Let’s be honest. It’s not like she’s a looker to begin with, and we suppose the line of Chairman Mao outfits don’t come cheap.
Hillary 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.
But an everywoman she is not — she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket.
The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York State 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.
Uh, Mooch is a “style icon” to the slobbering media, not regular Americans.
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 include 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.
None of it matters. She looks awful no matter what she’s wearing, and he fashion taste is about as awful as her personality.
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 LA-based political image consultant Patsy Cisneros. Clinton, who loves to say that she left the White House in 1993 “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.
Somehow we suspect the notoriously cheap and greedy Clinton is actually paying for the hideous duds she’s sporting. You just know the label makers are probably giving it out for free. Really, would you pay for this mess?