Snopes: Clinton Armani jacket controversy - mostly false

[PeaceNikki]

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/

WHAT'S TRUE: Hillary Clinton wore an Armani jacket priced between $7,000 and $12,000 in April 2016; the sartorial choice became an issue several months later after a New York newspaper reported on it.

WHAT'S FALSE: The jacket was several thousand dollars less expensive than reported; high-profile figures are often loaned designer items by large brands.

WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: Whether Clinton purchased the coat herself; whether the item was priced at $12,495 in April 2016.

The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clinton’s New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. Portions of the speech touched on themes of "inequality," but were much broader than the claim suggested.

Let the Jacketghazi hearings begin.

[Lars39]

1. Looked like a beginner's first sewing experience.

[PeaceNikki]

2. Yes, we all have different tastes in fashion, music, art, etc. Your opinion has been noted.

Thank you for your input, Tim Gunn!!

[obamanut2012]

20. A+ for invoking the godlike Mr. Gunn!

[PeaceNikki]

21. Make it work!

[obamanut2012]

64. Channel your inner winner!

[moriah]

6. Well, remember she can't wear anything close to a v-neck...

... or she gets accused of trying to project sexuality.

Of course, those are the same people who seem to have such a misunderstanding of human biology to think a woman Hillary's age is still menstruating because the ladies room was further from the debate stage than the mens room.

[Lars39]

9. not a dart or detail

to be had, relying on expensive fabric and brand name for its style.
I don't care what it cost, she would be better off finding a flattering style that fit her correctly.

[moriah]

17. I agree not everything "designer" is tasteful or even well-designed.

But my point was that no matter how she dresses, someone is going to find something critical in it. If she wore more form-fitting clothing, the same attacks would be made that were made about the "cleavage".

Better, IMHO, to wear clothing that (pardon the Michelle Duggar channeling) directs attention to her face. Which would be helped if such jackets were better designed not to ride up when she raises her arms, but....

[Lars39]

19. The opposite happens with me...the jacket's design became a distraction. :-)

[baldguy]

3. Well, of course it is.

It has all the signs of classic RW propaganda.

[geek tragedy]

5. best sign it's rw propaganda:

it was posted in GDP to attack Clinton

[geek tragedy]

4. I'm sure FDR and JFK got their clothing at the local thrift shop nt

[GreatGazoo]

7. Wore a $12K jacket = false (?) Wore a $9K jacket = true therefore hypocrisy "mostly false" ?!

Me thinks they miss the point.

[PeaceNikki]

8. lolok

[Fumesucker]

10. Once you get to a certain point of income there is very little difference between $9K and $12.5K

I mean do you choose your gum based on the price difference between $1 and $1.30 gum?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

22. Hillary could have worn a $1,000,000 diamond-encrusted jacket, she's still our presumptive nominee...

We can't change that.

[Fumesucker]

24. What does that have to do with what I wrote?

[hobbit709]

28. and she would still be tone deaf and clueless about income equality.

[FBaggins]

31. That's true from the other perspective too

At certain points of income. (I.e., everyone outside of the 1%), there's very little difference between 9k and 12.5k. They're both reminders of extreme inequalities and evidence of a lack of sensitivity on the wearer's part.

[fasttense]

37. Yes, I have selected items because they were 30 cents less

At the farmer's market the $5.50 a doz. eggs sell out long before the $6.00 a doz. eggs do.

Rich people waste money.

[Fumesucker]

45. There are two kinds of people in this world...

Those who like to brag about how much they paid for stuff and those who like to brag about how little they paid for stuff.



On the other hand if I want apples I buy the more expensive ones I like, not the cheap mushy "red delicious" ones...

[drray23]

26. and what is the point ?

She can wear whatever she wants. Besides why is it even a topic of discussion ? I can not remember when we last argued over the price of suits worn by male candidates.

[progressoid]

40. Appearance is important to many people.

Bernie's apparel and appearance are often discussed.

To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a double standard. But a lot of people are superficial and politicians know this. How you look is often just as important as what you say. Ask sweaty Nixon.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-does-bernie-sanders-dress-like-that-because-he-can/2015/10/12/55ca840e-6141-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

[Madam Mossfern]

50. Edward's haircuts?

n/t

[NV Whino]

61. Seems to me Bill's expensive haircut was discussed

What was it, $600?

[Orsino]

11. I'm not sure this is helping much.

Getting her jacket for under US$7,500 is not exactly economy to be praised, whether or not the speech was mainly about inequality. If the jacket was a loaner--if our candidate was advertising for the designer--that strikes me as tone-deaf, too. I think, however, that I must make allowances for the ridiculous focus on a female candidate's appearance; perhaps it's not reasonable for me to wish for her to dress off the rack.

By that same token, I don't think I care much whether Clinton's wardrobe is charged to the campaign. She probably can't do anything right in everyone's eyes.

[PeaceNikki]

12. lol, would you know it was Armani if not for this hit piece? Would anyone??

[Orsino]

16. Well, I sure wouldn't.

Clinton is probably in the uncomfortable position of not daring to be seen in anything not couture because people who care about such things would crucify for that, too.

She lives in a different world, and it's not all her fault. She is a celebrity.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. If it was a loaner, then there's no reason Hillary should be "hung out to dry" for "jacket-gate."

[Fumesucker]

25. The designers loan those out for advertising purposes, not out of sheer charity

It really wouldn't make her look much better to be advertising a haute couture item like she was a runway model.

[Darb]

32. Yeah, she should stick to "pantsuits".

It doesn't matter what she wears, teabaggers and bernies will create a grievance.

[Fumesucker]

43. It's a fine line between looking frumpy and being out of touch, a finer one for women unfortunately

If I were running Hillary Clinton's campaign, which thank god I'm not, I'd send a person or two with sharp fashion sense around to thrift stores and consignment shops to buy clothing for the candidate. If you haven't shopped that way you'd be shocked at the brands that show up for pennies on the dollar or even less and more often than not in pristine shape.

Then when she's wearing some expensive piece of clothing and this sort of thing comes up the campaign pulls out the receipt where they paid $9.99 for it, plus sales tax of course. It would be devastating and we would hear no more of this sort of stuff.

Personally I think all fashion stuff is daft but it's part of the game that has to be played at the presidential level.

[Orsino]

62. Yep. I'm sure it happens all the time...

...but can a designer expect a president to look faborably on their legislative needs in exchange for a free wardrobe?

Bad optics, if that's what's going on. Not the same as wearing a Pennzoil sticker on a racing jacket, but we Dems ought to do better.

[BootinUp]

14. Oh, that story from the Washington Times? WHat a shock!

[PeaceNikki]

15. New York Post

[justiceischeap]

18. I remember she used to get criticized for her "simple" clothing

when she became First Lady. I seem to recall the use of words like frumpy.

Clinton haters will always find something to hate about her. This one is just recycled.

[Thinkingabout]

27. It has been a custom for many years for designers, etc to loan clothing to people

Who are high profile in order to advertise, it is a win win situation.

[merrily]

29. 1st, who gives a crap? 2nd,they declare it mostly false while admitting they don't know enuff

to declare it mostly false. 3rd, who gives a crap about one jacket?

She's rich, she's demonstrated tone deafness any number of times and she's not above double standards because IOKIYAC.

[Darb]

33. I like Old Amsterdamn Aged Gouda,

would you like some?

[PeaceNikki]

34. Plus it's only a small fraction of what Sanders paid to fly to Rome for a 10 min speech on poverty.

[merrily]

38. A jacket is exactly like travel to the Vatican to speak about world poverty and economic justice,

with the secret service because of credible threats on your life.

Jaysus!

Not a word of my post was wrong. Instead of flailing at Sanders with an entirely different situation, you should have settled for who gives a crap about one jacket.

[PeaceNikki]

42. I am equally aghast about Jacketghazi and Vaticangate

Which is: not.

[merrily]

46. Irrelevant to your own Op and also irrevevant to both my replies.

[PeaceNikki]

47. lolok. Calling the jacket "tone-deaf" while being perfectly cool with the $600k Vatican trip is

completely hypocritical. In my opinion.

There, I spelled it out for you.

[merrily]

52. Again, they are not comparable situations.

Also, I did not call the jacket tone deaf. I called Hillary tone deaf. And I said I didn't give a crap about the jacket about half a dozen times.


As far as gratuitously adding that you spelled things out for me, try getting over yourself.

[PeaceNikki]

53. Awww. There, there.

[merrily]

57. Kudos. of all the posts displaying desperation for the last words I've seen in 10 years, yours

displays the most desperation to post anything, just to have the last word. Also displays a marked inability to get back exactly what you give out.

Okay, last word is yours. Try not to make as inane as your reply 53.

[PeaceNikki]

59. Peace.

[C_U_L8R]

30. Why do these stupid 'controversies' only seem to apply to women

No one is gasping over how much Donald Trumps' suits cost or how many underpaid laborers toiled in sweatshops making his oversized handmade neckties. Goodness gracious Donald's hairdresser alone probably costs more rhan every outfit Hillary has ever worn. Not to mention the gold flake Cheeto makeup.

Edit; fixed typos

[PoliticAverse]

36. You don't remember John Edwards and the "$400 haircuts"?

http://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/11/john_edwards_400_haircut_tip_c.html

[C_U_L8R]

41. True. That's one.

But women might give a bazillion more examples where they were unfairly held back or undermined by criticism of their clothing or appearance. We've all seen it. Heck this stupid Armani thing is being blasted across every social channel by right wingers right now. I'm just taking note who among my Facebook and Twitter friends are spreading it. They're idiots and they just proved it to the world.

On edit: ...and it's just as stupid when the same tactic is pointed at men. It has nothing to do with anything except pettiness. It's what small brained people do when they lack a solid argument.

[merrily]

39. They don't. Bubba was criticized for a haircut and Hillary herself criticized Edwards for a haircut.

[voteearlyvoteoften]

35. Shop at Ross Hillary

Not!!

[TexasBushwhacker]

44. I know 3 things

1. Men are never criticized for their clothing.

2. Being an older woman myself, I can understand keeping it simple. The high collar doesn't require accessories like scarves or jewelry. The loose fitting longer jacket may not be very flattering, but it does hide a multitude of sins. No Spanx needed! She probably sticks to pantsuits because wearing heals is a hassle. I don't blame her!

3. I think the ivory suit she wore was much more flattering.

https://www.yahoo.com/sy/uu/api/res/1.2/BK7lTiY7x4tFbvx5Mn2krw--/aD0zMzM7cT05NTt3PTUwMDtzbT0xO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/.cf.webp

[icecreamfan]

49. IMO President Obama was rightly criticized for this fashion choice

[TexasBushwhacker]

69. Wow! That is pretty ugly

I don't think anyone would look good in that.

[PeaceNikki]

58. All great points, thank you!

[NurseJackie]

48. Of course that's the case. The Hillary Haters never let facts get in the way ...

... of a good smear. (And by "good", what I actually mean is "complete bullshit" of course.)

[karynnj]

51. This is a sexist issue. No one comments on well crafted men's suits

President Obama and John Kerry at occasions like the one where Clinton wore that jacket, wear well tailored suits. Though there may be comment about a color of tie, the suit itself is sort of like a uniform, though a very elegant one. So much so, all their suits essentially look the same.

Whether being SoS, Senator or campaigning, what to wear is much easier for the men who are in those jobs.

[PeaceNikki]

54. It's true, thanks for posting this!

[karynnj]

56. Thanks, not to mention I have no idea what those suits cost

Here cost does bring better quality and it makes a difference. if you question that look at Biden photos when giving speeches in the Senate and as VP. Not to mention, Trump probably dies not buy his suits at Macy's!

[Rose Siding]

63. Thank you!

[Dem2]

68. And I've said this also in previous posts about this

My suits have pants also, nobody calls them "pantsuits". Fucking misogynists are not even aware of the silliness of their statements.

[Festivito]

55. PART of speech touched on inequality. Jackets get LENT (free advertising) THEN price goes up.

Taylor made jackets are not cheap. Top designers are not cheap.

Yes, Hillary made and probably inherited money and can afford it even if it was bought not borrowed.

Too many bitter people mad that the Clinton's are not sitting on a private beach slowly sipping away to a long quiet eventual demise.

[Cheese Sandwich]

60. snopes is now like eh we googled it and nothing came back sorry guys it's mostly false

[blackspade]

65. Who gives a fuck?

People get paid to research stupid shit like this?

[Herman4747]

66. Can one even imagine Bernie in a $7,000 jacket????

He's got far more important priorities in life.

[PeaceNikki]

70. I know! like staying in $13k per night hotels in Rome.

[Herman4747]

71. Or giving $200,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs...

and then refusing to tell the public what was promised to Goldman Sachs!!

CORRUPT AS HELL!!!

Get it? Got it? Good.

[Dem2]

67. Things that I don't give a fuck about

that remind me that "internet" and "politics" = "Entertainment Tonight"