Hillary Clinton’s Neckline

Robin Givhan is at it again. She has a story on C1 of today’s WaPo about Hillary Clinton’s cleavage.

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.

The last time Clinton wore anything that was remotely sexy in a public setting surely must have been more than a decade ago, during Bill Clinton’s first term in office when she was photographed wearing a black Donna Karan gown that revealed her shoulders. It was one of Karan’s “cold-shoulder” dresses, inspired, Karan once noted, because a woman’s shoulders remain sensuous and appealing regardless of her age.

I’m sure everyone here who came in via Google search for “Hillary Clinton Cleavage” want to see the photo. We aim to please, so I have placed it below the fold. Warning: This may not be safe for work.

Hillary Clinton Cleavage Photo

Shocking in it’s brazen sexuality, no?

Uh . . . no. And not just because it’s Hillary Clinton, either. That’s not exactly a risquée outfit, is it? I’m no great fan of the junior senator from New York but, really, this is a non-story.

So, why is it on the front page of the style section? Apparently, Robin Givhan has some photos of Post editors in compromising positions, is related to the owner, or something. This is, after all, the woman who gave us Dick Cheney’s Auschwitz parka, Condi Rice’s commanding boots, John Roberts’ Stepford Children, John Bolton’s Senate-defying haircut, and other follies. The Post has been giving prominent placement to this nonsense for over two years, so clearly she’s got some kind of leverage.

FILED UNDER: General, Media, , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Jaded says:

    and that it is a sunken chest really is the more offensive part, damn lady cover it up:-)

  2. I’m surprised that Hillary is not being attacked my Elizabeth for being too lady like by wearing pink….

  3. Triumph says:

    Uh . . . no. And not just because it’s Hillary Clinton, either. That’s not exactly a risquée outfit, is it? I’m no great fan of the junior senator from New York but, really, this is a non-story.

    She deserves serious scorn for the hideousness of the outfit–she looks like she would fit in on the cast of “Saved By the Bell”!

  4. Bithead says:

    I am reminded of 2001: (Emph is mine)

    As an early admirer of the Clintons who was shocked awake by the 1993 healthcare fiasco and other scandals (see the transcripts of two 1994 CNN “Crossfire” shows, reprinted in “Vamps & Tramps,” where I defended Clinton accuser Paula Jones and argued that Hillary “hides from accountability”), I strongly feel that Hillary has always benefited from a weird residual sexism. Special treatment is still protectively accorded middle-aged heterosexual women by supposedly egalitarian journalists whose brains go soft when Hillary, who’s as butch as they come, turns on her pink estrogen light. It’s the manipulative tyranny of the mother imago.
    But Hillary has already paid a high price for her willful blurring of the ethical borderline. Her maiden Senate speech two weeks ago, which had been glowingly projected by starry-eyed telejournalists last fall as sure to draw worldwide attention as her first step toward the presidency, was sparsely attended and largely ignored by both the press and her fellow senators because of boiling controversies over pardons, furniture and flatware after the Clintons’ chaotic decampment from public housing.
    –Camille Paglia

    Same game, different cycle.

    Out.

  5. lunacy says:

    Well, as a middle aged women, I can tell you that there is a lot of discussion of professional attire these days.

    It seems that many old school professional ladies think that the influence of MTV and other sources had led to an overly relaxed attitude toward cleavage and hemlines in both young, middle and old women. There is hardly a day that goes by where some lady in the office isn’t discussing some weather woman’s skirt or some actresses décolletage. Apparently there is all together too much flesh being shown in inappropriate contexts and at inappropriate ages. Too young or too old being the greatest of sins.

    Let’s be grateful that Hillary limited her allure to the neckline and spared us the mini skirt or hot pants! :0

    The consensus in our office is that women of a certain age, which Hillary has surely passed, should not display cleavage in a work environment, as Hillary certainly is.

    Perhaps Ghivan is as obsessed with this burning issue as the hens in my office.

    I’m not sure I would have even noticed it in this photo unless it had been pointed out to be, but for what it’s worth…yes, the neckline is too low for both her age and her position.

    L

  6. curt says:

    …she just looks tired…

  7. Bithead says:

    Let’s be grateful that Hillary limited her allure to the neckline and spared us the mini skirt or hot pants! :0

    The “mashed potatoes in shoes” look ain’t cuttin’ it.