I’ve got to disagree respectfully with Carol; Nancy Pelosi dresses superbly. Her attire is always dignified, spiffily tailored, and professional, and also femine, classy, and elegantly understated. Maybe that’s because her designer of choice is Giorgio Armani. Or maybe it’s because she’s not too partisan to seek shoe advice from PJ Media stalwart Manolo (and check the gorgeous Bettye Mullers Manolo picked out for her–the perfect pairings for an Armani pantsuit!).

So I can’t object to Robin Givhan’s Washington Post Valentine to her. And yes, Givhan can be catty and even off-base fashion-wise, as in her famous putdown of the nomination attire of Chief Justice John Roberts’ family. But as Ann Althouse has noted, Givhan is an equal-opportunity fashion disser:

“Consider Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. After eight years as first lady wearing innumerable skirt suits that did little to flatter her physique, she now wears pants almost exclusively. As a matter of personal style, this is a good thing.”

And she also can give credit where credit is due:

“Standing alone, Mrs. Bush looked lovely. But next to [Dutchess] Camilla, whose Robinson Valentino blazer and skirt made her look like a large rectangle, the first lady reminded one of a radiant bride shining brightly next to a dutifully bland bridesmaid….

“Once again designer Oscar de la Renta did well by Mrs. Bush with an amber off-the-shoulder gown with embroidered flowers and a waist-defining belt. De la Renta, who attended the elegant dinner, is one of Mrs. Bush’s Seventh Avenue favorites, and he memorably created the winter white dress and coat she wore to her husband’s second inauguration and in which she looked utterly spectacular. This dress did not make an equivalent aesthetic splash, but it looked modern and feminine with its flirtatious neckline that showed off her shoulders.”

The problem with Pelosi isn’t her sartiorial style. It’s her San Francisco Democrat politics. As our home-page editorial points out, Pelosi supports the straight tax-raising, income-redistributionist, liberal-welfare-state ticket that on the surface looks good for women (at least women who crave a big-government sugar daddy) but is likely to damage their economic security over the long run:

“Many women may celebrate Speaker Pelosi’s ascension to one of the highest offices in the land as a milestone reached for women. Yet this could be a turning point of another kind. Over the next two years, American women will become reacquainted with the consequences of Democratic policies and may begin rethinking their support of liberal politicians, regardless of their gender. Republicans were far from perfect in their running of Congress, but sadly, all indications are that Speaker Pelosi will fare worse.”

Here’s my husband’s prediction on Nancy Pelosi: She spends the next two years screeching as she tries to herd a House-full of Democratic cats who are generally far more centrist than she. Then, come 2008, Americans decided that if that’s what happens when you put a woman in high office, they don’t want to see a woman in high office, and it’s good-bye, Hillary. So I say: screech on , Nancy. You will be saving us from something worse.