She could have worn this.
OK, the attached article isn’t that interesting. Apparently Ms. Clinton has upgraded her wardrobe, trying to bury the “Nixon in a pantsuit” image. She would like to appear a little more hip. Apparently hipness costs thousands of dollars per piece.
There is nothing wrong with Ms. Clinton wanting to dress well, particularly if she is paying for these clothes herself. But if you are going to do a talk on inequality ditch the $12,000 jacket. She should have worn a nice pair of jeans, a nice pair of shoes, and a simple white shirt. Maybe even a t-shirt.That would have been appropriate and stylish. I believe the general rule is one should not wear an outfit which costs more than many people in the audience make in a year. It’s like white sandals after Labor Day.
(From Market Watch)
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.
ACC is a completely non-partisan organization. We do not support/endorse or oppose any candidate for office. We believe that both major parties are heavily influenced by special interests and will report on crony capitalism wherever and whenever we see it.