Last week, Hillary Clinton’s choice of outerwear became the subject of a lot of scrutiny. The issue of the jacket highlights several concerns with the presumptive Democratic nominee’s credibility. It challenges much of her campaign rhetoric, exposes actual positions on issues through the years, examines her financial background, and a releases whole host of information which would lead one to question not only her viability as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President but the direction of the party by choosing her.

The Clinton Family got really rich really quickly, and with some help.

The Clinton Family is worth around $111 million, Hillary alone $31.3 million. Book deals, wise investments, and obviously the salaries from an extensive political career have contributed to this figure, but most of couple’s wealth comes from speaking gigs. Between 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton was paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches given around the world.

“Bill Clinton has delivered his paid speeches to a diverse array of industry groups — from liquor distributors in China to coal-fired utility companies meeting in Florida to pharmaceutical executives in New Jersey — as well as to some nonprofit organizations, such as a Salvation Army event in Tulsa.”

The multinational banking firm Goldman Sachs has hired Bill Clinton to speak eight times, paying $1.35 million in total. Sometimes, the Clintons ask their sponsors to pay the fee to Clinton Foundation— a philanthropic organization Bill Clinton founded in 1997 — which raised about $248 million in 2013. It’s worth about $381 million in total assets.

I should add, it’s not uncommon for former presidents to have foundations. President George W. Bush has one, and so does President Jimmy Carter.

The foundation’s “atypical business model” confuses the normal auditing process which obscures the exact destination of hundreds of millions of dollars. While the foundation has made contributions to some development efforts, policies enacted by Hillary Clinton have only worked to disprove any notion of authenticity. Most importantly, the opacity of its finances then the rapid increase of the Clinton family’s wealth seem to be connected, leading me to believe that generosity is not the primary motive.

Stop with the ‘rags-to-riches’ narrative: it doesn’t apply to the Clintons and it shouldn’t.

The vast majority of Democrats are low-income. A 2012 study concluded that Americans making less than $70,000 (around 70% of the country) were more likely to vote Democratic while those making above $70,000 were more likely to vote Republican.

A leader should be someone who understands the struggle of their constituency, this is true especially in a truly progressive party — what the Democratic party has the potential to do. You’re not really coming off as progressive by wearing a jacket worth the dollar amount of the individual poverty threshold in the US and the average household income globally. It makes it hard to believe Hillary Clinton can relate to an average voter. It’s not smart, and it’s counterproductive.

list of top Clinton campaign donors

Hillary is not a labor candidate.

Please stop pretending Hillary is the ideal Democrat. She fought to worsen conditions for workers on the Caribbean island-nation Haiti in favor of US manufacturers.

In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers. After Haiti’s government mandated the raise, the United States aggressively (and successfully) pushed Haiti’s president to lower the minimum wage for garment workers to what factory owners were willing to pay: the equivalent of about $0.31 an hour (or $2.50 per eight-hour day).

Early in her career: she served as corporate lawyer on the board of Walmart, a company with a long history of strongly opposing organized labor efforts. The Democratic party has a long history of being pro-labor and pro-union. The same can’t be said of Hillary Clinton’s history. How is she to supposed represent people she’s nothing like?

Why the sexist argument isn’t important in this instance.

While it is true that the same scrutiny wouldn’t apply to a male candidate, the nature of the clothing makes it much easier to notice a designer women’s jacket than a designer suit.

Republican counterpart Donald Trump is also a fan of designer clothing, his suits averaging around $10,000. His fashion choices haven’t been the subject of as much controversy due partly to the nature of how he is associated with his wealth and his voters see it as a positive — a lot of his supporters are wealthy which makes sense for a Capitalist party.

I find it hard to reconcile Hillary’s feminist rhetoric with her political history. From her sexist condemnation of Monica Lewinsky to her close relationship with Saudi Arabia, a country with a long history of misogyny, it makes it hard to believe Hillary’s feminism is real.

C linton uses feminism the way she has used people, ideas, and institutions throughout her long career — merely as instruments of her own advancement. When it’s convenient, she is the feminist role model. When her husband is being accused (accurately) of sexually harassing a cavalcade of women, she becomes the Wife Enforcer. The women who accused Bill Clinton were “trash,” she assured the world. Monica Lewinsky was a “narcissistic loony tune.”

The Democratic Party has been on this track—favoring privatization and shifting away from the progressive party it used to be— since Bill Clinton took office. The jacket, which is indicative of the family’s wealth, is symbolic of a shift in the ideology of the Democratic Party. If not a shift in ideology, a shift in the sort of people the party sees as fit.

Until the Democrats stop nominating reactionary candidates like Hillary Clinton, there will be no true progressive movements. Hillary Clinton is a part of a movement to consolidate wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, yet claims to represent a population that she works every day to suppress. The Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton are in the process of doing the same within the Democratic Party, creating a bourgeois mockery out of what could be a true progressive party. At least Trump brags about being rich.