Not that we’re going to see her in a latex anytime soon, but lots is being made about Hillary Clinton’s updated wardrobe choices. Jumping from her usual pantsuit to a Giorgio Armani ‘day coat’ made of lambskin, to hiring stylist Kristina Schake, the presumptive Democratic nominee has garnered lots of attention-both good and bad-by her recent changes in couture fashion. Lots has been made about Bernie Saunder’s plain suits as opposed to Trump’s red, white and blue style, so when GQ.com titled a recent article about Presidential style concerns, the “Long National Nightmare of Campaign Style” we can see they weren’t kidding!
Do clothes make the candidate, really? How one looks certainly effects public perception, certainly as politics moved into the t.v. age voter perception was tickled and taunted by a politician’s style…or lack of it. Anybody remember sweaty-lipped Richard Nixon? The question for the candidates and the people like Schake and others like her, is when to, or if indeed to, change a candidate’s wardrobe. Should those changes, if there are to be any, come subtle or loud? When does one know if a certain look (like Hillary’s pantsuits) have overstayed their effectiveness? Does custom made beat off-the-rack for a Trump or a Clinton? Should one change what they wear when they move from simply one of a bunch of candidates, to a nominee?
And we thought we had lots to think about the last time we dressed for a fetish fashion show weekend?
It’s going to be a long hard slog until November. Whomever runs against whom there’s sure to come lots of back and forth battling in the press, across debates stages, on the net. Surely we all have a lot more to worry about in our upcoming Presidential elections then who is wearing what, but sartorial concerns are part of any modern day political campaign, and there is no denying this fact.