough woman had wrapped herself in sugary innocence. She was trying to seduce an audience into believing that nothing untoward could have been done by the little lady in baby-blanket pink.

It was difficult to see any irony in Clinton’s pink suit, although there well may have been plenty. A woman in pink, exuding all the connotations of girls being made of “sugar and spice and everything nice,” is a cliche that stubbornly lingers in the culture. Clinton wasn’t so much mocking the process as succumbing to it. She was settling into her “proper” place if only for the photo op.

For Clinton, a pink suit worked like a shield. For Cheney, a pink tie was a weapon.