Hillary Clinton is facing some serious Internet criticism right now after giving a speech about income inequality while wearing a $12,000 Armani jacket, according to CNBC.
The Democratic nominee’s New York primary victory speech, which focused on income disparity, job creation and retirement, was meant to paint her as humble and one with the masses, according to the New York Post.
That image was tainted, however, when the Post published a report on Sunday detailing the cost of Clinton’s extravagant wardrobe. Clinton apparently boosted up her wardrobe during her most recent campaign to appear more “relatable.”
Not surprisingly, some of the Internet was not buying into her new relatability.
You would think someone would say: “Hey, Hillary, maybe don’t give this speech on inequality wearing a $12k jacket” https://t.co/pTGFlW6BdD
— Sarah Westwood (@sarahcwestwood) June 6, 2016
Hillary gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket, uhmm..yeah she knows all about being poor, right? https://t.co/VEc9acSi0r
— MedicalQuack (@MedicalQuack) June 6, 2016
Others seemed to think that the Post’s so-called exposé on the price of Clinton’s jacket was just another instance of masked sexism aimed at the female nominee.
How often do you point out how expensive men shoes watches and suits are @cnbc? As sexist as it comes: https://t.co/YeSxDM4KeN #Hillary2016
— Sharmeen Obaid (@sharmeenochinoy) June 7, 2016
Can’t believe she didn’t wear a plain sack with the words “RELATABLE TO MISOGYNIST MEN” on it. https://t.co/gETdV8RyAL
— Louis Virtel (@louisvirtel) June 6, 2016
This is shoddy reporting. No one gave a damn how much male candidates’ suits cost. https://t.co/kUiNvGUfnx
— jimmy williams (@Jimmyspolitics) June 7, 2016
Patsy Cisneros, a political image consultant, says that it is completely normal for politicians to dress strategically, as wardrobe choices often play a key role in shaping their image. “She’s had to have spent in the six figures on this wardrobe overhaul,” Cisneros told the Post.
“[The Clinton campaign] is not going for glamour,” she said. “They are going for something more natural. 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?”
This is extremely important to keep in mind in a world where a woman’s hard work and intelligence can come second to her physical appearance, even if she is a presidential candidate.
We definitely don’t think it’s anyone’s place to tell a woman what to wear to work (especially if that work includes running for president). But the next time Hillary wants to talk about financial inequality, she may want to leave the Armani at home.