Just in case anyone thought that the media was done with its thoroughly noxious, sexist, and misogynistic coverage of Hillary Clinton, the Washington Post delivers another reminder of just how stupid our media really is. And that the media hates Democrats in general, not just individual Democrats. And that they really hate women.
The horror below the fold.
In today's Washington Post, Robin Givhan provides this striking insight into Senator Clinton's work in the Senate: Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory
Just fucking shoot me. If you thought the Edwards haircut story was trivial . . .
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.
Don't even try to deny it, Senator Clinton. You have breasts--admit it!!!
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.
Hillary acknowledges her femininity. Because she's been walking around Washington with a moustache on to hide it from our intrepid press corps.
The article goes on to alternately play up Clinton as either schoolmarm or sultry night vixen. Choice quotes:
The last time Clinton wore anything that was remotely sexy in a public setting surely must have been more than a decade ago
Throughout Clinton's time as first lady, she wore clothes that were feminine and stately. But sexiness was not part of the image.
By the time Clinton launched her first campaign for the Senate, she had found a desexualized uniform: a black pantsuit.
The cleavage, however, is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's being revealed.
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.
To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d'oeuvres is a provocation. It 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.
Further proof that even as Hillary Clinton makes a strong bid to be the most powerful human being on the planet, there will be those who see her as nothing but a pair of jugs.
I look forward to the Post's next article in the series: "Did you see Obama's bulge?"
Update: Here is the scandalous outfit that sparked this article: