A Giorgio Armani jacket worth more than $12,000 was a poor fit for Hillary Clinton, especially while the Democratic presidential hopeful was talking about inequality. But these things can happen, noted
The New York Post, when you're out on the stump in a $200,000 designer campaign wardrobe.
Worse, a Post feature on Sunday about the luxe wardrobe did little to banish memories of "frumpy" Hillary, as it sparked a torrent of online backlash from her critics – including observations that the expensive duds didn't do much for her.
The Post noted that $200K for campaign clothes was a departure from the "frumpy pastel skirtsuits" she wore as first lady and the pantsuits she wore as a U.S. senator from New York and as secretary of state.
Clinton wore the $12,495 tweed Giorgio Armani jacket during her New York primary victory speech in April, when she discussed income inequality and other economic issues in what the Post described as "a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman."
The
Washington Free Beacon pointed out that the price of the jacket amounted to about 40 percent of the average American worker's annual salary, which was $30,815 in 2014, and pointed out that the Clinton's have earned $6.7 million from speeches since the beginning of last year.
While some say Clinton's new wardrobe is out of synch with her message, others have defended it.
"She is just generally looking much more pulled-together," political style blogger Christina Logothetis told the Post. "It was a really necessary refresh."
The Post noted that in 2008, the Republican National Committee paid $150,000 for then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's wardrobe. And Donald Trump's Brioni suits cost about $7,000 each.
Twitter users squawked about the jacket.