Well, well, well. Ever since the Gleaner so adeptly pointed out the whole cleavage hob-goblin, I was wondering when a female political candidate might have the, ahem, balls to show a little neck. Or perhaps even sartorially admit to being a woman. And we didn’t have to wait long!
On Wednesday, July 18 Sen. Hillary Clinton (you know, that woman running for president?), was broadcast on CSPAN-2 while talking about higher ed on the Senate floor. And what did the New York Senator choose to don under her pastel pink suit? Why, not a turtleneck or a fancy neck scarf or some other complicated contraption seeking to hide her mammory glands like they were terrorist contraband. In fact, Ms. Clinton wore a sensible black shirt that dipped just a smidge below anything she’s been seen in public in before.
Egads! The nerve! How could such a calculating and hawkish politician decide to do such a thing as to admit she’s a woman by not feeling ashamed of her breasts? Well, for one, the summer temps might have something to do with it. Oh, and the fact that her outfit is in no way slutty, distasteful or inappropriate might be another.
So why on earth would this be deemed as news anywhere on the planet? Because Washington Post style writer Robin Givhan wrote about it on Friday. (The bastards have kept me from doing either a screen capture or “borrowing” their photo, but you can see for yourself with the Post story.) And I quote:
There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Yikes! Call the brute squad! Or how about some angry bloggers, just to get things rolling. In no time at all, NOW had fired off an angry e-mail to all of its members and posted the same on its website.
This article about the frontrunning candidate for U.S. president caused quite a stir in the NOW office this morning, eliciting reactions ranging from “You’ve got to be kidding!” to “What century is this?” The piece is definitely outrageous, but it’s also hilarious. Absurdly hilarious. And it’s an indictment of our society’s lingering archaic notions of femininity, assumptions about breasts and sexuality, and fears about powerful women.
And I think The Nation has a particularly good take on it in their opening sentence on the topic:
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.
What really gets me, aside from the excellent points already made here, is that this is actually NOT the first time Clinton has appeared in public with a slightly lower neckline. (And by lower, I mean showing a little collar bone.) In fact, you can find a lot of real photos of Clinton just by typing “Hillary Clinton” into a Google images search.
The fact is, we’re not really all that surprised that Hillary Clinton has breasts, are we? I mean, I hope that’s not the actual reason why this is news. Like someone is walking by a newstand and sees a photo of Clinton in a slightly lower-cut top and suddenly realizes that, yes, she is a woman?! Please! The issue is that we can’t stop talking about the style choices, hair choices and general “beauty” of a legitimate candidate for the President of the United States who happens to be female. People, get your heads out of your asses!
Last year I read a story about a speech casino mogul Steve Wynn gave at a local high school graduation. In it, he said, “The world is full of boxes. Nobody cares.”
And to the boobs watching this presidential race (or any political race ever!) I say: People, the world is full of breasts. Nobody cares.