Comparison, and Contrast, and presentations.

This post may be completely superficial.  Or maybe not.

It's about presentation.

Harriet Hageman, no matter what a person otherwise thinks of her, has a unique look. Sort of a Steampunk meets Southwestern Navajo type of style:

From Hageman campaign site: https://www.hagemanforwyoming.com/  Fair Use exception and directly linked in for copyright reasons.

Funky glasses lots of jewelry, a lot of which is turquoise.

From Billings Gazette which was from Wyoming Tribune Eagle.  https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/harriet-hageman-releases-first-paid-ad/article_04274d77-a57c-5a6c-a534-a3412cd6bc64.html  Fair use and directly linked in.

Lynette Gray Bull is understated, but wears some things that emphasize the culture she's part of.

From Wyofile:  https://wyofile.com/grey-bull-aims-to-be-first-wyo-dem-in-congress-in-44-years/

Even at that, however, it's notable.  Hageman's appearance, most of the time, is loud, and includes a lot of turquoise.  Gray Bull's is not. She's wearing a little turquoise and some ear rings, in the photo above, that are a bonafide part of the culture she is a bonafide part of.

Lynette Gray Bull from her campaign site.  Very understated dress compared to Hageman, with some turquoise jewelry.  Fair Use and directly linked in.  https://www.greybullforcongress.com/

Hageman didn't always dress the way she does now. At Casper College, when she was an ag student, she wore blue jeans and polo shirts, the uniform of ag students, and she dressed much the same way when she was in law school.  No loud earrings or jewelry, and no funky glasses.

Of course, a lot of us don't wear the same things daily now, that we did in school.

We've heard a lot about cultural appropriation in recent years. I don't think such things should be taken too far.  I.e., I don't think it matters if a person of European American ancestry wears a traditional Chinese dress to the prom.  

But on some sensitive issues, it's harder to say.

Last week the State Bar Convention was held and among the "break out sessions" was one on what used to be called "Indian Law" and maybe still is.  They've had similar sessions in the past, but this year's was taught by a University of Wyoming professor who is a Native American.  Because I was attending remotely (via Zoom) and had my audio turned down fairly low for a reason I'll not go into, I may not have heard all of the very first section perfectly, but it was clear that the professor was angry with European Americans.

Again, I'm not really going to do into this, but appropriating a lot of Native American style jewelry may not really be the best idea for a person running for office who is non-Native.  Or does it matter?

Going from there, I'd note that Wyoming political races tend to leave a person's family completely out of the race as a rule.  By and large this is a good thing, although I'd note that candidates themselves tend to interject their families into the races in some fashion.

Cheney's family was definitely interjected into all of her races from the onset. This was inevitable due to her last name alone, which by its very nature interjected the family legacy type of debate into the races, and the "where are you really from" issue into the race.  Hageman's last name is one that should be familiar to long time Wyoming residents, but that hasn't come up much.  If it were to, it should cause us to recall that her father was one of the Southeastern Wyoming legislators that backed a wildlife privatization bill.    Cheney doesn't have a great record on public lands, I'd note, but then I'd also note that Barasso doesn't either.  Nothing has come up since Lummis returned to office.  Hageman, when public lands as an issue arose earlier, gave a very reserved answer to the question.

Anyhow, Hageman's parents probably won't make the news, and probably shouldn't. Gray Bull's haven't either, and probably shouldn't.  But it's interesting to note that both have family in their photographs, and Hageman has emphasized it.

Hageman has noted in her campaign that she's pro family and loves spending time with her nieces.  In her campiagn material, she's shown with her extended family, and is starting to be shown with her husband.  Her husband is also a lawyer, some decade and a half older than she, and they have no children.  We don't know why, and we aren't entitled to know why.  Gray Bull doesn't talk about family in the same fashion, makes recent frequent reference to being pro abortion, but appears in photographs with her three children.  So we have one candidate that speaks about family and appears with her immediate family, consisting of her husband, and we have one candidate that doesn't but appears with her three children, but no husband or significant other.

Again, this is all personal in nature.  Does it matter?

Maybe not.  The questions aren't going to be asked, and they probably shouldn't be.

But it does matter who people are behind what they claim to stand for.  What their daily lives are like, and what has mattered to them on a really personal level.