If you were traveling here in the United States from a foreign country recently – you may be wondering if our democracy is all about the cleavage? And if so, why hasn’t there been a woman president already?
Of course, this has been sparked by a July 19 story "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory" by Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Robin Givhan in the Washington Post detailing Senator Clinton’s cleavage at a recent policy speech on the Senate Floor.
Lately the media, the blogs, our nation’s coffee houses and office water coolers have been talking about Hillary’s cleavage! Granted, the article appeared on the 1st page of the Style Section and not on the front page of the actual newspaper, but still - did this cross the line in picking our next president? Senator Clinton’s campaign thought so and as all top-notch campaigns do these days after the story like this appears and picks up a ton of buzz, they decided to write a letter of their own in response – a fundraising letter. It was from Ann Lewis one of the nation’s most well respected political operatives who has been with the Clinton’s for years and now heads up the all important women’s outreach/vote for Senator Clinton’s campaign. The fundraising email started out with “Would you believe that The Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary’s cleavage?” (The answer from most I’m sure would be yes – although the Post has been tainted as liberal leaning, like all other papers they have to deal with a long primary season and fill their pages even on a slow news day). Lewis then went on to call Givhan’s column “insulting” and urged donors to “take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture.” The snappiest part of the appeal came with Lewis wrote: "Apparently, it was showing when she gave a speech in the Senate about the skyrocketing cost of higher education. Now, I've seen some off-topic press coverage — but talking about body parts? That is grossly inappropriate." Which now begs the question – is fundraising off of such an article…appropriate?
Fundraising off of cleavage?
Professionally and personally, I really had no problem with the Clinton Campaign fundraising off of this article nor did I have any problem with the Edwards’ Campaign when they fundraised off of Ann Coulter’s gay slur she used against John Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this year. These campaigns are simply responding to what someone else put out there – I mean it’s not like Senator Clinton even went low cut – you can tell by the picture I included in this article which was the basis for Givhan’s article in the Washington Post - her outfit was hardly revealing.
I wouldn’t consider it revealing at all especially in comparison to the outfit worn recently by the United Kingdom’s Home Secretary Jacqui Smith addressing the House of Commons after the discovery of car bombs in London in July (now someone should have stopped her before walking into the chamber!). John Edwards as well didn’t script Ann Coulter that day she insulted not just him but the country by using such a word republicans and democrats alike – denounce the use of. For proof I site the absence of Isaiah Washington on Grey’s Anatomy this coming season.
I would however have a concern if Senator Clinton’s team purposely dressed her in a negligee for the publicity – or if Edwards’ provoked Coulter's comment and since neither did – I think it’s free game.
Judging Appearances?
It is interesting to look beyond the trivialness of the origional cleavage story or the fundraising that followed – I am most curious about it’s
underlying question…do appearances matter? Are we judging our candidates by their cleavage, their hair, their height, their clothing, their teeth, their wrinkles or lack there of?
Height for example has always been brought up in Presidential campaigns but John Kerry towered over President Bush in 2004 by 6 inches and still lost.
So I want ask you, the Gather Community:
When you are judging a candidate is it…
By Their Cover (Appearance)?
or
By Their Content (policy)?
or
Maybe it’s a bit both?
No matter what it is - I want to hear what YOU think!
I look forward to your comments and I want to thank you in advance for joining in the conversation!
Thanks,
Laura
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
thanks for the post, J
BUT with that said, it does bring up the question - especially with this long primary season that Laura talked about - how are we judging the candidates this time? I'd like to say content - but I think a lot has to do with cover. I heard so many people say after the last republican debate how Mitt Romney "looked" presidential. I seriously do believe people take that into account at the polling booths.
Thanks for the article - I'm going to ask around this weekend and post again on Monday with what I heard the most!
Very provocative!
Should we judge Hillary on her cleavage? No, but do we? Yes, it's part of human nature to look for attractiveness, in either height or even cleavage.
BS.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with a track record for Honesty. Read my articles on him. He has a consistant voting record and will vote for a bill only if it is Constitutional. He voted Against the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act.
I quote = "Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill."
I certianly hope Senitor Clinton's CELVAGE don't get her elected. She has a big load of baggage not the least of which is her "husband". She is not woman enough to keep her husband from straying. How is she going to lead a nation?
i bet 95 % of the worlds popluation thought Bill ran the presidency few years back,haha to funny...Hilary ran this country and Hilary ran her household..evry speech Bill gave,Hilary was in the background nodding her head yes or no depending on what Bill said,,meaning those were her words,and i dont care what anyone says regarding that,its apparant...
anyway,i wouldnt vote for anyone else in '08 except Hilary Clinton...the Clinton administration almost got us out of defecit once and she will do it again....
if it werent for Bush messing up the country again just like his dad did,we would be better off..
maybe that is why they say,democrats care about the people,repiublicans care about money,lord people,look at history,it tells you the whole story,lol
anyway,heres a 10..had to be said,lol
Okay, besides way overusing my"quoted phrase" literary license, I haven't really answered Laura's question. I think physical appearance is less important than content (or feel), but I think we all want to be comfortable with who we are electing. Bush was elected in part because he came off as the everyman that people could relate to rather than the intellectual and elitist personas of both Gore and Kerry (how ironic is that?). It was inevitable that someone would use Hillary's gender to sell a few newspapers (you call that cleavage?), just as it was inevitable that Hillary would take advantage of the opening to raise a few extra dollars.
Actually, the fact that I have to keep writing Hillary in order to avoid having to write Clinton (Hillary) in itself emphasizes one of the issues Americans have to answer in the next election. Are we ready for a woman President? Seems silly for us to even have to ask given how many other countries, even less progressive ones, have had women leaders. But then we also are asking ourselves whether we are ready for an African American President, or a Hispanic President, or a "Peace Candidate" for President in a time of international strife. Maybe Fred or Newt will step in to save us from having to make all these hard choices.
Major kudoes! This is getting ridiculous. It is no wonder that the mainstream press are losing credibility with the public and that more people are turning to alternative sources like this website for news and info. I would include talk radio as an alternative source, but given the amount of time Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and Beck devoted to Clinton's cleavage, sad to say, talk radio is increasingly becoming more mainstream and is beginning to act like it. Unfortunately, stories like this may have become an unfortunate by product of 24 hour news. I really could care less about Clinton's cleavage, Edwards's haircut, Bush's height, etc. Why can't we get back to discussing the issues? Could it be that the press is only reflecting our own desires and interests? My God, I hope not!
I think content and cover often go hand in hand!
Megan
Thanks so much for your comment. Now although I don't think it's a "soul" judgment I do think that the cover does have something to do with the overall content on a few points. In this day and age a politician can never get away from the camera – whether it's an opponent who sent a camera into the crowd at an open event just waiting for a fumble so they can run in and pick up the ball (who can forget Senator George Allen's "macaca" moment that marked the downfall of his ill-fated re-election campaign) or even an excited supporter with a camera or videophone in a small (closed press) house party like fundraiser or conversation in Iowa – with easy, cheap and accessible technology anything at anytime can appear on the internet or the tv. CNN has something called "I" report and Fox News Channel has "U" Report – basically deputizing anyone with a camera to become correspondent.
A candidate's physical and emotional appearance always has to be on!
Thanks again for joining the conversation!
Laura
Good Article!
Beth
Thanks so much for joining in and being a part of the conversation! Basically I believe it's all about preparedness – you can even call it emergency preparedness if you'd like. Because anything that takes away from the candidate's message can be detrimental to the campaign. Whether a misstep (literally), scandal or APPEARANCE – you never want to distract from your message. For example, there were articles and hundreds if not thousands of blog entries on Senator Clinton's cleavage but what about the high cost of education she was speaking about? How many reports were there on her message that day?
By preparing for each event – not just policy wise but appearance wise you can head off otherwise sticky moments. If you're showing up at an outdoor habitat for humanity – you're going to want to loose the jacket and tie – otherwise you just look totally out of place and distract from your message.
So by being prepared appearance wise - you have a better chance of the message you want to get across...to get across!
I think most people are swayed by physcial and social cues. Gore really did not connect with people, and Bush somehow did despite a tons of negatives, and lots of what were obviously going to turn out to be lies. Same with Kerry, they called him Lurch, and questioned his medals, while igoring the problems with Bush's on-off "service" in the air national guard, his insider trading.
It is part of the contest. It doesn't help us get a better president, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
to paraphrase Dr. King (or quote him)
If the picture of a new food item on a fast-food menu board is attractive and well shot, we tend to want to try the item, even if it's for a type of food we don't necessarily like.
That seems to be the way we look at political candidates, these days. If the picture on the menu is attractive and well shot we are tempted to vote for them. If the picture on the menu is not attractive and well shot, we tend to not want to vote for them ( aka Michael Dukakis' famous "tank shot " ).
As a result, we now have a situation where those running for office are well-aware that how they look can make them or break them. A picture is not worth a thousand words anymore when it comes to politics , it's worth all the words there are.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with any professional woman making an effort to emphasize her femininity, though some--women as well as men--may find that it either detracts, or distracts, from her ability to get her message across, a crucial consideration in a political campaign. The inescapable fact is, it WILL, always, be noticed, and commented on, if Hillary wears a skirt rather than her usual slacks--though perhaps not quite as much as it would if Joe Biden showed up for a debate wearing a kilt.
To answer your question from my own perspective, I care not a whit whether a candidate wears a flannel shirt, like Lamar Alexander did, or an Armani suit--though I do recall seeing a photo of Bob Dole in a white undershirt once that made him look like an old codger taking a break from playing shuffleboard, and did nothing to improve the statesmanlike image he usually presented.
In my opinion character, intellect, and compassion trump any and every other consideration where considering a potential president is concerned.
The real question, I guess is, how superficial are American voters in general? Pretty damned superficial I suspect.
Thanks for joining the conversation - you make a great point about the progressive label - I think it's about time the Dems move away from the "liberal" connotation (the denotation is quite different) but still - the branding has gone too extreme. Thanks so much, Laura
It really combines verbal and nonverbal -- A candidate can say anything to me but I'm not going to believe them if they don't sound like they believe it themselves. If their message is about hope - I'm not going to have hope unless they have hope – in their voice and on their face!
I think it really plays to the power of the candidate's emotional appearance. I mean we all have bad days and depending on polling numbers and their schedules – the candidates – well they can have some really bad ones but they can't let on – ever because the moment they do the news coverage will be about them looking sad and alone. For example – last week Senator McCain in the need to cut spending in the campaign flew commercial and alone to New Hampshire. He arrived carrying his own bags looking for a few state staffers to drive him to his next stop. McCain had a smile on his face – chin up and the story didn't revolve around him being sad and alone but rather – holding up and still confident. The story couldn't have been completely different f he let his emotions get the best of him!
So in the end I believe both your physical and emotional appearances play a role in how you deliver your content!
Thanks, Laura
Actually you really do not sound so smart, so I doubt you are really rich or make lost of money and you didn't get much from the Bush tax cuts. But giving tax cuts under these circumstances means borrowing even more money for a longer time ... meaning others have to pay back even more. Others as in working Americans.
I hope you have lots of government bonds like china, saudi arabia and the wealthiest people in our country, because otherwise you will have to pay their share of taxes while they lend their extra money to the government in the mean time to get the interest payments from you that should be going to pay for government.
It is not wonder this kind of scam can be run year after year if people like you are never smart enough to know what is going on - in fact you're bloody near clueless.
That the same guy who said we should sit down and talk to our enemies (Venezuela, Iran, etc..) but that we are going to start bombing our allies (Pakistan).. Hmm, like to hear the explanation behind that logic.
It's = it is
Its = belonging to "it".
Thanks for the article!