Boy, is that an understatement. A more accurate way of putting it might be that Givhan's insights are borderline phrenology. I think there is something wrong with the territory she mines; it further trivializes that which is already dangerously trivial and superficial. It infantilizes the people who make policies that actually affect our lives, by injecting a ridiculous sensibility more appropriate for The Hills or some such.
The premise of emphasizing the importance of fashion choices of political figures (something that is not nearly as relevant as Givhan is paid to think) is inherently ludicrous, and it is only made more so by the frequently uncomfortable and unnecessary nature of her actual observations.
It's not that the sartorial choices of famous people are completely irrelevant (though you wonder about the sanity of people who mindlessly run out and throw money at whatever they just saw Sarah Palin or Michelle Obama wearing), it's that they are peripheral to what those people do. I'm not saying they should all run around with holes in their socks like Paul Wolfowitz, but one of the more obnoxious traits of the fashion industry in general is the way it perpetuates itself by contriving this dynamic of envy and jonesmanship.