A foreign policy everyone can get behind

In case you missed our fearless leader's stirring declaration last week, our latest international mission in the "war on terrorism" is securing a "nuc-u-lar weapons-free North Korean penninshula."

Of course, when he isn't going all Congressman Foley on the English language, as of late President Bush has been busy playing Stacey and Clinton on the White House press corps:

"If I might say, that is a beautiful suit. And I can't see anybody else that even comes close," the president told NBC's Kevin Corke, who was wearing pinstripes, in the course of a Rose Garden news conference that focused on North Korea-related diplomacy and the Iraq war. ...

Soon after, the president asserted that CNN's Suzanne Malveaux was the "first best-dressed person here."

By the time Bush called on Jim Axelrod of CBS, the reporter felt compelled to start with a defensive comment: "My best suit's in the cleaners," Axelrod explained to the president.

"That's not even a suit," Bush retorted, eyeing Axelrod's sport coat and slacks.

Elsewhere on the political hierarchy, we've got Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talking about how his party needs to "redesign the Democratic space," and everyone else ripping on House Speaker Dennis Hastert's decidedly ill-advised choice of press conference backgrounds.

The irony here is that men in politics can talk style and aesthetics all they want and be considered well-rounded sophisticates (well, to a point) or light-hearted, witty and visually aware – they can talk about suit patterns and sweater-vests coming out with the changing seasons and whose hair is most impressively shellacked, and still come off as thoroughly charming and roundly professional.

But when female politicians have the gall to appear in Time magazine or contemplate a presidential run in one of the most stylish nations on earth looking even a hair more appealing than Janet Reno, watch out.

The original Time article on White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend was interesting but unremarkable – but what I could not believe where the two letters the editors elected to print, both focusing more on the photograph. One male reader said the snapshot "called into question Townsend's common sense. What other woman in any Administration would pose for a photo as she emphasized her competency and conservatism in the White House while looking as though she were dressed for a night of revelry at an expensive watering hole?" A female respondent had this useful tidbit to add to the discourse: "Maybe that glamour shot of Townsend was intended to convey her ability to 'get a leg up' on the enemy. But could she defend our turf from terrorists in those stiletto heels? I don't think so."

Says the presumably frumpy lummox shuffling around in Payless loafers. But who needs stylish footwear when you've got arguments like that.

Indeed, as presidential hopeful Ségolène Royal of France asks, "Why should one have to be sad, ugly and boring to go into politics these days?"

Well, if the one in question happens to be female, this is precisely what you get: men get nervous and defensive and use any display of femininity to denigrate or distract from her other, intimidating, not-so-easily sexualized attributes, while women get catty, jealous and overly critical and do precisely the same. Attractive men are likewise written off as pansies and pretty-boys.

Even sad, ugly and boring is no guarantee -- just look at Katherine Harris, or the Dennis Hastert fat-jokes splattered all over the news last week. Non-threatening mediocrity is often the only safe visual field to inhabit.

Still, Condoleezza Rice constantly has the foreign policy fashion police tagging her around -- and, unlike her boss, she doesn't even make her arguments using rambling stream-of-consciousness anecdotes about fancy odor-absorbing fabrics:

During remarks at the White House to boast about the falling budget deficit, Bush praised "the Under Armour man."

"I don't know if you ever heard of that product," Mr. Bush told the crowd. "I know I'm not supposed to advertise, so I won't. But here's a dreamer. The man had an idea. He didn't like the way the cotton shirts that he wore absorbed his bodily fluids when he exercised, so he came up with a better product. And it worked. And now he's built a huge business. And he's talking about how to continue to expand, and he's worried about our trade policy. Here's a small business guy who came out of a garage, and he's talking to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President of the United States about making sure we have intellectual property rights protection in China."

Seriously, if this is the best the "average" pool can spit up, instead of virtually disqualifying someone from the credible, respected practice of politics – or anything intellectual for that matter – shouldn't a decent appearance be taken as a sign of pride in one's self and one's abilities and how they're presented to others? A sense of esteem and general responsibility that will carry over into one's surroundings and the endeavors bearing one's signature?

Besides, if our world leaders had that much less to overcompensate for, they would almost certainly exercise their power more prudently.

I mean, there must be a reason you just don't see many hot foreign dignitaries causing problems on the global stage. So why, pray tell, aren't more in the spotlight?