retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Just a quick note this morning as I head over to FMI/United Fresh…

Yesterday, in my coverage of Tuesday night's speech by Hillary Clinton, I wrote that she was wearing a pink blazer and black pants. It was noted to me in several emails, as well as in person as I walked the show, that I'd made a classic misstep - that I had described her clothing while not saying anything about what was worn by her nominal questioner, Stewart Resnick of Wonderful Brands. That's not fair, the messages clearly stated.

Which is absolutely correct. I was wrong.

When I wrote the words, it was because I had noted she'd been wearing the same outfit earlier in the day at a NY-area book signing, and I was impressed that despite the plane trip to Chicago and the lousy weather, she hadn't changed. (I would have, if I'd been giving a speech … especially at those prices.) But I never followed through on the thought, which made what she was wearing irrelevant. I was wrong.

Just for the record, Resnick looked to be wearing a dark gray suit, white shirt, tie and what appeared from a distance to be an appallingly ugly pair of striped socks. But as bad as the socks were, they paled next to the sheer incompetence of way in which he asked questions, the lack of spontaneity in the answers Clinton offered, and my amazement that she wanted to be onstage with a guy who owns a company that has been the subject of deceptive advertising charges by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

I hope I've cleared up the controversy. I'll try not to make the same mistake again.
KC's View: