The ‘Cleavage Conundrum’

July 28, 2007

The political media establishment has an awkward habit when it comes to stories reporters want to cover, but feel kind of embarrassed about. What many news outlets will end up doing is reporting on the reactions to a controversy, as a way of adding a layer of detachment. “Oh no, we’re not covering that unseemly, frivolous story,” the proverbial editor says. “We’re covering the response to the unseemly, frivolous story.”

The “interest” in Hillary Clinton’s neckline on the Senate floor last week is a classic example. The Washington Post’s fashion writer, Robin Givhan, wrote an odd, 746-word piece about Clinton’s outfit showing a very modest amount of cleavage. “With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private,” Givhan wrote. “You were intruding — being a voyeur…. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way.”

Except, for most political observers, the only voyeur was Givhan. The piece was widely circulated, with most people feeling either felt bewildered or offended, and in many cases, both. Sensing an opportunity, the Clinton campaign turned the reactions into a fundraising prospect: “Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting,” Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Clinton, wrote in an email to supporters.

The campaign wasn’t the only one sensing an opportunity. News outlets that wouldn’t deign to write stories about the senator’s chest all of a sudden found a news-peg — they wouldn’t cover Clinton’s cleavage; they’d cover the corollary to Clinton’s cleavage.

The New York Times, today:

Ms. Givhan’s article described the cleavage as “an exceptional kind of flourish” even for a woman who, in her campaign for president, has given up on her onetime “desexualized uniform” — a black pantsuit — in favor of “a wide array of suits and jackets” that have allowed her to play “the fashion field.”

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, not at all happy about the article, is hoping its attack on it will prove to be a lucrative tool.

The Boston Globe and the New York Daily News had similar coverage today. The New York Times’ Judith Warner devoted her column to the subject.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, offered something resembling a defense for sparking interest in this subject, with a piece headlined, “Let the Cleavage Conversation Begin.”

How quickly can we get this “conversation” to end?

http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/entries/animated%20siren%20gif%20animated%20siren%20gif%20animated%20siren%20gif%20drudge%20report.GIF

Hillary Clinton has tits!
Aids scramble to explain one-inch indentation peeking over V-neck.

Developing….

  • What better evidence could we have that the ‘Drooling Fratboy Retard’ school of journalism is alive and well than this totally moronic drivel?

    I mean, come ON, people!

  • What would you expect, these are the same folks who drooled over flight suit boy’s “package.” Indeed, bulging balls were hailed as a sign of leadership, while a glimpse of tits is unseemly exposure.

    Let’s just get down to it and base the presidential race on genitals. Is Obama authentically black? Get him to whip it out and see how he sizes up!

    The election race between Greg and Marcia Brady was more serious than what we get from our current media.

  • How about Newt’s cleavage? I know it’s in there. Hell, Obama showed up topless.

    Fashion writing is like music writing in that they go off on flights of fancy about meaning that just isn’t there in their subject. Actually political writing is a lot like that too.

  • as i asked givens,

    when is she going to do a piece on

    male pants bulge?

    does willard have an enhanced bulge?

    how about rudolph?

    did his prostate surgery hurt his innate appeal?

    and barrack,

    is he using a cup to subtly enhance his appeal to women voters.

    my wife tells me that women instinctively look at mens’ crotches.

    i can’t really believe that is true of the fairer sex,

    but if it is,

    givens is missing a lot of good political reporting.

    she could do a series,

    something along the lines of

    “the codpiece chronicles”

    about the not so subtle manipulation of female voters by would-be male presidential nominees.

    and then there’s the horse race part of the story

    can williard and rudolph, et al.

    ever really hope to measure up to the image commander codpiece has projected.

    finally, this reporting would redress long standing discrimination in presidential reporting,

    in which president’s wives, since the late 18th century, have had to endure ” wrong hat or dress” reporting.

  • You amaze me CB. You act like a response to someone talking about her cleavage is actually an attempt to manipulate the observation for political gain. Geez! I don’t belive the Clinton campaign set about trying to figure how to use that ridiculous observation to raise money. It was just a legitimate response without “ulterior” motive as you suggest.

    “Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting,”

    That is a legitimate response, not done as some means to garner campaign contributions. Why would you even suggest that? And it is accurate. It is insulting. Next they’ll be talking about the “bulge” in Romney’s pants. How the article ever got printed in the first place should be the real focus. Of all the things to notice or write about? Just pathetic.

  • my wife tells me that women instinctively look at mens’ crotches.

    i can’t really believe that is true of the fairer sex,

    but if it is,

    LOL roionATL. There was a lot of news about a study that indicated that not only did women but also men check men’s crotchs. So my advice to the candidates is, “Put a sock in it.”

    As I think about it, the story isn’t quite as silly as it seems at first. Hillary probably pretty consciously was using her clothes to convey a message to the electorate as she moved away from black pant suits that she was more accessible as a person. I doubt she is choosing her clothes lightly.

  • I can’t stand Hillary, but I thought the campaign’s response to this tripe was absolutely brilliant–and I hope it works (just not enough for her to win the nomination).

    Clinton’s biggest problem, beyond the half of the country that detests her and wouldn’t vote for her in any circumstance, is that well-educated, high-achieving women–her peers, in a sense–seem to view her with skepticism. What the “cash for cleavage” gambit does is provide her a point of common experience with every talented, professional woman who’s ever felt like she has been objectified and gotten pissed off about it–in other words, all of them.

    Briliant. They play politics on a higher level than anyone else out there.

  • I’m sure John Solomon is on the case, tracking down Hillary’s tailor to find out her bra-size, wether the lace is French, the silk made by forced Chinese labor. Is she trying to keep her man from wandering? It would be irresponsible not to speculate, after an obligatory aside about how the Hillary campaign brought this on themselves by letting her breasts go out in public. You can’t tell me someone as calculating as she is wasn’t fully aware they were there.

  • Why are Americans so worried about seeing a bit of cleavage? It wasn’t like the French President was copping a feel!

    It just tells me HRC might be human afterall.

  • What I’d really like to see is a serious study of the ties the male candidates wear — on both sides of the political divide.

    Are the ties garish or subdued? How well do they express the candidate’s character and personality as measured against his past history?

    Are the Repubs or the Dems more likely to wear ties with red in them (Red States are right wing, but Red Revolution is left wing)?

    What kind of knots do they tie? Tight (authoritarian) ones, or loose, relaxed ones?

    Are the two ends of the tie even (a fair and balanced candidate) or is the fat end shorter, with the skinny end tucked, out of sight, in the pants (such a candidate is more likely to point to the “booming economy”, when it’s only the rich who are profiting)?

    Do they even tie their own ties, or do they use clip-ons (fakery all around)?

    There’s more to be learnt from a man’s tie than from a woman’s neckline, yet nobody seems to pay it any attention…

  • The political spin coming off of this article disappoints me. Are we that pressed for raising campaign dollars that we stoop to the level of a Republican blaming the liberal media for our problems.

    The above article misquotes the Washington Post article, missing a key piece, “With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private…. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.”

    It’s a compliment to her confidence. It’s extremely difficult for woman to show feminity and intellegence, and Hillary does it with ease. Shame on all of you for trying to squeeze a few extra dollars from the Washington Post Fashion Report article.

    • Comments are closed.