USA Today columnist Annette Fuentes insists that journalists should receive at least forty lashings for over-analyzing female politicos style and fashion sense:

First there was a Washington Post article published shortly after the elections on the presumptive new House speaker, “Muted Tones of Quiet Authority: A Look Suited to the Speaker.” It offered the information that “Pelosi’s suit was by Giorgio Armani — the Italian master of neutral tones and modern power dressing — and she wore it well.” The article at least appeared in the newspaper’s Style section, but was chock-full of psychoanalytic forays into Pelosi’s wardrobe choices, asserting that “an Armani suit, for a woman, is a tool for playing with the boys without pretending to be one.” I would wager that Pelosi is one woman who doesn’t play around with anyone.

Then there was a New York Times article in January in its Thursday Styles section titled “Speaking Chic to Power.” While noting that Pelosi, barely in her new job a month, had brought the House to votes on a minimum wage increase, stem cell research and Medicare drug prices, the article said “she did it looking preternaturally fresh, with a wardrobe that, while still subdued and over-reliant on suits, has seldom spruced the halls of Congress.”

Similar articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. Mentioned were other women politicians and their fashion choices, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton’s hair style and preference for black pantsuits or Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s haircut. The question is whether focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious. Another question is whether such reports warrant precious space. After all, with rare exceptions, male politicians are seldom scrutinized for their choice of suits.

Oh, yeah, well, we bet Fuentes shops at Old Navy. So nah.