Hillary wore a white suit, but what if a man wore a white suit... what if a man wore red pants?

There was the usual chatter about whether it's sexist to talk about what Hillary wore, but the visuals are part of a politician's message, and wearing a white suit is a loud message to the eye. Of course, we should talk about it. The day after the convention, I observed that a male presidential candidate appearing at the convention in a white suit would be considered a lunatic. And what if he turned up in cobalt blue — like Hillary on Day 3 — or pumpkin or mustard — as Hillary has seen fit to do on the campaign stage. He'd be considered a clown.

And yesterday, I was listening to Tom and Lorenzo's podcast about fashion at the convention, and they were talking about how narrow the range color range is for male politicians. They don't even wear black or gray suits. The suits are all dark blue. And the wearing of white shirts is so standard that a big deal was made out of Tim Kaine's wearing a blue shirt.

But somehow I'd missed Anthony Weiner (not that they let that man on the stage). Here's something that got my attention in Maureen Dowd's "lightning round" interview with Donald Trump:

On Anthony Weiner being in the convention hall in bright red pants, calling Trump’s convention “a Dumpster fire”:

“I think he’s a pervert. It’s dangerous to allow him on the convention floor.”

Weiner wore red pants? Yes. Here's a NYT report from Wednesday, "Anthony Weiner, Often a Democratic Outcast, Is Sticking Around":

Mr. Weiner wore bright red pants, recognizable to those who have encountered him at New York City parades and festivals....

So, yeah, wearing red pants has been a trademark for Weiner. He's an outcast, of course, but even before he was cast out, he was wearing the red pants. Here's an Esquire article from August 2013 about men in red pants:

So, is Weiner's predilection for red chinos supporting evidence of a justifiable public disdain for the vermillion-legged men of the world? Or does Carlos Danger's fondness for tomato-colored pants have no real bearing on the issue? We say the latter.

Here's why: In the UK, red trousers are bound up with matters of class — as noted in the Telegraph piece, they're generally considered the realm of the posh and elderly...

In the States, though, red pants of the sort that the Telegraph is concerned with — bold, saturated, bright — aren't subject to that same sort of associative baggage. Whereas sun-faded, salmon-hued Nantucket reds may speak to the idea of wealthy Northeasterners, the Kennedies...

Interesting spelling.

... and a specifically American version of "royalty," all those other red pants are just… red pants... So, should you do it? Yes. Go for it.... Provided, of course, that you follow this one, unbelievably crucial rule: Only wear one piece of red clothing at a time.

And here's a NYT article from August 2014:

“Once they were the preserve of braying poshos,” The Guardian observed in an anti-red-trouser screed in 2012, “now they are the hipsters’ choice.”...

Whether chino or skinny jean, however, the red pant demands comment, as Anthony Weiner, then a New York mayoral hopeful, found as he stumped at a 2013 same-sex marriage rally in salmon slacks (New York magazine asserted, “Anthony Weiner’s Gay Pants Are the Talk of the Town”).

So there are other colors for men. There's red. And while we're talking about bright-colored pants, here at Meadhouse, there's green. Remember this guy: