Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« This Week on Drugs | Re: Tension at The Stranger »

Friday, July 20, 2007

Clinton’s CSPAN Cleavage

posted by on July 20 at 16:25 PM


Discussed today, at length, in The Washington Post. Money, er, quote:

There was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding — being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. 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.

To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d’oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever.

RSS icon Comments


She's not really showing any cleavage. It's just a regular V-neck shirt.

Posted by huh? | July 20, 2007 4:27 PM

Good for her!

Posted by Carollani | July 20, 2007 4:42 PM

Oh my god. What is WRONG with the WaPo? First of all, there was barely any cleavage. Second of all, is this what we're debating? Candidates NECK LINES?

Posted by arduous | July 20, 2007 4:45 PM

Get ready for lots more of this. Remember last fall when all the Moron Media could blabber about were Nancy's Pelosi's outfits and her grandchildren? Ugh.

Posted by Original Andrew | July 20, 2007 5:06 PM


Posted by Sachi | July 20, 2007 5:09 PM

They're not going to make her pretend to bake cookies again, are they?

Posted by Fnarf | July 20, 2007 5:14 PM

Dear Washington Post,

When you waste our time on this trivia, what are you trying to distract us from?


[h/t Somerby]

Posted by Erik | July 20, 2007 6:17 PM

...and yet nobody talks about that skanky Coulter, trudging around in her tired old black cocktail dress, as if anyone would want a piece of THAT.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | July 20, 2007 8:27 PM

You didn't see Denny Hastert displaying HIS, did you? Not in public like that.

Posted by Robert Allen | July 20, 2007 8:37 PM

Fire the fucker who wrote that article. Seriously. If I were the editor, I would. Or fire the editor who let it go to print. That kind of shit is an afront to journalism, a self-parody.

Posted by dear god | July 20, 2007 9:21 PM

So Bush meets this Marine who lost both his legs in Iraq and says \"Good Man, We\'re Gonna Get Him Some New Legs...\" Bush is the guy Dan Savage supported to start a war in Iraq. The Marine is the guy who is paying the price for Bush\'s stupidity and incompetence.

Excerpts below from Dan Savage\'s \"Say yes to war\" piece Oct. 2002

\"While the American left is content to see an Iraqi dictator terrorizing the Iraqi people, the Bushies in D.C. are not. \"We do not intend to put American lives at risk to replace one dictator with another,\" Dick Cheney recently told reporters. For those of you who were too busy making papier-mâché puppets of George W. Bush last week to read the papers, you may have missed this page-one statement in last Friday\'s New York Times: \"The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein.\"\"

\"In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we\'re going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves\"

Posted by Dan and | July 20, 2007 10:12 PM

If Hillary wants to be taken seriously as a woman, she's going to have to wear a burka. You can't trust a woman if you can see her ankles.

Posted by Fnarf | July 20, 2007 10:51 PM

Nope Fnark, then she'd be an "Islamo-fascist."

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 11:41 PM

Does Charles work for The Washington Post, too? Please, God help us.

Posted by lawrence clark | July 21, 2007 2:11 AM

Funny coincidence, but cleaveage makes me feel 'utterly at ease in my skin, coolly confident about my appearance, and unflinching about my sense of style', too. Like a therapeutic hypnotist swinging the watch in front of me.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | July 21, 2007 8:37 AM

Sweet cuppin cakes!!! Turns out, Hillary has breasts like every woman!

Posted by Maggie | July 21, 2007 9:33 AM

In the context of the article placement (the fashion section) it makes sense, but I still don't recall them covering anything about Coulter's skanky look. Maybe because it's so skanky - or maybe because they like to stick to women's fashions ;-)

Posted by catalina vel-duray | July 21, 2007 10:17 AM

I don't get the:

If they said this about Hillary, why do they not say something about Coulter too?.

Since when does that Hillary/Anne comparison make any sense, in any context? The comparison, itself, is insulting, don't you think?

Posted by Sean | July 21, 2007 11:23 AM


And thank God for that.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 21, 2007 11:28 AM

if she showed ass cleavage, then they'd have a point.

jesus fucking christ, the media has its head up its ass.

Posted by maxsolomon | July 21, 2007 11:44 AM

@14 Exactly what I thought. It's like he's ghostwriting.

Posted by Mac | July 21, 2007 12:22 PM

Sean, my point was that they write about female politicians and government officials, critiquing their fashion style. They also do that about celebrities. While Coulter is not a politician or government official, she does qualify as a celebrity. Yet few comment on her fashion sense, except to mention her short skirts.

One of the things that I think is unusual about Ann Coulter is that she really does have a uniform: The black cocktail dress. She wears them for a all kinds of appearances, including things like the Today Show, which is the epitome of "a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d’oeuvres" yet that is seldom mentioned.

(Lately, she has been accesorizing that cocktail dress with a silver crucifix, which adds to my sneaking suspicion that she is some sort of performance artist.)

I simply think it's odd, that's all. I don't know how you can find insult in that, but some people love to look for an insult in even the most innocuous comment.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | July 21, 2007 12:47 PM

Catalina - I may have misunderstood you but your's is not the first comment I've heard to use Ann as some kind of antithesis, or parallel to Hillary. I think neither woman deserves it.

I get your point now. Thanks.

Posted by Sean | July 21, 2007 7:58 PM

In the politcal arena, that is cleavage?

I'm with @10, fire the writer of that article! What a waste of news print. And likewise, what does that say about Ann Coutler (maybe she is comfortable in her skin in a more unsavory sort of way, totally numb to herself ... rather whoreish?)

Posted by OR Matt | July 23, 2007 9:41 AM


Posted by Nick | July 23, 2007 2:49 PM

Um. What.The.FUCK?

Is that what passes for journalism nowadays? Did that "reporter" who wrote that story graduate from college? If I'd been that person's journalism professor, I think I'd hunt 'em down and beat the shit out of them, for the sake of all future journalists.

Wow. Females have breasts! Who knew?!

Posted by Geni | July 23, 2007 2:55 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).