Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Let the Cleavage Conversation Begin

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising letter calling a Washington Post fashion writer's column on Clinton's cleavage "grossly inappropriate" and asking donors "to take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture."

One week after the piece, by fashion writer Robin Givhan, took note of the Democratic candidate's low neckline during a speech on the Senate floor, senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis urged donors to help fight treatment she termed "insulting."

Givhan, who won a Pulitzer Prize last year, said she disagreed "that there was anything in the column that was coarse, insulting or belittling. It was a piece about a public person's appearance on the Senate floor that was surprising because of the location and because of the person. It's disingenuous to think that revealing cleavage, any amount of it, in that kind of situation is a non-issue.

"It's obviously not the most important thing in the campaign. It's obviously not the most important thing Hillary Clinton has ever done by any means."

Stories about the appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to John Edwards's $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama in a People spread on "Beach Babes," have long been an entertaining sideshow. But since no journalist has plunged into this particular territory, given the exclusively male nature of past White House contests, Givhan's Style column has sparked plenty of reaction, much of it negative. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote today that Givhan "managed to make a media mountain out of a half-inch valley."
Lewis, who has complained to Post ombudsman Deborah Howell, said she was "appalled" by the column but initially dismissed it as "an inside-the-Beltway story."

"I didn't realize the attention and the anger it was setting off nationally ..... Women either read it or heard about it. They were indignant on Hillary's behalf and also on their own." Lewis says she has not discussed the matter with the New York senator.

Lewis's fundraising letter begins: "Can you believe that The Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary's cleavage? ..... I've seen some off-topic press coverage--but talking about body parts? That is grossly inappropriate.
"Frankly, focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It's insulting to every women who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It's insulting to our daughters--and our sons--who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast."

Two years ago, Givhan chastised Vice President Cheney for wearing a fur-trimmed olive parka to a ceremony in Poland marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. In April, Givhan took note of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her "generous collection of scarves" during a tour of the Middle East. The column on cleavage, as spotted on C-SPAN2, described Clinton's clothing choice as a "small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity" that departed from her usual "desexualized uniform" of black pantsuits.

"Robin has consistently raised similar questions over the years about both men and women who are in the public eye," said Steve Reiss, The Post's deputy assistant managing editor for Style. "We know these people take a great deal of care in how they present themselves on TV and in public, and that is fair game for analysis." Noting that the newspaper has run dozens of articles on Clinton's policy positions and background, Reiss said, "I don't feel we have anything to apologize for."

Politicians often rip the media over what they see as unfavorable coverage, hoping to score points against an unpopular institution. But the cleavage letter is undoubtedly a first in the annals of campaign counterpunching.
"I would never say the column was about a body part," Givhan said. "It was about a style of dress. People have gone down the road of saying, 'I can't believe you're writing about her breasts.' I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline."

-- Howard Kurtz with Anne E. Kornblut

By Post Editor  |  July 27, 2007; 2:16 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fred Davis Latest
To Leave McCain

Next: Giuliani AWOL
In Cyberspace

Comments

I found the article unfair and upsetting. If she wore some sort of pushed-up truly obscene cleavage on the Senate floor, or, for that matter, a parka to an Auscwhitz memorial, I'd say go ahead and criticize! But this is nothing! Barely even a shadow on her chest! Let's hurl the criticisms at the viewpoints and behaviors of politicians - not the fashion choices.

Talking about cleavage, "necklines" and such IS talking about a body part. And it is unfair because it directs unfair (and unprovoked) attention to a public figure's sexuality when we should be focusing on real issues.

What a shame that this has become such a public debate.

Posted by: verynicecupoftea | August 8, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow, nice cans Hillary. While I can appreciate your hot bod, I still won't vote for you or anyone else for that matter. Total MILF though, >:)~ >

Posted by: TonyButterFingersHomo1 | August 1, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

IT IS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER IN DC... Give the woman a frickin' break. Anyone who has ever ventured into the city in July knows that having to wear a suit all day every day is simply painful at times. She throws a v-neck shirt on underneath her usual professional attire and now all of a sudden she's trying to turn you all on with her non-asexual fashion... get over yourselves America!!!!

We do not discuss the fashion of male candidates because apparently we realize that their policies and morals are what are important in the run for the presidency. With Senator Clinton, we have nothing but an obsession with how she looks. At the last Democratic debates hosted by CNN, the candidates were asked to look to their left and mentioned something they like and dislike about them -- what was said about Hilary??? HER PINK BLAZER.... GIVE ME A BREAK...

Now we see it again. She is a woman, and therefore all we care about is her hair, her fashion, her makeup --- and of course, her cleavage.

disgusted.

Posted by: dukes.j | July 31, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

IT IS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER IN DC... Give the woman a frickin' break. Anyone who has ever ventured into the city in July knows that having to wear a suit all day every day is simply painful at times. She throws a v-neck shirt on underneath her usual professional attire and now all of a sudden she's trying to turn you all on with her non-asexual fashion... get over yourselves America!!!!

We do not discuss the fashion of male candidates because apparently we realize that their policies and morals are what are important in the run for the presidency. With Senator Clinton, we have nothing but an obsession with how she looks. At the last Democratic debates hosted by CNN, the candidates were asked to look to their left and mentioned something they like and dislike about them -- what was said about Hilary??? HER PINK BLAZER.... GIVE ME A BREAK...

Now we see it again. She is a woman, and therefore all we care about is her hair, her fashion, her makeup --- and of course, her cleavage.

disgusted.

Posted by: dukes.j | July 31, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

IT IS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER IN DC... Give the woman a frickin' break. Anyone who has ever ventured into the city in July knows that having to wear a suit all day every day is simply painful at times. She throws a v-neck shirt on underneath her usual professional attire and now all of a sudden she's trying to turn you all on with her non-asexual fashion... get over yourselves America!!!!

We do not discuss the fashion of male candidates because apparently we realize that their policies and morals are what are important in the run for the presidency. With Senator Clinton, we have nothing but an obsession with how she looks. At the last Democratic debates hosted by CNN, the candidates were asked to look to their left and mentioned something they like and dislike about them -- what was said about Hilary??? HER PINK BLAZER.... GIVE ME A BREAK...

Now we see it again. She is a woman, and therefore all we care about is her hair, her fashion, her makeup --- and of course, her cleavage.

disgusted.

Posted by: dukes.j | July 31, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

This post has nothing to do with cleavage, and everything to do with the issue of Hillary's jacket during the debate and the offensive comment by John Edwards.

A big, big, 'Thank You' to Cokie Roberts(ABC)and Andrea Mitchell (NBC)for wearing the same type jacket (and color) when tey appeared on the Sunday morning news shows today. Let's hope that the women in the Edwards' campaign, as well as those in other campaigns, explain the significance of this statement to their male candidates.

Thank you, Cokie and Andrea, for expressing in such a subtle fashion why male candidates DO NOT get to comment on Hillary's attire.

Posted by: jcamara | July 29, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

The Post must be embarrassed. The Times obtained her letters to Mr. Peavoy that outlined a change in her politics from Goldwater to McCarthy. Do you want to add salt to the wound? They obtained the lead from Bernstein's book. He quotes her from a letter to him and somebody asks their editor, "I wonder if he's got any more"? Undoubtedly the Post was too busy with its storm in a C-cup to look into the matter.

Posted by: Daedalus | July 29, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Mort Walker once said of Beetle Bailey, his lazy soldier, "Beetle Bailey is one of those soldiers who never become real soldiers. They resist this unnatural way of life every way they can."

Reading the Monica Lewinsky affair of Clinton way back when, I remember being reminded of Walker's analysis of his most beloved character Bailey. Perhaps politics has become such an unnatural way of life that when I see things like this in the news, I go, "Thank God he's not become a robot. It's still there, deep inside him." Then I feel I can probably TRUST this guy, that he won't do me any harm.

This little bit about Hillary Clinton's cleavage made me feel the same: "Thank God she's human," I reacted, "Of course she'd like to feel she's still appealing, at her age. What's wrong with that?"

To me, "I don't trust a man who doesn't drink" is the most memorable bit of wisdom from the classic Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. In a similar vein, I wouldn't trust a woman who staunchly refuses to show a bit of of her feminine assets. I like my politicians that way -- human in everyday personal matters, but grandiose in public affairs.

Posted by: sozuer | July 29, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

peterluzg,

Honey, your husband's obviously gay.

Posted by: NMP1 | July 29, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

This is not about cleavage but professional attire irrespective of gender. She's worn neck plunging outfits at evening events without notice, which is more than appropriate, but for any Senator, man or woman, to speak of the floor of the Senate without appropriate business attire, it's going to raise eyebrows. If Biden or Obama, for instance, came clad in a tieless, short sleeve shirt, it would be noticed, but especially if they wore an open v-neck top.

Posted by: NMP1 | July 29, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton plays the victim again! Isn't this always her trump card? When her husband betrays her and the dignity of their family, for the 100th time, it's the fault of the media and right-wing conspiracy--not her husband's or her bad choice to remain and defend him. When she votes to send young men and women to war to beef up her commander and chief creds', it's Bush's fault. "I'm just a woman; I'm easily misled." She wants to be taken seriously, but whenever she can blame a man for her own poor decisions, she plays that card. Now she wants to raise money off her breasts that she doesn't want anyone to focus on. Always having it both ways! I agree with her, no one wants to focus on HER old breasts, and I say that as a woman but a realist.

Posted by: NMP1 | July 29, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

To nob210:

Speaking for myself, I have no problem over whether or not the President has ovaries or testicles (although having a female President DOES present some difficulty in dealing with some foreign governments (especially muslim).

What kind of GREAT experience does Eva Braun Rodham have, that exceeds that of any other candidate? Is a Senate term the same puaifying experience as a term as governor, or even Mayor of NYC?

What do you REALLY know about Eva Braun Rodham other than what is scripted for her? She rarely acts off script. SO DETERMINED is she to be President, that she has been acting the act for nearly 20 years. The way that she dealt with the Sperminator's philandering was calculated to benefit her eventual run for President.

One thing that has been abundantly clear about her, and POORLY concealed, is that she is ABSOLUTELY intolerant of opposing views, UNABLE to genuinely accept beliefs that are contrary to her neo-communist core beliefs. Do you think that she would show any genuine respect for GENUINE opposition to abortion or homosexual "mock marriage" by those who genuinely oppose same?

Although I found Bill Clinton to be a phoney, I can at least say that he either had NO CORE BELIEFS, other than to be liked, and to do what the majority of the public wanted. He even staed that "I will be whatever you want me to be." He was cunning and charming, but he wanted to be popular.

The vile Madame Defarge Rodham will do only as much as she has to do to achive her objectives, and to run the nation as her monarchy.

If you think that her REIGN would be anything but FASCIST RULE, you are sadly mistaken, and have been drinking the Clinton Kool Aid for too long.

Posted by: howard9909 | July 29, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Hillary Clinton will make a great president. She has the experience, skills, vision and values to make the country and the world a better place. I fully intend to vote for her.

The issue of her appearance has dogged her for decades, and she needs to take control of the issue or it might ruin her chances to win the presidency. I imagine that that is why her campaign sent out the fund-raising letter.

During her time as First Lady, Hillary's hairstyles were discussed repeatedly (and photos shown ad nauseum) with accompanying text implying that she showed a lack of moral fiber because she was inconsistent in her use of a hairband. Somehow, most US women can change their hairstyles regularly and not be thought hypocritical or fakely feminine when they do so.

Likewise, Hillary`s clothes are discussed ad nauseum. She tried to get around the problem in her Senate campaign by wearing a black pantsuit, but that was criticized as being too butch.

Given the high level of sexism in our society, our fixation on titillating topics, and people's desire to smear the frontrunner, she has to do something to take control of the issue. What I think her campaign is trying to do is make us think about how wrong it is to focus on something other than her qualifications just because she is a woman.

Just read through these comments. Dozens of them are denigrating to women. The attitude of many of the commenters is that any woman of Hillary's age is sexually undesirable and so is a joke. The attitude of many is that Hillary is horrible because she is not feminine enough. It is time that women get past this sexist stereotyping that holds us back.

Finally, I cannot detect any cleavage in the photo accompanying the original article.

Posted by: n0b2l0 | July 29, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh my god, we have a huge problem. What we see at the picture is called a 'low neckline', that's ridiculous. One must be somewhat of uptight to think so! Just relax guys!

Posted by: shoppingchris | July 29, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

yeah, and if a male had on a lowcut shirt with his chest hairs exposed no one would comment. please get over yourself "feminists." its clear that either Ms. Clinton is a male hater or courts male haters which is why she'll never get my support.

Posted by: damnsignups | July 29, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

why don't we talk about your cleavage nicky???


what do you want to tellus about your lack of special effects...


I know that you strive for honesty in all of your presentations...


how do you feel about your honestly applying for a position that you are qualified for?

.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Everything Hillary Clinton does is premeditated, included teasing her audience with cleavage and then pretending it not allowed to be noticed, especially by men. Thus she can appeal to women's modesty and indignant vote. It didn't take the bait since she is not sexy enough to look below her neckline. But why won't anyone talk about Nancy Pelosi's enhancements?

Posted by: nickyguy | July 28, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

it appears to me,


that there is a deep fear of all things Hillary and Bill


in INSIDER WASHINGTON

and the REPUBLICAN CON'sPiracy

what is that about???

lack of content???

focusing on character assassination points to a weakness


in programme'


wouldn't you say?


there are no content to any of the anti hillary posts' except


APPEAL_TO_EMOTION which is approximately equal to LYING


what's that about?


wanna chat about it? I would like to have a few minutes of kick the dawg...any dawgs out there???

.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

looks like howie


and his fellow repukelicans...


are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC


while they continue robbing the store.


a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called


"the enemy,"


and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???


let's talk about your cleavage howie...


.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

looks like howie


and his fellow repukelicans...


are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC


while they continue robbing the store.


a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called


"the enemy,"


and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???


let's talk about your cleavage howie...


.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

looks like howie


and his fellow repukelicans...


are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC


while they continue robbing the store.


a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called


"the enemy,"


and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???


let's talk about your cleavage howie...


.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

looks like howie


and his fellow repukelicans...


are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC


while they continue robbing the store.


a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called


"the enemy,"


and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???


let's talk about your cleavage howie...


.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

looks like howie


and his fellow repukelicans...


are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC


while they continue robbing the store.


a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called


"the enemy,"


and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???


let's talk about your cleavage howie...


.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

So much idiocy, so little space in the Washington Post.

Posted by: HeavyJ | July 28, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

For sex negative people who don't support full equality for all genders, the column will be offensive and should be offensive because every waking hour of every waking day, these bigots like Hillary Clinton are offensive.

Posted by: chessvariants | July 28, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Talking about "colder than a witch's tit?" You MUST be speaking of Hillary "Eva Braun" Rodham, aka Madame Defarge Clinton.

While certainly, arsenic-laced snake venom must run free in her putrified mammaries, the REAL news story is not this ridiculous discussion of skin, but RATHER of exposing this neo-Fascist for who she is---free of her spinmeisters, coaches, scripts and handlers.

It is indeed a shame that the people of New York State did not show the wisdom to soundly defeat this toxic disease, when she ran for Senate. It is a greater shame that the New York Republican Party did not expose this progresso-fascist for who she is, and the threat she represents. The Republicans did fail to run a strong candidate against this disease, and save the nation for the "epidemic."

Now the nation is faced with Empress Hillary, and her quest for a fascist-controlled state, of which she has dreamed since childhood.

Hopefully, people who appreciate the history and purpose of the United States will deny this deranged narcissist of her goal, and relegate her to a whor*house, where she may don stilleto heels, and beat other deranged individuals into submission.

Maybe in a whor*house setting her cottage cheese cleavage might be more appreciated.

I choose to see her as the sham that she is---and always has been. I value my nation too much to allow this toxic virus into the bloodstream of America.

I can nearly say "Anyone BUT Hillary in 2008"

Posted by: howard9909 | July 28, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Talking about "colder than a witch's tit?" You MUST be speaking of Hillary "Eva Braun" Rodham, aka Madame Defarge Clinton.

While certainly, arsenic-laced snake venom must run free in her putrified mammaries, the REAL news story is not this ridiculous discussion of skin, but RATHER of exposing this neo-Fascist for who she is---free of her spinmeisters, coaches, scripts and handlers.

It is indeed a shame that the people of New York State did not show the wisdom to soundly defeat this toxic disease, when she ran for Senate. It is a greater shame that the New York Republican Party did not expose this progresso-fascist for who she is, and the threat she represents. The Republicans did fail to run a strong candidate against this disease, and save the nation for the "epidemic."

Now the nation is faced with Empress Hillary, and her quest for a fascist-controlled state, of which she has dreamed since childhood.

Hopefully, people who appreciate the history and purpose of the United States will deny this deranged narcissist of her goal, and relegate her to a whor*house, where she may don stilleto heels, and beat other deranged individuals into submission.

Maybe in a whor*house setting her cottage cheese cleavage might be more appreciated.

I choose to see her as the sham that she is---and always has been. I value my nation too much to allow this toxic virus into the bloodstream of America.

I can nearly say "Anyone BUT Hillary in 2008"

Posted by: howard9909 | July 28, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Talking about "colder than a witch's tit?" You MUST be speaking of Hillary "Eva Braun" Rodham, aka Madame Defarge Clinton.

While certainly, arsenic-laced snake venom must run free in her putrified mammaries, the REAL news story is not this ridiculous discussion of skin, but RATHER of exposing this neo-Fascist for who she is---free of her spinmeisters, coaches, scripts and handlers.

It is indeed a shame that the people of New York State did not show the wisdom to soundly defeat this toxic disease, when she ran for Senate. It is a greater shame that the New York Republican Party did not expose this progresso-fascist for who she is, and the threat she represents. The Republicans did fail to run a strong candidate against this disease, and save the nation for the "epidemic."

Now the nation is faced with Empress Hillary, and her quest for a fascist-controlled state, of which she has dreamed since childhood.

Hopefully, people who appreciate the history and purpose of the United States will deny this deranged narcissist of her goal, and relegate her to a whor*house, where she may don stilleto heels, and beat other deranged individuals into submission.

Maybe in a whor*house setting her cottage cheese cleavage might be more appreciated.

I choose to see her as the sham that she is---and always has been. I value my nation too much to allow this toxic virus into the bloodstream of America.

I can nearly say "Anyone BUT Hillary in 2008"

Posted by: howard9909 | July 28, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The hilarity of this articles' response from the Clinton camp is another testament of how ignorant they are. A minor fashion criticism was catapulted into the political stratosphere due to a "spitful" remark in print. How pathetic is Hillary's campaign?

Posted by: raul_hernandez | July 28, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

They're simply pre-empting any comments on her HUGE hips.

Posted by: silkysullivan127 | July 28, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

That droopy $h1t ain't cleavage, yo. Those are bags from under her eyes that went south. Now, Jeri Thompson, her husband may be a winger wannabe, but SHE got the GOODS.

Posted by: bokonon_ | July 28, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

It has been a pleasure watching women as I have my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Posted by: thooley | July 28, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Posted by: thooley | July 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Posted by: thooley | July 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Posted by: thooley | July 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Posted by: thooley | July 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Posted by: thooley | July 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

How predictable. The article was likely a shill and the clinton "overreacted" because she has been critisized as not "woman" enough. What a cheezy way to show she is in touch with woman's issues than to beat up on somebody talking about "cleavage".

Posted by: dancerchris | July 28, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

How predictable. The article was likely a shill and the clinton "overreacted" because she has been critisized as not "woman" enough. What a cheezy way to show she is in touch with woman's issues than to beat up on somebody talking about "cleavage".

Posted by: dancerchris | July 28, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

looks like howie


and his fellow repukelicans...


are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC

while they continue robbing the store.


a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called


"the enemy,"


and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???


let's talk about your cleavage howie...


.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 28, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Good heavens! Is Ann Lewis still alive: she of the strange speech impediment and tortured syntax? She's talking about Ms. Clinton's cleavage; unseemly for someone who must be close to 90 years old! :)

Looking at Ms. Clinton's picture, I would suggests that, ugly as it may be, the cleavage is not important, but the face is. She needs to take a page out of John Kerry's notebook and go for Botox.

Posted by: wfunk66 | July 28, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Good heavens! Is Ann Lewis still alive: she of the strange speech impediment and tortured syntax? She's talking about Ms. Clinton's cleavage; unseemly for someone who must be close to 90 years old! :)

Looking at Ms. Clinton's picture, I would suggests that, ugly as it may be, the cleavage is not important, but the face is. She needs to take a page out of John Kerry's notebook and go for Botox.

Posted by: wfunk66 | July 28, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Good heavens! Is Ann Lewis still alive: she of the strange speech impediment and tortured syntax? She's talking about Ms. Clinton's cleavage; unseemly for someone who must be close to 90 years old! :)

Looking at Ms. Clinton's picture, I would suggests that, ugly as it may be, the cleavage is not important, but the face is. She needs to take a page out of John Kerry's notebook and go for Botox.

Posted by: wfunk66 | July 28, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I'm not interested in Hillary's boobs. I'm much more concerned about the boobs who are currently in charge at the White House. The real "cleavage" here apears to be the gap between reality and the Washington Post's ability to report on it.

I expect nothing more than insipid drivel from Robin Givhan, but Howie Kurtz's need to regurgitate it is disappointing.

Posted by: savannahman | July 28, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's only cleavage is on the other end! I think the photo was manipulated to remove the hair and apply the fake cleavage!

Posted by: unoga | July 28, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

This protest by the Clinton campaign is just slightly less choreographed than the Bill and Hillary dancing on the beach in their swim suits stunt. Then, as now, the common thread is that no one knew about the alleged breech of privacy until the Clintons told us about it, getting about a week's worth of the news cycle in free media.

Posted by: dentfolk | July 28, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

This protest by the Clinton campaign is just slightly less choreographed than the Bill and Hillary dancing on the beach in their swim suits stunt. Then, as now, the common thread is that no one knew about the alleged breech of privacy until the Clintons told us about it, getting about a week's worth of the news cycle in free media.

Posted by: dentfolk | July 28, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

This is pretty funny! Talking about a 60 year old woman cleavage. What is next? MoveOn.org and AClU demand Hugh Heffner and PlayBoy to have a special edition spread of Hillary and Pelosi.

The country will finally have an excuse to be blind. The can gouge there eyes out.

V.R.

Bob

Posted by: BobWalsh9 | July 28, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The death of newspapers can't come fast enough.

Posted by: sfmandrew | July 28, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Jeeze,

This is the same woman who received a summons for the Rose Law Firm billing records,consciously ignored the subpoena, and the when "she decided" the prosecutor should have them, she "found em on a desk in the White House" Two years later!
Oh my?

When her philandering husband, er,ah, President Clinton, was having assignations with "that woman" Ms.Lewinsky,in the Oval Office,according to Mrs. Clinton,Her husband was the "Victim of a vast right wing conspiracy"

Think carefully when casting your vote in the coming election?

Never mind the tired cleavage of a woman in her fifties,keep your eyes on all the Senators other moves ?

Posted by: joejoe1 | July 28, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I just have to laugh. The only time women are offended about this kind of thing is when it is convenient for them. Obviously the writer needed something to write about for the job continuation plan and this is the garbage that came out of that need. How does talking about Hillary offend all women. LMAO! I am not buying that baloney. The story is in itself ridiculous, worthless, diatribe akin to something you would expect from a hollywood paparazi rag...but degrading to all women? Please.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: energizer_101 | July 28, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Rojahn (with all due respect), my point is that the body parts of the most defenseless among us (helpless babies) never seemed to bother Ms. Lewis. She was well paid by those who dismember them. Now she is well-paid by Hillary. Of course, you can see adult body parts on cable. But, those who profit on the dismemberment of babies would rather us not be confronted with (and perhaps have to ponder) the babies body parts, which are also all too real. Does this trouble you?

Posted by: whatsupdoc101buzz | July 28, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

In fact, Givhan's article was quite brain-dead for not realizing that Hillary's new-found cleavage was a direct response from that completely political animal to Elizabeth's Edwards' statement that she is trying to be a man.

Note very well how Camp Hillary has immediately turned this around to make their saint look like a martyr - now the big bad media is playing dirty with her. Understand that _everything_ Hillary does has political ends, and that she has amassed a ruthless machine to get her to her goal - total power.

Posted by: pbpublic | July 28, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Just great; another example of how little ATTENTION AMERICANS IN GENERAL AND THE MEDIA IN PARTICULAR pay to the real issues. This is precisely why Americans elect losers to exploit Congress and the executive branch for their own purposes.

The media? They have their own sweet agenda about how much integrity must be sacrificed to continue to enjoy the crumbs thrown them from the halls of Washingtonj power.

The American people get exactly what they deserve!! Small minded, jingoistic, sexually-repressed, single-issue automatons. Go watch some premium channel TV where you can see some real body parts.

Posted by: jamesrojahn | July 28, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The irony here is that Ann Lewis of all people is complaining about a discussion of "body parts". Does anybody remember what she did before she joined the Clinton team? She was Vice-President for Public Policy of Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the world. A WaPo columnist mentioning Hillary's cleavage may not have much to do with "body parts". But obviously Lewis still has other less fortunate people's "body parts - the babies - on the brain...

Posted by: whatsupdoc101buzz | July 28, 2007 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Reminisce about the Clinton occupation of the White House. I think of a photo of Hillary ascending the stairs to Air Force One. At least I think that's where she was going, since she blocked out the plane. If Clinton becomes President, will the furniture and other items be returned to the White House? This is silly. Next thing you know, if Clinton decides to wear skirts or dresses, the press, with their propensity for error, will speculate whether Hillary had an accident in her pantyhose or if indeed those really are her ankles.

Posted by: williamsieger | July 28, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary wore the low neckline in a attempt to put a end to the "Man" image she has.

Posted by: jeff38326 | July 28, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Uh wow, there is nothing to see there in that photo... Talk about much ado about nothing!

http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

Posted by: JMEnglish | July 28, 2007 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and whats next?? "Hillary's bowel movement's bigger than Edwards" Exclusive!!!

Posted by: LastExit | July 28, 2007 6:32 AM | Report abuse

There is nothing more disturbing than the talk of Clinton's cleavage. Media has hit rock bottom.

Posted by: LastExit | July 28, 2007 6:29 AM | Report abuse

The Hillary Clinton unit is a sexless cyborg. Cleavage on the unit is an optional feature that was purchased at the time of construction. Any titillation created by the unit's purely coincidental deployment of same should be considered either pathetic or disturbing.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Posted by: DaveinVA | July 28, 2007 2:41 AM | Report abuse

I disagree with those calling this article trash, tabloid or otherwise describing it as devoid of any true journalistic value. I think it is very revealing (no pun intended, ok maybe a little).

It simply reminds us how politicians try to manipulate us through something as simple as their dress. Not everybody is easily swayed by the sound bites without substance... some people are more visual than auditory. Sure. some people are saying "whatever, let's talk about what really matters (bravo)"... but there are many out there that are too easily influenced by these things. Otherwise the candidates wouldn't waste their money on image consultants in an attempt to dress in a way that polls well. Is it a coincidence that Mr. Clinton dresses like its casual Friday when campaigning with Mrs. Clinton? He certainly wouldn't want to look more presidential than her right? He already had his eight years. Believe me, this image thing works with more than a few people.

I agree with the Pulitzer Prize winning reporters' assertion that showing cleavage (especially on the Senate floor) is provocative. It could provoke good feelings or bad, but it's provocative none-the-less. In my humble opinion, it's not appropriate to show cleavage on the Senate floor or any professional environment. If she wants to be treated seriously, she should dress seriously (conservatively) and not like she's heading to a singles bar after work.

You won't see an article about some male candidate speaking on the Senate floor in an open dress shirt showing six inches of chest and a hint of pectorals (spandex and bulges- do we need to go that far to make a point?) because they know better than that (no image consultant would go near the dance fever look). Shorts at the beach... ok that's probably appropriate in that situation.

Perhaps the campaign lashed out to protect a poor recommendation by some consultant that thinks we don't know Senator Clinton is woman. Duh... we realize the significance of that fact, thank you very much. I'm glad the field is so diverse (finally). You don't have to dress Senator Obama in a dashiki so that we know he is African-American (seriously... don't).

Oh, and before I get flamed as being sexist or something... do we have to call each other idiots, flaming liberals, chauvinists, stupid, feminists and other such labels in a response to an article about a neckline? Relax...

Posted by: elsmithpc | July 28, 2007 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps her cheek lifts slipped downward. I wonder what Tina Brown thinks when she looks at the pictures of Hillary? Meow, meow!

Posted by: ardysrp | July 28, 2007 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Well heres another reason to not read the press about this campaign. Oh really Obama is a flaming lib and so is Hillary. She and her hubby have become very rich in the last few years. There are stupid people out there that will pay him to speak for big bucks and more stupid people in New York that elected her to the Senate. Of course this is all George Bushs fault (somehow)I wish there was a way to build a shield around both of these people so that every time they made a speech or comment that for some unknown reason they would not be heard.

Posted by: charhi | July 28, 2007 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Great fund raising gimmick! Can't say they aren't on the ball in that department. They want their cake and to eat it too. However, her neckline might not be as low as it looks...at least in the picture that shows at the top of this column...to my eyes at least where you might see the shadow of cleavage you just see a kind of blurry reflection which makes me wonder if it is not a trick of the dressmaking trade called ta...dah...are you ready for this???nylon net...if so a lot of fuss over nylon net.LOL

Posted by: ardysrp | July 28, 2007 12:13 AM | Report abuse

So you're goimg to blame Republican's for investigating some of the most proven corrupt people this country has ever seen? Right Timaay? Blame Repubican's for the corrupt Clinton's? Boy that makes sense. All we hope and pray for as Republicans is that you moron liberals nominate her! she will lose like your loser McGovern did in a landslide you can take that to the bank!

Posted by: garyczegan | July 27, 2007 11:31 PM | Report abuse

The only thing that is making me more sick than her cleavage is the thought of the billions of dollars that will be wasted on corruption investigations that would be looking into her illegal contributions from the lobbyists.

The Republicans will make a 4 year meal of the Clintons, again.


Do we really need this as a country?

Don't we, {{{ already }}}, have enough trouble on our hands to sort out?


~ Timmaaay!!!

Posted by: im_timmaaay | July 27, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

I love how you liberals always spew doom and gloom for you disgraceful moron's can never be happy about anything. This is why you support cut & run do nothing hate americal politicians like Hillary who has done nothing as a Senator for New York. Yet you think she can be a good President like her impeached husband BJ Lewinskey. You liberals are the Ward Churchill's of the world and I thank God every day you are the minority in our great country!

Posted by: garyczegan | July 27, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

and sadly this useless debate highlights whats actually wrong here. Gormless candidates. Cleavage? Really....ho hum. Where are the leaders? Who are these fools? How the heck do I use my vote responsibly?
Why do we end up choosing between 2 morons? why is the economy in the toilet? I just looked at the most likely thing to be made in America - oops - its made in China. I just saw an article about 4 people dying in a helicopter crash in Arizona - the ghoul enticing live video of a non event has cost 4 people their lives. What? Welcome to America.

Come on people, stir up the real candidates here, sheesh can you imagine having to choose between Bush and Gore again? Of the how many million people here, these are our leading lights? Paleeze.

Its interesting how these battery bred politicians have 'knowledge' about our real issues. Silver spoon fed, crammed full of obsolete knowledge from an expensive college. When they do go out, they have an entourage of people. 'Hey, Mr Secutity, get this person off me she's only 12 and is asking questions I can't answer'

Oh and is my bra strap showing?

Posted by: lougr | July 27, 2007 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone actually think that Hillary Clinton does ANYTHING without knowing exactly what she is doing??? Hillary Clinton knew her cleavage was showing thats why she did it. IT WAS A TEST to see how it would play with America!!! If she could get some men in America to vote for her because she flashes a little skin, then she'll do it! She is a calculating woman and she definately knows what she is doing. The Clintons have a MACHINE out there polling all of America asking them opinion after opinion. Bill Clinton made most of his decisions off of poll results. He wanted to know how a decision would resonate with Americans before he made it. I know this for a fact! Hillary knew what she was doing, it BACKFIRED and now she is claiming she had no idea what was going on, and "who can prove she is lying???" SHREWED ISN'T SHE?!?!?

Posted by: ironcityfan | July 27, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead you stupid liberals vote for this moving our great country forward.

Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.

? Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.

? Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.

? Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.

? First president sued for sexual harassment.

? First president accused of rape.

? First president to be held in contempt of court.

? First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.

? First first lady to come under criminal investigation.

? Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.

? Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.

? Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.

? Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.

? Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.

? Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.

? Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.

? Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.

? Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.

? Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.

? Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.

Believe it or not, this exhaustive list omits even lengthier lists - on public record - of crimes investigated, public officials and reporters intimidated, threatened and muzzled, and the raft of dead people associated with the Clintons who died by guns, knives, alleged suicides, etc. See http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html and http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.

Apparently, the Clinton Scandal Squad enforcers believed that nothing was more important than protecting the co-presidents from realizing their relentlessly leftwing agenda - this in spite of the fact that by 1998 under the Clinton co-presidency, the GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, and 1,254 seats in state legislatures, and that during their tenure, 439 (out of 1,998 Democrats) became Republicans as opposed to 3 Republicans who became Democrats.

Hillary's...Um...Character

Throughout her scandal-contaminated eight years in the White House, Hillary - having refined her skills in deflection, dissimulation and denial - became comfortably entrenched in her self-created briar patch. With increasing audacity and a confidence borne of "beating the system," she also displayed behavior that didn't quite rise to the level of scandal but certainly occupied other, rather lowly, categories:

Megalomania: Hillary refused to acknowledge - publicly or in print - the woman who in essence wrote her 1996 book, "It Takes a Village."

Lying: Hillary gave false testimony about her co-defendant Ira Magaziner, who helped her conduct secret meetings about her failed plan to socialize U.S. medicine.

Obstruction of Justice: the "smartest woman in the world" couldn't remember where she placed the Rose law firm billing records that were subpoenaed in 1994, until they magically reappeared two years later in the White House library.

Tastelessness: In 1999, after the wife of terrorist Yasir Arafat told the co-president that Israel was deliberately poisoning Palestinians, Hillary saw fit to embrace her. And that is not to omit what Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin called her "rancid race baiting" remarks at a recent Martin Luther King Jr. celebration about Republicans running "the House" like a "plantation." Significantly, she omitted mention of the holiday that Arkansans celebrated during her years in the state house that honored Dr. King while at the same time honoring Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general who fought to allow the South to keep blacks enslaved.

Selective Amnesia: In her 2004 book, "Living History," Hillary strangely omitted mention of her own and her husband's key associates, men with whom she took numerous photographs and who donated millions of dollars to her husband's campaigns, going back to their Arkansas days. These include - among dozens of other shady characters and outright criminals - Moctar Riady, the Indonesian billionaire owner of the Lippo banking company (the partner of which is the Chinese communist government and reputedly a front for Chinese espionage), and his son James, who eventually pleaded guilty to campaign violations.

Contempt for Women: The world got its first glimpse of Hillary's shabby character when she was co-running for the co-presidency in 1992 and - with what turned out to be supreme irony - told Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" that she "wouldn't be some 'stand by your man' woman like [country-music icon] Tammy Wynette."

Her low regard for women continued through the 1990s as the White House went after many but certainly not all of the president's women - Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen - by auditing their tax returns, and, in 1997, leaking Paula Jones' confidential tax returns to the press.

According to Candace E. Jackson in her book, "The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine," Hillary "was right there in the inner circle taking a lead in giving these women zero credibility, in attacking them in public and through the press and in participating in all of these scare tactics, like hiring private investigators to threaten them and follow them...[she] is either as misogynistic as her husband or she is simply willing to conspire to mistreat women if that's what it takes to preserve their political careers."

In "Hillaryland," Ryan Lizza writes in TheNewRepublicOnline, the New York senator has many Kool-Aid-drinking "crawl-across-broken-glass-for-Hillary" types [and] a "vast political empire based in Washington and New York...she has made every effort to change her image from far-left liberal by enacting legislation with Republicans...the more right-wing the co-sponsor, the better; extra points for anyone involved with her husband's impeachment."

But will her extreme makeover work? According to columnist Jonah Goldberg, Hillary's recent return of a campaign contribution from Wal-Mart, on whose board she sat from 1986 until 1992, "is a perfect illustration not merely of her hypocrisy but of the quicksand she is now in. She thinks it's a winning message to say she's too good for Wal-Mart's money but not Hollywood's. That's not exactly red-state savvy."

"The amazing thing about [Hillary]," Goldberg says, "is that she's so unappealing. Even liberals don't like what they see...at every turn, [her] Zelig-like public persona has been a fabrication - either by her fans, her enemies or herself..."

All of which may explain a recent CNN-Gallup poll in which 51 percent of respondents said they definitely would "not vote" for Hillary in a presidential race.

Indeed, according to an online conservative site, even "media liberals are starting to jump ship" on Hillary, with "one CNN veteran [Ken Bode] calling her a `certain loser,' a Newsweek scribe [Jonathan Alter] warning that she'll take Democrats on a `kamikaze' mission in 2008," and arch-leftist Maureen Dowd of the Clinton-fawning New York Times batting her away as one would an irritating gnat.

Hillary's...Um...Style

Equally difficult to overcome, however, are unfortunate personality traits that Hillary has none-too-convincingly tried to conceal from the public. While decades have passed since she was labeled "Sister Frigidaire" in her high school newspaper, her image of being cold, robotic and inaccessible continues to this day.

Some critics have called her angry, impatient, given to temper outbursts, calculating, opportunistic, and a chronic victim, but Tim Cavanaugh of www.reason.com said, "Plainly put, it's her personality... She still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likeability."

Indeed, it's difficult to like someone who constantly patronizes her audiences, speaking ever so slowly so that the stupid masses will "get" what the smartest woman in the world is saying. Or when she uses her alienating alternative oratorical style, which consists solely of the strident, the screechy and the preachy.

Expanding on the Zelig multiple-personality comparison, author and political commentator Kate O'Beirne calls Hillary a "skilled poseur," enumerating the ways in which she takes positions "entirely at odds with the words she proclaims from the housetops." Not the least being her advocacy for the little guy, when in fact Hillary is the second-biggest spender in the Senate after New Jersey's Sen. Jon Corzine.

Mrs. O'Beirne cites Hillary's "Liberal Quotient" from the Americans for Democratic Action, which was 95 last year, tied with far-left Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Durbin, and her lifetime ADA rating of 95, which outscores both Senators Ted Kennedy (89.16) and John Kerry (88.7). NARAL scored her a perfect 100 percent since her election to the senate, and the National Rifle Association gave her the grade of "F."

Although Hillary would like the public to believe that she is a born-again hawk when it comes to the military, O'Beirne reports that the conservative American Security Council gave her "a measly 20 percent on national-security issues" and states that "her ersatz hawkishness is one of tepid gestures and hollow speechifying."

Another example of her counterfeit hawkishness was demonstrated when she denounced the recent election of the terrorist group Hamas in Palestinian parliamentary elections, which led terrorism expert Steven Emerson to remind the public that, while co-president, Hillary met repeatedly with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations," including, among many others, the militant Islamic Relief Association and The American Muslim Council, whose followers carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombings."

"A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced," said Mr. Emerson, "shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

Today, John Spencer, the former Mayor of Yonkers, NY, and a Vietnam combat veteran who will challenge Hillary in the November senate race (www.joinspencer.com) has accused the smartest woman in the world of accepting money from wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei, who are both associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-Iranian-regime.

"Senator Clinton voted against the very munitions necessary to avoid a nuclear confrontation with Iran," Mr. Spencer said, "while at the same time accepting money from supporters of the Iranian mullahs...she lacks the credibility to keep New York safe and she should return this tainted money."

Then there is Hillary's paranoid streak, as evidenced, O'Beirne states, by "her modus operandi [which] has always been to rally troops against the enemy - whether the Clintons' Arkansas enemies, the Gingrich forces in the House, Ken Starr and `the vast right-wing conspiracy,' George W. Bush and his band of ideologues, or whoever will bear the Republican mantle in 2008."

A Worm Under Every Rock

No matter where you look, Hillary's name is associated with scandal. For one thing, she has acknowledged accepting contributions from the influence peddling, recently indicted, uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

There is also, according to Carl Limbacher at NewsMax.com, the Clinton campaign-finance scandal of the late 1990s, where millions of dollars of illegal Chinese campaign cash found its way into Democratic Party and Clinton legal defense fund coffers. Worse, American missile- guidance technology was given to Beijing. This outrage may be blamed on the senator's husband, but that won't wash for the "two for the price of one" Scandal Queen.

That is not to omit the recently released 400-page Barrett Report. In 1995, while Independent Counsel David Barrett was investigating the president's Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros for various crimes, he discovered that the president had used the Internal Revenue Service (headed by Hillary's college friend, Margaret Milner Richardson), the Justice Department (headed by Clinton puppet Janet Reno), and the White House (headed by co-presidents Bill and Hillary) to audit political enemies, particularly the women who had accused the president of sexual harassment and even rape.

Clintonista Democrats have tried for 10 years to have the parts of the Barrett Report that dealt with these matters redacted, and they succeeded. But Republican Senators Charles Grassley, Chairman of the House Finance Committee, and James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have both stated publicly that they are determined to get the entire report released.

The redacted portions must be pretty explosive because as columnist Tony Snow has noted, the "report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects."

The Nemesis Who Won't Go Away

Increasingly, Hillary and company have projected onto Republicans the "the culture of corruption" mantra and, onto President Bush, the "I" word - impeachment. This is to deflect attention away from Hillary's latest scandal, one in which she will undoubtedly deny everything to escape accountability or even criminal indictment.

In short, Hillary's current nemesis, Peter Paul - the largest single campaign contributor to her 2000 Senatorial campaign - has filed a suit against her and President Clinton - among many others.

According to Mr. Paul, the suit is "for committing a series of business frauds against me that involved me spending more than $1.2 million for Hillary's Senate campaign; having a Clinton front man go into business with my Japanese investor partner, causing the collapse of my public company; and filing fraudulent reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the amount of nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars."

Today, all of the many codefendants in the case - except Hillary - have exhausted their appeals and are now poised for discovery and trial, the schedule for which will be set by the court after a hearing on Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion in Los Angeles in March.

Posted by: garyczegan | July 27, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

In preparation for her unchallenged role as America's Scandal Queen, Hillary navigated the shoals of Arkansas politics for 12 years as the then-governor's wife - years that included scandals of her own, among them:

? A $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment.

• The Castle Grande real estate scam.

• Her role as attorney for the Rose law firm in what would become the endlessly controversial-cum-criminal Whitewater affair that would follow her to the White House.

• The serial philandering of her husband, which cast her - depending on one's viewpoint - as a clench-jawed stoic, a perpetual victim, or a willing collaborator.

According to veteran journalist Richard Poe: "During Bill Clinton's tenure as attorney general and then governor of Arkansas, the state became a veritable Dixie Casablanca, a hotbed of global intrigue, in which shady operators ranging from Columbian drug lords and BCCI money launderers to Chinese intelligence agents took part." And there, in the thick of it, was Clinton's "stand by your man's" wife, Hillary.

Chicago-born Hillary - who by way of education, career, marriage and circumstance had already migrated to Wellesley, New Haven, Washington D.C., and Little Rock - had learned a lot in "The Natural State," specifically how to supernaturally evade responsibility, deny accountability, and dodge law enforcement, all the perfect preparation for her lengthy stay in White House - at the lofty address she now wants to reoccupy.

Don't Throw Me in That Briar Patch!

By the time she moved into the White House in 1993, Hillary was so accustomed to - and comfortable with - her husband's and her own self-created scandals that living a straight-and-narrow, law-abiding life appeared to be alien to her.

Like Brer Rabbit, Hillary practically begged for scandal. To recount the Joel Chandler Harris classic, Brer Rabbit was despised by Brer Fox, who decided to teach a lesson to the uppity rabbit. He created a tar baby and, sure enough, Brer Rabbit struck up a conversation with the sticky statue, but to no avail. Frustrated, he punched the baby and his paw got stuck in the tar. Infuriated, he struck him again and his other paw got stuck. Then he kicked the tar baby with both feet and butted it with his head and they too got stuck.

Finally, Brer Fox appeared to taunt his captive. "I'm going to barbecue you today, for sure."

"I don't care what you do with me, roast me," Brer Rabbit said. "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch." Then Brer Fox threatened to hang the critter, drown him or skin him. But those horrible prospects didn't daunt Brer Rabbit. "Snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots," he pleaded with his antagonist, "but please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in that briar patch!

Finally Brer Fox decided to do the worst of all possible things: hurl Brer Rabbit in the briar patch. In no time, the fox saw Brer Rabbit sitting on a chinquapin log combing the tar pitch out of his hair. "Born and bred in the briar patch," Brer Rabbit gleefully called out to the fox. "It's my favorite place in the whole world!"

An Expert at Scandal

Unlike Brer Rabbit, Hillary wasn't born and bred in the world of political scandal - far from it. In fact her family were Republicans and young Hillary supported the1964 presidential bid of Barry Goldwater, the archconservative senator from Arizona. Unphased by his loss, she continued her conservative ways by becoming the president of the Wellesley College chapter of College Republicans.

But with her exposure at Wellesley to the radical leftist Saul Alinsky and her subsequent introduction to Yale Law School's draft-dodging leftist Bill Clinton, the die was cast for her hate-America's-military-intelligence-defense establishment. To the smartest woman in the world and her then-boyfriend, the path to changing what they hated was clear: Get power and hold onto it no matter what it takes!

What it took in Arkansas was first learning and then becoming a scandal expert. Within months of taking up residence in the White House, Hillary put her expertise to work.

In May 1993, the co-president was accused of having a central hand in firing several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office, the better to give the pricey travel business to her Hollywood pals, Linda Bloodworth Thomason and Harry Thomason. In true scandal-mode form, Hillary denied everything and when Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray investigated Travelgate, he concluded that there was substantial evidence that involved Hillary but not enough to warrant an indictment.

A couple of months later, in July 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster was said to have committed suicide, although the case for his murder has been made persuasively by, among others, Christopher Ruddy, in his 1993 book, "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation."

But the case didn't end there. In 1996, Hillary was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster's office on the night of his death. Hillary denied everything, once again proving her adeptness in the scandal briar patch.

In June 1996, White House security head Craig Livingstone, a political operative and former bouncer, illegally obtained over 700 FBI files of mostly White House personnel from former Republican administrations. Hillary was accused of requesting the files and, in fact, hiring Mr. Livingstone, but she denied everything to yet another Independent Counsel, and Filegate became one more notch in her briar patch scandal belt.

Ultimately, her co-presidency brought about the fall of more elected and appointed members of her regime, as well as "friends" who met untimely deaths, were indicted, pleaded the fifth, fled the country, and were imprisoned, than in any administration in American history.

Staggering Numbers

Keeping in mind that Hillary - in her own "two for the price of one" pronouncement - told the nation that she would be sharing the presidency with her husband, it would beg the imaginations of even her most fervent acolytes that the tsunami of scandals that inundated the Clinton tenure somehow escaped either the notice or personal involvement of Hillary herself.

To see the shocking Scandal Index of the Clinton years, as compiled by the liberal Progressive Review (http://prorev.com) is to appreciate the Clinton's 24/7/365 belief that any progress in their leftist domestic and foreign affairs agenda could only be realized through the most nefarious activity - much of which fit neatly into the criminal category. Under the listing of "Records Set'" by the Clinton administration (read: co-presidency), Progressive Review cites the following, of which I will only list a sampling:

Posted by: garyczegan | July 27, 2007 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Robin must love Hillary because anything that takes our attention off Ms. Clinton's anti-American and western civilization destructive views and proposals serves her campaign.
Whatever you look at, please, just don't look for her name on the ballot.

Posted by: jwquinlan | July 27, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

CAN FEMINISTS READ???
CAN FEMINISTS REASON???
DO FEMINISTS UNDERSTAND THAT 1 PLUS 1 EQUALS 2???

HILLARY LOVED THE ARTICLE.

ROBIN LOVES HILLARY AND DID HER A FAVOR BY WRITING THIS COLUMN.

ROBIN IS A FASHION WRITER AND WROTE THAT HILLARY WAS FEMININE WHEN HILLARY NEEDED THAT OPINION WRITTEN ABOUT HER.

HILLARY IS HAVING REPRINTS MADE!!!!!

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's are the most corrupt and traiterous people on this earth! Hillary will be defeated in a landslide because 52% of American's said they will not vote for this evil woman! What has she accomplished as a Senator for New York? Name one piece of legislation she has sponsored?

Clintons sell possibly troublesome stock 2 hours, 7 minutes ago Hoping to avoid any possible conflict of interest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, the former president, liquidated a blind trust valued at $5 million to $25 million in April after learning that it included such investments as oil and drug companies and military contractors, her presidential campaign confirmed. "As a presidential candidate, Senator Clinton was required to make her assets public. As a result, she had to dissolve her blind trust," Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser, said late Thursday. "Upon its dissolution, she and the president chose...

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions. The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact. ....Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were Yale University, where both attended law school;...




Does the media have any backbone to question Hillary about her latest scandal from her 2000 Senate campaign that still is unresolved? Haven't you heard about it? It's only the largest campaign finance fraud in U.S. history which Hillary seems to have threatened the media from talking about. While Hillary has started her "Conversation with America Tour", no one in the media has dared to bring up her involvement in this ongoing case. She has been given a free pass by both the media, and the Senate Ethics committee that has refused to even hear this case. So much for...





Posted by: garyczegan | July 27, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Some have mentioned the 9-11 commission. The 9-11 commission was a total waste of our tax money and time. Didn't Jamie Gorelick sit on the commission instead of being asked to testify about the memo (signed by Bill Clinton) to seperate the C.I.A and F.B.I. As far as I know she never denied it and the memo still circulates the web.I guess it works like John Kerry and the Viet nam story,,"Well I never witnessed any crimes." Get some real news. Who cares if Hillary Clinton shows her old wares and who would look?
vincefosterlives has it right.

Posted by: realist4 | July 27, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Robin:

Your writing is one of the rare treats that has me coming back to the Post multiple times a day. I'm "old school" and I appreciate the work of editors, so I'm a little confused that the Clinton campaign came after you rather than the laundry list of uncontrolled bloggers. This is a fundraising ploy by the campaign that makes me re-think my support of Clinton.

Short comment to the Clinton campaign and the Post, I got your back Robin.

Posted by: vermontavenue | July 27, 2007 10:23 PM | Report abuse

What about the economy, what about health care, what about the wars, what about the homeless, what about the housing market, and oh yea, what about JOBS IN AMERICA that pay enough to pay a mortgage and provide medical benefits.

That is the true "cleavage" that we should be looking at. No one seems to want to discuss the elephant in the middle of the room.

What about free college educuation for all American Citizens. What about building hospitals and more schools and paying teachers 100k per year with a REAL pension with full medical benfeits, what about tripling the pay for our soldiers. What about stopping illegal immigration?

What about the pollution? What about banning diesel fuel and the tons of carcinagons that pour out of diesel cars and trucks every day?

What about polluted water?

What about global warming?

What about our constitution being trampled
on by the current administration?

What about adding more lanes to more of the freeways? What about setting a gas mileage minimum of 35 miles per gallon next year to stop pollution now.

Wait a second - is there cleavage there?

Oh yeah, we live in America where the most important topic of the day is the upper anatomy portion of a female primate that evolved over billions of years and happens to have mammory glands and is running for president that happens to listen to what the people want and not the multinational companies. She is not a robot. She is a woman.

Women have cleavage. The real issue is how come the current administration isn't creating jobs instead they are allowing more H1-B Visas and millions of jobs are oursourced overseas every year. Soon not one car will be manufactured in this country - why? Because unions are going the way of the Dodo bird and Canada provides health care for it's citizens unlike the US.

Oh yeah, it's so much easier to talk about the cleave of one of our best presidential candidates and not talk abot the pending wars in Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea. Oh what about Iraq and Afghanistan? How many 18 year old's died today. HOw many got there arms and legs blown off. HOw many survived but have a major brain injury and will never talk again or see again?

Cleavage. Give me a break.

Posted by: blakesouthwood | July 27, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Paris Hilton's behavior (among others) and Sen. Clinton's attire? Is this really news? Get real. Have some substance to your paper.Trashing Bush and his evil administration is even better than this junk. Surely everyone knows this is trash.
With all the important news out there we get this. P.S. Where is WaPo's article that Dem's are targeting FOX channel's sponsers.It is O.K. to trash everything republican or independant but leave the liberal news alone. A one sided mess is what is going on here.Have a backbone and serve us some real news for a change.

Posted by: realist4 | July 27, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Paris Hilton's behavior (among others) and Sen. Clinton's attire? Is this really news? Get real. Have some substance to your paper.Trashing Bush and his evil administration is even better than this junk. Surely everyone knows this is trash.
With all the important news out there we get this. P.S. Where is WaPo's article that Dem's are targeting FOX channel's sponsers.It is O.K. to trash everything republican or independant but leave the liberal news alone. A one sided mess is what is going on here.Have a backbone and serve us some real news for a change.

Posted by: realist4 | July 27, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Who said they're "making a mountain out of a molehill." I think it's in appropriate to refer to Hillary's mammary glands as molehills. Liberals everywhere should be outraged. Protest. Take to the streets. Burn your bras.

Posted by: youreanidiot | July 27, 2007 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Pardon my misspelling of cleavage...my bad.

MGB

Posted by: mgbbrady | July 27, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Pardon my misspelling of cleavage...my bad.

MGB

Posted by: mgbbrady | July 27, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

so when can we expect ms. given to report on the hair on male candidates' checks or

the excess of the bulge in their pants.

by the way,

what are ms. given's minimum standards for cleavage or the bulge in the pants?

Posted by: tlhowze | July 27, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I believe the article to have been inappropriate and sexist.

Posted by: clupke | July 27, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

There is no need for political disertation here. The issue is clevage...what clevage? Is this an important issue here? I won't vote for her for a variety of reasons, but...cleavage? Once again press and politcal sabotures,get a grip on what's relevant.
MGB CO. Springs

Posted by: mgbbrady | July 27, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Believe it or not, I still miss 'em--even though they got me killed. We were rolling in the hay 'way before I got rolled up in that carpet and taken for a ride to Fort Marcy Park.

Posted by: vincefosterlives | July 27, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Wait, Hillary has cleavage? I thought she was half man, half god.

Posted by: promethean | July 27, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Can this do anything but backfire on HRC? The story was complimentary to her. She's crying wolf.

Posted by: mayoungkin | July 27, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Not only does she change her views and outlook to suit the people she wants voting for her... now she is even changing her BUTCH image!!! Not surprising coming from Hillary.

Posted by: mneals | July 27, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

judging by the above comments, it seems that the clinton campaign is on its way to achieving its goal of changing the subject. the entire week has been about the post-debate spat, in which sen. clinton's criticisms of sen obama backfired. so invent another faux controversy to change the subject. a very nice wag the dog attempt to change the news cycle at the end of the week. it really took them a WEEK to formulate their true displeasure in the form of a memo, surrogate statement and a donation plea??

Posted by: gotoogawa | July 27, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The real issue is civility. Does Mrs. Clinton have a right to be treated with civility? I would argue that just because she is a public figure does not mean that she deserves less civility that the average person on the street.

Ms. Givhan has a habit of making her column very personal. Unfortunately, it feels more like a gossip column than fashion news, mainly because the pieces that stand out are negative ones. Perhaps Ms. Givhan could figure out who she thinks we should emulate as fashion icons and write about them. Problem solved.

Posted by: mrsheidis | July 27, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Judging by the above comments, it seems that the clinton campaign is on its way to achieving its goal of changing the subject. the entire week has been about the post-debate spat, in which sen. clinton's criticisms of sen obama backfired. so invent another controversy to change the subject. a very nice wag the dog attempt to change the news cycle at the end of the week. do people actually buy this? i suppose so, or the clinton campaign would not have done something so obvious; it really took them a week to formulate their true displeasure in the form of a memo, surrogate statement and a donation plea?? don't they have enough 'exprience' to react 'from day one'?

Posted by: gotoogawa | July 27, 2007 9:11 PM | Report abuse

This article is an utter disappointment and disgrace! I'm German living in the USA for 7 years and am still reading a German newspaper daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) because I get more information from my German newspaper about US politics than I get from any American newspaper (not to talk about international coverage). I read the Washington Post regularly online, but it never keeps my attention for long and still this seems to be the best newspaper available. How pathetic! This article certainly was a new low, I already found all the stuff about Edwards haircut ridiculous. Are there really no more important, interesting and relevant topics? What do her outfits or anybodies for that matter have to do with whether they will make a good president? I found the tone of the article completely inapprobriate! Why does the Washington Post not just do away with the Style section till after the next Presidential election and use those sections for some real reporting about what matters, their style of governing instead of clothing?

Posted by: blabla98 | July 27, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy - the Reagan-Bush administration's protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb's marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, was found dead of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb's death, American history owes him a huge debt. Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb's contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal - the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal - but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA's inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA's confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA's "executive summary," which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz's findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA's report was published, though Webb's initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times' cover-up has now continued after Webb's death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA's inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb's death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb's allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up - even after the CIA's inspector general had admitted the facts - the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media - the chief competitor to the mainstream press - isn't going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled "Dark Alliance," editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News' sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb's series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb's series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early "crack" production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb's conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb's series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack." A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to crumble on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. "Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Well, im_timmaaay, you might be onto something.

CNN uses Opinion Research as their polling company. They are part of Info USA, which is owned by the Clinton's largest backer (Vinod Gupta.) Bill Clinton is a "consultant" to Info USA and according to court documents in a shareholder's lawsuit has been paid several million by them. Bill has also spoken in front of Info USA for a $200,000 fee in July, 2001.

I still find it kind of funny that Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. were the keynote speakers for the telecommunications loby known as CITA.

Great shot of Bill and Bush Sr. on stage together here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=1155

So the "Bush lite" line may stick, even though Obama did not actually call Hillary that. (He said the policy of not talking to other leaders was "Bush Lite.")

Posted by: George14 | July 27, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I think the article was inappropriate on some level and unworthy of the post. I'd expect to see that sort of thing on CNN, perhaps TMZ, maybe even in the NYTimes, but not in the Washington Post!

Posted by: jen_omeara | July 27, 2007 8:47 PM | Report abuse

I think the most significant part of Howies' op-ed is that he actually admits that the media is a very unpopular institution. The media gloats all the time about Bush's approval ratings but the media are in the single digits and Bush towers over them. But you never read that, do you?

Posted by: bcd_2001 | July 27, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I would appreciate it if "The Washington Post put a picture of Anne E. Kornblut's cleavage on the paper's front page.

One of Howard Kurtz's crotch would also be most welcome.

These are serious political issues, folks.

Posted by: cllrdr | July 27, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Best post!!!!

"Ugh!
The words 'cleavage' & 'Hillary Clinton' should never be used in the same story, unless it's something like:
'Boy, that Pamela Anderon has some nice cleavage, noted Hillary Clinton.'"

Posted by: texan767

Posted by: johng1 | July 27, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Ann Lewis, somebody had to put you up to this or else you are an idiot. This is a non starter.

This was a fashion piece done by a fashion writer. I didn't even read the piece until it came to my attention by the "..ado about nothing".

If you are going to worry about crap like this and not to using the usual political rhetoric that is de rigueur of politics today, the Senator will never get my vote.
I may be fed up with politics, but I still vote and she needs Virginia this election.

Posted by: FedupwithPolitics | July 27, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

In remembering the opening introduction to Stat Trek, where the Enterprise would "boldly go where no man has gone before, I have to think that this (Hillary's cleavage) is a place that Captain Kirk would have avoided like the plague.

Posted by: edmorgan | July 27, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Dear Robin-
I suggest you read the book about your job duties as a journalist: "...American Journalism in Peril."
You are way out of line with this article.
Furthermore, we have tremendous crisis's in this Country. It's fine if you *don't* do anything to make this Country (or the world) a better place, but do us all a favor and do your job-- Report on Senator Clinton's record, not her breast--because at least she is trying to do something positive in this world.
God Bless.




Posted by: elizabethautumnmba | July 27, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's cleavage is in the news? Yuck! That's about as base as the colon exams reported for the presidents!

Posted by: johng1 | July 27, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

what's the 'biggie'? If she can level the playing field and have some fun, just let her be.

I say Clinton should be able to use her cleavage for political advantage. What do you think? vote on it: http://youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=244

Posted by: weeeha | July 27, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused. I cleavage just a plunging neckline? I thought it was the fold of fat between the bazooms.

Posted by: jethro1 | July 27, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Givhan claims that she did not comment on "a body part" in her cleavage column, but her own words belie that. She compared Hillary Clinton's "cleavage" to a man's unzipped fly: "No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" Her underlying tone was pre-adolescent, more what one would expect from an 8-year-old. Flesh is apparently always sexualized to her, female bodies are repulsive and breasts can be equated with male genitalia. It was a rather astonishing and insulting piece, but sadly typical of the nonsense we can expect from the WaPo now.


If you wonder why your subscription rates are plummeting faster than bush's approval ratings, look at articles like this one. The Hiatt/Downie Post is one step above the Washington Times and the tabloids in terms of credibility and its quality of writing.

Posted by: xenophile | July 27, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

More great stuff from the First Lady of Porn!

Posted by: FridayKnight | July 27, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

More great stuff from the First Lady of Porn!

Posted by: FridayKnight | July 27, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

swan480: Have you forgotten the photo-shopping that was done to Al Gore's "package" on the front of GQ when he was running for president?

Have you forgotten Naomi Wolf's "earthtones?"

Have you forgotten John Kerry's method of "sporting" and how it affected his "masculinity?"

Have you forgotten the "wimp" factor when GHW Bush was pictured on the boat?

EVERY CAMPAIGN IS A BEAUTY CONTEST even though the contestents were male. Think JFK over Nixon. Think HHH. Think Keyes. Think Newt. Looks matter. Period.

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who throws in their hat for the presidential nomination knows exactly what they are getting into, senator Clinton included. While I don't give a F*&k what Sen. Clinton decided to wear on the senate floor, she decided to seek the highest office in America and any out of the ordinary decision she makes is fair game. If she actually makes it past the primaries into the general, they are going to throw things ten times worse at her. Were talking about 527's saying she had an abortion while performing a gay marriage.

The second fact that is important not to overlook is that Sen. Clinton didn't just throw something on while preparing notes for the Senate floor, this was a decision that I am sure was discussed by her campaign and she made a conscious decision to wear this hoping that people would take notice to her newly found femininity. She was obviously hoping for a more subtle reaction. When it was published by a columnist they reacted with a "Well I've never!"

In spite of this i do agree on one point with some of the dissenting opinion, any woman with only half a brain would find this offensive.

Posted by: farleym2 | July 27, 2007 8:15 PM | Report abuse

mmeyerdc: Hillary LOVED the article. So, why does Robin owe YOU an apology for writing something that Hillary loves?????

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

new_jobkh --

I'm not bent out of shape because the word "cleavage" was meantioned. I'm upset because, as several other people have mentioned, no one would ever consider the bulge in a male candidate's pants grounds for forming an opinion of his ability to lead.

Posted by: swan480 | July 27, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Think Progress » VIDEO: Cheney Still Lying About Iraq-Al Qaeda LinkVIDEO: Cheney Still Lying About Iraq-Al Qaeda Link Think Progress, DC - 16 hours ago Pat Roberts (R-KS) concluded that there was absolutely no relationship ...
thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/ - 146k - Cached - Similar pages


Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE


PERSISTENT FABRICATION BY THE VICE PRESIDENT BY FRAUD????


Pentagon: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link, Meanwhile, Cheney Repeats ...Saddam Hussein did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the Iraq war, the Pentagon said in a report based on interrogations of the leader and his aides.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/iraq/main2655316.shtml - 106k - Jul 26, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

BBC NEWS | Americas | Cheney asserts Iraq-al Qaeda linkThe US vice-president reasserts Saddam's Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda, but a Pentagon report says the opposite.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.comVice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam ... Al Qaeda Family Feud · Olbermann: Go to Iraq and fight, Mr. President ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/ - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2004Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is.
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/ - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link - Jun 15, 2004RELATED. • Cheney claims ties between Saddam, al Qaeda ... U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early ...
www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.cnn.com ]

FT.com / In depth - Cheney reasserts Iraq/al-Qaeda linksUS Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated assertions on Sunday on links between the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda despite a recent Senate ...
www.ft.com/cms/s/1f27d8e4-4106-11db-827f-0000779e2340.html - 61k - Cached - Similar pages

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.



Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with using cleavage as a political yardstick? It's better than some of the other rediculous criteria some people use?

Besides, Hilly is jealous she has none to speak of.

Lighten up girl!

Posted by: washingtonpost7 | July 27, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

The Straussian Lie
Vice President Cheney's lying performance on "Meet the Press" was no mere act of personal hubris and folly. His declaration of preventive war against Iraq--which neo-conservative allies, like self-professed "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen, more frankly celebrated as the beginning of a perpetual Clash of Civilizations war, targeting virtually every Arab nation-state in the Middle East--marked the culmination of a campaign of more than a dozen years, to permanently redraw the map of the Near East and Persian Gulf, through unending war and colonialist raw material seizure.

Even more than that, it signaled a long-in-the-making policy putsch in Washington by a small group of neo-conservatives--a majority of whom were followers of the German-born fascist philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). Their policy is to permanently transform the United States, from a Constitutional republic, dedicated to the pursuit of the general welfare and a community of principle among perfectly sovereign nation-states, into a brutish, post-modern imitation of the Roman Empire, engaged in murderous imperial adventures abroad, and brutal police-state repression at home.

Although a Jew, who was active in the Vladimir Jabotinsky-led Revisionist Zionist circles in Germany in the 1920s, Strauss was also a protégé and enthusiastic promoter of the ideas of two leading intellectual figures of the Nazi Party: existentialist philosopher and Friedrich Nietzsche-revivalist Martin Heidegger; and Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who wrote the legal opinion justifying Adolf Hitler's February-March 1933 post-Reichstag Fire dictatorial putsch. Schmitt personally arranged for Strauss to leave Germany on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship in 1932, to study in London and Paris, and then took up teaching posts in the United States, first at the New School for Social Research in New York, and later at the University of Chicago.

In Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, there were Jews who were Nazis, but who, like Strauss and the Frankfurt School gaggle of left-wing Nietzscheans (Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Leo Lowenthal, Herbert Marcuse, et al.), had no chance for party advancement because of Hitler's anti-Semitism; and so they chose to leave Germany, to pursue more "universal" fascist ideas and policies abroad, particularly in the United States and Great Britain.

For Leo Strauss and his disciples, the ignoble lie--disinformation--was the key to achieving and holding political power. And raw political power was the ultimate goal. For Strauss and the Straussians, there were no universal principles, no natural law, no virtue, no agape, no notion of man in the living image of God.

William Kristol, a leading Washington "Straussian" and the chief public propagandist for the war party in the George W. Bush Administration, made the point bluntly in an interview with Nina J. Easton, who authored a book-length profile of the top leaders of the right-wing insurgency of the 1990s, Gang of Five (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). Kristol told her, "One of the main teachings [of Strauss] is that all politics are limited and none of them is really based on the truth. So there's a certain philosophic disposition where you have some distance from these political fights.... You don't take yourself or your causes as seriously as you would if you thought this was 100% 'truth.' Political movements are always full of partisans fighting for their opinion. But that's very different from 'the truth.' "

From his perch as editor-in-chief of the Rupert Murdoch-bankrolled Weekly Standard magazine, launched in 1995, Kristol has perfected the art of political deception and the Goebbels "Big Lie." The son of two first-generation postwar neo-conservatives, Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, Kristol was trained at Harvard from the time of his 18th birthday by one of Leo Strauss' leading disciples, Harvey Mansfield, Jr.

Kristol's Harvard graduate school roommate and fellow Straussian was Alan Keyes, later a Reagan State Department official and unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland (Kristol ran Keyes' 1988 campaign against Democrat Paul Sarbanes). His other classmates included Francis Fukuyama, later promoter of the Nietzschean idea of "the end of history," who came to Harvard following undergraduate studies at Cornell, where he was trained by Allan Bloom, another of the inner circle University of Chicago students of Strauss. Bloom's life was recounted by fellow Chicagoan Saul Bellow in the true-to-life novel Ravelstein.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was criticized for trying to be like a man. It is obvious to me that she is reacting to that coment.

Posted by: cybercanary | July 27, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse


I found the article on Clinton's cleavage appropriate and positive, and it is disingeneous for her campaign to complain about it. Given the attention paid by campaign organizers to every nuance of a candidate's appearance, I don't doubt that a conscious decision was made for Clinton to wear what she did before the Senate.

Posted by: ramirezv | July 27, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

hey,

you know


Washington Post Editors...

I can see how much you


love AMERICA...


Hillary's hooters and Bill's Seegar...


you oughta think about joining that group


you know, the one about asia????


Euthenasia for stupid people???


take a walk in traffic...


how about writin some articles worth AMERICANs time???


you need some help???

you too stupid to help AMERICANS get the right kind of information that they need to make a decision???


take your hand out of your pants, maybe you will be able to think better...


grow up hooters....


.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

The day this appeared in The Post, I wrote the following in an e-mail to Ms. Givhan:

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.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | July 27, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Robin Givhan and the WP lost any credibility on this ridiculous sexist article.

Are we to expect articles on Obama and Rudys bulge in their pants next?
This article was insulting to any woman with half a brain!
If I wanted to read the Enquirer for garbage I would, but I am disapointed that the WP has lowered itself to the same gutter level.

Posted by: morningglory51 | July 27, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

The `Ignoble Liars' Behind
Bush's Deadly Iraq War
by Jeffrey Steinberg

On Sunday, March 16, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney emerged from his cave to appear on the NBC News "Meet the Press" show, for a one-hour interview with Tim Russert. In the course of the hour, Cheney all-but-announced that there was nothing that Saddam Hussein could do to avert an unprovoked and unjustifiable American military invasion of Iraq. Cheney repeatedly referred to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as the "historic watershed" that, for the first time, justified an American unilateral preventive war. Yet Cheney himself, a dozen years earlier, had embraced the idea of preventive war--not against a Saddam Hussein who had been armed by the Reagan and Bush Administrations with weapons of mass destruction, but against any nation or combination of nations that challenged American global military primacy in the post-Soviet world. On the pivotal issue of preventive war, Cheney was lying, willfully. But that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Cheney's extraordinary hour-long pronouncement was composed, almost exclusively, of disinformation, which had either already been publicly discredited, or would soon be exposed as lies.

Cheney asserted that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, when, days earlier, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief weapons inspector Mohammed El-Baradei had testified before the UN Security Council that the allegations were based on documents determined to be forgeries. Indeed, in the March 31 issue of The New Yorker magazine, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh detailed how IAEA investigators had determined, in just several hours of research, that purported Niger government communiqués confirming the sale of 500 tons of "yellow cake" uranium precursor to Baghdad, were shoddy forgeries, drawn up on outdated Niger government letterheads. Hersh wrote that the forgeries were passed to the Bush Administration, through British MI6, and had probably originated with the British intelligence service, with the Mossad, or with Iraqi oppositionists affiliated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) of Dr. Ahmed Chalabi.

Cheney also repeated the by-then-thoroughly-discredited charge that Saddam Hussein had "longstanding" ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, and that it was "only a matter of time" before Saddam Hussein provided the bin Laden gang with weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical, and, ultimately, nuclear. As Cheney well knew, an October 2002 assessment from Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet, delivered to the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, had pointedly stated that Saddam Hussein would only resort to WMD, or engage with al-Qaeda, if he felt that he was backed into a corner and facing imminent American military attack. Repeated efforts by "war party" operatives, like former Director of Central Intelligence and Iraqi National Congress lobbyist R. James Woolsey, had failed to turn up any credible evidence of Saddam-al-Qaeda links, particularly prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Perhaps Cheney's biggest lie--which flew in the face of all assessments from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and State Department Middle East experts--was that the military conquest of Iraq would be a "cakewalk." Cheney told Russert, "Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

Russert challenged Cheney's rosy forecast: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

To which Cheney responded: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House.... The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." Later in the interview, Cheney added, "If you look at the opposition, they've come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements in the population."

Towards the end of his performance, the Vice President extended his "cakewalk liberation" forecast, to further assert that American preventive military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein would stabilize the Middle East. He cited Dr. Bernard Lewis, the British Arab Bureau spook and author of the "Arc of Crisis," "Islamic card" fiasco, as his authority: "I firmly believe, along with, you know, men like Bernard Lewis, who's one of the great, I think, students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, towards calming things in that part of the world."

Almost exactly 80 hours after Cheney's appearance on NBC-TV, the United States launched an unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq. According to Washington-based senior Arab diplomatic sources, governments of the Middle East were told by top Bush Administration officials, on the eve of the attack, that the Iraq war would be over in seven to ten days.

The Straussian Lie

Vice President Cheney's lying performance on "Meet the Press" was no mere act of personal hubris and folly. His declaration of preventive war against Iraq--which neo-conservative allies, like self-professed "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen, more frankly celebrated as the beginning of a perpetual Clash of Civilizations war, targeting virtually every Arab nation-state in the Middle East--marked the culmination of a campaign of more than a dozen years, to permanently redraw the map of the Near East and Persian Gulf, through unending war and colonialist raw material seizure.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

"And did this report of a trip to London by Woolsey represent a brief public surfacing of a transatlantic link between Operation Rockingham (the subversive British intelligence massaging exercise alleged by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter) and the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon, a new US bureaucracy established by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to fulfil a similar purpose?

... it would be interesting to learn whether or not Woolsey had a hand in the promotion of the Niger uranium forgeries.


This is particularly so taking into account the length of the overseas errand Woolsey was sent on post-911, not long after which the Niger forgeries first emerged.

Did Woolsey make any visits, for example, to Italy in addition to London and Prague?"

Iraqgate 2003

'Fight Smart', Special Report, October 2003

"If you want to figure out whether the administration of President George W. Bush intends a crusade to 'remake the Middle East' in the wake of Washington's presumed military victory in Iraq, watch what happens with R. James Woolsey.

A former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Woolsey is being pushed hard by his fellow neoconservatives in the Pentagon to play a key role in the post-Saddam Hussein U.S. occupation....

At a NATO conference in Prague last November, Woolsey declared 'Iraq can be seen as the first battle of the fourth world war,' in rhetoric that he has practiced and honed virtually since the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon.


'After two hot world wars and one cold one that all began and were centered in Europe,' he said, 'the fourth world war is going to be for the Middle East.' ....

in January 1998 [he] signed a public letter to Clinton by the newly formed Project for the New American Century (PNAC) calling for the adoption of a 'regime change' as the main U.S. policy goal toward Iraq.


In that same year, he lobbied hard for passage of the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), which not only formalized regime change as the policy but allocated up to 100 million dollars for the Iraqi opposition, mainly the Iraq National Congress (INC), headed by Ahmed Chalabi.

That lobby went into high gear immediately after Sep. 11. Within just a few days, [Richard] Perle convened the DPB [Defense Policy Board] to discuss how Washington could use the incidents as justification for attacking Iraq, and Woolsey was tasked to go to Europe to collect evidence that Hussein was linked to al Qaeda."


Woolsey's Role Crucial to Impact of Occupation
'Foreign Policy in Focus', 8 April 2003

"[Woolsey] spent many weeks on that mission, emerging with the story that an unnamed informant had told Czech intelligence that he had seen the leader of the Sep. 11 skyjackers meet with an Iraqi agent in Prague in the April before the attack. Even though the report was dismissed as not credible by U.S., British, French, and Israeli intelligence agencies, it became the basis--endlessly repeated by Woolsey and other neocons on television talk shows and in op-ed pages of major newspapers--of a major propaganda campaign against Iraq, even as Washington carried out its military campaign in Afghanistan in late 2001. Woolsey even suggested that Saddam was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center towers and the anthrax-bearing letters sent to various lawmakers after 9/11, and that U.S. intelligence agencies could not find the connection because they lacked sufficient imagination. The campaign largely worked: by late last year, well over half of respondents in one key poll believed that Saddam was somehow linked to the September 11 attacks."


Woolsey's Role Crucial to Impact of Occupation

'Foreign Policy in Focus', 8 April 2003

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Even some of the people and countries are the same. And the methods - particularly the pursuit by a network of well-placed individuals of a covert, parallel foreign policy that is at odds with official policy - are definitely the same. Boiled down to its essentials, the Iran-Contra affair was about a small group of officials based in the National Security Agency (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that ran an 'off-the-books' operation to secretly sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages.

They used the proceeds to sustain the Nicaraguan contras - U.S. sponsored rebels fighting Managua's left-wing government - in defiance of both a congressional ban and of official U.S. policy as enunciated by the State Department and President Ronald Reagan.

It was never clear whether Reagan understood, let alone approved, the operation. The picture emerging from the latest reports about the manipulation of intelligence in the drive to war with Iraq, as well as efforts by administration hawks to deliberately aggravate tensions with Syria, Iran, and North Korea in defiance of official State Department and U.S. policy, suggest a similar but much more ambitious scheme at work.

As with Reagan, in this case, too, it is difficult to determine whether Bush or even his NSC director, Condoleezza Rice - fully understands, let alone approves, of what the hawks are doing.

There was some hint of a parallel policy apparatus dating back just after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001.

It was known early on, for example, that the Pentagon leadership, without notice to the State Department, the NSC, or the CIA, convened its advisory Defense Policy Board (DPB), headed by Richard Perle, to discuss attacking Iraq within days of the attacks.

The three agencies were also KEPT IN THE DARK about a mission undertaken immediately afterward by former CIA director and DPB member James Woolsey to London to gather intelligence about possible [fabricated] links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, as if the CIA or the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) could not be trusted."

Iran-Contra, Amplified

Inter Press Service News Agency, 9 August 2003

B.S. walks and talks and calls itself Dubya 'n Freens...


toast their a**es in HELL_o Dollie

.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"Energy is vital to a country's security and material well-being. A state unable to provide its people with adequate energy supplies or desiring added leverage over other people often resorts to force. Consider Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, driven by his desire to control more of the world's oil reserves, and the international response to this threat. The underlying goal of the U.N. force, which included 500,000 American troops, was to ensure continued and unfettered access to petroleum...."
Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey (Former Director of the CIA)
The New Petroleum - Foreign Affairs January/February 1999

"The key holdout is Saudi Arabia -- and it is indeed aggravating that even though we went to war in 1991 principally to protect its oil, they are unwilling to let us launch air strikes [on Iraq] from their country."

James Woolsey - The Former CIA Director Speaks on Iraq

TIME, 18 February 1998

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Ugh!
The words "cleavage" & "Hillary Clinton" should never be used in the same story, unless it's something like:
"Boy, that Pamela Anderon has some nice cleavage, noted Hillary Clinton".

Posted by: texan767 | July 27, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

The Desperate World of James Woolsey
Ex-CIA Chief Predicted 'Peak' Oil Crisis
In 1999 CFR Paper
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATwoolseypeakoil.htm
Iraq Hawk Who Saw The Energy Strife Coming
And Then Joined In

"The United States cannot afford to wait for the next energy crisis to marshal its intellectual and industrial resources.... Our growing dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil is a fool's game--there is no way for the rest of the world to win. Our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases, agonizingly through developing-nation poverty, relentlessly through climate change--or through all of the above."
James Woolsey, US Director of Central Intelligence, 1993 - 1995
Bush II Administration Adviser and Envoy, 2001 - Present


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iraq can be seen as the first battle of the fourth world war. After two hot world wars and one cold one that all began and were centered in Europe, the fourth world war is going to be for the Middle East."
Former Director of the CIA, James Woolsey
NATO conference, Prague, November 2002

"... the mideast will increasingly become the source of the world's oil, and this is a strategic problem for us and for many other countries."
James Woolsey, Former Director of the CIA
Interview with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Washington Post: June 7, 2000

"Optimists about world oil reserves, such as the Department of Energy, are getting increasingly lonely. The International Energy Agency now says that world production outside the Middle Eastern Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (opec) will peak in 1999 and world production overall will peak between 2010 and 2020. This projection is supported by influential recent articles in Science and Scientific American. Some knowledgeable academic and industry voices put the date that world production will peak even sooner--within the next five or six years. The optimists who project large reserve quantities of over one trillion barrels tend to base their numbers on one of three things: inclusion of heavy oil and tar sands, the exploitation of which will entail huge economic and environmental costs; puffery by opec nations lobbying for higher production quotas within the cartel; or assumptions about new drilling technologies that may accelerate production but are unlikely to expand reserves. Once production peaks, even though exhaustion of world reserves will still be many years away, prices will begin to rise sharply. This trend will be exacerbated by increased demand in the developing world..... The recent report by the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology... concluded 'A plausible argument can be made that the security of the United States is at least as likely to be imperiled in the first half of the next century by the consequences of inadequacies in the energy options available to the world as by inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S. weapons systems. It is striking that the Federal government spends about 20 times more R&D money on the latter problem than on the former.'... The nearly $70 billion spent annually for imported oil represents about 40 percent of the current U.S. trade deficit.... Research is essential to produce the innovations and technical improvements that will lower the production costs of ethanol and other renewable fuels and let them compete directly with gasoline. At present, the United States is not funding a vigorous program in renewable technologies.... The United States cannot afford to wait for the next energy crisis to marshal its intellectual and industrial resources....Our growing dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil is a fool's game--there is no way for the rest of the world to win. Our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases, agonizingly through developing-nation poverty, relentlessly through climate change--or through all of the above."
Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey (Former Director of the CIA)
The New Petroleum - Foreign Affairs January/February 1999

"Energy is vital to a country's security and material well-being. A state unable to provide its people with

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

GEORGE WALKER, George Walker Bushes great-grandfather, set up the takeover of the Hamburg-America Line, a cover for I.G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the United States. In Germany, I.G. Farben was most famous for putting the gas in gas chambers; it was the producer of Zyklon B and other gasses used on victims of the Holocaust. NOTE: The Bush family was not unaware of the nature of their investment partners. They hired Allen Dulles, the FUTURE HEAD OF THE CIA, to hide the funds they were making from Nazi investments and the funds they were SENDING TO NAZI Germany, rather than divest. It was only in 1942, when the government seized Union Banking Company assets under the Trading With The Enemy Act, that George Walker and Prescott Bush stopped pumping money into Hitler's regime. (1)


PRESCOTT BUSH, the GEORGE Walker Bushes grandfather. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather,

Prescott Bush made considerable profits off AUSCHWITZ JEWISH SLAVE LABOR...

pretty cool huh, and it's dah chews that are backing his genocide of the IRAQIs...small world eh?

In fact, President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush. (2) On the 20th of October, the government commenced action against the company under the trading with the enemy act. (3) After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal. (4) In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past.(5)



Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

afraidofme: I am SOOOO relieved to know that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not involved. The rest of the reasons sound OK with me, although I'm not really sure about ZIONISISTA. Is that the opposit of ISLAMISTISTA??? If so, then that's fair.

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

what are the MEN AND WOMEN IN IRAQ DYING AND LOSING BODY PARTS FOR??????

OIL and drug trafficking...

AND !!!,

are the United States Soldiers getting a cut, of _t_h_a_t_

____________________ M O N E Y ? _____________________no

no, they are getting their legs blown off, getting medals of honor and waiting two years to be declared disabled as they lose homes that they can't make mortgage payments on.

READ THIS:
Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear.

Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the BUSH FAMILY and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents. In the late 1970s Brown and Root was implicated in drug smuggling and gunrunning from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico built by Brown and Root and using ships owned by Brown and Root. In the 1990s Brown and Root was implicated in smuggling heroin to Europe through Russia. The heroin originated in Laos.

The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels.

THERE IS $80 BILLION IN UNRECORDED PROFITS IN THE FIRST STEP OF AFGHANI OPIUM COLLECTION, refinement...three steps later it could be worth $400 BILLION, in unrecorded profits...


howzzat AMERICANs... can you see cheenies nips???

is that all you morons are interested in???

what a buncha grownups eh?

.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

God help us!! The next thing you know, she'll be wearing dresses or skirts. Then the press will be speculating whether those are her ankles or if she simply had an accident in her pantyhose.

Posted by: williamsieger | July 27, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh, it was stupid all right. And sexist. Not one of the Post's finer moments. Unless, of course, you plan on writing about the drape and fit of Obama or Biden's trousers.

Posted by: mollycoddle1 | July 27, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

ethanquern: HILLARY LOVES IT SO WHY ARE YOU SO BOTHERED???

At the EXACT time that Hillary needed to be portrayed as "more feminine" her good friend, Robin Givhan, did a column on the "new" sexual Hillary. Try to understand what is going on, not just what you "think" is going on.

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

there are five reasons that the current administration is in IRAQ,

none of them has to do with Hillary Clinton's breasts...

nor with my breasts, did you know men have breasts????

did you know that sometimes in tribal situation that men can nurse???

why are we in IRAQ???

1. BIG OIL MONEY

2. WAR PROFITEERING MONEY

3. ZIONISISTA MONIES

4. SAND BROTHERS CONTRIBUTING TO THE BushCO families charities...Jeb, Neil, the Georges, Baker, Sununu, Kissenger, and so on...

5. DRUG RUNNING, cocaine from Central and Southa AMERICA and a HEROIN CROP IN AFGHANISTAN PURPORTED TO BE WORTH $342 BILLION DOLLARS IN UNRECORDED PROFITs....

and according to HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS that is GEORGE H.W. and theDICK Cheenies big secret unreported stashbox...

arrest them.

thanks.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

At some point, maybe a year from now, political scientists will be analyzing Senator Clinton's appearance, among other variables, during this campaign.
As the first viable woman presidential candidate in US History, just about every thing she does and says will be analyzed.
Campaign folks for the next woman candidate will rely on the Senator's experiences as well as her presentation.
Ms. Givhan presented, unintentionally perhaps, an interesting point about the difficulties Senator Clinton has as she must present herself as a woman as well as strong leader in a male dominated arena.

Posted by: Chatelaine | July 27, 2007 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I too, found the article distasteful. I think many people, including those at the Post are being disingenuous, unless within the near future we start talking about the cuts and makes of the mens suits for the male candidates. Whether intentional or no,t the implication of article treated the only female candidate derogatorily if for no other reason than singling her out in the way they did. So come on, lets make the political campaign really meaningless, let's start talking about the boys, too!

Posted by: ethanquern | July 27, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

boris: Don't you get it???? Hillary LOVES this column. That is why she is having Ann Lewis MAKE COPIES TO DISTRIBUTE FAR AND WIDE.

The WaPo SUPPORTS HILLARY. Robin Givhan LOVES Hillary. She did it to HELP Hillary and it worked.

Save your wrong-headed passion for things that matter. Not pre-scribed-pieces-for-Hillary. She is laughing at you for not getting what she is doing.

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

mr.cin: I'm sure you know that Ann Lewis is Barney Frank's sister, so your YUK scenario is a distinct possibility.

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with jcass, I noticed the article the day it was published and was offended, this was an article about the sexual physical attributes of the only female candidate and as such was deeply offensive. i ALSO HAVE TO AGREE THAT THERE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND THE wp GIVES THE SPACE TO THIS TRIPE. Haven't you noticed how much credibility the NYT has lost after Judith Miller, wp watch out that you do not go down the same path.

Posted by: boris | July 27, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Listen, if sixty-something aged public figures get in front of camera sporting a plunging neckline, be prepared for comments.

Posted by: dude_wheres_my_country | July 27, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Robin.Hopes and prensapres: You are missing the point. The WaPo SUPPORTS HILLARY and loves her. There is NO WAY in the world that Robin Givhans wrote this WITHOUT Hillary's approval.

HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED THAT SHE GOT A FUND-RAISER OUT OF THIS?

Can't you tell when a pol is shedding crocodile tears? Or, are you suburban soccer moms who believe everything you are pablum fed? You probably believe that Suri is Tom Cruise bio daughter. You probably believe that Chelsea is . . . oh never mind.

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

you know I have no idea about whether or not nor do I care...

what I do care about is a party that tries to tie

sexuality as an issue to the presidency...


let's face it Newt the Greengritz was schtupping a fellow CONGRESS PERSON...

while his wife lie sick in bed...dying...


you want to make sex a big issue...


homophobia, baby killing


while you ignore the deaths of 1,000,000 [a million] INNOCENT CIVILIANS


you have serious character flaws, and no real governing skillset

let's talk about that...

oil addiction as a controlling device, when we have the opportunity to

DO AWAY WITH OIL as a needed resource strikes me as kinda stupid...

cleavage?

yeah, that is a big issue if you are a middle schooler

or a republican, not that there is that much importance in general


japanese don't even have cleavage you don't see them complaining...

I am tired of puritanical AMERICA and the manuevering of them by people that would just as soon kill you and have sex with your corpse,

complaining about morality....they don't have any,

except as a herding methode,


let's call a spade a spade...

carl rove 's name is turd blossom


this is what he does, he is an elevator farter, and george is his

patron....


they put a stink out and use a fan to blow it in the publics face...


how about lighting a match, and blowing their lying a**es to kingdom come???


take a bite outa crime arrest bush and cronies...

let hillary's breasts be her own...whatever she does with them...

you wanna piece o my frank? you gotta pay me.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | July 27, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Let the cleavage conversation end. Stop talking about women in terms of how they look rather than judging them on what they do or say. That is sexist claptrap and needs to stop. Also, stop attempting to feminize Democrats by talking about their appearance. The last Republican Robin Ghivans wrote about was Dick Cheney 2 years ago wearing an insultingly inappropriate parka to a Holocaust memorial service. She didn't write about the famous picture on the internet of Dick Cheney wearing a pair of pants that tightly clings in the crotch area. She has never written about the sexuality of any male candidate. Just stop with all this minor folderol. Our country is in crisis. We're stuck in a stupid war that should never have been started, innocents die every day, and our President is subverting our Constitution in his pursuit of power. 47 million Americans don't have health insurance, we are torturing prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and our standing in the world has plummeted. The cleavage in our relations with the rest of the world is what I'm interested in. Not this hackneyed silliness.

Posted by: truth2 | July 27, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Isn't interesting how many misogynistic emails this generated? And that is the point, isn't it? Here and abroad, we have conflict, poverty, war, corruption in government, desperation, despair, but let a woman run for high office and discouse on fashion, cleavage, thighs, and feminist-bashing trumps all. "Shriveled breasts," "pancakes," "thunder thighs,"...couldn't we elevate our discouse when it comes to the people who may be dictating whether our FDA, FCC, Justice System and Executive Branch will continue in their corruption or take the high road back to representative government?

Posted by: WildaHughes | July 27, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Can we all get over the fact that women do indeed usually have larger breasts than men and get on with fixing the country?

Posted by: kgotthardt | July 27, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Can we all get over the fact that women do indeed usually have larger breasts than men and get on with fixing the country?

Posted by: kgotthardt | July 27, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Can we all get over the fact that women do indeed usually have larger breasts than men and get on with fixing the country?

Posted by: kgotthardt | July 27, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

by eah22: "It's women like Robin Givhan and you who continue to denigrate women...if the author of the piece were a man, he'd be getting huge flack for being a "sexist" - and there should be an equivalent word for women who do the same to other women. Why do we keep each other down?"

Wow, you certainly give yourself away as a liberal feminist, and fast! Because I said what I said about a *woman*, you want a name for me --- how typical of your type! I guess it's hard for you to understand a woman who doesn't identify herself by her body parts alone, and doesn't feel any loyalty to another woman, unless that woman deserves it. I'll tell you what; try really hard to imagine seeing people, men and women, for what they ARE instead of what "group" they belong to. Hillary's an evil, lying, power-hungry woman --- if she was a man, I'd say the same thing. Hey, at least Hillary can count on votes from people like you: "oh, I'd vote for any woman, because she's a woman, and I want to see a woman president in my life time!" Meanwhile, some women have more sense than that.

To the person who said all politicians are chameleons: wrong. Some people actually feel led to try to make a difference in the world and while they might change as they grow and mature, they are not so blatantly power-hungry as the Clintons. Everything either one of the Clintons have ever done has been calculated to make them *appear* to be something or to stand for something, to further that goal.

Posted by: Angela-in-Texas | July 27, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Forgive me if this has been posted before (frankly, I hope I'm not the first) but...

"Stories about the appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to John Edwards's $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama in a People spread on "Beach Babes," have long been an entertaining sideshow."

Fascinating. I couldn't help but notice the party affiliation of these candidates. I guess if Democrats had the manly smell of a Fred Thompson or the square jaw of a Mitt Romney, they could avoid this "entertaining sideshow."

Posted by: dan_reddy | July 27, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Well when Nancy Pelosi comes in number 4 on the list of most people in Washington and HRC (Her Royal Cleavageness?) starts showing the tata's I don't think I will go anywhere near THAT town for awhile. What's next, a close-up of Barney's Frank?

Posted by: mr.cin | July 27, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Well when Nancy Pelosi comes in number 4 on the list of most people in Washington and HRC (Her Royal Cleavageness?) starts showing the tata's I don't think I will go anywhere near THAT town for awhile. What's next, a close-up of Barney's Frank?

Posted by: mr.cin | July 27, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's machine ignores what it hates and wants to avoid or cover up. THE FACT THAT ANN LEWIS SENT COPIES MEANS THAT HILLARY LOVED THE PIECE AND WANTS EVERYONE TO READ IT.

Remember the vulgar pic of Hill and Bill dancing on the beach (in their swimsuits) with no music? No one picked up on the pic, so they had Mike McCurry go on TV and say that they were "appalled" that the pic was published, so as to get more copies of it published . . . again. [Hill had cinched her aged body into a one-piece and was fishing for compliments on her less than lovely body.]

Always watch what the Clinton's do, not what they say!!!

Posted by: mgrahamm | July 27, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The actions, public and private, of a person are the best way to judge whether or not they will have public virtue as an official. Clinton is just using this to generate some buzz, some money, and some high emotions among liberals - just like the shill Elizabeth Edwards did with Ann Coulter. That a Hillary fund-raising newsletter would complain about "coarseness" is incredible. After all, the Clinton's are the poster-children for public coarseness. The problem isn't that her sleazy blouse was noted, but that she wore it in the first place. A little decency, a little modesty, would go a long way for Hillary. Ladies, cover your boobs if you don't want them to be looked at or talked about. Simple enough. And quit whining when someone notices: that is, after all the reason you're displaying them in the first place.

Posted by: baxter999 | July 27, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

The comparison with Clinton's cleavage to Edwards' haitrcut is ridiculous since they are not equivalent. If the reporter had commented on the pants cutline in Mitt Romney's crotch, suggesting a bulge, there would have been outrage. We are so used to mediated versions of women that are sexist, we don't even think such representations are inappropriate. I don't blame the Clinton campaign for trying to stop this kind of reportage. Years later, we still hear about Gore's sighs, so I'm glad Clinton didn't want to let this rubbish get by without a commentary.

As a final note, I also agree with the one commentator who remarked about the Post's use of an award-winning fashion writer as a crucial piece of their self-promotion. They need to get their act together a bit more and reclaim a higher rank in the journalistic constellations.

Posted by: jcass1 | July 27, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post has stooped to a new low. How reporter Givhan ever was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, I'll never know. She won't win one for this article about Ms Clinton. I think that Givhan ought to be fired.

R M Kraus
Akron Ohio

Posted by: rmkraus | July 27, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hllary said "Frankly, focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It's insulting to every women who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting." What a crock. Women who don't present themselves as sex objects (even to the minimal degree that Hillary did with her low-cut top) ARE taken seriously. I'm so tired of seeing my sisters wear skirts slit up to here and spilling cleavage everywhere, then whining "it's not fair" when anybody notices. They're like the punk with a chip on his shoulder who wears an orange mohawk and then gets mad that anybody stares at him. And ladies, you know as well as I do that no woman (particularly one as calculating as Hillary) is unaware of her assets and how they're perceived. Remember that old country song with the chorus, "she don't know she's beautiful"? - we all know she most certainly does. So enough of your disingenuous protestations, Hillary...cover it up, or shut up.

Posted by: prov22v6 | July 27, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

This is all very easy to understand. Senator Clinton has made her success by being a victim. So now she is being "victimized" by a Washington Post reporter. This is a tempest in a teapot being stirred up to garner Hillary more sympathy.

Posted by: esb1836 | July 27, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Robin Jivhan calls this cleavage, no way, she should search out a photograph of Ted Kennedy with his chest exposed if she wants to see serious cleavage. Other than that, there is no fashion pose that Hillary Clinton could make/take that would give anyone the notion that she is baring anything more than a view of skin over an ordinary sternum.

Posted by: VernonC | July 27, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

A totally innocent article, but what a hoot!

It seems like this article has poked a stick into the angry hive of the feminist.

Kind of funny how all these "non-repressed" woman get all bent out of shape by the word "cleavage".

Posted by: new_jobkh | July 27, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic journalism merits a Pulitzer prize? It is incredible that the Post dedicated valuable space to such a worthless piece of hot air.

Posted by: prensapres | July 27, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Who the hell cares what a fashion writer has to say?

Posted by: dubhlaoich | July 27, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, Al Gore, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton. Do these politicians have anything in common?

Posted by: DannyK14 | July 27, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Dictionary.com definition #3 of Cleavage - The area between a woman's breasts, esp. when revealed by a low-cut neckline.

"I would never say the column was about a body part," Givhan said. "It was about a style of dress. People have gone down the road of saying, 'I can't believe you're writing about her breasts.' I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline."

Sorry, Ms. Givhan but you were talking about Sen. Clinton's breasts, let's be real.

Please enough with the body parts commentary. I care about ending the war, providing health care to all and better education for our kids.

Let's raise the level of debate to things that matter.

Posted by: Robin.Hopes | July 27, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

1. This is a fashion article, not a politics article. It's Hillary or Hilton, kids, take your pick. (And don't start spouting BS about how a serious magazine shouldn't run fashion articles...for better or worse, they're advertising breadwinners.)

2. It's quite obvious that the outfit was part of Hillary's deliberate attempt at reclaiming a perception of femininity. The article rightly notes that such a change is dramatic, and someone like Clinton, I'm sure, hires consultants for this sort of thing.

3. Conflating changing a dress with some kind of cold-hearted flip-flopping is nonsense. Eventually, you'll have to stop wearing the corsets and bell-bottoms.

4. The way a candidate appears has an impact on the way they're perceived. That's Fashion 101, kids. It makes a difference. I'd wager most of the people whining about "it's policies, not clothes!" are also influenced by the appearance of their candidates. Whether they'd like to admit it or not.

Posted by: AhhWoo | July 27, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Clearly its time for fashion writers to comment on the male candidates bulges and whether they hang to the left and right... that would be a little more comparable than the "colors" and "ties" the Post offers as comparison... "

Posted by: sdrawded | July 27, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

CLEAVAGE? If you call that cleavage, then you need to spend more time online!

Posted by: BearTruth | July 27, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

*** why is this cheap 'entertaining sideshow' reserved for Dem. candidates alone? Where's Romney's $1000/week makeup budget in all of this?***

A very good question, because if somebody's plastic smile & hairsprayed pompadour call for scrutiny it's Mitt the Chameleon...where is the Post on that little matter?

Posted by: Jerryvov | July 27, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse


This forum has gone toxic. See ya later.

Posted by: 2sense | July 27, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Let's see some chunky leg!!

Posted by: alisonhynes | July 27, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I happen to agree with many of Sen. Clinton's views, but cleavage may be the only thing authentic about her persona. She should leave it in, and see if she can clone it into her wooden personality.

Posted by: jstonewp | July 27, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Talk about making a mountain out of two shriveled pancakes .... make you wonder though - does Bill hang it down the right or the left? ... most likely the left

Posted by: wapo2 | July 27, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The cleavage, gross as it was, was no big deal. But when Hillary shows her nuts, THAT'S grotesque.

Posted by: birvin9999 | July 27, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Kurtz! The only thing more revolting than Givhan's rediculous obsession with a female candidate's displaying "cleavage" on the floor of the Senate (The picture you chose to illustrate--at least on the photo of my screen-- was hardly cleavage) as her comment that such a non-display of cleavage was not the most important thing she has ever done. I would observe that it probably was not the most important event she was doing at the moment, much less that day, week month or year. In point of fact, had Givhan happened to suggest that Clinton wore a v neck blouse rather than a choker, it would have been equally stupid and meaningless observation to a serious public matter, but would hardly have generated the nonsense you feel moved to give Givhan's nonsensical intrustion into serious polity. Such nonsense has no place in serious discussion. That you chose to make it important causes one to question your motivation which until now has from my perspective been positive. Pulitzer whose name you choose, for some reason, to invoke, must be appalled.

Posted by: phkjg | July 27, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Robin Givhan did a hilarious piece on Condoleezza Rice's boots (Feb 25, 05), a piece on Bush's Crocs with socks, the great article on Cheney's fur-bedecked coat. Clothing--like words or body language--is a powerful means of communicating attitudes and identity. Robin Givhan is brilliant at skewering the powerful. Maybe if she skewered a politician I liked and respected I would feel differently, but I am having a hard time thinking who that might be.

Posted by: 60bike | July 27, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Reminds me of the joke about feminists: how many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: That's not funny! The point here is that the Clinton campaign, by responding to the article the way it did, merely feeds into stereotypes about angry, "watch-your-mouth-young-man" feminism. That's the last thing this campaign needs.

Another point: if Clinton did what most men do, wear the same old boring suit concept day after day, it's doubtful she'd get much press coverage on her wardrobe. But she deliberately attracted attention to herself by departing from her own prior tendency in her dress. That's a recourse a female dresser has in terms of public image: she can tweak things one way or another to achieve tactical goals in terms of image. To forbid anyone from commenting on tactical mechanisms of a campaigner, however minor, is to miss the point. I find myself a little less enthusiastic about the Clinton campaign after seeing them react this way.

Posted by: carl4 | July 27, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I can't honestly say that I'm for either candidate, Dem or Rep, as yet. However, other countries have had female leaders who have led quite well. It's past time for the U.S. to do the same.

Posted by: katiekatm | July 27, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I saw the article, well, I saw the headline anyway. Then I saw who wrote it and went on to more substantive issues.

Posted by: cullisongs | July 27, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

The issue is not that it was covered, the issue is that Hillary's camp is whining about it. Her camp needs to grow up and realize that as a political candidate, Hillary is in the spotlight.

Therefore, she can, and will continue to be criticized for whatever, whenever. Bush has a whole satirical cartoon about him that is completely unfair and misleading.

Hillary and her camp needs to get off their high horse and save the chastising for truly offensive press. Whine whine whine......you don't get my sympathy.You sounds like your whiny,silly, cheating husband.

Posted by: mcgillw | July 27, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

WHY WOULD ANYONE GET BENT OUT OF SHAPE OVER MRS CLINTON'S COUPLE OF FRIED EGGE'S LOOK,SHE ISNT GOING TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE
ANYWAY............

Posted by: jdohmann | July 27, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I bet Bill loves cleavage, especially on other women. Its ironic Hillary is concerned about the treatment of women now, when she allowed her hubby to demean other women in the Oval Office. In any event, who cares about a plump 60 year old's cleavage, who ain't no beauty?

Posted by: bringbackimus | July 27, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

WHY WOULD ANYONE GET BENT OUT OF SHAPE OVER MRS CLINTON'S COUPLE OF FRIED EGGE'S LOOK,SHE ISNT GOING TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE
ANYWAY............

Posted by: jdohmann | July 27, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, I read it, I'm embarrassed to say. What nonsense!

And for those of you making snide remarks about age, The Senator looks better than some of the younger more "stylish" people.

Don't be offended. Just a little tit for tat.

Posted by: Administrator1 | July 27, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

They award a Pulitzer for FASHION? Seriously?
Between that and Givhan's article, I don't know which is sillier.

Posted by: tucreate | July 27, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Givhan is a fashion writer. She wasn't writing about cleavage/necklines/whatever you want to call it in the Politics section, or the News section, she was writing about it in the Fashion and Beauty Section of the newspaper. Are you horrified that they talk about food in the food section? Jokes in the comics section? OH DEAR, everything in the Newspaper isn't NEWS!!! If you aren't interested in things other than news, then don't read them. It could be considered a compliment that more democrats are getting press about what they wear--they probably look better. However, I have also read articles in the fashion section about Rice's, about Cheney's, about Barbara and Laura Bush's fashion. They are writing about people who do interesting or different things with fashion that are in the public eye, and that happens to be women more often than men. And generally, people care about women's fashion more than they care about men's fashion. As a young professional woman, I read all of the newspaper, including the fashion section. I would rather read about powerful, beautiful, intelligent women than I would about Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears. Whether you like it or not, appearance will always effect how you feel about someone. It shouldn't be a huge news story what Hillary Clinton wore, and it shouldn't effect whether you vote for someone. However, the WaPo didn't convey it as that. It was a Fashion Article. Get over it.

Posted by: hg2000 | July 27, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS NOT PARISD HILTON.
I can not believe how petty this is.
Does this writter not have enough to do?
Let me give you a list of things to write about:
1. Karl Rove - looks like a twit.
2. Dick Cheney looks like "The Penguine"
3. Condeleeza Rice got a new hair do.
.
Goodness - is there nothing else to report about. He knit top was not unbuttoned down to her belly button.
I thought I was going to see something inappropriate. ....
STOP WASTING INK

Posted by: 1morething | July 27, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Where's the cleavage coverage of the male candidates? Where are the plumbers' cracks about Watergate? National Enquirer covers of Fred Thompson bending over at the beach. Whoa!!

I'd rather see some stories about the original September 11 massacre. 1857. Mountain Meadows. Mormons.

Posted by: georgepwebster | July 27, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I can't stand Hillary. Contrivances like showing some cleavage to prove she belongs to the feminine gender are why I can't stand her. On the other hand, cleavage in and of itself, does not signify leadership ability. Cases in point: Golda Meier and Cleopatra both led quite effectively despite knowing (or not) what to do with their respective breasts. Warning to Hillary: You're no Cleopatra, nor are you any kind of Golda, so stop trying so hard.

Posted by: mdoocey | July 27, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

talk about playing victim. I'm learning a lot from Presidential Race 101 wit Prof. Clinton Machine.

Posted by: pm_bonsu | July 27, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

What a stupid issue to print. Golly- a woman has breasts. Titter, titter, giggle. Are political columnists in the fifth grade, that this should be news? Let's talk about health care instead.

Posted by: jacquescustodian | July 27, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Oh for Christs' sake ... now I've heard it all! Grow up America! Quit your attempt to make such a non-issue into an issue. I'm neither Democrat (anymore) nor Republican (thank goodness) for good reason ... and this is just such an example. If this is all the better you can do ... go back to Kindergarten and spare the rest of us.

Posted by: katiekatm | July 27, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Dan: Oh, come on! You cannot seriously think that any other politican, regardless of party affiliation, wouldn't do the same exact thing, can you? I'm less disgusted by the Clinton campaign fundraising on the Givhan article than I am on the Bush campaign fundraising on manufactured increases in the terror alert levels, just as they did throughout the entire 2004 campaign cycle!

Posted by: kdecker | July 27, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Givhan didn't say much about the "neckline," but about Clinton's "cleavage." Cleavage insinuates that you can see inside portions of the breast.

I think there definitely some over-reaction, but I also think Robin walked right up the thin line there.

Posted by: Alex3 | July 27, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Way back there, vze2r3k5 left the following comment:

Man, America is such a repressed, backwards country. I would say we're approaching 3rd world status, but even third world countries are less sexually repressed. Can you imagine this kind of meaningless crap article anywhere else in the world? No wonder Europe sneers at us. Our government is imploding on scandal after scandal, our Constitution has been ripped to shreds, and this is what we spend our "investigative" time on. Friggin idiots.

I agree with this person, although I'm not sure my reasoning is the same.

We ARE sexually repressed.

A country that is NOT sexually repressed would have no reason to expect high-powered women to be "modest."

A country that is NOT sexually repressed would not be appalled at a little dip in a neckline.

And a country that is not sexually repressed would CERTAINLY not feel any need to comment on it, publish an article on it, and start an entire political battle over it.

A country that is NOT sexually repressed would not have paid any attention at all to Clinton's cleavage -- they would have treated her just like all of the other (read: male) candidates.

Posted by: swan480 | July 27, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

According to one astute poster, the following proves the media does not have a liberal bias.

"Hmmm

Al Gore and his earth tones.
Obama and his beach babes
Edwards and his hair
Kerry and his windsurfing outfit
and now Hillary and her chest

What do these folks have in common? Oh yeah, they're all democrats. So much for the liberal media bias."

Wow, you overwhelmed me, I'm convinced. How could I possibly have thought that members of the mainstream media, who admittedly vote democratic 90% of the time, are biased in their reporting? Hmm? Does Dan Rather ring a bell? Or how about Chris Matthews? Or how about Keith Olbermann? Or how about .. insert the name of any Newsweek reporter? Or how about Dana Milbank? Or how about Seymour Hirsh? Or how about .... hopefully by now you get the point. Truth is I could go on and on and on and on ................... nuff said on this point!


Posted by: dolfan08 | July 27, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

This Clinton rebuttal has drawn more attention to this story than it would have otherwise. I read the main newspaper regularly and had completely missed this one.

If somehow this had ended up on the front page, or in the news sections then yeah, that might merit some outrage. But this?

Clinton is clearly a driven, smart, and independent woman.

However, stunts like this by her campaign suggest greater contempt for the objective judgment of Clinton supporters, than for the objective judgment of Washington Post editors.

Posted by: JPRS | July 27, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

What I find disgusting is that the Clinton campaign actually capitalizes on the article by requesting contributions to their campaign.

I detest liberal's antics more each day.

Posted by: dan | July 27, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"But I guess we'd rather have an idiot for a president, as long as he dresses more conventionally?" Does dressing more conventionally mean wearing the same boring blue Oxford button-down with the sweat-drenched armpits for months on end to every last campaign stop? That's all I can remember of Bush from the 2004 campaign!

Let's face it. Hillary looks way better than most of the men crowding up the presidential field. Physically, she's is far more appealing than the likes of Giuliani, McCain or Thompson. Who cares if her neckline is 1/2" shorter today than it was yesterday? Even as a woman, I'd rather see some of Hillary's cleavage than any of those rag-tops Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are sporting!!!!!

Posted by: kdecker | July 27, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

LOL! If I was to make any Comments about her Cleavage, do you think she would hold it against me?

Talk about making a Mountain Range out of Mole-hills!

Does our Commander in Chief Wannabe realize that by Muslim Cultures, she has invited the "Dogs"? Showing off herself like that! How Clintonesque!

Posted by: rat-the | July 27, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

To dolfan08:

It's really sad that you aren't capable of expressing a coherent, reasoned, opinion. All you are capable of is childish insults.

So typical of right-wingers. And yet I'll bet Howard Kurtz is cheering you on - aren't you, Howard?

Posted by: ccatmoon | July 27, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I think that the point should be that we need to stop judging candidates by superficial things like appearance and focus on what is important - THE ISSUES.

I would say this regardless of gender or party affiliation.

Posted by: mercdelacroix | July 27, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I think that the point should be that we need to stop judging candidates by superficial things like appearance and focus on what is important - THE ISSUES.

I would say this regardless of gender or party affiliation.

Posted by: mercdelacroix | July 27, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

What cleavage?

Posted by: dpgerman | July 27, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm

Al Gore and his earth tones.
Obama and his beach babes
Edwards and his hair
Kerry and his windsurfing outfit
and now Hillary and her chest

What do these folks have in common? Oh yeah, they're all democrats. So much for the liberal media bias. So, when are we going to start making a huge issue out of what Republicans look like and what THEY wear? I'm so sick of this nonsense. Oh, if only Al Gore and all his earth tones sat in the oval office right now. But I guess we'd rather have an idiot for a president, as long as he dresses more conventionally? Good work Washington Post, way to belittle America's best political hopes.

Posted by: ptrella | July 27, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

The good Senator may first want to get an official party nomination for the Presidency before continuing to act so high and mighty about how she feels treated in the media. She's appalled that she's told to take a hike when the Pentagon refuses to discuss exit strategies with her, she censures Barack for indicating he would meet with dictators like she also said she would do (and as her husband did when he was Prez), she generally feels insulted by all assaults to the dignity of her position. If she is so dignified, why not run for the Senate from her home state of Arkansas instead of a state with higher approval ratings and more media visibility, why not divorce her philandering husband like any self-respecting woman does, and why not introduce your campaign by means other than ripping off a TV show about murdering gangsters? Oh yeah, and how about explaning why you voted for a war you now so easily condemn? As you might guess from this tirade, I am more partial to Republican cleavage, but fatigue over hypocrisy ought to be a bipartisan issue.

Posted by: jag4 | July 27, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

This whole issue of Hillary's cleavage is ridiculous, and I find it just one more subtle way of denigrating women and "putting them in their place" as mere sexual objects.

Reducing a Senator to her cleavage - or lack thereof - is disrespectful in the extreme.

Perhaps the WaPo should publish articles dissing President Bush for his execrable taste in red ties -- or the fashion sense of any other MALE authority figure for that matter...?

I'll be waiting.

Posted by: kmcintyre | July 27, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Fashion writers are of course very superficial, pertty much they are all idots, just because they win a prize that is usually given to intellegent creative people they are still idiots wasting time on of all things what people wear. Didn't Edwards also put down her jacket, which Obama protected. Still more idiots. They probably don't like their mother either.

Posted by: BearTruth | July 27, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

To Jennifer532: Well, dcsdcs is just about as articulate and informed as that psycho Ann Coulter, so you may be right.

Posted by: kdecker | July 27, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

AFTER READING SO MANY OF THE COMMENTS, IT IS OBIVIOUS WHY ANN LEWIS WROTE TO ROBIN GIVHAN. SHE WANTS TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS A WOMAN AND THAT SHE IS NOT ASEXUAL. SO ALL OF YOU WHO SEEMS TO BE UPSET OR ANGRY, LET IT GO BECAUSE IF HILLARY CLINTON STAFF DID NOT WRITE THIS LETTER AND EMAIL IT OUT TO HER SUPPORTERS IT WOULD HAVE GONE AWAY. DON'T LET US FORGET NOTHING GOES OUT IN THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN W/O HER SIGNING OFF.

Posted by: joefortner1 | July 27, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think Edwards has better cleavage than Hillary. Further he acts more like a woman with his hair and dress than Hillary does as well. Oh well, I will never understand the liberal class.

Posted by: Jakeson | July 27, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

You've got to be joking! This is as relevant as a discussion of a man "dressing right or left." What ridiculous fodder for a substantial news organization. Although the article itself appears benign, I can't help but think the intentions behind it are more sinister. Is it possible someone is out to discredit Hillary before she gets started? Hillary has never been know to pay much attention to fashion. It is part of her appeal. It seems to me Robin Givhan is trying to enter a world of journalism well above the "Life and Style Columns" normally relegated to this type of writer.

Posted by: allisondoke | July 27, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Stop the press! I have second thoughts about Hillary. Someone who can generate cleavage out of an "a" cup just might be able to generate electricity out of a hydrogen atom....we may have a winner here!

Posted by: posterchild | July 27, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

This whole discussion is so superficial. Let's look at her ideas and philosophy, her neckline is so unimportant. No wonder we have problems in America!!

Posted by: becky-greer | July 27, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

This whole discussion is so superficial. Let's look at her ideas and philosophy, her neckline is so unimportant. No wonder we have problems in America!!

Posted by: becky-greer | July 27, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

hey ccatmoon

What planet do you live on? It couldn't possibly be Earth. The WaPo has "spent the past 6 years rolling over and playing dead for BushCo"? Send me some of that stuff you're smoking. I need it bad. Hell it might make that picture above BAREable to look at.

Posted by: dolfan08 | July 27, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

First of all, what cleavage? I didn't read the article ... but I certainly hope that the writer was dealing with a neckline. There's nothing else to deal with.

The Clinton campaign could have played this quite nicely. Instead, they sound like a flock of prudish, asexual goodytwoshoes.

Posted by: hconwell | July 27, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't see the cleavage. It looks like cellulite. Where is it? Is there a better picture?

Posted by: jethro1 | July 27, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

stan1: ANOTHER example of our fine public schools?

Posted by: jennifer532 | July 27, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 2sense | July 27, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Robin Givhan didn't have much to say in her article and so she picked on an issue so trivial to write about. How many times do women dress up in a hurry not thinking how she would look? Men do not count under that category since they wear shirts and pants while women have varied styles in their closet. Just think that Hillary Clinton took the first blouse out of her closet and jacket to go with it without thinking of cleavage, etc. The article was meant to be controversial because she had nothing to talk about - like issues and all that.

Posted by: sonia_delmundo | July 27, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Robin Givhan didn't have much to say in her article and so she picked on an issue so trivial to write about. How many times do women dress up in a hurry not thinking how she would look? Men do not count under that category since they wear shirts and pants while women have varied styles in their closet. Just think that Hillary Clinton took the first blouse out of her closet and jacket to go with it without thinking of cleavage, etc. The article was meant to be controversial because she had nothing to talk about - like issues and all that.

Posted by: sonia_delmundo | July 27, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

ccatmoon: Here, here!

Posted by: jennifer532 | July 27, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

it will take more than some saggy old boobs for people to vote for her. she has socialist ideas and are very dangerous to the middle class.who will pay for this health care??? the middle class
thats who..the rich can afford any doctor and the poor get FREE health care dont let them fool you with inflated statistics, the liberals are very good at inflation, any one who CAN NOT afford a hospital visit wil be helped in any emergency room or hospital..the iilegal aliens & bums of the street take advantage of this every day.she wont be elected because she panders to every group. we dont need another pandering president like her husband was. thats why we are in trouble now.but thats another argument or debate..

Posted by: stan1 | July 27, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

What we need, is more cowbell!

Posted by: pedjr336 | July 27, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Although I've already posted, I have something else to say.

You know, maybe if the WaPo hadn't spent the past 6 years rolling over and playing dead for BushCo, stories like these wouldn't elicit such strong reactions. But here is Howard Kurtz, whose writing always seems slanted against dems to me, involved, and the topic is Hillary's manner of dress, and I don't think Hillary's campaign is going far ENOUGH in protesting this - I would add SEXIST to their list of adjectives.

Although you have tried, you CANNOT oversimplify this issue as one of a fashion writer's "innocent" description of Hillary's attire. Because to those of us who are completely fed up with WaPo's pathetic record of the past several years, it is symbolic of WaPo's overriding lack of journalistic ethics.

It's not just the WAY you report items such as this - it's the way you characterize - or should I say MIScharacterize - the response.

Look at your own self, WaPo - look at your shoddy, criminally negligent record during the BushCo years - ask YOURSELVES why the majority of posters who are agreeing with you here are knuckle-dragging right wingers, and the vast majority of those of us who think your writing about Hillary's cleavage was a sexist, denigrating, and DISMISSIVE act are the ones who pretty much despise your overall record - of which Hillary's cleavage is but one example of a very glaring dereliction of duty.

Posted by: ccatmoon | July 27, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Can we see Senator Clinton is a min-skirt next to judge some of the rest of her body?

Posted by: leaberry | July 27, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Since the sixties, feminists have gained attention from men by displaying their cleavage.

How else could men give up leadership and power in family, work, and church to women so easily? For example, family court's "man bad, woman good" policy and procedures.

Many women practice the same tactic in other professions also, such as, acting, singers, sales and prostitution.

I suspect it is no coincidence that men still rule in Arab and Asian countries and that woman are required to cover up bodies.

Posted by: markruffolo | July 27, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I didn't know they had botox for that.

Posted by: philip_riggio | July 27, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

gbb14 - nobody twisted your arm to get into this conversation. Get out if it's so revolting....geez!

Posted by: jennifer532 | July 27, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Let's lighten up. It's about time some of us old visually impaired guys get some decent eye candy in the White House. Hubba, hubba.

Posted by: raythewatchman | July 27, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

This entire conversation is revolting! I will not stand for it. I do not want to think about Hillary's cleavage, nor Hillary's body, nor any other unattractive feature of this woman. Her politics turns me off enough as it is.

Posted by: gbb14 | July 27, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE EQUAL TIME HERE!

I want to see Rudy's cleavage...and I am not talking about when he ties his shoes.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | July 27, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

kdecker: Haven't you figured out yet that Ann Coulter is contributing to this discussion under such tags as you mentioned and dcsdcs. These people still can't acknowledge that Bill Clinton, in spite of them, is still alive and doing good in the world and that Hillary will be our next president. One can only imagine the shock of it all will cause those head veins to finally pop, putting them and the rest of us out of misery.

Posted by: jennifer532 | July 27, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Funny, but this woman (?) has never shown her cleavage until now - after I think she was a little upset with Mrs. Edwards - who happens to have breat cancer. Think about it. She is viscious and mean - I wouldn't put it past her. She wants to win; she needs to win; she is demanding to win. I am not an Edwards, Clinton or Obama fan so I could care who shows cleavage !!!!!!!!

Posted by: kledae | July 27, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

This seems like a lot of fuss over this article. As a young woman who's interested in politics (ie. the issues), and fashion, I thought the article was interesting. Sen. Clinton is getting flack for being too manly, but people question whether a woman can do the job. She's experimenting with walking a very fine line. Give her a break. I'm not sure the Senate floor was the right place for that shirt, but she looked nice. It was a fashion story, kids. Ms. Givhan isn't Eugene Robinson. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Posted by: chmgremlin | July 27, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think it was pretty low-brow of the Post to let anyone, nasty fashion writer or no, to comment on women's cleavage, much less Hillary Clinton's.

I recall the stories of the parka and the scarves. The parka? Well, honestly, at an event of state the VP stuck out like a sore thumb, and it did seem to me that he could have done what most of us would do--get some really good long underwear. If that wasn't enough, hunter that he is (wink) he could have gotten batter operated socks and mittens to help him ward off the chill.

But, the scarves? Hillary's V-cut blouse? I don't want to hear about these women's fashion sense. I want to hear about their policy initiatives because I was raised in a part of the country that believed in an educated populace. I want to know how they govern, not how they look.

This is something the conservatives do--they judge a book by its cover. Heckuva job GOopers--you got us GW Bush. The guy dresses great, but he couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. This has got to stop.

Leave the snarky fashion writers on the entertainment page with the TV and music celebrities. Get a real reporter covering national leaders (and make it count).

Posted by: LiberalTarian | July 27, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think it was pretty low-brow of the Post to let anyone, nasty fashion writer or no, to comment on women's cleavage, much less Hillary Clinton's.

I recall the stories of the parka and the scarves. The parka? Well, honestly, at an event of state the VP stuck out like a sore thumb, and it did seem to me that he could have done what most of us would do--get some really good long underwear. If that wasn't enough, hunter that he is (wink) he could have gotten batter operated socks and mittens to help him ward off the chill.

But, the scarves? Hillary's V-cut blouse? I don't want to hear about these women's fashion sense. I want to hear about their policy initiatives because I was raised in a part of the country that believed in an educated populace. I want to know how they govern, not how they look.

This is something the conservatives do--they judge a book by its cover. Heckuva job GOopers--you got us GW Bush. The guy dresses great, but he couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. This has got to stop.

Leave the snarky fashion writers on the entertainment page with the TV and music celebrities. Get a real reporter covering national leaders (and make it count).

Posted by: LiberalTarian | July 27, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Don't you have to be at least 18 years of age to post comments on this site? If not, could someone please implement that rule? Immediately, if not sooner?

The fuss that "im_Timmaaay" is making is something a 10-year old, pre-pubescent child would make. And I'm sure that s/he would do it right in the middle of a group of adults. Did "im_Timmaaay" even look at the picture that started this uproar? We're not talking about Senator Clinton falling out of a G-string bikini. Senator Clinton is wearing a relatively modest top under a blazer. Perhaps "im_Timmaaay" postings are more appropriate for Mad magazine.

Posted by: kdecker | July 27, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs money because her fundraising is lagging behind Obama. Period! What a joke. This is a manufactured controversy by Ann Lewis desiged to stir up the intensity of Hillary's consituency so they will open their wallets. When the candidates need money they will find someone to demonize. This one, however,is a real stretch (Robin Givhan is certainly no Ann Coulter). If this is the best that Ann Lewis can come up with, Hillary is in real trouble. Hillary might want to consider offering Elizabeth Edwards a job. At least Elizabeth knows how to pick a real fight.

Posted by: dolfan08 | July 27, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I think that the story here is that Hillary discovered her cleavage the day after Bill Clinton commented that he didn't think that Hillary was trying to be a man. Now she wants to be a poor mis-treated female.
Bottom line is if the polls tonight say that she's too feminine, then tomorrow she'll show up in combat boots. Like her husband, she flip-flops according to the poll numbers.
She needs to go into retirement and let someone new and orginal into the office.

Posted by: edstlngs | July 27, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is really scraping the bottom of the barrel if this is how they have to drum up excitement in a fundraising letter. Apparently the Senator's policy positions and accomplishments aren't enough to keep the donations pouring in, and instead they have to manufacture offense and project outrage.

Posted by: bsimon | July 27, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Givhan deserves applause for noticing something no one else did.

It's obvious Sen. Clinton intentionally tried to display her feminism by wearing ths attire. This was to soften her alpha image.

It was done very subtly but Givhan called her on it.

The Clintons have pulled this before.

Remember Bill Clinton with the bible on the front steps of the church.

With the millions of church goers, how many have seen anyone leave church by the front door with a bible?

All cold and calculated.

Freud would be proud of this applied psychology.

If only the peons would catch on.

Posted by: malo8000 | July 27, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the least sexy women in the USA, cleavage will not help her she is a very unatractive short big butted, bossy arogant, lying, condisending and corrupt women who has no apeal to men at all! Billy Bob and her daughter will not help her campaign, because it is phony as she is, no one believes Billy Bob is with her he can't even pull this of they are a far from being a family as you can get! How many Bimbo eruptions and stories about grooping by Billy bob, how many women will come out of the woodwork to expose this scam! Family my ass, I understand they hate each other, to the point they only talk to each other through her campaign and when the TV cameras are around phony phony and it will not pass the smell test.it hurts her by bringing in her daughter, and who the hell cares what her daughter is going to say to the NY slime? It's just pure BS to fool the American people one more time, and we are not going buy into this BS SCAM of a marriage, Billy Bob hasn't slept with Hillary since she concieved her daughter. 20 + years ago, she is A sexual or a lesbian she is not a women any man could get a woody about! Her attitude is disgusting, name one thing that she has acomplised in her whole life that was not a direct result of Billy bob and and his henchman! She is not even a good senator she has done zero, she is only there because she is an ultra liberal women running for the Office of the president of USA, it will not work not matter how much money she spends no one will trust the phony MEDIA scam! No one trusts a congentital LIAR!!!!!!

Posted by: dcsdcs222000 | July 27, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am a little tired of the amount of space the WaPo gives to these kinds of articles. I think the National Enquirer does a good enough job on its own. I guess the editors thought it was safe enough because it was written by a woman. I agree with some of those here that if we are going to talk about Clinton's cleavage, we should follow it up with an analysis of the guy's crotches. Why do women's breast continue to be fair game (no pun intended) while the guys are off limits? I think we already know the answer to that question. And to those guys here daring to talk about Hillary's physical appearance, I've no doubt they've cracked a few mirrors.

Posted by: jennifer532 | July 27, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Oh, that's CLEAVAGE. I thought it was her CANKLES showing through.

Posted by: maurassugardaddy | July 27, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Hahahaaha. The Clinton camp, who'll use whatever means available to curry votes, objects to the fashion editor calling them on their push for the 35-55 age male voter.

Posted by: schratboy | July 27, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

What I find annoying is that it seems that people like Givhan and Shales feel compelled to write about politics because it is the Washington Post. It nearly always seems forced and ill informed. Stick with fashion and tv.

Posted by: bjglavin | July 27, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

In the interest of fairness we need an article about which Republican candidates "dress-left", which "dress-right" and which are "unknown/can't tell".

Posted by: MarcMyWords | July 27, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think it was pretty low-brow of the Post to let anyone, nasty fashion writer or no, to comment on women's cleavage, much less Hillary Clinton's.

I recall the stories of the parka and the scarves. The parka? Well, honestly, at an event of state the VP stuck out like a sore thumb, and it did seem to me that he could have done what most of us would do--get some really good long underwear. If that wasn't enough, hunter that he is (wink) he could have gotten batter operated socks and mittens to help him ward off the chill.

But, the scarves? Hillary's V-cut blouse? I don't want to hear about these women's fashion sense. I want to hear about their policy initiatives because I was raised in a part of the country that believed in an educated populace. I want to know how they govern, not how they look.

This is something the conservatives do--they judge a book by its cover. Heckuva job GOopers--you got us GW Bush. The guy dresses great, but he couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. This has got to stop.

Leave the snarky fashion writers on the entertainment page with the TV and music celebrities. Get a real reporter covering national leaders (and make it count).

Posted by: LiberalTarian | July 27, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Oh how I fear for this country if the idiots I see posting here are representative of the voters ..." Angela-in_texas

Oh how I fear for texas if the idiot in the White House is representative of their voters! If we can't give it back to Mexico let's at least get an immigration bill passed so we can at dilute the rednecks with new blood!

Posted by: b1rd | July 27, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Ann Lewis missed the mark here. Using this as a fund-raising "cause" is pure nonsense. Sticking to the issues is far more important.....I know Hillary is not raising as much as Barack...and this type of attempt is not going to help bring in more contributions.

Posted by: aramey1 | July 27, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is actually thrilled by the article. It allows them to have it both ways. Protest, protest protest. But, just think, it replaces all those articles about Hillary not being a real woman. Show some cleavage, but argue against how coarse it is to write about it.

This country needs to wake up and address the real issues at hand. Islam Fundamentalism, health care, education, etc etc.

Posted by: ervserve | July 27, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

So how does my given Clinton money make this type of reporting go away? I have lost the connection.

Posted by: acindc007 | July 27, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

So what about this story and the response is so offensive Ms. Givhan and Ms. Howell? Let's just look at one paragraph highliging all those stories about appearance of candidates.... DEMOCRAT Candidates..... to wit: "Stories about the appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to John Edwards's $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama in a People spread on "Beach Babes," have long been an entertaining sideshow. But since no journalist has plunged into this particular territory, given the exclusively male nature of past White House contests, Givhan's Style column has sparked plenty of reaction, much of it negative. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote today that Givhan "managed to make a media mountain out of a half-inch valley.""

What is it that the Post just doesn't get about the bias that they perpetrated here! I will give to Hillary as a result of this story.

Posted by: securtis | July 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

So what about this story and the response is so offensive Ms. Givhan and Ms. Howell? Let's just look at one paragraph highliging all those stories about appearance of candidates.... DEMOCRAT Candidates..... to wit: "Stories about the appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to John Edwards's $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama in a People spread on "Beach Babes," have long been an entertaining sideshow. But since no journalist has plunged into this particular territory, given the exclusively male nature of past White House contests, Givhan's Style column has sparked plenty of reaction, much of it negative. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote today that Givhan "managed to make a media mountain out of a half-inch valley."

What is it that the Post just doesn't get about the bias that they perpetrated here! I will give to Hillary as a result of this story.

Posted by: securtis | July 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Robin Givhan, as wonderful a writer as she is, seems not to understand that almost no one is as obsessed with appearance and fashion as she is. People don't care nearly as much about the clothes they wear as she thinks they do. Most of us are much more concerned about other things. Her analyses sometimes remind me of Freudian dream interpretation in that they are a much more accurate analysis of the interpreter than of the subject. So Hillary Clinton wore something a little unusual one day. Big deal. So do I, and it usually means nothing more than that most of my other stuff need to be washed. The rest of the time, it means that someone bought me something, and I feel obligated to wear it, even though it's not my usual thing. That said, there is nothing really insulting in the Givhan essay. The Clinton campaign's reaction is just a typical example of the axiom that you can get more money out of outraged people. It is this kind of manufactured outrage that has so damaged political discourse and civility in this country and that makes it so difficult to actually get anything done. To quote from the campaign letter, "...take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture." Yes, take a stand against coarse rage-mongering and petty indignation over imagined slights. This independent voter is looking for dignity, not indignation.

Posted by: _kt_ | July 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

ButchDillon, simply brilliant! Well said. I laughed so hard I was crying. I'm surprised anyone could notice her cleavage unless they turn the sound off when she's speaking because when she does speak it's like fingernails on a chalk board and I immediately switch to another channel. I can't fathom having to listen to that witch for four years but hopefully we won't get that far.

Posted by: Ping2007 | July 27, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I also read the article when it was first published, and I was disgusted. As usual, the WaPo just doesn't GET IT. We want to read about THE ISSUES - and Hillary's cleavage (and let's get real here, Ms. Givhan - anytime you write about cleavage, you ARE writing about breasts!) is irrelevant. As for the comparison to Cheney's coat during a funeral service, that was different. His manner of dress was taken by some as a form of disrespect, and in any case, a fur lined parka has about zero connection to the type of writing we are talking about here.

I'm not even really a Hillary supporter. I'd vote for her if she was my only choice against a repug, but that's about it. But I AM a woman, and as a woman, I'm sick and tired of the WaPo's double standard. You have two standards for dems and repugs, and you have two standards for male dems and female dems...maybe it's a quadruple standard. In any case, please drop your disingenuous defense of Ms. Givhan. I think Hillary had every right to be offended, and apparently I am far from alone!

Posted by: ccatmoon | July 27, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think the Post should stop contributing to Senator Clinton's fund-raising efforts.

Posted by: dave_oman | July 27, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I am sick of this, the constitution is being shredded by Gonzalez and GW and we get this crap about necklines? Howard Kurtz should focus on the MEDIA in his media notes blog instead of the crap he usally devotes 80% of his column on - he said, she said, or whatever tintillating little thing is going on in the media instead of talking about say... how the media just regurgitates whatever crap Tony Snow says without checking its facts, or the effect of corporate ownership on the media - great job Howard! Froomkin is about the only guy I respect at the Post any more.

Posted by: rm-rf | July 27, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I'd be more interested in Ms. Givhan analyzing why women must show skin in the halls of Congress and men never ever do (the vision of Reid in leggings notwithstanding).

Posted by: breillynyc | July 27, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

This post.com article is pretty biased.

The campaign is not the first or only group who was upset about the discussion of cleavage in a political race. Ms. Magazine sent an action alert on this days ago.

Further - I don't care if the writer won a Pulitzer - it doesn't mean she wasn't wrong here, that she wasn't being inappropriate, or that she wasn't making it harder for a woman to get fair press coverage in a political race. Unless the author's been writing about the men's pants being too tight - she can't cry equal opportunity reporting.

The bias in this post.com article was just so distasteful.

Posted by: bravegal79 | July 27, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

As a fan of Ms. Givhan, I was disappointed at her calling Sen. Clinton's decolletage "cleavage", which IS to make a mountain out of a molehill and beg the complaints if only for the publicity, though at the price of a backlash.

Posted by: jhbyer | July 27, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Robin Givhan is the most thoughtful fashion reporter in the country? Which is important to whom? The vast majority of people who have a serious interest in politics could care less what a candidate wears. The article is silly, at best; sophomoric and insignificant, at worst.

I would put fashion writing right up there with olympic suntanning in terms of serious pursuits.

Posted by: kdecker | July 27, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

It's not o.k. to comment on Hillary's (Gag) clevage, but it's o.k. to draw attention to Dick Cheney private parts and enhance them by computer. What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Ann Lewis needs to worry more about Brother Barney Frank!

Posted by: Carole1 | July 27, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I wrote a moment ago about blogs being better. Check out this series of in-depth articles about another political woman, Lisa Murkowski. Notice that it talks in detail about facts (something apparently alien now to the Post) and readers can draw their own conclusion from those facts that she is corrupt.

Notice that the amount of cleavage she does or does not show is nowhere mentioned. Imagine that. Why, how am I to make up self-serving biased conclusory statements if I don't know more about her breasts (like the Post and some commentators here seem to need).

I am just left with facts and I have to use my mind (also known as a brain) to consider and decide whether those facts show she is corrupt and whether I can support her or her party. She is, and I can't.

Try it out Post, you might like to do a real article like this sometime. Try facts, they are really interesting, especially relevant ones! Indeed, as you can see, this blog cites to a number of real articles from real newspapers! It can be done, really!!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/lisa_murkowski/

Posted by: egrass | July 27, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I wrote a moment ago about blogs being better. Check out this series of in-depth articles about another political woman, Lisa Murkowski. Notice that it talks in detail about facts (something apparently alien now to the Post) and readers can draw their own conclusion from those facts that she is corrupt.

Notice that the amount of cleavage she does or does not show is nowhere mentioned. Imagine that. Why, how am I to make up self-serving biased conclusory statements if I don't know more about her breasts (like the Post and some commentators here seem to need).

I am just left with facts and I have to use my mind (also known as a brain) to consider and decide whether those facts show she is corrupt and whether I can support her or her party. She is, and I can't.

Try it out Post, you might like to do a real article like this sometime. Try facts, they are really interesting, especially relevant ones! Indeed, as you can see, this blog cites to a number of real articles from real newspapers! It can be done, really!!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/lisa_murkowski/

Posted by: egrass | July 27, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

WHAT cleavage?

Posted by: byronwriter | July 27, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

rjrtex,
As opposed to the Republican freak show, who among them have had 8 wives, married a cousin, strolled through Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, and lobbied for a pro-abortion group, but is pro-life.

Posted by: vze2r3k5 | July 27, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

God bless America land of the free to talk about so much crap that doesnt matter. We need real political debate in our country. What we have is name calling republicans who ruined their party by aligning with the Christians and Dems who only stand for things try and have a back bone when the polls tell them to.
I wouldn't mind a female president. But if we start talking about a 60 year old set of boobs this early then we are not as forward thinking as we all would like.
AND for those offended. The only thing you should be offended about is that the media thinks that out of all the pairs boobs out there we want to talk/see/hear about Hillary Clintons non MILF set of tatas

Posted by: Scottecarter | July 27, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Robin Givhan writes, impeccably/brilliantly/wittily/expertly about fashion including the its place in society (therefore, in this case, politics). Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, etc. are all fair game for La Givhan's fabulous treatment. After reading her column I wrote to her asking why bother--it seemed much ado about nothing. Evidently I was wrong.

Posted by: DreaDC | July 27, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Robin,

Very silly article. What cleavage? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/334045848_7fb302782a.jpg

I eagerly await your follow up article comparing the jewel boxes on the boys in blue. This election is about leadership, not cleavage. BTW, Cosmo is hiring.
Jim, Denver

Posted by: 2sense | July 27, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Of course, the only person who has no interest in her cleavage is Bill!

Posted by: rsh36 | July 27, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Angela A from Texas - "Hillary's criticized for not being feminine enough; Bill responds, and the next thing you see is Hillary showing cleavage and veering away from her "asexual" look."

I take it you're an avid viewer of the sexy programming on CSPAN - it's not like Hillary's cleavage "display" was really going to draw American Idol-size audiences and that her campaign trumpeted the fact that she was wearing a lower-neckline today during her CSPAN appearance...If it weren't for this idiotic and banal Washington Post piece making a mountain out of a valley, no one would've known or cared. It's women like Robin Givhan and you who continue to denigrate women...if the author of the piece were a man, he'd be getting huge flack for being a "sexist" - and there should be an equivalent word for women who do the same to other women. Why do we keep each other down?

Posted by: bbln | July 27, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The mere thought of seeing any more of Hillary's Hooters works up the nausea in a picosecond. Get that ugly woman in a burka, and do it fast. Where does she get off trolling for an intern during the prelims? Surely, Bubba taught her some discretion!

Posted by: ButchDillon | July 27, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

To hwaltner:

I read that last paragraph differently than you do. The author is not saying that Hillary is cooly confident and at ease in her skin. The author is saying that one must be those things if she dares to sport her cleavage at any time other than cocktail hour. Frankly, I find the whole article to be insulting and accusatory towards Hillary's fashion sense, not to mention Ms. Givhan clearly feels that Hillary has not earned the right to make a display of sexuality.

But in the end, the article is insignificant (as most puff pieces on fashion would have to be). I hope this Ms. Givhan's silly little article is the worst that the Clinton campaign has to contend with!

Posted by: kdecker | July 27, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The recent Sen. Clinton column, while mildly provocative, was no surprise. See Ms. Givhan's 2005 critique of the way Supreme Court chief Justice John Roberts and his wife dressed their two young children for the White House announcement of his nomination. She took issue with the choice and style of clothing the parents selected for their children as if it was a revelatory statement about their family's values, lifestyle and political leanings. It was shameful to use pre-schoolers attire to make a point.

Wm. Robinson
Columbia SC

Posted by: brobinson | July 27, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Man, America is such a repressed, backwards country. I would say we're approaching 3rd world status, but even third world countries are less sexually repressed. Can you imagine this kind of meaningless crap article anywhere else in the world? No wonder Europe sneers at us. Our government is imploding on scandal after scandal, our Constitution has been ripped to shreds, and this is what we spend our "investigative" time on. Friggin idiots.

Posted by: vze2r3k5 | July 27, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

If you can't compete on the issues try showing a little cleavage. Edwards has his hair and his wife and Barak offers us a nice person who says nothing. Why can't Hillary have a gimmick? Welcome to the democrat party freak show.

Posted by: rjrtex | July 27, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

My husband and I read the article and couldn't believe what was said about Hillary and her neckline. Frankly, we were glad to see her look so beautiful and femine. When Edwards mentioned her coat, that did it for me. The men and some women would like to protray Hillary as a "man". Give me a break. She has lovely hair, great eyes, nice skin, and we love her laugh. She stands up to people and is brilliant. We put our confidence in her hands and know that she will be a great President.

Posted by: peterluzg | July 27, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

My husband and I read the article and couldn't believe what was said about Hillary and her neckline. Frankly, we were glad to see her look so beautiful and femine. When Edwards mentioned her coat, that did it for me. The men and some women would like to protray Hillary as a "man". Give me a break. She has lovely hair, great eyes, nice skin, and we love her laugh. She stands up to people and is brilliant. We put our confidence in her hands and know that she will be a great President.

Posted by: peterluzg | July 27, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

There is no defense for this or any other vacuous article on 'looks' in any forum, especially the supposedly reputable Washington Post. Mrs. Clinton has breasts. So what. John Edwards is handsome, so what.

Her POLICIES and that of her competitors on health care, Iraq, etc. is the ONLY thing that matters. The Post's distraction of itself and its readers with such idiotic and irrelevant fluff is what helped our country not notice what a dimwit George Bush is and thus elect him and help get us into the Iraq war in the first place. Maybe the distraction could be forgiven if you actually ran similarly detailed pieces on her policies, but you don't, you run 'horse-race' columns and 'so in so is in favor of 'big government'' conclusory statements with zero reporting.

Moreover, the Post is incredibly biased in its supposedly critical 'election-fashion' reporting. Why has Mitt Romney's $300+ make-up jobs gotten zero play if this stuff is somehow relevant? (Heck, I was annoyed to read about such drivel on supposedly two-bit blogs but if the Post claims that this idiocy matters then where is the big 'expose' of Romney? If the amount of cleavage Hillary is showing is relevant to her feminity and thus somehow relevant to her candidacy, then 'pretty-boy' Romney's use of hundreds of dollars of make-up and foundation on his face suggests he is not manly and thus a bad candidate. Right?

Wrong, it is all absurd and I am cancelling my subscription to the Post. (I have been a loyal reader for 20 plus years but am increasingly seeing ZERO discussion of substance to offset the lunacy of such articles that shouldn't appear in People magazine much less the Post). Frankly, I get free and MUCH better and MUCH more in-depth reporting of actual ISSUES from blogs.

Posted by: egrass | July 27, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

So instead of people revelling in the fact that there is finally a chance at having a woman for president (not that you have to vote for her)....we all choose to discriminate her by talking about her chest? This country focuses way too much on modest personal appearance.

Also, someone posted about her being like a chameleon....that is absolutely every political candidate...not just Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: krystalwest | July 27, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God. A discussion about a 60 year old's cleavage is about as appetizing as day-old scrambled eggs --yuk. Remember she is Bill's wife and will do anything to get in the WH. Hopefully neither Playboy or Hustler will approach her about a photo shoot for their magazines.

Posted by: FairfaxAl | July 27, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

How could this woman be writing about Mrs. Clinton's breasts . . . there are none to write about. It was only about the neckline. Get over it!

Posted by: sweet_melodee_99 | July 27, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I am appalled by Robin Givhan's article and the attitude of many (particularly some of the women) who have posted comments about this issue.

When the fashion sense of male candidates is discussed never is there mention of too personal anatomy. We don't read about their tight pants or bicycle shorts with a bit about unsightly bulges or the like.

Why then is it permissive to speak of Sen. Clinton's cleavage? Simply because some believe it's an interesting take, I would be horrified to know that my cleavage was being discussed in the guise of examining my sense of style or the neckline of my clothing.

Discuss the neckline, if you must, discuss the softening of her taste in suits, but please refrain from salacious speech that is degrading to women.

Posted by: rgootam | July 27, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Why a 60 year old women wants to show of her cleavage is difficult to understand? I hope it is not to attract young male.

In all fairness we should have an article on man boobs of all men over 50 in this race.
I am sure New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will most talked about.

Posted by: foo3414 | July 27, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Adrienne,

It's better than calling her Billary.


~ Timmaaay!!!

Posted by: im_timmaaay | July 27, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I am appalled by Robin Givhan's article and the attitude of many (particularly some of the women) who have posted comments about this issue.

When the fashion sense of male candidates is discussed never is there mention of too personal anatomy. We don't read about their tight pants or bicycle shorts with a bit about unsightly bulges or the like.

Why then is it permissive to speak of Sen. Clinton's cleavage? Simply because some believe its an interesting take, I would be horrified to know that my cleavage was being discussed in the guise of examining my sense of style or the neckline of my clothing.

Discuss the neckline, if you must, discuss the softening of her taste in suits, but please refrain from salacious speech that is degrading to women.

Posted by: rgootam | July 27, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"Stories about the appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to John Edwards's $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama in a People spread on "Beach Babes," have long been an entertaining sideshow."

I shouldn't have to ask this, but why is this cheap 'entertaining sideshow' reserved for Dem. candidates alone? Where's Romney's $1000/week makeup budget in all of this?

With the 'seriousness' of the entire Washington Gang of 500 very much in doubt right now, you are not doing your colleagues any favors with this sort of garbage in general.

But when it's clearly an approach reserved exclusively for one party, it only enhances the impression that DC journalists are spending way too much time at Republican Cocktail parties these days.

Posted by: ngoff99 | July 27, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I am sick of seeing this kind of garbage in the Post. I don't care what the candidates are wearing, how much they pay for haircuts and all the other fluff that the style writers push on us. How does the Post expect to be taken seriously? And by the way, stop referring to Mrs. Clinton ans Hillary. I don't see you calling any of the other candidates by their given names. Cut it out!

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | July 27, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Ann Lewis is probably being felt FORGOTTEN and just wanted to see her name hit the press for a change...

At 60 who really cares. I want to know how often Hillary visits her aging mother and how much time she spends with her adult daughter???

Posted by: cknoppy | July 27, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

News Flash: Hillary and women everywhere. Do not show off your cleavage if you don't want people to notice it. Simple as that.

Posted by: mgheffner | July 27, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

If you want to converse about Jenna Jamison's cleavage, you might be onto a story that will grow legs, but please don't take us there with Hillary.


That's just cruel!!!


~ Timmaaay!!!

Posted by: im_timmaaay | July 27, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

As a young woman actually did read and notice the article before any fundraising letter, I was offended and immediately wrote the Post ombudswoman to complain. Drawing conclusions from professional women's clothing choices is frustrating, and as a professional woman I was pissed. It just feeds into the perfect balancing act expected of women - to be taken seriously you must be pretty, but not too pretty; wear nice clothes, but not too nice. Be attractive, but not sexy. Coming close on the heels of all the "analysis" on Nancy Pelosi's clothes, I thought it was too much and it certainly made me angry.

Posted by: emilybeckman | July 27, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

For gosh sakes, Hillary, just because the rest of the women in this country don't mind bearing it all, doesn't mean that it's now decent to show your boobs in public. It's not! I'm a woman, and it disgusts me. At your age, don't be afraid to be "old fashioned" in the neckline department.

Posted by: bb211 | July 27, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Focusing on wrong area, shouldn't there be discussion about her thunder thighs?

Posted by: oppmgt | July 27, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It's gross that the Post (are we talkin' about a NY Post article?) started this...

It's gross that Hillary's people perpetuated the sickening suggestion!!!

It's stomach churning to consider the fact the the Post would try and whip up even more discussion about her 60 yr old shriveled bits!!!!!!!!

YYYYYYYiiiiiiiiGGG!!!

~ Timmaaay!!!

Posted by: im_timmaaay | July 27, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Your "Not so Impossible" task is to determine what each of these three stories have in common.

Stories about the appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to John Edwards's $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama in a People spread on "Beach Babes," have long been an entertaining sideshow.

Posted by: wstander | July 27, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I read the article last week when it was first published. I did not find it inappropriate at all. The headline indicated that the article was about Senator Clinton's low neckline, and it had not occurred to me that this was a newsworthy topic until I read the article. The fact it is newsworthy is based entirely on the fact that it is interesting.

If a woman (or man) wears remarkably similar fashion for years and years, then departs from that trend one day, it is most definitely a conscious decision. The situation is parallel to a man wearing a suit and tie every day then suddenly deciding to skip the tie and unbutton the top button. Hardly important, but interesting and definitely intentional.

Posted by: rhesse | July 27, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The only thing Ms Hillary is showing with the low cut top is her bleeding heart!!!

Posted by: omnigym2 | July 27, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

It is all about public image. Just last week Hillary Clinton was being accused of acting too much like a man. This is simply to change her public image. It just seems so obvious.

Posted by: nattanon02 | July 27, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is well-preserved for her age, and her physical appearance -- if not her personality -- are attractive.

Her recent attack on Barack Obama, for stating that we should be holding diplomatic conversations even with rotten people, was dumb and unattractive. George W. Bush has tried ignoring those rotten people, but that did not make them go away and did not make our country safer.

Posted by: cwh2 | July 27, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The real issue here is something most of you appear to have missed. Hillary's criticized for not being feminine enough; Bill responds, and the next thing you see is Hillary showing cleavage and veering away from her "asexual" look. The woman is just a chameleon --- she does whatever popular opinion tells her to in order to win and gain power. For her, it's all about her and the ends (her being in power) do justify the means (whatever it takes to get there).

Oh how I fear for this country if the idiots I see posting here are representative of the voters ...

Posted by: Angela-in-Texas | July 27, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

First the attack on Obama, now Sen. Clinton is going after this harmless, light-hearted, frankly flattering column by Ms. Givhan? How stupid and petty you seem to be, Sen. Clinton. If you can't let things like this roll off your back, you clearly don't have the temperament to be president.

Posted by: Jayne | July 27, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

When we were children we all learned not to judge a book by its cover. All of us except Robin Givhan, that is.

Posted by: GWGOLDB | July 27, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

you must be 'timmaaay.' what's so gross? quit hatin'.

what would happen if a male candidate was caught with a boner? would it be appropriate for a fashion writer to discuss it and suggest that maybe a jock strap and looser pants would be a good fashion move?

Posted by: brooksflow | July 27, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

It is truly a sign of the decline in the prestige and quality of journalism that the newspaper which uncovered the Watergate scandal now can brag only about its Pulitzer prize winning fashion journalist.

Posted by: chazbet | July 27, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Let's here more about Obama and Edwards!!!

If I want conversation about cleavage I surely wouldn't choose to discuss Hillary's aged wiggle of a cleavage.


That's just gross!!!

Posted by: im_timmaaay | July 27, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Boy the Clintons run circles around most people before they even realize it. They're a machine.

Posted by: falconflight | July 27, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

While the long, long presidential campaign ahead will no doubt spawn all kinds of articles, WAPO be assured that the general public is really-really-really tired of "tee hee" political articles. Please stick to serious coverage. It's not like there aren't enough celebrities around for you to analyze in terms of cleavage assessment.

Posted by: noGOP4me | July 27, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

You've GOT be to kidding me!!!

The Washington Post runs positive stories with fixed polling results, almost on a daily basis!!!

I provide
((Concrete Proof))
that the Washington Post and CNN (as well as the rest of the mainstream media) lie about the front runners of the Democrat Party.

You Tube stats:
NYSENATOR (Hillary's site)
---Subscribers: 397
---Channel Views: 18,684

Johnedwards (obviously, John Edwards' site)
---Subscribers: 3,482
---Channel Views: 590,661

Oh, and did I mention that Hillary's site doesn't provide an open comments section?


Most people at YouTube's Edwards site are most likely educated, a voter, and up on politics. These numbers are of the most legitimate demographic.


Updated on 7/26/07

Posted by: im_timmaaay | July 27, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I, too, was unaware of the article until I received the letter from Hillary's campaign. After reading the article I, too, think Ms. Lewis made a mountain out of a valley. As a woman who has seen my fair share of discrimination in my 53 years, I found the article to be an interesting take on Mrs. Clinton and found nothing derogatory or demeaning. While this article should not be the lead news item on the front page of this paper, or on the nightly news, it was, as Ms. Givhan intended, a simple observation by a fashion writer of someone who is very much in the news. My advice to Ms. Lewis? When you find some really demeaning and very exploitive stories of women, then we can talk. Until then, give it a rest!

Posted by: cecbeadlady | July 27, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Boy, did they miss their target! Robin Givhan isn't some leering reporter writing adolescent male humor, she is perhaps the most thoughtful fashion reporter in the country, who wrote a serious piece on the use of fashion by a public figure. You go, Robin!

Posted by: Dan4 | July 27, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I was unaware of this article until a friend forwarded Ann Lewis's e-mail to me. Frankly, I think the Clinton campaign over-reacted to this article, and in fact find it complimentary to Sen. Clinton. Please note the last paragraph of the article which uses phrases like "at ease in her skin" and "coolly confident." You go, Hillary!

Posted by: hwaltner | July 27, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company