FASHION : The Politics of Appearance

I t’s not what you say. It’s how good you look when you say it.

Shallow but true, say professional image and communications consultants--and many politicians have signed up for their services. Indeed, in 1992, a candidate needs not only a sterling reputation and crystal-clear vision, but also a golden look. Think about the transformations in such political figures as Hillary Clinton, Rose Bird and David Duke. (See accompanying story.)

“It only takes four seconds to form a first impression,” says Jane Murdoch Miller, a Washington, D.C.-based image consultant. “It takes four hours of positive interaction to undo a negative first impression.”

For the next five months, the public will be barraged with political messages coming from the mouths of perpetually smiling, energetically positive people, many of whom have made major changes in their appearance to polish their candidate style. Some come by that style naturally. Many of those who don’t have remade themselves so they can stay in the game. Women candidates seem to come under more scrutiny, but men are starting to discover that they are no longer immune.

Most candidates won’t own up to using image consultants, and those consultants refuse to discuss specifics about their clients. But consultants will outline general requirements for political style. And they are more than happy to dish about someone else’s client.

Harriet Woods of the National Women’s Political Caucus says suiting up--a dark blue or gray suit with a white shirt and rep tie--for male candidates is easy. “If a man puts on a decently tailored suit and tie he looks good,” says Woods. “There is no similar uniform for a woman.”

“I remember when I ran for the Senate (from Missouri) in 1982,” she says. “My staff put together a wardrobe for me that would not be subject to criticism. All of my favorite things were too short or too flashy. They did not look businesslike.”

The major component of her candidate’s uniform--both day and night--was a jacket, a result of gaffes made by Geraldine Ferraro. The first woman on a presidential ticket was raked over the coals for some of her wardrobe choices: flower-print dresses and short-sleeve blouses.

“Wearing short sleeves was disempowering,” says Peg Yorkin of the Fund for a Feminist Majority. “It is perceived as blue collar.” And the proportions of the small floral prints were wrong, adds Patricia Cassone, a San Francisco wardrobe consultant: “Geraldine’s small prints were out of sync. She was large, and the size didn’t match her frame.”

Says Yorkin: “Women are not making the mistakes Geraldine Ferraro did eight years ago.”

Miller, who has advised political candidates in the United States and in Canada, says one of the first things she suggests is dressing so that all attention is focused on the face. She recommends bright earrings and white blouses for women. In addition, she suggests that women keep their skin covered at all times, especially the neck.

“Women tend to grab their necks when they are feeling insecure, during a debate or when they are challenged,” Miller says. “Their skin gets blotchy, which can also be perceived as sexual excitement. Men have the advantage of wearing a stiff collar and tie.”

While Miller thinks women should avoid navy blue and gray suits because “it make them look like their daddies,” so many female candidates wear them, they seem to be a uniform. Notable exceptions include U.S. Senate candidates Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Both women wear primary colors--red, bright blue and yellow. Consultants say red is a power color, and when the two Democratic hopefuls wear red, it makes them stand out in a sea of gray suits.

For men, Miller says, the basic uniform is the dark suit with a white shirt and a bright tie that points “like an arrow to the head.” Cuff links can accentuate hand gestures, because the eye is drawn to the shiny bright bits like a magpie.

Kate Gianopulos, a former image consultant from Washington, D.C., who’s now a Los Angles-based screenwriter and Feinstein adviser, has worked with many female candidates. She urges them to underdress.

“It’s inappropriate for a candidate to look too good” or too bejeweled, Gianopulos says.

She recommends St. John knits because they travel well. Anne Klein and Anne Klein II pieces are good because the cuts are fairly conservative. Candidates “have to stay off the fashion edge.”

Of course, a big change costs big bucks; Miller says candidates can expect to spend from $35 to $175 an hour for the services of a consultant. And timing is a major consideration, the experts caution. A sudden mid-campaign or post-election renovation is a big mistake, says Woods: “It arouses suspicions in the mind of the public.” She tells candidates to get their look perfected before they print their campaign literature and bumper stickers.

Susan Kaiser, a professor at UC Davis and author of “Social Psychology of Clothing,” says that even if female candidates wear drab suits, they still walk a tightrope.

“On one hand, if they are very attractive, they may not be seen as competent,” she says. “They tend to be regarded, especially by males, as fitting a stereotypical woman’s role. And traditional female roles do not include one of a politician. On the other hand, if they are unattractive, they are not going to appeal to either sex.”

“It’s a fine line between looking like a gym teacher and a damsel in distress,” says Los Angeles-area wardrobe consultant Susan Roth. Women shouldn’t dress like a man, but they shouldn’t look highly feminine either, she says. They also have to stay away from looking too vulnerable or too romantic.

The harshest critics of women candidates, say some consultants, are other women.

“Women tend to critique in fashionable terms, especially by hairstyles,” says Woods. When she was campaigning, she said other women would often compliment her on her hair instead of on anything she had said.

Gainopulos has noticed that something similar happens to Feinstein. She heard a female studio executive admit to missing an entire Feinstein speech because she was so intrigued by the blouse the candidate had paired with a suit. “I know I should have been listening to her talk,” the executive said, “but I kept thinking, ‘What a great combination.’ ”

Consultants may be reticent to discuss their own clients, but ask them about other candidates and you’ll get an earful.

Roth and Cassone believe that Feinstein is due for a make-over. “It’s clear that Dianne Feinstein is buying expensive clothes, but she shouldn’t because she picks so poorly,” Roth says. Cassone adds that Feinstein should consider a new hairstyle.

Consultant Dorothy Sarnoff has a few words for Ross Perot: “Grow your hair longer behind the ears.”

Consultants don’t always agree. For example, Golden does not like the way Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) dresses--her look is too conservative, too “Talbot’s,” Golden says. But Roth likes Schroeder’s look: “It’s staid, but it looks important.”

Boxer, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke and Diane Watson get Roth’s approval. Texas Gov. Ann Richards made it onto Cassone’s best-dressed list but not Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “She looks dowdy and old, like her views go back a thousand years,” says Cassone. “She could do the same homey look a little more modern without being offensive.”

It may seem unfair to judge politicians by the cut of their cloth rather than their platform, but the candidates get used to it, says Woods. They know, adds Cassone, that “we’re a visual society. We judge everything by it’s visual impact. That is the way it is, and that is the way the game is played.”