Here is a take from ZeroHedge on the color purple (article date Nov 13) - remember, Hilly & Bill were both in matching purple the day after the election when she appeared for the first time (link @ the bottom):
********************************************************
Excerpt from ZeroHedge:
First the symbolic: Did you notice the color purple? I bet you did, and how could you not? And its for that reason I couldnt help but start to think: Why? For its not like they were there to party like it was 1999, were they?
Ive heard and read a few observations to the effect of: Both her and Bill chose to wear purple to show unity and blah, blah, blah. Well, that may be so, but I dont think so. At least, not in the vein suggested.
I believe that overwhelming presence of purple was to subliminally push, or to stress, the new color of standard/banner for either a new political party, or, at the least, a new political movement to rally under. And it borders on branding genius if Im correct in that assumption as Ill try to explain. (Remember: Im coming at this from the business side, not the political.)
Why purple? Well, there are two distinct reasons. First purple is commonly acquainted with the mixing of red and blue i.e.,the blending of the traditional color standards of boys and girls, men and women, Democrats and Republicans and so on. So as to its prominence during that presser? It carries an immediate hook if you will, as to be used by others in solidarity for what may seem as all the right reasons.
It also has another feature ever the more subtle, yet present nonetheless: Its associated with royalty of yesteryear, not because it represented the people, but because purple was the most expensive color to produce, only afforded by royalty.
The adornment of purple still sends to this day a subliminal message of royalty or upper-classed elite. And both Mrs., as well as Mr. Clintons display of it was not subtle. It was made (as seen by my eye) to be unavoidable. Why do I say this? Easy:
In all of the political situations where Mrs. Clinton was to be on a stage where millions upon millions of viewers were going to tune in expressly to watch, or be photographed by countless organizations (think any of the three televised debates) her attire was impeccable. Sure, some joke about the pantsuit thing, however, what you cant joke about is the people responsible (and I would imagine Mrs. Clinton herself) charged with the task as to present her in the best light possible spared no expense as to make sure her outfits were as classy, reserved, and presidential as one could appear. I would extend that to the former president as well.
That is until her concession speech. Again: Why?
That color purple, along with its tailoring, was not only overpowering (just look to Bills tie for clues) Mrs. Clintons outfit looked anything but the designer suit weve come accustomed to her wearing. Her attire looked more like something that was made for a one time Prince event she may have attended that was rummaged from the back of her closet or donation bin.
Just to clarify: Im not trying to poke jabs at Mrs. Clintons outfit here for sport. What I am trying to do is rationalize why such a choice was made that was clearly uncharacteristic unless there was a very intentional meaning meant (for effect) behind it. Which I believe there was. And heres why:
I believe the real reason why everyone had to wait till the next day for Mrs. Clintons concession speech was not because she was too tired, or as some have speculated health reasons. No. Im of the opinion this was always Mrs. Clintons plan-B. But as the election drew on, both her and her surrogates (along with the entire main-stream media) thought it was a done deal and broomed it thinking there was no reason to have it at the ready.
Yet, when it proved it was Plan-B, or B-gone entirely? (and I believe the Clintons always to have a Plan-B for they have proven to be second to none in political brinksmanship) There was a mad-scramble on to both find an outfit (for optics) and ready the speech as best they could. Reasoning; the moment for implementation of that plan was that concession speech, and not a moment later, if any form of salvage was possible. Hence: Go home, and well see you all tomorrow!
Suddenly what has come to be known as Clinton Inc. was finding itself going out-of-business. Whether you agree or not is up to you. However, with the revelations of Wikileaks and more, we now have some idea of why both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were able to acquire such vast wealth, so quickly: It was through their foundations and all the attributes associated with it via their political connections.
Forget about any calls regarding impropriety or whether there are legal issues or not for the moment. And the reason why I say it is this: Even if everything was found to be legal (and thats for others to decide, not me) the premise of there being a Clinton Inc. still stands, which is why I want/need to clarify that. Or said differently: Why people, companies, or countries would donate, or pay the Clintons $millions in speaking fees and/or donations going forward ended with Mrs. Clintons election loss. e.g., Ending the main funding reason (or product feature if you will) of Clinton Inc.
Effectively both her, as well as Bill are now on the outside of the political spectrum looking in. This is, for lack of a better term, the antithesis of their former main product feature. And with that comes a very, very, very (did I say very?) reduced speaking fee schedule, along with a sudden drought of once readily provided pleasantries. (i.e., free use of private jets, etc.)
This is a position the Clintons have never been in since entering the political fray, which has been nearly their entire lives.
Trust me, there are only a few things worse than a speaker who has lost their star power to command fees. One: is a Hollywood actor who has been type cast. Or two: a once powerful politician that lost what was viewed as a slam-dunk election. Nobody, and I do mean no-body once afforded the goodies at those levels ever becomes comfortable with the realization of theyre gone, along with the loss of social status where the old joke, When the phone doesnt ring I know its them. becomes your daily routine. The Clintons were looking at being the recipients of all of them.
Read more at link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-13/concession-speech-aka-meet-new-clinton-inc
IMHO, that’s way, way over-analyzed!
Branding genius?
Just no.
Like I said before, democrats and Leftists are all about sophomoric symbolism as political action.
They are like children; adults who never grew up and faced the real world.
Protest, Love Trumps Hate, she won the popular vote, hands up, don’t shoot, wear purple, leave the country, all petulant talk from petulant people all the damn day long.
It used to make me mad, now I just laugh at them.
Nov 11, 2016 - The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soross «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to ...
The Clintons And Soros Launch America's Purple Revolution | Zero ...
www.zerohedge.com/.../clintons-and-soros-launch-americas-purple-revol... The Clintons And Soros Launch America's Purple Revolution. Tyler Durden's picture. by Tyler Durden. Nov 12, 2016 1:05 PM. 0. SHARES. Twitter Facebook ...
Soros Launches The 'Purple Revolution' Against America ... www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../soros-launches-the-purple-revolution-again...
Nov 11, 2016 - Soros Launches The 'Purple Revolution' Against America ... -culture.org/news/2016/11/11/clintons-and-soros-launch-america-purple-revolution