Hillary Clinton’s Giorgio Armani jacket cost $12,450, and in April during the New York primary campaign she delivered a speech on income inequality in America, the new poverty, the jobs that must be created. That revelation comes from the New York Post, and it marks the new look of a lecturer who collected a $325,000 fee for a public speech and considers herself already in the White House.
She’s not the Hillary of 2008, when she wore no designer clothes, and often repeated outfits. Then the race did not go well. Today, eight years later, it seems that things are going better, and therefore also the “presidential look” is to give the idea of a candidate who has already won. The New York Post is a rag, but, in the meantime, in recent days the news of the Armani jacket in combination with the speech about social injustices was distributed through blogs of different orientation, as yet another proof that Hillary is twofold, ambitious, distant from the common people and their problems, interested only in power.
If the idea of her strategists — who of course are also involved in the candidate’s look — was to confer her a “presidential” elegant look, the effect was the opposite. It is considered further evidence, according to the leftist voters and the multitude of detractors, that in any case Hillary does not represent them: She will not get their support or their vote. But do Hillary and her strategists want the support of the Democratic establishment? Or are they thinking of a path that cuts the left off to defeat Trump in November?