You might have noticed that when the Tuesday post rolls around (Savvy Style's They Get It segment) there haven't been many younger people chosen - chosen as one who always looks impeccable, appropriate, etc.  In fact, I think George Clooney has been the youngest selectee; and George is in his mid 40s.  Not old by any means, but not a youngster either.

Part of the problem is we're looking at people that are known by many.  It doesn't really work to select someone we know who is ultra glam, stylish, etc. if most of our readers wouldn't be familiar with them.  So that leaves us with Hollywood denizens (and we're also including international stars in this group,) pols and well known business people.

And of these three groups, we only hold the Hollywood types to any expectations of stylishness and glamour.  And therein lies the problem:  where's the glamour?  Where did it go?

I've previously quoted Robin Givhan, the wonderfully talented Style writer, for the Washington Post.  And sure enough, in her column yesterday, she brought up this very subject.  As she wrote in her article (I'm paraphrasing) "stars" nowadays are seen stumbling out of bars, looking like refugees; or talking ad nauseum about  subjects considered intensely private - at one time. 

Not so much glamour in that.

Back when the primaries were still happening (already seems so long ago) I was watching the Democrats debate; and in this particular meeting, Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico (and distinguished statesman in his own right) asked a provocative question: when did 'experience' become a dirty word?

Well, I'm going to tweak that a bit, and ask, "When did glamour become a dirty word?"