These are the only mentions of her appearance in this profile. Since it's a profile I don't think mentioning a few of the outstanding aspects of her appearance are really out of line, since 95% of the article is not focussed on that.

As an Annie Lennox fan, I'm hard-wired to like, or at least take seriously, anyone who resembles her, whether physically or in spirit. That aside, I thought the article presented Ms Richards, platinum hair and all, as an intelligent, thoughtful woman who isn't about to take shit from anyone. Let's clone her. Or at least encourage her to run for high office.

I don't get the NY Times, but the New Yorker describes the appearance of everyone profiled, male or female. It is part of the person, after all, and gives you more understanding of why others respond to them the way they do, and also of what the person is trying to project. (In this case it helps us get a sense of a more in-your-face personal style.) It also makes articles more colorful and readable.

Is there a photo with the piece? It if presents her in a more sexual way in a photo, I'd be worried about that.

I think she looks more like Richard Gephardt's gay daughter, Chrissy...but in the end, all that matters is if she can do the job. She's got a lot to do!

Hi Katharine,

I too am happy to know that a woman like Richards is taking the reins, however I do think journalistic descriptions matter. I remember, about a year ago, reading an article that covered two people - I think it was about their roles in a community service effort. The writer described the woman as a "blue-eyed, blonde with a perky demeanor" and described the man as a "former construction worker who took a job with shorter hours to be able to spend time on this effort." Really, those were the only descriptive sentences about the two people. I wrote the author to suggest that - whether conscious or not - this was reinforcing in people's minds that women are the sum of their looks and men are the sum of their jobs. I think it does make a difference. Maybe not in this article, because it seems to have covered both - but until I see as many articles that say "Wolfowitz, a green-eyed brunette who runs the World Bank...", I won't say it's inconsequential.

Just because the Times interviewer described her looks does not mean it's a case of "she's a woman, let's focus on her looks." The Times tends to have a literary style in its writing and usually offers up a physical description of its interviewees. Why not compare the description of Lennox to men profiled by the Times before crying wolf. Let's not jump the gun and call everything sexism. How did the Annie Lennox issue come up anyway? Clearly, Cecile mentioned it. I doubt the Times writer was with her often enough to learn first hand that she's often told she resembes Lennox. Especially, when the article also mentions that Richards likes the comparison.

that NOW had a president who DIDN'T look like a typical caricature of a dyke.

i never could understand why dykes gave a shit about Roe v. Wade, anyway. It's not like they were getting anywhere near penises. just picture it, i am 5'5", 115lbs, i own a wardrobe made up mostly of Armani, BCBG, Donna Karan, etc. and a ton of stuff i bought when i lived in europe. Dare i broach this subject? Why do people have children anyway? Usually, it's for some not-so-noble reasons.