The Clinton Cleavage Fundraising Letter

To be honest, who cares if Hillary Clinton wears a shirt that shows a little cleavage or not. She's a woman, she has breasts and she wouldn't be the first woman, nor will she be the last woman, to show cleavage. Granted it may or may not be appropriate on the Senate floor, but it is not the first time a little of her breats were showing. The Washington Post's Robin Givhan, took notice and commented on it last week. Well, Hillary Clinton didn't like the commentary and has now sent out a fundraising letter that calls Givhan's commentary "grossly inappropriate."

So the press commenting on Sen. Clinton's cleavage is "grossly inappropriate" but using cleavage or rather press reports on one's cleavage is not inappropriate.

Clinton's letter further's my support for Ann Althouse's position on Hillary Clinton's rack:

Marcus is clear that cleavage distracts viewers into sexual thinking and that a politician giving a serious speech should not reveal it. On that firm foundation, she builds the argument that Clinton bumbled. It was mistake. A miscalculation from a woman who is continually called calculating? A very wealthy woman who must have people helping her dress? I think women -- unless they are inept or don't care what people think -- know how much of their breasts are showing! The suggestion that Hillary Clinton of all people did not know is beyond absurd.

So let's go back to Marcus's firm foundation -- that cleavage distracts viewers into sexual thinking and that a politician giving a serious speech should not reveal it -- and build something else. Hillary Clinton deliberately crossed a well-understood line, because she'd calculated that it was in her interest to do so. As Marcus notes, Clinton had just received criticism from Elizabeth Edwards for being insufficiently womanly. Hillary wanted to prod us -- subtly, with a small and deniable amount of cleavage -- to think of her as more feminine.

So both Marcus and Givhan find fault. One sees mistake, and the other sees tentativeness. I see a deliberate, controlled gesture that was exactly what she wanted to do, what she thought would be advantageous. Why must a fashion expression -- or a political expression -- be forthright?

Given the history of Hillary Clinton, I don't anything should be surprising about this, from the initial choice of clothing, to the mock disappointment in the discussion to the fundraising letter.

I can just imagine the discussion in Hillary Land: "Elizabeth Edwards just basically said you are not a woman. Maybe you should show a little skin, a little cleavage. The press can be tipped off or someone will comment on it and we can then feign indignation and raise a few bucks doing it. You can look like a woman and raise money. Its perfect."

I doubt that I am that far off!!