I don’t really understand all the gruff the Washington Post is taking for its article on Nancy Pelosi’s wardrobe.  Last week in the Arts & Living section (for the Fashion news beat for those who care) Robin Givhan wrote a story about what Nancy Pelosi wore the day after she presumably became the first woman speaker of the House.  Givhan writes:

“Pelosi’s suit was by Giorgio Armani — the Italian master of neutral tones and modern power dressing — and she wore it well. She looked polished and tasteful in front of the cameras. It is tempting to even go so far as to say that she looked chic, which in the world beyond Washington would be considered a compliment, but in the context of politics is an observation fraught with insinuations of partisanship and condescension.”

The blogosphere responded.  Reflectivepundit argues articles like these don’t help a woman’s cause to get elected for President in 2008.  Feminists at Brandeis think the article is shallow.

I don’t get it.  What is wrong for a fashion writer to write about the newest, most powerful woman in Congress’ wardrobe?  She is a good role model fashion-wise and work-wise for mothers around the world.  Why can’t a powerful mom be smart AND stylish?  Style and power don’t have to be mutually exclusive, and Pelosi shows us as much.  AND, isn’t it better that we have a fashionable political woman to focus on rather than the terribly fashion-blind Hillary?

I say, Washington Post, thank you for pointing out that moms in power can also have good taste in clothes.  In some ways, we can have it all.