Before we return to an earlier topic – How To Defeat Hillary Clinton – a few items of recent news need to be mentioned.

The Washington Post was fixated on Hillary’s cleavage yesterday. 12 paragraphs. On Hillary Clinton’s cleavage.

In one sense, the article demonstrates with precision the vapidity of Big Media. On a deeper level we hope this article provokes some thinking among Naderites and the haters on the Big Blogs. Perhaps this type of article will provide them with a sense of the constant barrage of unfair attacks Hillary has sustained every day for decades. Next time the Naderites and haters on Big Blogs want to attack Hillary because she thinks and gauges the impact of her words and actions before moving forward, we hope they understand the cruel scrutiny Hillary is under.

As the Pentagon battles Hillary Clinton on the war in Iraq, Barack Obama argues about kindergarteners. What a contrast.” “Even Obama aides acknowledge they would gladly trade their playground fight with Romney for Clinton’s big time debate with military chiefs.”

If you want to see real boobs CLICK HERE.


26 thoughts on “Boobs

  1. I sent Robin Givhan, the author of the story, the following e-mail yesterday:

    Ms. Givhan:

    You owe Senator Clinton and your readers an apology for this grossly sexist article. Shall we next be treated to the riveting details about some male candidate’s bulge in his trousers? You really do owe Senator Clinton and your readers an abject apology.

    Ms. Givhan, or “Robin” as she styled herself, replied:

    I owe many things to readers but in this case I most certainly do not owe
    anyone an apology.

  2. DCDemocrat,

    Do you have her email address? This phoney is insane, can we have a photo of hers up? Let’s see how attractive she is.

  3. DCDemocrat,

    I suggest you write a diary on dailykos on ‘Robin’s outrageous reply. I’m sure a lot of sane kossacks will be called into action. What an arrogant asshole. Please write a diary.

    I really want to see how attractive this despicable douchebag is.

  4. DCDemocrat,

    The more I think about her response, the more I feel outrageous. What an egomaniac. There’s a frontpage article on dailykos yesterday on this depicable ‘boobs’ story. Please, please provide Robin’s email to that frontpager and ask for another frontpage story. I hope dailykos will act on goodwill and flood that asshole with angry emails.

    She really needs to be called out.

  5. It was a sexist and stupid article, that she has no shame is almost as shocking as the article she managed to throw up.

    I must personally say that I actually find Hillary to be very cute, she is a beautiful woman, I’ve always had a thing for her hair(don’t mean to be sexist or anything:)). The brain is also certainly a nice attribute.

    But the fact that an article of this length is written by as so called journalist is just sad, in this day and age, sad.

  6. Her response to DCDemocrat’s e-mail was really flippant. She didn’t even try to actually explain anything; she just acted as if anyone questioning why this is worthy of a story is crazy.

  7. Gorto,

    You are right. A very shall thought, I always find Hillary Clinton is a very attractive woman. I mean, she looked a bit silly in early years with those thick glasses. But her facial feature is actually very pretty, i love her hairdo. Her calm and poise are really unmatchable. She is also the type of woman who gets better and better with age.

  8. DCDemocrat,

    Thanks. If they don’t respond, please please at least write a diary on dailykos. I didn’t read Robin’s article, but her response has the typical DC elitist’s attitude. This is so outrageous.

    I really want to see how attractive this asshole is. That dailykos frontpage story implied that she is rather ‘unattractive’.

  9. Send this to the Washington Post. As described
    by the Demoines Register:

    “Her presence filled the room. She was commanding and confident and repeatedly demonstrated her prowess as a self-described “policy wonk.”

    This is our Hillary!!!

  10. Hillary On healthcare…
    The plan is not as important as the political coaliation supporting the plan, whatever plan we put forward, the contour is pretty well known…

    It is very important to realize this is not about a plan, it is about the political will and strength of the coaliation you put behind the concept, moving towards universal healthcare coverage. Whether they’ll stay or they’ll fold, because in 1993 and 1994, I had so many people who signed .. then they started to get pressed by all other forces and they all peeled off. So this time, we’ll go in this together…

  11. Kostner,
    In one of the health forums Hillary gave a solid answer about plans proposed by different candidates. She said – that plans don’t matter greatly because there is only couple of ways of doing this. What matters is how to get it done. And she said since she has burnt her hand once – she has learnt from it and knows what it takes to push this through! I think that was great!

  12. Katha Pollitt
    Fri Jul 20, 6:07 PM ET

    The Nation — Of all the silly, breathless, overthinky pieces about Hillary Clinton’s appearance, I mean campaign, this labored bit of style-section psychobabble by Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan has to be the most inane. It seems that on Wednesday Senator Clinton was shown on C-Span giving a speech on the Senate floor about oh, whatever, and under her rose-colored jacket she wore a black top that’s a millimeter lower than the ones she usually wears. OMIGOD! The Senator has breasts! Two of them! “The cleavage registered after only a quick glance,” Givhan, um, reports. “No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.”

    Cue mini-essay about the semiotic significance of various ballgowns worn by the Senator as First Lady, her subsequent move as Senator into a “desexualized uniform” of black pantsuits, and more gasping OMIGOD! about Wednesday’s venture into something a bit less staid. “It’s tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!” Tops like the one Clinton wore offer a “teasing display,” they’re “unnerving,” a “provocation.” Why? “To show cleavage 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.”

    The Senator’s blouse is like an unzipped fly? That’s the sort of brutal vulgarity I’d expect from Don Imus and other misogynistic Hillary-haters. I don’t have Givhan’s mind-reading abilities, so I can’t say whether Clinton felt ambivalent or noncomittal about her neckline or how that would reveal itself (“Um, Dianne, Barbara, do you think this blouse is too, um, you know?”). But I spent some moments in “scrunch-faced scrutiny” of the C-Span video (thoughtfully provided by the Post) and I just don’t get what Givhan is so worked up about. Granted I’m using dialup and the picture is kind of blurry, but I don’t even see anything I would call cleavage.

    I see a good-looking energetic middle-aged woman in a stylish summery outfit such that thousands of professional women would be thrilled to wear to an important meeting — say, an edit meeting at the Washington Post to discuss further ways of trivializing women in politics. Like, maybe the Post can follow up with an article about Senator Clinton’s choice of bathing suits (OMIGOD ! Is that a bellybutton? Gross! ). Or perhaps a two-page pictorial spread: Hillary’s fashion do’s and don’ts. Only, make that don’ts and don’ts. As in, Don’t wear pantsuits — too desexualizing! Don’t wear a rose-colored jacket and a v-neck top — too sexy!

    Message to women: You can’t win. You can’t win. You can’t win.

  13. secretpolitics ,

    You’re absolutely right. I sure hope she toss that ‘it’s not about plan, it’s about it is about the political will …’ line back at Edwards’ face during debate when he brings up his ‘superb’ ‘grandiose’ plans.

    I’m just so sick and tired of hear Edwards touting his pie-in-sky ‘plans’. There is ZERO, ZERO chance he can pass those very ‘lefty’ plans in the Congress. The 60 votes rule will kill them in a second, and he knows it. He’s just playing the political game.

  14. Kostner,
    Exactly – I am so sick of that mad woman E.Edwards today saying how her husband has the best plan. She should just support her husband but not speak policies you know? As much as I feel sorry and sympathetic towards her for her illness – I feel she is trying to capitalize on it! That is deplorable. Trying to exploit the goodwill she has because of her fight against cancer!

  15. I completely agree Kostner, she only gets better with age.

    This ‘journalist’ really needs to get a reality check, I read (as many as I could bother) comments following that article, and I didn’t see one that really agreed with her that this was an article worth writing/reading.

    That she is a woman writing such a piece about another woman, who is so successful, really does nobody any good.
    She may have an underlying feeling of negativity regarding Hillary, she certainly is a woman whom everyone has an opinion about, but she should have kept her mouth shut. Hillary is making long awaited history, and no one, least of all a woman, should be trying to undermine that.

  16. I think we are all in agreement that Givhan is a fool. But we need to be fair about this. There are other fools in this melodrama as well. Such as . . . the Pulitzer Prize committee gave her an award for prior examples this kind of drivel . . . and her editor WashPost who fails to realize it is time to give her a pink slip. . . No Givhan, not the kind you wear, the kind you take to the unemployment line.

  17. HONESTLY!!!

    The Washington Post has not once posted an article about Obama’s package. When you think about it, its a double standard.

    I am very offended that they are so trite and sexist to even discuss Hillary’s cleaveage.

  18. PS…

    The fact that a supposedly “Mainstream Media” newspaper even brought it up, shows how badly we need a Woman as President.

    Its sad when the candidate with the most elaborate policies, both domestically and internationally, has to even subject themselves to this kind of objectification.

  19. Action speaks louder than words, and to preach about equality for all, men and woman is one thing.
    But to actually elect the first female President in this country, will just send an awesome message to so many countries around the world.

    Although the US is a bit late in this department, it certainly isn’t last, and this could be a good way to lead the way for many other nations where woman actually are being viewed as lesser than men.

    I used to only hope for Madame President(Hillary) But now I can say I believe it can/will happen, looking good.

  20. Clinton’s Cleavage: Really. Who Cares?
    Susan Campbell
    July 25, 2007

    We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to bring you this announcement:

    Sen. Hillary Clinton has breasts. Two of them. We know because we, the American media, counted.

    There it was, in a breathless Washington Post story that began: “There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belongs to Sen. Hillary Clinton.”

    Evidently, no one thought to pan over to Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was sitting with his Brooks Brothers button-down broadcloth shirt open all the way to his hairy belly.

    Or Sen. John Warner, who was wearing lip gloss in the prettiest shade of pink imaginable.

    Or Connecticut’s own Sen. Joe Lieberman, who’d shaved half his head.

    OK, I made those last three up. See how silly such parsing looks when it’s aimed at a man?

    What followed in the Post was a shoot-from-the-lip account of Sen. Clinton’s sense of fashion through the ages, and what the writer perceives as the senator’s coming of age. On her recent faux pas, the writer said: “There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.”

    The mind wanders as to how an unseemly amount of cleavage is measured – in inches or by the foot – but what really leaps out is that one-word sentence. One word sentences rock. They. Seem. So. Serious. Weighted. Even. They force us to pause, nervous that we may have missed something Important. But in this case, those of us who keep track were moved to check our calendars. It is 2007, yes? A woman leads the House of Representatives. There’s a female Secretary of State, and a woman (the aforementioned, busty Clinton) who is a viable candidate for president. We’re still making 77 cents to the dollar, but give us this: We have no interest in frippery.

    (I don’t yet know for whom I’m voting in 2008, but as of today, I am leaning toward one of the candidates who does not possess female breasts. I write this not as a Clinton operative, but as a female who is long past tired. Go ahead. Call me an unabashed feminist, because there should be no other kind.)

    If there’s been a woman whose fashion sense – and sexuality, because aren’t they the same thing? – has been more analyzed, I don’t want to know. Forget the recent attention paid to presidential candidate John Edwards’ expensive haircuts. Back when Hillary tried to say she wasn’t a stand-by-your-man, bake-cookies dame, all she had to do was cut her hair, and we the media were all over it. She lost the Greenwich-friendly headbands, and yep, we covered that, too. Let her wear an off-the-shoulder dress – or a shirt that dips below her clavicle – and the world shifts and we all scramble to hang on.

    Because you don’t dare be a female in power who wears the occasional V-necked shirt. You don’t dare flash a little leg or dab on lipstick – or, the flip side of that, you don’t dare not give a rat’s patootie about this stuff. Instead, you strive to walk that invisible line between being a girl, but not too much of one. Two-inch heels, good. Leather teddies, bad.

    Because we all know – don’t we? – that attention to someone’s sense of fashion (or lack of) is a great diversionary tactic, and it’s an age-old effective way to rob a woman of her power – or, pretend she doesn’t have any. How could this much-examined woman ever hope to bring universal health care to our shores when all we wanted to discuss was how she cuts her hair? The world turns and so does the worm, and still we’re haggling over how to precisely describe the color of the suit Nancy Pelosi wore to this year’s State of the Union address. (It was mint green. Whew! Now we can all sleep nights.)

    Oh, and by the way? At the time we all caught a peak, Sen. Clinton was talking about the egregiously high cost of higher education. That’s just in case you missed it, held in thrall as you were by her breasts.

Comments are closed.