Hillary Clinton is a terrible dresser. Like much of the criticism directed at Hillary, her surrogates deflect this criticism by saying that she is uniquely targeted because she is a woman. In fact, in many ways, Hillary is shielded by her gender. If a man was attempting the fashion risks Hillary takes on a daily basis he would be subjected to more than just barbs online or jokes at his expense on late-night shows. There would be articles and think-pieces galore at any non-standard choices.
Don’t think so? Let’s revisit what happened when Marco Rubio dared wear a pair of non-traditional men’s shoes. I’m referring, of course, to the heeled boots Rubio wore in Iowa last January, which became a viral sensation.
“How much are they?” wondered Vanity Fair, speculating that they “sure look expensive.” It could be this pair for $85 from Zappos, these $995 ones by Maison Margiela, these $1990 Tom Ford ones. For an article with no factual information, it spends in the vicinity of 500 words laying out all the possibilities and then includes an update from the campaign that they’re a boring pair of Florsheims for under a hundred bucks.
But that’s Vanity Fair, fashion is partly their beat (even though the staff reporter who wrote this piece “covers election politics, the Supreme Court and the influence of money in Washington.”), right? Surely no serious outlet covered Rubio’s boots. “Marco Rubio’s Shiny Boots Stir Up the Presidential Race” proclaimed the New York Times. Jonathan Chait in New York magazine wrote that the boots could “imply something deeper about his character: that he is a lightweight, unmanly, lacking the angry urgency needed at the moment.” Joe Scarborough dedicated the better part of an episode exploring Rubio’s boots. Rubio’s primary rivals Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz all made jokes and/or ads about the boots.
Meanwhile, Hillary wears clothes that are unflattering, wildly expensive, and flat-out goofy and we’re expected not to notice. Instead, in a piece about Fashion Week last week, Robin Givhan in the Washington Post implied that Hillary was a style inspiration for some designers — despite quoting exactly zero designers saying so. Givhan calls Hillary a “style icon,” and the article’s headline calls her an “unexpected inspiration” — but fails to find even one person inspired by Hillary’s ill-fitting outfits.
In July, Harper’s Bazaar featured a slideshow of 74 pictures of Hillary’s “Iconic Style.” Too-long jackets and too-tight or too-loose pants are the standard of her look in garish patterns or monochromatic, bright colors. Would Bazaar consider these clothes a good look on anyone but the person they would like see win the presidency? They wouldn’t.
The problem with Hillary’s clothing isn’t that she’s not trying hard enough to be fashionable, but that she’s often trying way too hard to wear trendy clothes that just don’t work for her. It encapsulates a lot of her other problems like her struggle to be authentic and the fact that she doesn’t have people around her to be honest with her. It’s as if people who like Hillary best refuse to tell her the truth about her wardrobe and go overboard in defending her wacky clothing by calling it inspiring or iconic.
Donald Trump is often accused of surrounding himself with “yes” people but someone has to stop Hillary from her poor fashion choices and yelling sexism at the people pointing out that her clothes are awful is silly — and destructive.
