New York magazine once asked Kirsten Gillibrand (yes, the Senator) about a pair of flats she was wearing, and she dismissed them with “You would never write about Chuck Schumer’s shoes.”
Depends on how he paid for them, I suppose. But this New York Times piece, while acknowledging Senator Gillibrand’s remark, nonetheless proceeds to identify what is supposed to be the It shoe for women in politics: “Halle” by Kate Spade, an unfussy three-inch-high wedge that sells for about $300. (I checked a couple of online storefronts, but they were out. Evidently the Gray Lady still has some marketing clout.)
Says Times writer Susan Dominus:
They seem to be the shoes of a circle of younger women aspiring to power or already in it, women directly and indirectly passing on to one another ways of navigating the particular challenges of being a woman in the public eye. A woman must look put-together, but not as if she is a slave to fashion; she must look groomed, but never be spotted grooming.
I can’t see Sarah Palin wearing that particular shoe. Then again, I can’t see Chuck Schumer wearing it either.
Not for nothing, but if the NYT is gonna devote an article to a shoe would it kill them to show a picture of said shoe?
I suspect somebody at the Times checked a couple of online storefronts, but they were out. (Rachel, however, does have a picture.)