“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.
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. It was even more surprising to note that it was coming from Clinton, someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both.”
From The Washington Post
Robin Givhan of the Washington Post has received a lot of flack for writing an article focusing on Hillary’s wardrobe. Some claim it’s sexist to focus on a female politician’s personal appearance, but haven’t hundreds of articles been written poking fun at Sen. John Edward’s expensive haircuts?
Everything is fair in love and war and politics, and if a candidate makes a fashion faux pas expect the fashion police and political pundits to be all over it like white on rice.
Hillary Clinton and the concept of femininity and sexuality do not go hand in hand; let’s hope she never again displays her cleavage. I’d rather put up with the spectacle of Oprah Winfrey flashing her goodies than to witness Hillary trying to be sexy.
However, I pray that Hillary Clinton has a “wardrobe malfunction”, that’s the only thing that might derail her presidential campaign. Just a glimpse of Hillary’s private parts will be enough for any sane person to vote for anyone but her.
