A report on US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's cleavage draws notice to wrong issues
AND the next serious political issue to be dealt with in the US is... MsHillary Clinton's chest?
The race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination took a surreal, sartorical twist when a journalistic assessment of MsClinton's cleavage by a US newspaper stirred up a minor political storm.
The article, by Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan, took note of the Democratic candidate's relatively low neckline during a speech on the Senate floor.
And it has been thumped with a scathing response from Senator Clinton's fund-raising team.
Said senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis: 'I didn't realise the attention and the anger it was setting off nationally.
'Women either read it or heard about it. They were indignant on Hillary's behalf and also on their own.'
Stories about the physical appearance of candidates, from Mr Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to a bathing-suit shot of Mr Barack Obama, have long been an entertaining sideshow.
But no journalist has plunged into this particular territory, given the predominantly male nature of past White House contests.
Ms Givhan's column sparked plenty of negative reactions, prompting one columnist to comment that she has 'managed to make a media mountain out of a half-inch valley'.
But what did she really say?
Ms Givhan wrote: '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 does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease.'
The column also described Ms Clinton's clothing choice, as a 'small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity' that departed from her usual 'desexualised uniform' of black pantsuits.
Ms Givhan, who won a Pulitzer Prize for criticism last year, said she disagreed 'that there was anything in the column that was coarse, insulting or belittling.'
She said: 'It was a piece about a public person's appearance on the Senate floor that was surprising because of the location and because of the person.
'It's disingenuous to think that revealing cleavage, any amount of it, in that kind of situation is a non-issue.'
CLEAVAGE COUNTS?
Ironically, the article might end up helping the Clinton campaign.
Politicians often rip the media over what they see as unfavorable coverage, hoping to score points against an unpopular institution.
But Ms Lewis has taken it a step further - she has used it to front a fund-raising letter.
The letter begins: 'Can you believe that The Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary's cleavage? I've seen some off-topic press coverage - but talking about body parts? That is grossly inappropriate.
'Frankly, focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It's insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It's insulting to our daughters - and our sons - who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast.'
But perhaps Ms Given has had the last say.
She said: 'I would never say the column was about a body part.
'It was about a style of dress. People have gone down the road of saying, 'I can't believe you're writing about her breasts.'
'I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline.'
source :
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/st...37283,00.html? 
IS THIS TOO LOW? 
Linear Mode
