The Case for Hillary’s Technicolor Dreamcoat

Clinton’s image “refresh,” if we may call it that, is the work of Kristina Schake, former communications chief of Michelle Obama, who promoted the First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” campaign against childhood obesity, as well as her successful appearances on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Schake’s career has also seen her handle media relations for Maria Shriver when she was First Lady of California, communications for L’oréal USA and work for gay rights causes. Schake waged her own campaign to transform Clinton, who had been dogged for decades about her image, into the epitome of approachable chic.

In politics, men are allowed to dress as if they have any number of desperately important matters to attend to that take precedence over their outfits. Obama looks suave and charismatic but who can recall any distinguishing features of his White House wardrobe? That’s because we’re not supposed to. And for the honor of being charismatic, women need not apply; that’s a position only open to men. Much like schoolboys, men in power have the convenience of relying on an unquestioned uniform. It’s foolproof, whether it be custom-made Brioni or Burlington Coat Factory. Clinton’s opponent for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, whose appearance seemed apathetic at best made him beloved by many. His crumpled, lived-in style, the unbrushed hair and scuffed shoes seemed to reflect his years of experience, his anti-material, anti-corporate, everyman-on-the-street convictions. His lack of interest in physical appearance rendered him authentic; He is what he fights for.

Hard choices

It’s a sad reality that Clinton could never get away with that. The fact that she has struggled to nail down a personal style for years has not been considered a positive trait but instead led to ridicule. Her alice band solutions to bad hair days, or the alternative, labored dos and longish pony-tails, have caused equal offence. During this campaign, she has been seen visiting the John Barrett salon in Bergdorf Goodman. She also has a make-up artist on payroll, reportedly, and has undergone a six-figure image overhaul.

We’re familiar with the memes of Clinton in a rainbow arc of pant suits. In the past, colors usually only seen on a world cup soccer pitch were her go-to for career suiting. She even poked fun at herself when she joined Instagram in 2015 with a photo of a row of pant suits and the caption, Hard choices, the title of her memoir. These days, however, she is inclined to keep the tangerine underneath the navy in the form of a blouse, instead of kitted out head-to-toe in the aforementioned Jim Henson hue.

Nowadays her jackets show textural interest and are flecked with many soft colors for an effect that is more warm and fuzzy, less brash. Their materials are more touchable, worn with accessories that are coordinated but subtle. Her necklace sits neatly at her throat just kissing the edge of her collarless blazer whereas a decade earlier her face was framed by costumey ruffled necklines and braided hairbands. She looks nice.

So no one is criticizing her style anymore. Yet her appearance is still under attack. Only last week, she was upbraided over the expensive bag she chose to carry for a TV appearance on The View, an Alexander McQueen tote priced at 1,645 dollars. The week before, her Ralph Lauren calfskin handbag costing 3,500 dollars got more attention than the occasion to which she brought it: visiting her new grandchild in hospital. And who can forget Coatgate? The Giorgio Armani coat that cost 12,500 dollars she wore when she gave her victory speech caused such an uproar it drowned out her words.

Symbols of success

All three pieces are of solid sensible design, are highly practical, and reflect the reality of someone who has made it. They are status symbols that say, “I have reached the top.” Her place in history is secured: she is the first women to become Democratic presidential nominee. She faces intense daily scrutiny on the world stage and her competition is fashion plates like Michelle Obama or the Duchess of Cambridge who are courted by designers worldwide. Some reports say the criticized items were not bought at full-price and, hopefully, she will have the good judgment to re-wear them (she has recycled her wardrobe in the past). It’s unlikely that the garments were given to her as no designer has stepped forward. But it bears saying that Clinton is a member of the 1%. Indeed, this very fact must figure into her appeal with voters. The narrative is straightforward: She has risen up from reportedly being broke upon leaving the White House with her husband in 2001, to the present day where she finds herself on the verge of returning to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the first female president. Within that narrative rests surely the promise that anyone in America can rise up too under her leadership, regardless of gender, or any other perceived barrier. It’s the American Dream writ large. There is no ambivalence in her ambition. So why isn’t her nappa lambskin coat as much a sign of her authenticity as Sanders’ scuffed shoes?

Dressing for a position that has never existed before

Her gender leaves her open to an unfair level of wardrobe scrutiny that no male politician will be forced to endure. She must dress well––and compete with the more memorable first ladies of history––but not too well, it would seem––her position has never existed before and everyone seems to have opinions on the standard she must set. Trump’s suits are reportedly custom-made by Brioni at 7000 dollars but no one mentions this. His hair, while universally derided, will not be what is used to put his candidacy in doubt. The media however will mix up Clinton’s sartorial choices with her policy-making. The day after her victory speech, headlines screamed that she had no business discussing income equality or minimum wage wearing that coat.

Is it so difficult to believe that when running for the highest office in the land, and with the scent of victory in one’s nostrils, one wouldn’t invest in a statement piece? Even at sixteen, we allow ourselves a special dress for our prom; have one made for our wedding day. “Dress for success” is the cornerstone to the most rudimentary business coaching. That Armani piece might even have represented for her a coat of armor as she braced herself for the ultimate battle. It’s the top job, the big kahuna. We all know she has the funds. Should she pretend to be blue-color? But that would be disingenuous. The phrase “Go big or go home” might spring audaciously into one’s mind at this milestone moment. Sanders’ constant criticism of capitalism was treated with suspicion, given that it is a cornerstone of what American society is founded on, yet Clinton’s coat, a glorious celebration of one individual’s climb to the top against all odds, is not working for us either. What do we want?

Women are judgmental

20-some years ago, I wrote my bachelor’s thesis on the wardrobe of UK’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, and as I write this, I find I’m retreading the same ground. Less experimental than Clinton in the hair stakes, Thatcher settled early on a no-nonsense shellacked barnet. Instead of a Clintonesque pant suit, she donned a sensible skirt and stiff blazer, and didn’t remove either until firmly out of Downing Street. But her resolution in appearance, as well as in opinion, led to her moniker of The Iron Lady.

April’s Vogue featured an extensive piece on Clinton, following her on the campaign trail. Anna Wintour is one of her staunchest advocates. But when the interviewer asked Madeleine Albright for her thoughts on why women are conflicted in their feelings for Clinton, she responded, “People have asked me ’Why isn’t every women in the United States for her?’ And I’m going to use my own experience here...Women are very judgmental about one another....It’s not easy to be first.”

2016’s Dove Global Report found that 71 percent of women and 67 percent of girls are dissatisfied with how they are represented in society. 85 percent of women will opt out of important events in life if they are not feeling confident about their appearance. All the same, we unequivocally believe we have a right to be considered contenders in the workplace, equal to men. Continually being bombarded with unrelatable images of the most successful women, however, as tall, thin, glossy-haired, and eternally youthful only sets us back. In Clinton we have one who, by today’s standards, would be considered riddled with flaws, missteps and contradictions. She’s not riding on her looks nor apologizing for her ambition. Politically-speaking, voters may take issue with her positions but we, as women, should applaud her position. She is a both work in progress and yet she has arrived. That is the most any of us can ever hope for. Nothing can hold us back. In that there is cause for celebration.

By contributing guest editor Jackie Mallon, who is on the teaching faculty of several NYC fashion programmes and is the author of Silk for the Feed Dogs, a novel set in the international fashion industry.

Photos from Hillaryclinton.com, Clinton’s Facebook page and Lyst.com