Hillary Clinton Wears V-Neck Top! Details at 11.

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

Cue mini-essay about the semiotic significance of various ballgowns worn by the Senator as First Lady, her subsequent move as Senator into a "desexualized uniform" of black pantsuits, and more gasping OMIGOD! about Wednesday's venture into something a bit less staid. "It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" Tops like the one Clinton wore offer a "teasing display," they're "unnerving," a "provocation." Why? "To show cleavage requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever."

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

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

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

Comments (35)

1. Gee, Hilary, bring it on! Can we see something on Ghivan's wife?

   Posted by niehbur at 07/20/2007 @ 8:26pm

2. I'm sorry, Ms Pollitt,

   have ya not seen this? [uncyclopedia.org]

   LOL!

   Posted by Mask at 07/20/2007 @ 9:40pm

3. Message to women: You can't win. You can't win. You can't win.

   Sometimes I think that is the message the country is getting too: You (We) can't win.

   Posted by hhemwm at 07/20/2007 @ 10:03pm

4. As long as no one shows her tree trunk stumps for legs..I will rest easier.

   Posted by john maasch at 07/21/2007 @ 01:38am

5. Here's a question for you guys: What should Hillary Clinton wear so that Robin Givhan feels induced to comment not upon the Senator's clothes, and not upon the shape of her body, but upon her position on actual issues of political importance?

   I believe the meaning of "you can't win" -- nicely and aptly rendered by "HHEMWM" as "(we) can't win" -- is clear. Our media are giving us a fashion show rather than an investigation into the words (and the actions) of the people who represent us.

   I suppose this is entertaining and therefore satisfactory to the media moguls, ever fewer in number, who own ever more newspapers and broadcasting stations and who command an ever-shrinking pool of increasingly insecure professional journalists, who are increasingly willing to do their bosses' bidding. I suppose this is all very profitable to the latter and therefore perfectly satisfies the plutocracy that all too completely dominates our national culture.

   But we should not be satisfied with this situation. What we are getting is a distracting substitute for news, and no amount of entertainment value (questionable anyway in the case of Hillary's cleavage and John Edwards's hair) can compensate us adequately for what we are missing, just as no amount of dessert can compensate for a lack of vegetables in one's diet.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/21/2007 @ 08:42am

6. " I say bring it on. STILL DON'T see anyone on either side who can beat her. "

   First you must pull your head out of Hillarys ass and out from under her skirt...Rudy and Thompson will be able to defeat her handily. The key may be the second bannana seat..if she picks Obama, it will be an easier task to defeat her than if she picks Richardson..he will tip 08 to the Dems for the WH.

   Posted by john maasch at 07/21/2007 @ 10:07am

7. Dear "FrankGrits,"

   I thank you, too, for mentioning "Radio Free Europe." For me, this today is the BBC and the German media. The BBC is the model of a completely independent medium. It funds itself through fees placed on radios and television sets. Therefore, it is as free as possible both from corporate bias and from governmental control. Unlike our public media, nobody on the BBC has to waste air time begging viewers for contributions, as NPR does. The German public media work the same way as the BBC, though Germany has two public ("öffentlich-rechtliche") media corporations rather than only one.

   I would hesitate to embrace the "fairness doctrine," though perhaps I should (just as I embrace impeachment) both because it is better than nothing and because it is the best reform that we can hope for right now. There are two problems with the "fairness doctrine": (1) it permits the government to decide what is "fair" and (2) presently, the "deciders" include a great many politicians who are opposed to the whole idea of fairness.

   The mid-term reform that I support would be to split up the media giants and to restrict once again the number of media outlets that one corporation can own and control. In other words, I favor undoing the nefarious Telecommunications Act of 1996, one of the worst laws ever written and one of the clearest victories of plutocracy (and plain greed) over democracy (and plain common sense) that our country has ever seen.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/21/2007 @ 10:19am

8. FRANK, was this a Freudian slip?

   "...are deeply concerned about Hillary's cleavedge. Let's get a grip."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/21/2007 @ 08:33am

   Uh...grip what?....heheh

   Posted by Mask at 07/21/2007 @ 12:49pm

9. First you must pull your head out of Hillarys ass and out from under her skirt...Rudy and Thompson will be able to defeat her handily. The key may be the second bannana seat..if she picks Obama, it will be an easier task to defeat her than if she picks Richardson..he will tip 08 to the Dems for the WH.

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH

   Your vulgarities aside. . . why don't you explain how picking Obama is more of a liability than Richardson? Or, why won't Obama beat Clinton to begin with? Are you assuming Richardson is a wise choice because he is Latino?

   In case you have not noticed, he is not exactly inspiring anyone.

   Posted by hhemwm at 07/21/2007 @ 12:57pm

10. The least you could do is make available to the Nation online reader the video clip of her supposed fashion violation.

    Posted by JCSKP at 07/21/2007 @ 1:41pm

11. Probably a paid right winger on the Washington Post payroll. Did you think that Washington Post is there to serve public interests? haha

    Posted by kevin99999 at 07/21/2007 @ 2:03pm

12. it's really funny how Hillary drives the hamsters bonkers

    though for them is is a mighty short trip

    Posted by Will C. at 07/21/2007 @ 6:21pm

13. IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN RUDY GIULIANI AS DRAG QUEEN "RUDIA"...

    On the Internet video (just do a search on "Rudia) cozying up to a disgusted-looking Donald Trump, then the following quotation from the WaPo article seems even more absurd:

    "It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!"

    Hah! I've "spotted" Rudy Giuliani in a DRESS for Christ sake!

    Posted by w_m_bear at 07/21/2007 @ 7:47pm

14. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 07/21/2007 @ 08:42am

    Oh young Jackob you are a babe in the woods, since when have politicians words been even a vague predictor of their actions?

    Politics has been described as the art of the possible. Nice people like you just lead to greater possibilities (for politicians).

    (Having no desire to look down Hillary's top I was a little apprehensive visiting this thread, which I thought may be just for perverts, that was until I found JM didn't want to have to look at her stumpish legs either).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/21/2007 @ 9:26pm

15. But we should not be satisfied with this situation. What we are getting is a distracting substitute for news, and no amount of entertainment value (questionable anyway in the case of Hillary's cleavage and John Edwards's hair) can compensate us adequately for what we are missing, just as no amount of dessert can compensate for a lack of vegetables in one's diet.

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 07/21/2007 @ 08:42am

    JAKOBFABIAN, Why, you unpatriotic, un-American person. You are clouding the issues at hand with facts and reason. You must stop this sort of thing. I suppose the next thing you'll be asking us to do is think for ourselves!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/21/2007 @ 10:50pm

16. "Your vulgarities aside. . . why don't you explain how picking Obama is more of a liability than Richardson? Or, why won't Obama beat Clinton to begin with? Are you assuming Richardson is a wise choice because he is Latino?

    In case you have not noticed, he is not exactly inspiring anyone.

    Posted by HHEMWM 07/21/2007 @ 12:57pm

    First..I can find nothing more vulgar than Franks worship of all things Hillary..almost if he has been drugged..

    I don't think OBAMA has a chance against Hillary...his candidacy caught her off guard,for a while, but this nomination has been locked up for years..Hillary is your candidate for President in 08...having said that, Obama has no resume' and a MAJORITY of the US will not put a rubarb in the highest office without some sort of resume..and being a civil rights lawyer in Chicago does nothing to move the masses(other than the black libs)...it takes some sort of accomplishment to win it all..as far as Richardson, he is the only Dem with any kind of experience..Governor, he called out the National Guard to protect NEW MEXICO border..which is an asset in those states..he has been in the UN, the Dept of Energy..I realize these are govt jobs and he runs the risk of being a party hack label, but neither is he a loony liberal, he is from the western US, the Southwestern US, for the anti Hispanics his last name is Richardson..and he is a smart fellow with a likeable personality...and he is Latino..is for legal immigration, and doesn't call illegals "undocumented Americans"...

    Barak Hussein Obama and Hillary, both names carry a liability that is obvious..too many "firsts" with no real value except they are "firsts" are not compelling enough to carry the day... Plus, Senators have not been elected to the WH in generations...Obama ran unopposed for all practical purposes and has how many bills up for consideration? I realize that there are those here and elswhere that will vote for anyone liberal no matter what..I also think there are enough racists and skeptics that will talk big and loud about voting Obama..but when the curtain closes in the booth...a different lever will be choosen..

    and people looking for a change will not find it when they examine the trend..Bush, Clinton, Bush..and Clinton ..it is a tougher sell than anyone here will admit.

    I am still trying to find out what it is that makes Hillary a good choice or what her record is that sends clowns like Frank into orgasmic convultions over the mere mention of her name..

    I admit she did live in the WH once, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a few nights..so...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/22/2007 @ 12:46am

17. hey it's sunday and I'm still alive. But I think that's only because dick spent all day saturday trying to figure out how to launch the nukuler weapons

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 1:18pm

18. hey it's sunday and I'm still alive.

    Posted by WILL C. 07/22/2007 @ 1:18pm |

    No, you just think you are alive...in a real sense you have been dead for years...it is from "Hammer Blow Back"...that you think you are alive is evidence that you are seriously ill...terminal...it won't be long now...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/22/2007 @ 2:44pm

19. so maasch, I'm not alive because I'm really dead and my thinking I'm alive means I'm terminal....

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 2:49pm

20. oh my lord you are a retard

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 2:49pm

21. Hammer Blow Back...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/22/2007 @ 3:14pm

22. Will, you are so dead..you maybe breathing, but you are most certainly dead.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/22/2007 @ 3:15pm

23. so maasch, I'm dead and though I may be breathing. I'm dead

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 3:23pm

24. yup, you're a retard

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 3:23pm

25. Hey, MASK,

    I saw the Museum of Sex thing you pointed out to Pollitt regarding regarding Commissar Clinton. Only in New York... :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 08:45am

26. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/23/2007 @ 08:45am

    Always hard to tell, given the jackets she wears....

    but if that bust (which is real, wasn't made up) of Hillary is "anatomically correct"....dang, that woman has some major league ya-bos!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 09:42am

27. Right you are, old boy. As the Officer & Gentleman said: a bodacious set of Ta-Ta's

    Ohh.. My Goodness, we are SO sexist Heh Heh

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 11:52am

28. What I got from Givhan's column is that she sees Hillary as someone who tries to hard, who is uncomfortable in her own skin, who makes it up according to whatever poll she's looking at that day....

    Come to think of it, she's might be onto something. If you're not comfortable in your own skin, cleavage is going to be something that's hard to pull off, especially in a professional setting.

    Madame Senator might want to invest in some more expensive bras...or just become her own person, whichever comes first.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/23/2007 @ 3:05pm

29. EDWRITER, So here's a couple of guys indulging their base instincts and along you come and try to turn it into a mature intellectual analysis. Sometimes you are just no fun :))

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 3:16pm

30. Actually, is it really that much worse than if some woman or gay guy says Obama has a nice ass or Edwards has a great smile?

    Sure we're supposed to treat people based on their issues or personalities or whatever, but that's not the real world.

    Plus, there's little that Hillary does that's not scripted....and it ODDLY comes on the heels of Elizabeth Edwards being "dubious" about HRC's femininity....??!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 4:08pm

31. Plus, there's little that Hillary does that's not scripted....and it ODDLY comes on the heels of Elizabeth Edwards being "dubious" about HRC's femininity....??!?!?

    Posted by MASK 07/23/2007 @ 4:08pm

    hey bubble butt, weren't you just demanding proof on katrinas thread that most people don't carry ID?

    yet here you are asserting there's little that Hillary does that's not scripted

    let me guess... it's OK when you do it

    Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 9:50pm

32. Posted by WILL C. 07/23/2007 @ 9:50pm

    Speaking of folks who have gender identification problems....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 09:11am

33. First you must pull your head out of Hillarys ass and out from under her skirt...Rudy and Thompson will be able to defeat her handily.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/21/2007 @ 10:07am

    Will Rudy be wearing his skirt and wig? Will Thompson be for or against abortion? Which version of the 2 liars will beat her?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/24/2007 @ 1:06pm

34. A transvestite and a whore movie actor.

    That the best you clowns can come up with?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/24/2007 @ 1:21pm

35. Huff & Puff, Mighty peculiar 2 Nation women writers don't care for feedbacks from us freeloading CUSTOMERS.

    Below is my 2-bits for KATHA's "Dems Increased Funding for WHAT!"

    She wrote: "They might be dazed and confused about Iraq, but at least they know the government shouldn't tell young people condoms don't prevent pregnancy and STDs when, in fact, most of the time they do."

    Why would anyone, particularly a woman, object to Abstinence-Only as a method of reducing teen pragnancies? The problems seem to be some distortions by overzealous advocates, the clear solution is to use funding levels as `carrots' to induce more accurate communications to teens?

    She is brilliantly correct to point out that condoms do, most of the times, prevent STD and pregnancies! Bravo! Next time your loved ones drink and drive, just relax and think after all, they won't crash or kill someone, MOST OF THE TIMES! Hey, I think I like this train of thought, gracious, must be more fun to be a liberal!

    Posted by is is IS at 07/24/2007 @ 11:35pm