|
?:reviewBody
|
-
In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the surprising strategy behind Hillary Clinton’s designer wardrobe, and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline: It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: 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. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of income inequality, an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158. Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}