Manolo asked, whose shoes?
Manolo says, it is the Hillary Clinton!
Congratulations to the Manolo’s internet friend Molls who was the first person to identify the subject of this week’s Whose Shoes Wednedsday.
Manolo loves the shoes!
I guess she has expensive taste in shoes since she’s wearing Ferragamo driving mocs in that photo.
Shouldn´t she use more heels?
Manolo, _please_, regardless of what you think of Mrs. Clinton, could you not find a more attractive picture of her than that? I’ve been struck, during this campaign, at how much better she generally looks than in years past.
Boy, what I would do with Sen. Clinton if I got her “in hand”. As a fellow short woman, I would first tell her to never, ever wear tapered pants. I think the good senator (and she is my senator and I feel she does a great job) is a bit self-conscious about her legs and ankles and that is why she always wears pants(besides the whole “I’m serious” thing), but she should wear straight-cut pants. Much more fashionable; much more attractive and lengthening to us shorties. And though I understand the thought about heels, I have to tell you as someone who has spent far too much time on my feet at trade shows – for people who have to be on their feet a lot and walk a lot(which is what campaigning is), heels are killers. But I’m sure Manolo can find us something with a platform that might work?
Word, Toby. The other thing–I wish she would do a little more work for her coloring. This neutral tone is not working for her and all I think she’d need to do to have it wash out less is use a scarf or a more colorful shell to keep her from receding and paling so much.
RZA, the Manolo was looking for the recent picture which shows Senator Clinton full length, so that one can see what sort of shoes she was wearing.
Unfortunately, this color is not good for her. It washes her out. And she does need the little bit of heel.
However, the Manolo has recently been thinking that Sen. Clinton has been looking very good, indeed, especially since the demands placed upon her by the campaign are undoubtedly so tiring. Toby is correct in that she needs the color makeover, but otherwise, her advisors/stylists have been doing well by her over the past few months.
Of the course, after watching her in the debate the other night, it is clear that her face has been filled to bursting with the botox, but somehow, that worked for her, and she truly looked marvelous on the television.
With all respect, sir, Ms. Clinton has not had botox, despite all appearances. A makeup artist named Kriss Soterion (if memory serves, a former beauty pageant contestant who considers doing makeup her “calling”) did her makeup for her, and did it magnificently.
A short article on her makeup is here, and Ms. Soterion’s website is here.
If this is the case, then the Manolo bows at the feets of the true master artist, for Ms. Clinton looked great on Tuesday night.
Her makeup does look great these days. Thanks for the tip. I do wish she’d go in for better tailoring, though. Generally speaking, the kitten heels are good for her as long as she’s wearing pants (and they are comfy), but it would not be bad for her to be seen in a 3 inch heel (maybe some Pliners? Those are the most comfortable shoes I own.)
I, too, thought that Senator Clinton’s face looked taut on Tuesday. I, too, attributed it to some well applied botox. If, according to Victor, Mrs. Clinton’s look is to be credited to the wonders of a magic makeup artist, then WHOO HOO for her and kudos to Kriss Soterion. If it is indeed a little serum assistance, so what? She looked great regardless.
Thank you for your response and everyone else for all the interesting information; I had no idea people were talking about this so much! My husband looked at her in the last couple of debates and said “Wow, she looks great!” which was funny because he normally doesn’t notice these things.
That was a very unkind and personal remark by the Rethuglicans about Mrs. Clinton’s ankles. She took it to heart and has been wearing pants suits ever since. I think she has very attractive ankles. She is typical of many midwestern women, not fashion model material at all. I think a 2-3 inch heel and a knee length skirt will work well for her during appearances. Her handlers can keep the flats ready for her when she comes off the stage.
Let’s ditch teh childish retoric–I’ll refrain from calling anyone a Dummicrap, if you won’t call me stupid names, either. The woman has unattractive ankles, quite simply. I’ve heard the condition called ‘cankles’, but not by folks of any particular political persuasion. Like any other woman featured prominently in the media, the good Senator is surely aware of the power of image and physical appearance. We all have good and less-good features–if I knew I were going to be constantly photographed, I’d likely pay attention to such trivial concerns.
She HAS looked good these last few months or so, hasn’t she?
I wonder when we’ll start reading about how much she’s paying for her haircuts, makeup artist, shoes, etc. You know that’s gotta be in the pipeline. Of course, maybe she’s just enjoying the fight!
There’s a rumor that the television makeup artist costs around $20,000 per occasion. !?!?!
Thank you for the comment, MeLizzard. I’m glad to know I’m not the only one bristling at the “Rethuglican” comment. I wish people would remember that not everyone belongs to the same political party around here.
Those who deride others and call them names should not be offended when they’re on the receiving end. Would it be more politically correct to point out that it was right-wing conservative talking-heads who were gleefully repeating the “thick ankles” comment for days and weeks? Am I not allowed to have been offended by that?
shrimper, if you can point out where, before your original post deriding “Rethuglicans” someone mentions Ms. Clinton’s ankles, and further identifies his or her self as a Republican, I’d be most appreciative. The only reference to her ankles that I can find is preceded by, “…and she is my senator and I feel she does a great job…” which is not at all derisive. Politics, vis a vis Dem vs Rep, was not mentioned at all. If you were offended by the original comments, it seems any offense was created in your head when someone said something less-than-stellar (but true–and you cannot wish away the changes ones body goes thru when one reaches a certain age*) about your apparent presidential candidate. As for myself, I’m offended that you chose to bring childish name-calling into what is normally a rather genteel comments section.
*Just ask my bald spot. And my knees.
Well-spoken, Victor. Goodness, I even watch Fox News and have never heard anyone talk about Hillary’s ankles. They seem to be much more focused on the machinations of the Democratic party as it grinds through a hard-fought primary, and attempting to determine the reasons Senator Clinton has suffered multiple consecutive primary losses, and why Obama seems to be made of Teflon at this point, and how it’s all going to play out over the next few months. I’ve never heard her appearance discussed AT ALL. But, again, if those were my ankles, I, too, would be working an elegant pantsuit every day. No insult intended whatsoever–just a matter of presenting onself in the best light. Now can we all just talk shoes again??? They’re much more fun and less devisive (usually, LOL).
The comment was all over the news more than a year ago after she was elected to the Senate. Below are some quotes with page numbers taken from Carl Bernstein’s book about Hillary that were plastered all over the news, for those of you who can’t remember:
“‘At first, she didn’t wear stockings. … Her hair was friend into an Orphan Annie perm. … There wasn’t one…feminine thing about her.’” (p. 130)
“Hillary’s weight was a regular topic of conversation, spurred by her inability to shed the few pounds that would have made her more attractive.” (p.130)
“Her ankles were thick.” (p. 32)
“[S]he was rarely, if ever, deferential. It had never been her style nor would it ever be.” (p. 130).
I have no more to say about it.