We are so fucked. We have this snotty hypocrite whore and a loud mouth egomaniac billionaire to choose from. This supersedes every "vote for the lesser evil" election in history.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-gave-inequality-speech-in-an-armani-jacket-2016-06-06Hillary Clinton’s New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman.
She gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket.The polished outfit was in stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel “skirtsuits.” As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors — so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, who’s become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her.
But now, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, whose dowdy and matronly style has haunted her throughout her entire political career, is making her first real effort to play the fashion card. She’s upgraded the designers she wears, opting for high-end European labels, and hired a team of image experts that includes former Michelle Obama aide Kristina Schake, who’s been tasked with shaping her style and making her more relatable. She’s even rumored to have “Veep” makeup artist Barbara Lacy on the payroll.
But this new look comes with a hefty price tag. “She’s had to have spent in the six figures on this wardrobe overhaul,” says L.A.-based political image consultant Patsy Cisneros. Clinton, who has said that she left the White House “dead broke,” is now dressing the part of someone who can command $325,000 for a single speech. Factoring in the designer labels she’s wearing, plus the number of new outfits she’s been photographed in over the past year, she’s likely spent at least $200,000 on new clothes to wear on the campaign trail.
And there’s a good chance that cash is coming out of her own pocket. For example, no designers are actively promoting that she’s wearing their labels — something that probably wouldn’t happen if she were getting her threads for free. Whether she’s given discounts is harder to say, although she has been spotted at stores like Bergdorf Goodman — so she is buying some items off the rack, a stark contrast to Michelle Obama, whose staff calls designers directly.
It’s a marked shift from Clinton’s 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from D.C.-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clinton’s fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say it’s an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that she’s in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman — and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message.
It’s a tough spot to be in, but Clinton follows a long line of politicians who’ve spent big bucks on a campaign wardrobe. The Republican National Committee infamously shelled out $150,000 for new clothes for Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign. Michelle Obama is known for wearing designer labels from Jason Wu to Prabal Gurung, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has a penchant for Brioni suits, which cost upward of $7,000 each.
Purely from a fashion perspective, experts say Clinton’s new style is more modern and carefully accessorized. “She’s moved away from those monochromatic pantsuits,” says Washington, D.C. political style blogger Christina Logothetis. “And she is just generally looking much more pulled-together. . . . It was a really necessary refresh.”
Some recent style hits for Clinton include a custom-made blue silk Ralph Lauren suit worn to last year’s campaign kickoff on Roosevelt Island (similar styles of the jacket sell for $2,200 and up), a blue beaded coat by Andrew Gn donned at a New York City fundraiser on March 2 (similar styles by the designer sell for $3,000 and up at Bergdorf Goodman), and a tailored black suit custom-made by Susanna Beverly Hills sported at a Knoxville, Iowa, campaign rally on Jan. 25 (the label’s suits start at $6,000).
Cisneros says the campaign will have succeeded from a style standpoint if voters focus less on what Clinton is wearing than they have in the past. “[The Clinton campaign] is not going for glamour — they are going for something more natural,” she says. The hope is that Clinton stands out on the trail for her accomplishments rather than for her style, and that her fashion choices become less of a talking point than they have in the past. “Do we see her more than we see the clothes? Do we see her more than we see the makeup?”
Still, the trendier pieces she’s been mixing into her wardrobe — from a black-and-white leather car-coat to a belted white jacket to a pink-and-white gingham coat — haven’t gone unnoticed, and have people drawing comparisons on Twitter to Kerry Washington’s Olivia Pope on “Scandal.” Her accessory choices have been equally high-fashion, including pricey Mikimoto pearls, Chanel pins, necklaces by Marco Bicego, Joan Hornig and Robert Lee Morris (all of which cost thousands of dollars each), and low-heeled Manolo Blahnik pumps.
While it remains to be seen how Clinton’s fashion upgrade will ultimately resonate when the general election officially kicks off — in part because style has always been a sticky topic for her — experts caution that voters are ultimately looking for authenticity, and a politician’s sartorial choices play a key role in shaping that image.
“You see these candidates try to fit into whatever little country diner they’re eating a burger at — and it’s an attempt to reflect and be representational [of the voters],” says Johanna Blakley, deputy director of the Norman Lear Center and a media professor at the University of Southern California.
But can she achieve that while wearing thousands of dollars’ worth of clothes?
Washington-based image consultant Lauren Rothman says Clinton should refrain from being ostentatious if she wants to avoid a backlash. “The fact that her fashion choices have been functional rather than glam has let [how much she’s spending] go under the radar,” Rothman says. “What got Sarah Palin in the end were her flashy fashion choices.”
