Boobgate Part Deux

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

Yes, the first thing I thought when I saw this picture was, “OMG TITTIES!!”

hillary

With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding — being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.

…or it just means that she has breasts. And sometimes their existance is kinda-sorta visible.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

32 comments for “Boobgate Part Deux

  1. July 20, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    …and (quelle surprise) Althouse is already trolling.

  2. July 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    I get the feeling that there was already an article on the fashion editor’s backburner about “oh, look, Hillary’s not just wearing black pantsuits anymore” and this hint of cleavage got it bumped up to publication with a few extra paras awkwardly tacked on. That’s why the rest of the article seems a clumsy fit to the “OMG, cleavage!” message.

    Of course, the important message is that whatever Hillary’s doing, she’s doing it wrong. Silly voters, haven’t you noticed she’s not a fashion plate? What’s a woman who’s not a fashion plate doing even walking around in public, let alone standing for office?

  3. July 20, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. […] It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person.

    Screw you, Robin Givhan. It means that she likes v-necks. Sheesh. As someone with DDs, it means that it can be hard to find clothing that I like and that’s comfortable (especially in warm weather) that doesn’t reveal cleavage. Certain styles that show cleavage on me wouldn’t reveal any on a woman with smaller breasts. I used to be fairly self-conscious about whether or not a particular outfit revealed too much cleavage for the workplace, but I finally gave up worrying about it. Fuck it. People can think what they want. It’s a little annoying that my boss (a woman) sometimes talks to my tits, but I can handle it. And actually, yeah, I am “content being perceived as a sexual person,” but the style of clothing that I’m wearing is not intended as an advertisement of that fact, and it’s certainly not “a request to be engaged” in any way other than as a normal human being.

  4. Louise
    July 20, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    Idiotic. Next they’ll go on and on if she wears white shoes after Labor Day.

  5. July 20, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified

    Whoa – did Shane from Queens write that? It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified? How can one tell, I wonder? Ugh.

  6. SarahMC
    July 20, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person.

    Um, yeah – we’re ALL sexual people, idiot. NOT sexual objects or one-dimensional characters. What, sexual people (aka everyone) shouldn’t be taken seriously as intellectuals/leaders?

  7. July 20, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Yeah, anyone who saw that and thought, “Hey, check out the senatorial rack” is really, really creepy.

  8. Zora
    July 20, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    ” It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress. After all, it wasn’t until the early ’90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor.”

    So, wearing pants is more feminine than wearing a skirt? I’m confused. What’s the point here?

  9. Bitter Scribe
    July 20, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    I remember during Bill Clinton’s first campaign, some dude held up a sign at a rally: “HILLARY IS A BABE.”

    Clinton smiled and said, “Young man, I want to see you after this rally.” Everyone roared.

    Good times.

  10. July 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    How frustrating- to have someone as interesting and intelligent as Hillary speaking and what the media focuses on is her cleavage. For Christ’s sake, could they stop talking about her appearance for two seconds.

  11. micheyd
    July 20, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    Oh, fuck the WaPo and their virgin-whore dichotomy.

  12. Bolo
    July 20, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Yeah, anyone who saw that and thought, “Hey, check out the senatorial rack” is really, really creepy.

    I’m just waiting to hear what Chris Matthews has to say. He’s a dirty old pervert when it comes to the Clintons. …And most other things, now that I think about it.

  13. Cizungu
    July 20, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    This is already annoying, but what’s going to be even more frustrating is the Washington Post’s future coverage of this “affair” (if such coverage occurs): they’re probably going to take on a slightly condescending tone, laced with some faux surprise, as if to say that yes, it’s a bit silly, but hey! there’s a controversy out there and they have to cover it; all this in spite of their starting the whole thing in the first place.

  14. July 20, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    Jesus. Not that it would matter either way, but that’s a scant, like two centimeters of cleavage there. It’s not like some neckline that plunged to her navel or something. That wouldn’t be a shocking amount of cleavage on a schoolmarm.

  15. July 20, 2007 at 9:08 pm

    If they think that’s cleavage they should see what I wore to work today.

  16. NVMojo
    July 20, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    Or it means she’s trying to counterattack Elizabeth’s Edwards’ recent comments that Hillary is acting like a man in her campaign efforts.

  17. kellbelle1020
    July 20, 2007 at 9:34 pm

    So, wearing pants is more feminine than wearing a skirt? I’m confused. What’s the point here?

    But Zora… pants show the shape of a woman’s legs! The horror!

  18. kate
    July 20, 2007 at 9:34 pm

    Oh yes, it appears its coming, the train-wreck we know as sexism. I figured it would only be a matter of time before Hillary is put through the sexist wringer. Thank god she’s doing it, with all firsts, first child, first time, first drive in the family car, its going to be rough.

    The finest thing of course is that it will bring out what women working anywhere in any field in this so-called ‘free’ country must tolerate everyday. It will also show how everyday, everywhere, women who righteously point out such treatment as unjust and unfair must tolerate being told they are making much ado about nothing.

    Nothing my ass, its an effort to trivialize and pigeonhole women, we’ll see if it works while everyone is a witness.

  19. Hector B.
    July 20, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    When conservative dressers like Hillary start sporting cleavage, this likely means that no other styles are available in stores. Or else Bill told her to quit dressing like an old lady. Either way, it means the beginning of the end of the cleavage fashion.

    To satisfy Ms. Givhan, maybe we’ll get to see Romney in bermudas and birkenstocks. Or Fred Thompson’s asscrack.

  20. July 20, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    [quote]I remember during Bill Clinton’s first campaign, some dude held up a sign at a rally: “HILLARY IS A BABE.”

    Clinton smiled and said, “Young man, I want to see you after this rally.” Everyone roared.

    Good times. [/quote]

    Because it’s awesome to watch a man assert ownership over his woman? Or what?

  21. July 20, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    Because it’s awesome to watch a man assert ownership over his woman? Or what?

    Maybe because it was awesome to see presidential candidates joke about adults finding each other attractive, rather than pandering to the most hysterically and back-asswardly sex-obsessed voters.

    If they think that’s cleavage they should see what I wore to work today.

    Yes, perhaps we should all see that…

  22. Blunderbuss
    July 21, 2007 at 12:33 am

    And I totally bet that the next article will be about Obama’s shirt and how we can see his collarbone.

    No?

    Yeah, thought not.

    (I mean seriously, his reaction is ZOMG BOOBS? Has he never seen a woman before?)

  23. July 21, 2007 at 12:53 am

    A spectre is hunting Ann Althouse — the spectre of breasts in politics.

  24. July 21, 2007 at 2:57 am

    is it my eyes, or is her cleavage blurred out in the picture at the end of that link?

  25. July 21, 2007 at 10:55 am

    Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way.

    Though I like my not so well-endowed atrributes, curses! What that particular way is, I guess I will never know!

    I think more than the ‘analysis’ itself, triggered by a scandalous 1-inch cleavy, it annoys me more that it was written by a woman. Good grief.

    To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d’oeuvres is a provocation.

    *snark*

  26. July 21, 2007 at 11:52 am

    Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way.

    Though I like my minimally endowed attributes, without a cleavage I guess I will never know what that particular way is. Curses!

    To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d’oeuvres is a provocation.

    *snort* I don’t know which annoys me more, the cockamamie analysis itself, or that it’s written by a woman. From the 21st century.

    Surreptitious glimpse of a “cleavage”– gads, they underestimate the dear senator if they consider a one inch skin pinch a remarkable cleavage, tsk, tsk….

  27. July 21, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    Sorry, double post– I thought the first didn’t get through. Kindly delete if possible.

  28. Pingback: Faux Real
  29. July 21, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Jeff, I have an enormous zucchini that you totally need to check out.

  30. July 21, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    Wow, that is a huge zucchini. I was going to try my (ahem) hand at a joke about wanting to see large tomatoes or melons or something, but that might sound like I want to see it’s similarly outsized balls, so I’ll just leave it be.

  31. Chet
    July 22, 2007 at 12:14 am

    Bruce Campbell’s chin has more visible cleavage than what’s going on there.

    Clearly a considerable portion of the White House press corps has been waiting for Hillary’s bewbz0rs to make anything that could be described as an appearance – so they can trivialize yet another Democratic presidential candidate.

    So many of these media assholes are liberals, too. Aren’t they? What on Earth is wrong with them? Why are they so relentlessly hostile to liberal candidates?

  32. July 22, 2007 at 2:01 am

    I remember during Bill Clinton’s first campaign, some dude held up a sign at a rally: “HILLARY IS A BABE.” Clinton smiled and said, “Young man, I want to see you after this rally.” Everyone roared.

    Bah, I misread that as it being Hill, not Bill, who said that, that would’ve made much more sense. What a letdown! :-/

    Time to catch some much-needed sleep, I guess.

Comments are closed.