We all should have seen this coming. A lot of us did. After eight years of any opposition to President Obama being labeled as racism, we knew that Hillary Clinton would have defenders decrying all opposition to the scandal-plagued Democrat as sexism.

Sure enough, it’s happening.

Earlier this week, I wrote a story here at PJ Media regarding Clinton’s decision to speak on income inequality while wearing a jacket that cost over $12,000, and having amassed — along with Bill — over $150 million in speaking fees in just over a decade. I wasn’t alone. Other corners of the internet also took aim at the former secretary of State over the hypocrisy.

Now, we’re apparently all sexists:

What this latest instance of criticism really highlights is not just the attention that is paid toward what female politicians and public figures wear, but just how difficult it is to be deemed “acceptably dressed” by the American public when you are a woman. And unfortunately, this $12,000 jacket fiasco (which is now actually a $7,000 jacket fiasco, because the jacket is now on sale) is just the latest chapter in the long, tired history of political women around the world being called out for how much they spend on their appearance. […] More and more, it seems, with the attentiveness of the internet, female politicians are in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation. Meanwhile, during all of this indignation over Clinton’s jacket, Donald Trump has been open about his favoritism towards Brioni suits, which cost $7,000 a pop, and the media has so far been mum about them.

One key difference the author, Rachel Lubitz, has missed — Trump hasn’t spoken about how the rich don’t pay their fair share while wearing those $7,000 suits.

For all his ills, Trump hasn’t laid out that particular hypocrisy, so that specific criticism would be rather stupid at this juncture.

While Clinton is far from the first female politician to be criticized for her dress, which Lubitz notes include both Democrats and Republicans, the fact that the jacket looked like a bedazzled potato sack was more of an aside than the meat of the criticism by many writers.

Especially this one.

No one cares if Clinton paid for the thing or had it loaned to her. What matters is that she and her husband lecture others on “income inequality,” yet they made over $11 million a year in speaking fees, and Hillary wore something that cost more than many Americans can afford to spend on a car.

To paraphrase one of her campaign staffers, “It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.”