Friday, July 20, 2007
Erotica, WaPo-style
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with the folks at Firedoglake.
This was predictable (and predicted), but entirely lamentable nontheless:
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.
No, it is not lamentable that Hillary Clinton wore a lower neckline than usual (even if it was far from unprecedented). It is depressing that the Washington Post would see fit to comment that she did.
Don't get me wrong. I like visible cleavage as much as anybody. As far as I'm concerned, let's have more of it. But how will those of us who believe that political feminism has outlived its usefulness sustain that belief if one of the nation's leading newspapers insists on deconstructing Hillary Clinton's neckline?
15 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Fri Jul 20, 03:00:00 PM:
One on my blog I conducted a similar survey of the curves of noted right wing cooze and lunatic Michelle Malkin...so I too have been guilty of that offense. Speaking of that particular wingnut cooze (not the others like Mr. Coulter etc.) Michelle ma belle really screwed the pooch when she went off on th shooting of an Iraq vet named Schrieken, saying it was a liberal commie peacenik and prospecting you usual suspects the eventual 'the liberal media would have gone nuts if a soldier killed a peacenik' bull. Turns out, as usual, she was engaged in the usual self-love undercovers. The shooter not only did not know Matthew Marren from the man on the moon, and he certainly did not know that he was in the military. (Schrieken was not in uniform when he was shot)The Prosecutor in the case said that; "Marren's final words were rambling, and there was no mention of the military, the war in Iraq, or the victim being a soldier." The Prosecutor went on to say that it was an act of "random violence." I'm checking now to see if the prosecutor was a liberal/gay/from above the Mason Dixon/did not graduate from Liberty University or Pat Robertson's "law school"/married to a feminist/refuses to watch Fox News. I'll get to the bottom of it. Fair and Balanced!!!
P.S. Hillary has cankles, so it was fortuitious the description was of nicklines and cleavage...
By Escort81, at
Fri Jul 20, 04:23:00 PM:
Yes, that WaPo piece was not necessary -- more imagery than I need. We should evaluate candidates on the (non-physical) merits.
CC - I am not that plugged in to new terminology, and had to go to www.urbandictionary.com to look up "cooze" and "cankles," but thanks for the additional slang. Learn something new every day. Anyone who posts that you don't add anything to this blog has no appreciation for linguistics.
By 
, at
Fri Jul 20, 04:42:00 PM:
Attention, Counter-Propagandists!
From this source:
Bloggers, clear your calendars Sunday, July 22, through Friday, July 27. Some real propaganda bombshells are bound to be dropped, and you’ll want to be there when “several leading Muslim clerics and thinkers from around the globe will participate in an unprecedented online dialogue about their religion, terrorism and human rights.”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/
http://independencelost.blogspot.com/2007/07/attention-counter-propagandists.html
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 05:50:00 PM:
Mr. Chambers:
I would call your parentage and intellect into question, but you seem to have done the heavy lifting for me.
You add nothing to this blog, your "linguistics" are undeniably and blatantly sexist, and your writing:
One on my blog I conducted
off on th shooting
was of nicklines
sucks.
As far as Michelle Malkin goes, well, let's see. She has one of the most popular blog sites in America, she writes for national newspapers and guest-hosts the most-watched cable TV news program on television.
What have YOU done recently, Mr. Chambers?
By jkmack, at
Fri Jul 20, 09:26:00 PM:
hmmm, someone needs to do a poll, who drives leftwingers nuttier, Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, and is the driven nuttiness even higher than what Rush or Hannity catalyzes?
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 10:03:00 PM:
Who gives a damn whether Senator Clinton shows any cleavage, or sports a new coif or couture? Those things do not matter. It's her policies that are ugly.
chsw
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 10:44:00 PM:
Reminds me of the Lenny Bruce line about the waitress in the see-thru dress you didn't want to see through. Anyway, it's nice that Hillary's getting in touch with her femmie side. People were starting to think whe was just butch.
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 11:23:00 PM:
Hey chambers: fuck you asshole.
That's all the comment you are worth.
Calling Michelle Malkin a lunatic while you spout hate-speech is pretty rich, but typical for a librul.
By , at
Sat Jul 21, 01:48:00 AM:
Michelle M is not a lunatic, she is a tool.
See, different.
By , at
Sat Jul 21, 05:19:00 AM:
The Post article is by Robin Givhan, who has been pulling the same trick - writing about the clothes of political people - for some months. It's generally inappropriate, she (Givhan) looks a fool doing it. She has generally done it to conservatives - really went off about John Roberts' children at the time of the confirmation hearings. My guess is Givhan wants to write about politics and has the fashion beat. The Post may have too much institutional rigidity or work rules to move her.
By , at
Sat Jul 21, 08:13:00 AM:
Hillary was showing cleaveage! I only saw a lowered neckline.
By , at
Sat Jul 21, 08:35:00 AM:
From the Urban Dictionary you lovingly reference:
"... the from of sex appeal". Would that have anything to do with the "too of sex appeal"?
Mister Malaprop
By , at
Sat Jul 21, 11:36:00 AM:
That neckline would have had to go a lot lower to show actual cleavage - the boobs were clearly way down south.
Hillary needs two things: voice training and someone to dress her.
By , at
Sat Jul 21, 03:28:00 PM:
Thanks TH - I now have throw-up in the back of my mouth...
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Jul 21, 04:32:00 PM:
I would side with anonymous 10:44 on this one. I think such moves are calculated on the part of Sen. Clinton, who has already focus-grouped the plus/minus of the popular response.
