The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

I found the article unfair and upsetting. If she wore some sort of pushed-up truly obscene cleavage on the Senate floor, or, for that matter, a parka to an Auscwhitz memorial, I'd say go ahead and criticize! But this is nothing! Barely even a shadow on her chest! Let's hurl the criticisms at the viewpoints and behaviors of politicians - not the fashion choices.

Talking about cleavage, "necklines" and such IS talking about a body part. And it is unfair because it directs unfair (and unprovoked) attention to a public figure's sexuality when we should be focusing on real issues.

What a shame that this has become such a public debate.

Wow, nice cans Hillary. While I can appreciate your hot bod, I still won't vote for you or anyone else for that matter. Total MILF though, >:)~ >

IT IS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER IN DC... Give the woman a frickin' break. Anyone who has ever ventured into the city in July knows that having to wear a suit all day every day is simply painful at times. She throws a v-neck shirt on underneath her usual professional attire and now all of a sudden she's trying to turn you all on with her non-asexual fashion... get over yourselves America!!!!

We do not discuss the fashion of male candidates because apparently we realize that their policies and morals are what are important in the run for the presidency. With Senator Clinton, we have nothing but an obsession with how she looks. At the last Democratic debates hosted by CNN, the candidates were asked to look to their left and mentioned something they like and dislike about them -- what was said about Hilary??? HER PINK BLAZER.... GIVE ME A BREAK...

Now we see it again. She is a woman, and therefore all we care about is her hair, her fashion, her makeup --- and of course, her cleavage.

disgusted.

IT IS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER IN DC... Give the woman a frickin' break. Anyone who has ever ventured into the city in July knows that having to wear a suit all day every day is simply painful at times. She throws a v-neck shirt on underneath her usual professional attire and now all of a sudden she's trying to turn you all on with her non-asexual fashion... get over yourselves America!!!!

We do not discuss the fashion of male candidates because apparently we realize that their policies and morals are what are important in the run for the presidency. With Senator Clinton, we have nothing but an obsession with how she looks. At the last Democratic debates hosted by CNN, the candidates were asked to look to their left and mentioned something they like and dislike about them -- what was said about Hilary??? HER PINK BLAZER.... GIVE ME A BREAK...

Now we see it again. She is a woman, and therefore all we care about is her hair, her fashion, her makeup --- and of course, her cleavage.

disgusted.

IT IS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER IN DC... Give the woman a frickin' break. Anyone who has ever ventured into the city in July knows that having to wear a suit all day every day is simply painful at times. She throws a v-neck shirt on underneath her usual professional attire and now all of a sudden she's trying to turn you all on with her non-asexual fashion... get over yourselves America!!!!

We do not discuss the fashion of male candidates because apparently we realize that their policies and morals are what are important in the run for the presidency. With Senator Clinton, we have nothing but an obsession with how she looks. At the last Democratic debates hosted by CNN, the candidates were asked to look to their left and mentioned something they like and dislike about them -- what was said about Hilary??? HER PINK BLAZER.... GIVE ME A BREAK...

Now we see it again. She is a woman, and therefore all we care about is her hair, her fashion, her makeup --- and of course, her cleavage.

disgusted.

This post has nothing to do with cleavage, and everything to do with the issue of Hillary's jacket during the debate and the offensive comment by John Edwards.

A big, big, 'Thank You' to Cokie Roberts(ABC)and Andrea Mitchell (NBC)for wearing the same type jacket (and color) when tey appeared on the Sunday morning news shows today. Let's hope that the women in the Edwards' campaign, as well as those in other campaigns, explain the significance of this statement to their male candidates.

Thank you, Cokie and Andrea, for expressing in such a subtle fashion why male candidates DO NOT get to comment on Hillary's attire.

The Post must be embarrassed. The Times obtained her letters to Mr. Peavoy that outlined a change in her politics from Goldwater to McCarthy. Do you want to add salt to the wound? They obtained the lead from Bernstein's book. He quotes her from a letter to him and somebody asks their editor, "I wonder if he's got any more"? Undoubtedly the Post was too busy with its storm in a C-cup to look into the matter.

Mort Walker once said of Beetle Bailey, his lazy soldier, "Beetle Bailey is one of those soldiers who never become real soldiers. They resist this unnatural way of life every way they can."

Reading the Monica Lewinsky affair of Clinton way back when, I remember being reminded of Walker's analysis of his most beloved character Bailey. Perhaps politics has become such an unnatural way of life that when I see things like this in the news, I go, "Thank God he's not become a robot. It's still there, deep inside him." Then I feel I can probably TRUST this guy, that he won't do me any harm.

This little bit about Hillary Clinton's cleavage made me feel the same: "Thank God she's human," I reacted, "Of course she'd like to feel she's still appealing, at her age. What's wrong with that?"

To me, "I don't trust a man who doesn't drink" is the most memorable bit of wisdom from the classic Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. In a similar vein, I wouldn't trust a woman who staunchly refuses to show a bit of of her feminine assets. I like my politicians that way -- human in everyday personal matters, but grandiose in public affairs.

peterluzg,

Honey, your husband's obviously gay.

This is not about cleavage but professional attire irrespective of gender. She's worn neck plunging outfits at evening events without notice, which is more than appropriate, but for any Senator, man or woman, to speak of the floor of the Senate without appropriate business attire, it's going to raise eyebrows. If Biden or Obama, for instance, came clad in a tieless, short sleeve shirt, it would be noticed, but especially if they wore an open v-neck top.

Clinton plays the victim again! Isn't this always her trump card? When her husband betrays her and the dignity of their family, for the 100th time, it's the fault of the media and right-wing conspiracy--not her husband's or her bad choice to remain and defend him. When she votes to send young men and women to war to beef up her commander and chief creds', it's Bush's fault. "I'm just a woman; I'm easily misled." She wants to be taken seriously, but whenever she can blame a man for her own poor decisions, she plays that card. Now she wants to raise money off her breasts that she doesn't want anyone to focus on. Always having it both ways! I agree with her, no one wants to focus on HER old breasts, and I say that as a woman but a realist.

To nob210:

Speaking for myself, I have no problem over whether or not the President has ovaries or testicles (although having a female President DOES present some difficulty in dealing with some foreign governments (especially muslim).

What kind of GREAT experience does Eva Braun Rodham have, that exceeds that of any other candidate? Is a Senate term the same puaifying experience as a term as governor, or even Mayor of NYC?

What do you REALLY know about Eva Braun Rodham other than what is scripted for her? She rarely acts off script. SO DETERMINED is she to be President, that she has been acting the act for nearly 20 years. The way that she dealt with the Sperminator's philandering was calculated to benefit her eventual run for President.

One thing that has been abundantly clear about her, and POORLY concealed, is that she is ABSOLUTELY intolerant of opposing views, UNABLE to genuinely accept beliefs that are contrary to her neo-communist core beliefs. Do you think that she would show any genuine respect for GENUINE opposition to abortion or homosexual "mock marriage" by those who genuinely oppose same?

Although I found Bill Clinton to be a phoney, I can at least say that he either had NO CORE BELIEFS, other than to be liked, and to do what the majority of the public wanted. He even staed that "I will be whatever you want me to be." He was cunning and charming, but he wanted to be popular.

The vile Madame Defarge Rodham will do only as much as she has to do to achive her objectives, and to run the nation as her monarchy.

If you think that her REIGN would be anything but FASCIST RULE, you are sadly mistaken, and have been drinking the Clinton Kool Aid for too long.

I believe that Hillary Clinton will make a great president. She has the experience, skills, vision and values to make the country and the world a better place. I fully intend to vote for her.

The issue of her appearance has dogged her for decades, and she needs to take control of the issue or it might ruin her chances to win the presidency. I imagine that that is why her campaign sent out the fund-raising letter.

During her time as First Lady, Hillary's hairstyles were discussed repeatedly (and photos shown ad nauseum) with accompanying text implying that she showed a lack of moral fiber because she was inconsistent in her use of a hairband. Somehow, most US women can change their hairstyles regularly and not be thought hypocritical or fakely feminine when they do so.

Likewise, Hillary`s clothes are discussed ad nauseum. She tried to get around the problem in her Senate campaign by wearing a black pantsuit, but that was criticized as being too butch.

Given the high level of sexism in our society, our fixation on titillating topics, and people's desire to smear the frontrunner, she has to do something to take control of the issue. What I think her campaign is trying to do is make us think about how wrong it is to focus on something other than her qualifications just because she is a woman.

Just read through these comments. Dozens of them are denigrating to women. The attitude of many of the commenters is that any woman of Hillary's age is sexually undesirable and so is a joke. The attitude of many is that Hillary is horrible because she is not feminine enough. It is time that women get past this sexist stereotyping that holds us back.

Finally, I cannot detect any cleavage in the photo accompanying the original article.

Oh my god, we have a huge problem. What we see at the picture is called a 'low neckline', that's ridiculous. One must be somewhat of uptight to think so! Just relax guys!

yeah, and if a male had on a lowcut shirt with his chest hairs exposed no one would comment. please get over yourself "feminists." its clear that either Ms. Clinton is a male hater or courts male haters which is why she'll never get my support.

why don't we talk about your cleavage nicky???

what do you want to tellus about your lack of special effects...

I know that you strive for honesty in all of your presentations...

how do you feel about your honestly applying for a position that you are qualified for?

.

Everything Hillary Clinton does is premeditated, included teasing her audience with cleavage and then pretending it not allowed to be noticed, especially by men. Thus she can appeal to women's modesty and indignant vote. It didn't take the bait since she is not sexy enough to look below her neckline. But why won't anyone talk about Nancy Pelosi's enhancements?

it appears to me,

that there is a deep fear of all things Hillary and Bill

in INSIDER WASHINGTON

and the REPUBLICAN CON'sPiracy

what is that about???

lack of content???

focusing on character assassination points to a weakness

in programme'

wouldn't you say?

there are no content to any of the anti hillary posts' except

APPEAL_TO_EMOTION which is approximately equal to LYING

what's that about?

wanna chat about it? I would like to have a few minutes of kick the dawg...any dawgs out there???

.

looks like howie

and his fellow repukelicans...

are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC

while they continue robbing the store.

a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called

"the enemy,"

and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???

let's talk about your cleavage howie...

.

looks like howie

and his fellow repukelicans...

are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC

while they continue robbing the store.

a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called

"the enemy,"

and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???

let's talk about your cleavage howie...

.

looks like howie

and his fellow repukelicans...

are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC

while they continue robbing the store.

a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called

"the enemy,"

and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???

let's talk about your cleavage howie...

.

looks like howie

and his fellow repukelicans...

are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC

while they continue robbing the store.

a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called

"the enemy,"

and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???

let's talk about your cleavage howie...

.

looks like howie

and his fellow repukelicans...

are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC

while they continue robbing the store.

a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called

"the enemy,"

and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???

let's talk about your cleavage howie...

.

So much idiocy, so little space in the Washington Post.

For sex negative people who don't support full equality for all genders, the column will be offensive and should be offensive because every waking hour of every waking day, these bigots like Hillary Clinton are offensive.

Talking about "colder than a witch's tit?" You MUST be speaking of Hillary "Eva Braun" Rodham, aka Madame Defarge Clinton.

While certainly, arsenic-laced snake venom must run free in her putrified mammaries, the REAL news story is not this ridiculous discussion of skin, but RATHER of exposing this neo-Fascist for who she is---free of her spinmeisters, coaches, scripts and handlers.

It is indeed a shame that the people of New York State did not show the wisdom to soundly defeat this toxic disease, when she ran for Senate. It is a greater shame that the New York Republican Party did not expose this progresso-fascist for who she is, and the threat she represents. The Republicans did fail to run a strong candidate against this disease, and save the nation for the "epidemic."

Now the nation is faced with Empress Hillary, and her quest for a fascist-controlled state, of which she has dreamed since childhood.

Hopefully, people who appreciate the history and purpose of the United States will deny this deranged narcissist of her goal, and relegate her to a whor*house, where she may don stilleto heels, and beat other deranged individuals into submission.

Maybe in a whor*house setting her cottage cheese cleavage might be more appreciated.

I choose to see her as the sham that she is---and always has been. I value my nation too much to allow this toxic virus into the bloodstream of America.

I can nearly say "Anyone BUT Hillary in 2008"

Talking about "colder than a witch's tit?" You MUST be speaking of Hillary "Eva Braun" Rodham, aka Madame Defarge Clinton.

While certainly, arsenic-laced snake venom must run free in her putrified mammaries, the REAL news story is not this ridiculous discussion of skin, but RATHER of exposing this neo-Fascist for who she is---free of her spinmeisters, coaches, scripts and handlers.

It is indeed a shame that the people of New York State did not show the wisdom to soundly defeat this toxic disease, when she ran for Senate. It is a greater shame that the New York Republican Party did not expose this progresso-fascist for who she is, and the threat she represents. The Republicans did fail to run a strong candidate against this disease, and save the nation for the "epidemic."

Now the nation is faced with Empress Hillary, and her quest for a fascist-controlled state, of which she has dreamed since childhood.

Hopefully, people who appreciate the history and purpose of the United States will deny this deranged narcissist of her goal, and relegate her to a whor*house, where she may don stilleto heels, and beat other deranged individuals into submission.

Maybe in a whor*house setting her cottage cheese cleavage might be more appreciated.

I choose to see her as the sham that she is---and always has been. I value my nation too much to allow this toxic virus into the bloodstream of America.

I can nearly say "Anyone BUT Hillary in 2008"

Talking about "colder than a witch's tit?" You MUST be speaking of Hillary "Eva Braun" Rodham, aka Madame Defarge Clinton.

While certainly, arsenic-laced snake venom must run free in her putrified mammaries, the REAL news story is not this ridiculous discussion of skin, but RATHER of exposing this neo-Fascist for who she is---free of her spinmeisters, coaches, scripts and handlers.

It is indeed a shame that the people of New York State did not show the wisdom to soundly defeat this toxic disease, when she ran for Senate. It is a greater shame that the New York Republican Party did not expose this progresso-fascist for who she is, and the threat she represents. The Republicans did fail to run a strong candidate against this disease, and save the nation for the "epidemic."

Now the nation is faced with Empress Hillary, and her quest for a fascist-controlled state, of which she has dreamed since childhood.

Hopefully, people who appreciate the history and purpose of the United States will deny this deranged narcissist of her goal, and relegate her to a whor*house, where she may don stilleto heels, and beat other deranged individuals into submission.

Maybe in a whor*house setting her cottage cheese cleavage might be more appreciated.

I choose to see her as the sham that she is---and always has been. I value my nation too much to allow this toxic virus into the bloodstream of America.

I can nearly say "Anyone BUT Hillary in 2008"

The hilarity of this articles' response from the Clinton camp is another testament of how ignorant they are. A minor fashion criticism was catapulted into the political stratosphere due to a "spitful" remark in print. How pathetic is Hillary's campaign?

They're simply pre-empting any comments on her HUGE hips.

That droopy $h1t ain't cleavage, yo. Those are bags from under her eyes that went south. Now, Jeri Thompson, her husband may be a winger wannabe, but SHE got the GOODS.

It has been a pleasure watching women as I have my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

Watching women has been a pleasure of mine my entire life. Hillary Clinton, what cleavage?

How predictable. The article was likely a shill and the clinton "overreacted" because she has been critisized as not "woman" enough. What a cheezy way to show she is in touch with woman's issues than to beat up on somebody talking about "cleavage".

How predictable. The article was likely a shill and the clinton "overreacted" because she has been critisized as not "woman" enough. What a cheezy way to show she is in touch with woman's issues than to beat up on somebody talking about "cleavage".

looks like howie

and his fellow repukelicans...

are looking for a new issue to distract the

AMERICAN PUBLIC

while they continue robbing the store.

a 1,000,000 [a million] dead civilians and a population villified for defending itself being called

"the enemy,"

and you drag up a non issue like homophobia, or cleavage, or personal sexuality???

let's talk about your cleavage howie...

.

Good heavens! Is Ann Lewis still alive: she of the strange speech impediment and tortured syntax? She's talking about Ms. Clinton's cleavage; unseemly for someone who must be close to 90 years old! :)

Looking at Ms. Clinton's picture, I would suggests that, ugly as it may be, the cleavage is not important, but the face is. She needs to take a page out of John Kerry's notebook and go for Botox.

Good heavens! Is Ann Lewis still alive: she of the strange speech impediment and tortured syntax? She's talking about Ms. Clinton's cleavage; unseemly for someone who must be close to 90 years old! :)

Looking at Ms. Clinton's picture, I would suggests that, ugly as it may be, the cleavage is not important, but the face is. She needs to take a page out of John Kerry's notebook and go for Botox.

Good heavens! Is Ann Lewis still alive: she of the strange speech impediment and tortured syntax? She's talking about Ms. Clinton's cleavage; unseemly for someone who must be close to 90 years old! :)

Looking at Ms. Clinton's picture, I would suggests that, ugly as it may be, the cleavage is not important, but the face is. She needs to take a page out of John Kerry's notebook and go for Botox.

I'm not interested in Hillary's boobs. I'm much more concerned about the boobs who are currently in charge at the White House. The real "cleavage" here apears to be the gap between reality and the Washington Post's ability to report on it.

I expect nothing more than insipid drivel from Robin Givhan, but Howie Kurtz's need to regurgitate it is disappointing.

Hillary's only cleavage is on the other end! I think the photo was manipulated to remove the hair and apply the fake cleavage!

This protest by the Clinton campaign is just slightly less choreographed than the Bill and Hillary dancing on the beach in their swim suits stunt. Then, as now, the common thread is that no one knew about the alleged breech of privacy until the Clintons told us about it, getting about a week's worth of the news cycle in free media.

This protest by the Clinton campaign is just slightly less choreographed than the Bill and Hillary dancing on the beach in their swim suits stunt. Then, as now, the common thread is that no one knew about the alleged breech of privacy until the Clintons told us about it, getting about a week's worth of the news cycle in free media.

This is pretty funny! Talking about a 60 year old woman cleavage. What is next? MoveOn.org and AClU demand Hugh Heffner and PlayBoy to have a special edition spread of Hillary and Pelosi.

The country will finally have an excuse to be blind. The can gouge there eyes out.

V.R.

Bob

The death of newspapers can't come fast enough.

Jeeze,

This is the same woman who received a summons for the Rose Law Firm billing records,consciously ignored the subpoena, and the when "she decided" the prosecutor should have them, she "found em on a desk in the White House" Two years later!
Oh my?

When her philandering husband, er,ah, President Clinton, was having assignations with "that woman" Ms.Lewinsky,in the Oval Office,according to Mrs. Clinton,Her husband was the "Victim of a vast right wing conspiracy"

Think carefully when casting your vote in the coming election?

Never mind the tired cleavage of a woman in her fifties,keep your eyes on all the Senators other moves ?

I just have to laugh. The only time women are offended about this kind of thing is when it is convenient for them. Obviously the writer needed something to write about for the job continuation plan and this is the garbage that came out of that need. How does talking about Hillary offend all women. LMAO! I am not buying that baloney. The story is in itself ridiculous, worthless, diatribe akin to something you would expect from a hollywood paparazi rag...but degrading to all women? Please.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Mr. Rojahn (with all due respect), my point is that the body parts of the most defenseless among us (helpless babies) never seemed to bother Ms. Lewis. She was well paid by those who dismember them. Now she is well-paid by Hillary. Of course, you can see adult body parts on cable. But, those who profit on the dismemberment of babies would rather us not be confronted with (and perhaps have to ponder) the babies body parts, which are also all too real. Does this trouble you?

In fact, Givhan's article was quite brain-dead for not realizing that Hillary's new-found cleavage was a direct response from that completely political animal to Elizabeth's Edwards' statement that she is trying to be a man.

Note very well how Camp Hillary has immediately turned this around to make their saint look like a martyr - now the big bad media is playing dirty with her. Understand that _everything_ Hillary does has political ends, and that she has amassed a ruthless machine to get her to her goal - total power.

Just great; another example of how little ATTENTION AMERICANS IN GENERAL AND THE MEDIA IN PARTICULAR pay to the real issues. This is precisely why Americans elect losers to exploit Congress and the executive branch for their own purposes.

The media? They have their own sweet agenda about how much integrity must be sacrificed to continue to enjoy the crumbs thrown them from the halls of Washingtonj power.

The American people get exactly what they deserve!! Small minded, jingoistic, sexually-repressed, single-issue automatons. Go watch some premium channel TV where you can see some real body parts.

The irony here is that Ann Lewis of all people is complaining about a discussion of "body parts". Does anybody remember what she did before she joined the Clinton team? She was Vice-President for Public Policy of Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the world. A WaPo columnist mentioning Hillary's cleavage may not have much to do with "body parts". But obviously Lewis still has other less fortunate people's "body parts - the babies - on the brain...

Reminisce about the Clinton occupation of the White House. I think of a photo of Hillary ascending the stairs to Air Force One. At least I think that's where she was going, since she blocked out the plane. If Clinton becomes President, will the furniture and other items be returned to the White House? This is silly. Next thing you know, if Clinton decides to wear skirts or dresses, the press, with their propensity for error, will speculate whether Hillary had an accident in her pantyhose or if indeed those really are her ankles.

I think Hillary wore the low neckline in a attempt to put a end to the "Man" image she has.

Uh wow, there is nothing to see there in that photo... Talk about much ado about nothing!

http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

Oh, and whats next?? "Hillary's bowel movement's bigger than Edwards" Exclusive!!!

There is nothing more disturbing than the talk of Clinton's cleavage. Media has hit rock bottom.

The Hillary Clinton unit is a sexless cyborg. Cleavage on the unit is an optional feature that was purchased at the time of construction. Any titillation created by the unit's purely coincidental deployment of same should be considered either pathetic or disturbing.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

I disagree with those calling this article trash, tabloid or otherwise describing it as devoid of any true journalistic value. I think it is very revealing (no pun intended, ok maybe a little).

It simply reminds us how politicians try to manipulate us through something as simple as their dress. Not everybody is easily swayed by the sound bites without substance... some people are more visual than auditory. Sure. some people are saying "whatever, let's talk about what really matters (bravo)"... but there are many out there that are too easily influenced by these things. Otherwise the candidates wouldn't waste their money on image consultants in an attempt to dress in a way that polls well. Is it a coincidence that Mr. Clinton dresses like its casual Friday when campaigning with Mrs. Clinton? He certainly wouldn't want to look more presidential than her right? He already had his eight years. Believe me, this image thing works with more than a few people.

I agree with the Pulitzer Prize winning reporters' assertion that showing cleavage (especially on the Senate floor) is provocative. It could provoke good feelings or bad, but it's provocative none-the-less. In my humble opinion, it's not appropriate to show cleavage on the Senate floor or any professional environment. If she wants to be treated seriously, she should dress seriously (conservatively) and not like she's heading to a singles bar after work.

You won't see an article about some male candidate speaking on the Senate floor in an open dress shirt showing six inches of chest and a hint of pectorals (spandex and bulges- do we need to go that far to make a point?) because they know better than that (no image consultant would go near the dance fever look). Shorts at the beach... ok that's probably appropriate in that situation.

Perhaps the campaign lashed out to protect a poor recommendation by some consultant that thinks we don't know Senator Clinton is woman. Duh... we realize the significance of that fact, thank you very much. I'm glad the field is so diverse (finally). You don't have to dress Senator Obama in a dashiki so that we know he is African-American (seriously... don't).

Oh, and before I get flamed as being sexist or something... do we have to call each other idiots, flaming liberals, chauvinists, stupid, feminists and other such labels in a response to an article about a neckline? Relax...

Perhaps her cheek lifts slipped downward. I wonder what Tina Brown thinks when she looks at the pictures of Hillary? Meow, meow!

Well heres another reason to not read the press about this campaign. Oh really Obama is a flaming lib and so is Hillary. She and her hubby have become very rich in the last few years. There are stupid people out there that will pay him to speak for big bucks and more stupid people in New York that elected her to the Senate. Of course this is all George Bushs fault (somehow)I wish there was a way to build a shield around both of these people so that every time they made a speech or comment that for some unknown reason they would not be heard.

Great fund raising gimmick! Can't say they aren't on the ball in that department. They want their cake and to eat it too. However, her neckline might not be as low as it looks...at least in the picture that shows at the top of this column...to my eyes at least where you might see the shadow of cleavage you just see a kind of blurry reflection which makes me wonder if it is not a trick of the dressmaking trade called ta...dah...are you ready for this???nylon net...if so a lot of fuss over nylon net.LOL

So you're goimg to blame Republican's for investigating some of the most proven corrupt people this country has ever seen? Right Timaay? Blame Repubican's for the corrupt Clinton's? Boy that makes sense. All we hope and pray for as Republicans is that you moron liberals nominate her! she will lose like your loser McGovern did in a landslide you can take that to the bank!

The only thing that is making me more sick than her cleavage is the thought of the billions of dollars that will be wasted on corruption investigations that would be looking into her illegal contributions from the lobbyists.

The Republicans will make a 4 year meal of the Clintons, again.

Do we really need this as a country?

Don't we, {{{ already }}}, have enough trouble on our hands to sort out?

~ Timmaaay!!!

I love how you liberals always spew doom and gloom for you disgraceful moron's can never be happy about anything. This is why you support cut & run do nothing hate americal politicians like Hillary who has done nothing as a Senator for New York. Yet you think she can be a good President like her impeached husband BJ Lewinskey. You liberals are the Ward Churchill's of the world and I thank God every day you are the minority in our great country!

and sadly this useless debate highlights whats actually wrong here. Gormless candidates. Cleavage? Really....ho hum. Where are the leaders? Who are these fools? How the heck do I use my vote responsibly?
Why do we end up choosing between 2 morons? why is the economy in the toilet? I just looked at the most likely thing to be made in America - oops - its made in China. I just saw an article about 4 people dying in a helicopter crash in Arizona - the ghoul enticing live video of a non event has cost 4 people their lives. What? Welcome to America.

Come on people, stir up the real candidates here, sheesh can you imagine having to choose between Bush and Gore again? Of the how many million people here, these are our leading lights? Paleeze.

Its interesting how these battery bred politicians have 'knowledge' about our real issues. Silver spoon fed, crammed full of obsolete knowledge from an expensive college. When they do go out, they have an entourage of people. 'Hey, Mr Secutity, get this person off me she's only 12 and is asking questions I can't answer'

Oh and is my bra strap showing?

Does anyone actually think that Hillary Clinton does ANYTHING without knowing exactly what she is doing??? Hillary Clinton knew her cleavage was showing thats why she did it. IT WAS A TEST to see how it would play with America!!! If she could get some men in America to vote for her because she flashes a little skin, then she'll do it! She is a calculating woman and she definately knows what she is doing. The Clintons have a MACHINE out there polling all of America asking them opinion after opinion. Bill Clinton made most of his decisions off of poll results. He wanted to know how a decision would resonate with Americans before he made it. I know this for a fact! Hillary knew what she was doing, it BACKFIRED and now she is claiming she had no idea what was going on, and "who can prove she is lying???" SHREWED ISN'T SHE?!?!?

Go ahead you stupid liberals vote for this moving our great country forward.

Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.

? Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.

? Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.

? Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.

? First president sued for sexual harassment.

? First president accused of rape.

? First president to be held in contempt of court.

? First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.

? First first lady to come under criminal investigation.

? Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.

? Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.

? Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.

? Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.

? Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.

? Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.

? Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.

? Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.

? Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.

? Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.

? Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.

Believe it or not, this exhaustive list omits even lengthier lists - on public record - of crimes investigated, public officials and reporters intimidated, threatened and muzzled, and the raft of dead people associated with the Clintons who died by guns, knives, alleged suicides, etc. See http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html and http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.

Apparently, the Clinton Scandal Squad enforcers believed that nothing was more important than protecting the co-presidents from realizing their relentlessly leftwing agenda - this in spite of the fact that by 1998 under the Clinton co-presidency, the GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, and 1,254 seats in state legislatures, and that during their tenure, 439 (out of 1,998 Democrats) became Republicans as opposed to 3 Republicans who became Democrats.

Hillary's...Um...Character

Throughout her scandal-contaminated eight years in the White House, Hillary - having refined her skills in deflection, dissimulation and denial - became comfortably entrenched in her self-created briar patch. With increasing audacity and a confidence borne of "beating the system," she also displayed behavior that didn't quite rise to the level of scandal but certainly occupied other, rather lowly, categories:

Megalomania: Hillary refused to acknowledge - publicly or in print - the woman who in essence wrote her 1996 book, "It Takes a Village."

Lying: Hillary gave false testimony about her co-defendant Ira Magaziner, who helped her conduct secret meetings about her failed plan to socialize U.S. medicine.

Obstruction of Justice: the "smartest woman in the world" couldn't remember where she placed the Rose law firm billing records that were subpoenaed in 1994, until they magically reappeared two years later in the White House library.

Tastelessness: In 1999, after the wife of terrorist Yasir Arafat told the co-president that Israel was deliberately poisoning Palestinians, Hillary saw fit to embrace her. And that is not to omit what Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin called her "rancid race baiting" remarks at a recent Martin Luther King Jr. celebration about Republicans running "the House" like a "plantation." Significantly, she omitted mention of the holiday that Arkansans celebrated during her years in the state house that honored Dr. King while at the same time honoring Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general who fought to allow the South to keep blacks enslaved.

Selective Amnesia: In her 2004 book, "Living History," Hillary strangely omitted mention of her own and her husband's key associates, men with whom she took numerous photographs and who donated millions of dollars to her husband's campaigns, going back to their Arkansas days. These include - among dozens of other shady characters and outright criminals - Moctar Riady, the Indonesian billionaire owner of the Lippo banking company (the partner of which is the Chinese communist government and reputedly a front for Chinese espionage), and his son James, who eventually pleaded guilty to campaign violations.

Contempt for Women: The world got its first glimpse of Hillary's shabby character when she was co-running for the co-presidency in 1992 and - with what turned out to be supreme irony - told Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" that she "wouldn't be some 'stand by your man' woman like [country-music icon] Tammy Wynette."

Her low regard for women continued through the 1990s as the White House went after many but certainly not all of the president's women - Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen - by auditing their tax returns, and, in 1997, leaking Paula Jones' confidential tax returns to the press.

According to Candace E. Jackson in her book, "The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine," Hillary "was right there in the inner circle taking a lead in giving these women zero credibility, in attacking them in public and through the press and in participating in all of these scare tactics, like hiring private investigators to threaten them and follow them...[she] is either as misogynistic as her husband or she is simply willing to conspire to mistreat women if that's what it takes to preserve their political careers."

In "Hillaryland," Ryan Lizza writes in TheNewRepublicOnline, the New York senator has many Kool-Aid-drinking "crawl-across-broken-glass-for-Hillary" types [and] a "vast political empire based in Washington and New York...she has made every effort to change her image from far-left liberal by enacting legislation with Republicans...the more right-wing the co-sponsor, the better; extra points for anyone involved with her husband's impeachment."

But will her extreme makeover work? According to columnist Jonah Goldberg, Hillary's recent return of a campaign contribution from Wal-Mart, on whose board she sat from 1986 until 1992, "is a perfect illustration not merely of her hypocrisy but of the quicksand she is now in. She thinks it's a winning message to say she's too good for Wal-Mart's money but not Hollywood's. That's not exactly red-state savvy."

"The amazing thing about [Hillary]," Goldberg says, "is that she's so unappealing. Even liberals don't like what they see...at every turn, [her] Zelig-like public persona has been a fabrication - either by her fans, her enemies or herself..."

All of which may explain a recent CNN-Gallup poll in which 51 percent of respondents said they definitely would "not vote" for Hillary in a presidential race.

Indeed, according to an online conservative site, even "media liberals are starting to jump ship" on Hillary, with "one CNN veteran [Ken Bode] calling her a `certain loser,' a Newsweek scribe [Jonathan Alter] warning that she'll take Democrats on a `kamikaze' mission in 2008," and arch-leftist Maureen Dowd of the Clinton-fawning New York Times batting her away as one would an irritating gnat.

Hillary's...Um...Style

Equally difficult to overcome, however, are unfortunate personality traits that Hillary has none-too-convincingly tried to conceal from the public. While decades have passed since she was labeled "Sister Frigidaire" in her high school newspaper, her image of being cold, robotic and inaccessible continues to this day.

Some critics have called her angry, impatient, given to temper outbursts, calculating, opportunistic, and a chronic victim, but Tim Cavanaugh of www.reason.com said, "Plainly put, it's her personality... She still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likeability."

Indeed, it's difficult to like someone who constantly patronizes her audiences, speaking ever so slowly so that the stupid masses will "get" what the smartest woman in the world is saying. Or when she uses her alienating alternative oratorical style, which consists solely of the strident, the screechy and the preachy.

Expanding on the Zelig multiple-personality comparison, author and political commentator Kate O'Beirne calls Hillary a "skilled poseur," enumerating the ways in which she takes positions "entirely at odds with the words she proclaims from the housetops." Not the least being her advocacy for the little guy, when in fact Hillary is the second-biggest spender in the Senate after New Jersey's Sen. Jon Corzine.

Mrs. O'Beirne cites Hillary's "Liberal Quotient" from the Americans for Democratic Action, which was 95 last year, tied with far-left Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Durbin, and her lifetime ADA rating of 95, which outscores both Senators Ted Kennedy (89.16) and John Kerry (88.7). NARAL scored her a perfect 100 percent since her election to the senate, and the National Rifle Association gave her the grade of "F."

Although Hillary would like the public to believe that she is a born-again hawk when it comes to the military, O'Beirne reports that the conservative American Security Council gave her "a measly 20 percent on national-security issues" and states that "her ersatz hawkishness is one of tepid gestures and hollow speechifying."

Another example of her counterfeit hawkishness was demonstrated when she denounced the recent election of the terrorist group Hamas in Palestinian parliamentary elections, which led terrorism expert Steven Emerson to remind the public that, while co-president, Hillary met repeatedly with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations," including, among many others, the militant Islamic Relief Association and The American Muslim Council, whose followers carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombings."

"A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced," said Mr. Emerson, "shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

Today, John Spencer, the former Mayor of Yonkers, NY, and a Vietnam combat veteran who will challenge Hillary in the November senate race (www.joinspencer.com) has accused the smartest woman in the world of accepting money from wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei, who are both associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-Iranian-regime.

"Senator Clinton voted against the very munitions necessary to avoid a nuclear confrontation with Iran," Mr. Spencer said, "while at the same time accepting money from supporters of the Iranian mullahs...she lacks the credibility to keep New York safe and she should return this tainted money."

Then there is Hillary's paranoid streak, as evidenced, O'Beirne states, by "her modus operandi [which] has always been to rally troops against the enemy - whether the Clintons' Arkansas enemies, the Gingrich forces in the House, Ken Starr and `the vast right-wing conspiracy,' George W. Bush and his band of ideologues, or whoever will bear the Republican mantle in 2008."

A Worm Under Every Rock

No matter where you look, Hillary's name is associated with scandal. For one thing, she has acknowledged accepting contributions from the influence peddling, recently indicted, uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

There is also, according to Carl Limbacher at NewsMax.com, the Clinton campaign-finance scandal of the late 1990s, where millions of dollars of illegal Chinese campaign cash found its way into Democratic Party and Clinton legal defense fund coffers. Worse, American missile- guidance technology was given to Beijing. This outrage may be blamed on the senator's husband, but that won't wash for the "two for the price of one" Scandal Queen.

That is not to omit the recently released 400-page Barrett Report. In 1995, while Independent Counsel David Barrett was investigating the president's Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros for various crimes, he discovered that the president had used the Internal Revenue Service (headed by Hillary's college friend, Margaret Milner Richardson), the Justice Department (headed by Clinton puppet Janet Reno), and the White House (headed by co-presidents Bill and Hillary) to audit political enemies, particularly the women who had accused the president of sexual harassment and even rape.

Clintonista Democrats have tried for 10 years to have the parts of the Barrett Report that dealt with these matters redacted, and they succeeded. But Republican Senators Charles Grassley, Chairman of the House Finance Committee, and James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have both stated publicly that they are determined to get the entire report released.

The redacted portions must be pretty explosive because as columnist Tony Snow has noted, the "report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects."

The Nemesis Who Won't Go Away

Increasingly, Hillary and company have projected onto Republicans the "the culture of corruption" mantra and, onto President Bush, the "I" word - impeachment. This is to deflect attention away from Hillary's latest scandal, one in which she will undoubtedly deny everything to escape accountability or even criminal indictment.

In short, Hillary's current nemesis, Peter Paul - the largest single campaign contributor to her 2000 Senatorial campaign - has filed a suit against her and President Clinton - among many others.

According to Mr. Paul, the suit is "for committing a series of business frauds against me that involved me spending more than $1.2 million for Hillary's Senate campaign; having a Clinton front man go into business with my Japanese investor partner, causing the collapse of my public company; and filing fraudulent reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the amount of nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars."

Today, all of the many codefendants in the case - except Hillary - have exhausted their appeals and are now poised for discovery and trial, the schedule for which will be set by the court after a hearing on Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion in Los Angeles in March.

In preparation for her unchallenged role as America's Scandal Queen, Hillary navigated the shoals of Arkansas politics for 12 years as the then-governor's wife - years that included scandals of her own, among them:

? A $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment.

• The Castle Grande real estate scam.

• Her role as attorney for the Rose law firm in what would become the endlessly controversial-cum-criminal Whitewater affair that would follow her to the White House.

• The serial philandering of her husband, which cast her - depending on one's viewpoint - as a clench-jawed stoic, a perpetual victim, or a willing collaborator.

According to veteran journalist Richard Poe: "During Bill Clinton's tenure as attorney general and then governor of Arkansas, the state became a veritable Dixie Casablanca, a hotbed of global intrigue, in which shady operators ranging from Columbian drug lords and BCCI money launderers to Chinese intelligence agents took part." And there, in the thick of it, was Clinton's "stand by your man's" wife, Hillary.

Chicago-born Hillary - who by way of education, career, marriage and circumstance had already migrated to Wellesley, New Haven, Washington D.C., and Little Rock - had learned a lot in "The Natural State," specifically how to supernaturally evade responsibility, deny accountability, and dodge law enforcement, all the perfect preparation for her lengthy stay in White House - at the lofty address she now wants to reoccupy.

Don't Throw Me in That Briar Patch!

By the time she moved into the White House in 1993, Hillary was so accustomed to - and comfortable with - her husband's and her own self-created scandals that living a straight-and-narrow, law-abiding life appeared to be alien to her.

Like Brer Rabbit, Hillary practically begged for scandal. To recount the Joel Chandler Harris classic, Brer Rabbit was despised by Brer Fox, who decided to teach a lesson to the uppity rabbit. He created a tar baby and, sure enough, Brer Rabbit struck up a conversation with the sticky statue, but to no avail. Frustrated, he punched the baby and his paw got stuck in the tar. Infuriated, he struck him again and his other paw got stuck. Then he kicked the tar baby with both feet and butted it with his head and they too got stuck.

Finally, Brer Fox appeared to taunt his captive. "I'm going to barbecue you today, for sure."

"I don't care what you do with me, roast me," Brer Rabbit said. "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch." Then Brer Fox threatened to hang the critter, drown him or skin him. But those horrible prospects didn't daunt Brer Rabbit. "Snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots," he pleaded with his antagonist, "but please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in that briar patch!

Finally Brer Fox decided to do the worst of all possible things: hurl Brer Rabbit in the briar patch. In no time, the fox saw Brer Rabbit sitting on a chinquapin log combing the tar pitch out of his hair. "Born and bred in the briar patch," Brer Rabbit gleefully called out to the fox. "It's my favorite place in the whole world!"

An Expert at Scandal

Unlike Brer Rabbit, Hillary wasn't born and bred in the world of political scandal - far from it. In fact her family were Republicans and young Hillary supported the1964 presidential bid of Barry Goldwater, the archconservative senator from Arizona. Unphased by his loss, she continued her conservative ways by becoming the president of the Wellesley College chapter of College Republicans.

But with her exposure at Wellesley to the radical leftist Saul Alinsky and her subsequent introduction to Yale Law School's draft-dodging leftist Bill Clinton, the die was cast for her hate-America's-military-intelligence-defense establishment. To the smartest woman in the world and her then-boyfriend, the path to changing what they hated was clear: Get power and hold onto it no matter what it takes!

What it took in Arkansas was first learning and then becoming a scandal expert. Within months of taking up residence in the White House, Hillary put her expertise to work.

In May 1993, the co-president was accused of having a central hand in firing several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office, the better to give the pricey travel business to her Hollywood pals, Linda Bloodworth Thomason and Harry Thomason. In true scandal-mode form, Hillary denied everything and when Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray investigated Travelgate, he concluded that there was substantial evidence that involved Hillary but not enough to warrant an indictment.

A couple of months later, in July 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster was said to have committed suicide, although the case for his murder has been made persuasively by, among others, Christopher Ruddy, in his 1993 book, "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation."

But the case didn't end there. In 1996, Hillary was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster's office on the night of his death. Hillary denied everything, once again proving her adeptness in the scandal briar patch.

In June 1996, White House security head Craig Livingstone, a political operative and former bouncer, illegally obtained over 700 FBI files of mostly White House personnel from former Republican administrations. Hillary was accused of requesting the files and, in fact, hiring Mr. Livingstone, but she denied everything to yet another Independent Counsel, and Filegate became one more notch in her briar patch scandal belt.

Ultimately, her co-presidency brought about the fall of more elected and appointed members of her regime, as well as "friends" who met untimely deaths, were indicted, pleaded the fifth, fled the country, and were imprisoned, than in any administration in American history.

Staggering Numbers

Keeping in mind that Hillary - in her own "two for the price of one" pronouncement - told the nation that she would be sharing the presidency with her husband, it would beg the imaginations of even her most fervent acolytes that the tsunami of scandals that inundated the Clinton tenure somehow escaped either the notice or personal involvement of Hillary herself.

To see the shocking Scandal Index of the Clinton years, as compiled by the liberal Progressive Review (http://prorev.com) is to appreciate the Clinton's 24/7/365 belief that any progress in their leftist domestic and foreign affairs agenda could only be realized through the most nefarious activity - much of which fit neatly into the criminal category. Under the listing of "Records Set'" by the Clinton administration (read: co-presidency), Progressive Review cites the following, of which I will only list a sampling:

Robin must love Hillary because anything that takes our attention off Ms. Clinton's anti-American and western civilization destructive views and proposals serves her campaign.
Whatever you look at, please, just don't look for her name on the ballot.

CAN FEMINISTS READ???
CAN FEMINISTS REASON???
DO FEMINISTS UNDERSTAND THAT 1 PLUS 1 EQUALS 2???

HILLARY LOVED THE ARTICLE.

ROBIN LOVES HILLARY AND DID HER A FAVOR BY WRITING THIS COLUMN.

ROBIN IS A FASHION WRITER AND WROTE THAT HILLARY WAS FEMININE WHEN HILLARY NEEDED THAT OPINION WRITTEN ABOUT HER.

HILLARY IS HAVING REPRINTS MADE!!!!!

The Clinton's are the most corrupt and traiterous people on this earth! Hillary will be defeated in a landslide because 52% of American's said they will not vote for this evil woman! What has she accomplished as a Senator for New York? Name one piece of legislation she has sponsored?

Clintons sell possibly troublesome stock 2 hours, 7 minutes ago Hoping to avoid any possible conflict of interest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, the former president, liquidated a blind trust valued at $5 million to $25 million in April after learning that it included such investments as oil and drug companies and military contractors, her presidential campaign confirmed. "As a presidential candidate, Senator Clinton was required to make her assets public. As a result, she had to dissolve her blind trust," Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser, said late Thursday. "Upon its dissolution, she and the president chose...

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions. The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact. ....Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were Yale University, where both attended law school;...




Does the media have any backbone to question Hillary about her latest scandal from her 2000 Senate campaign that still is unresolved? Haven't you heard about it? It's only the largest campaign finance fraud in U.S. history which Hillary seems to have threatened the media from talking about. While Hillary has started her "Conversation with America Tour", no one in the media has dared to bring up her involvement in this ongoing case. She has been given a free pass by both the media, and the Senate Ethics committee that has refused to even hear this case. So much for...

Some have mentioned the 9-11 commission. The 9-11 commission was a total waste of our tax money and time. Didn't Jamie Gorelick sit on the commission instead of being asked to testify about the memo (signed by Bill Clinton) to seperate the C.I.A and F.B.I. As far as I know she never denied it and the memo still circulates the web.I guess it works like John Kerry and the Viet nam story,,"Well I never witnessed any crimes." Get some real news. Who cares if Hillary Clinton shows her old wares and who would look?
vincefosterlives has it right.

Robin:

Your writing is one of the rare treats that has me coming back to the Post multiple times a day. I'm "old school" and I appreciate the work of editors, so I'm a little confused that the Clinton campaign came after you rather than the laundry list of uncontrolled bloggers. This is a fundraising ploy by the campaign that makes me re-think my support of Clinton.

Short comment to the Clinton campaign and the Post, I got your back Robin.

What about the economy, what about health care, what about the wars, what about the homeless, what about the housing market, and oh yea, what about JOBS IN AMERICA that pay enough to pay a mortgage and provide medical benefits.

That is the true "cleavage" that we should be looking at. No one seems to want to discuss the elephant in the middle of the room.

What about free college educuation for all American Citizens. What about building hospitals and more schools and paying teachers 100k per year with a REAL pension with full medical benfeits, what about tripling the pay for our soldiers. What about stopping illegal immigration?

What about the pollution? What about banning diesel fuel and the tons of carcinagons that pour out of diesel cars and trucks every day?

What about polluted water?

What about global warming?

What about our constitution being trampled
on by the current administration?

What about adding more lanes to more of the freeways? What about setting a gas mileage minimum of 35 miles per gallon next year to stop pollution now.

Wait a second - is there cleavage there?

Oh yeah, we live in America where the most important topic of the day is the upper anatomy portion of a female primate that evolved over billions of years and happens to have mammory glands and is running for president that happens to listen to what the people want and not the multinational companies. She is not a robot. She is a woman.

Women have cleavage. The real issue is how come the current administration isn't creating jobs instead they are allowing more H1-B Visas and millions of jobs are oursourced overseas every year. Soon not one car will be manufactured in this country - why? Because unions are going the way of the Dodo bird and Canada provides health care for it's citizens unlike the US.

Oh yeah, it's so much easier to talk about the cleave of one of our best presidential candidates and not talk abot the pending wars in Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea. Oh what about Iraq and Afghanistan? How many 18 year old's died today. HOw many got there arms and legs blown off. HOw many survived but have a major brain injury and will never talk again or see again?

Cleavage. Give me a break.

Paris Hilton's behavior (among others) and Sen. Clinton's attire? Is this really news? Get real. Have some substance to your paper.Trashing Bush and his evil administration is even better than this junk. Surely everyone knows this is trash.
With all the important news out there we get this. P.S. Where is WaPo's article that Dem's are targeting FOX channel's sponsers.It is O.K. to trash everything republican or independant but leave the liberal news alone. A one sided mess is what is going on here.Have a backbone and serve us some real news for a change.

Paris Hilton's behavior (among others) and Sen. Clinton's attire? Is this really news? Get real. Have some substance to your paper.Trashing Bush and his evil administration is even better than this junk. Surely everyone knows this is trash.
With all the important news out there we get this. P.S. Where is WaPo's article that Dem's are targeting FOX channel's sponsers.It is O.K. to trash everything republican or independant but leave the liberal news alone. A one sided mess is what is going on here.Have a backbone and serve us some real news for a change.

Who said they're "making a mountain out of a molehill." I think it's in appropriate to refer to Hillary's mammary glands as molehills. Liberals everywhere should be outraged. Protest. Take to the streets. Burn your bras.

Pardon my misspelling of cleavage...my bad.

MGB

Pardon my misspelling of cleavage...my bad.

MGB

so when can we expect ms. given to report on the hair on male candidates' checks or

the excess of the bulge in their pants.

by the way,

what are ms. given's minimum standards for cleavage or the bulge in the pants?

I believe the article to have been inappropriate and sexist.

There is no need for political disertation here. The issue is clevage...what clevage? Is this an important issue here? I won't vote for her for a variety of reasons, but...cleavage? Once again press and politcal sabotures,get a grip on what's relevant.
MGB CO. Springs

Believe it or not, I still miss 'em--even though they got me killed. We were rolling in the hay 'way before I got rolled up in that carpet and taken for a ride to Fort Marcy Park.

Wait, Hillary has cleavage? I thought she was half man, half god.

Can this do anything but backfire on HRC? The story was complimentary to her. She's crying wolf.

Not only does she change her views and outlook to suit the people she wants voting for her... now she is even changing her BUTCH image!!! Not surprising coming from Hillary.

judging by the above comments, it seems that the clinton campaign is on its way to achieving its goal of changing the subject. the entire week has been about the post-debate spat, in which sen. clinton's criticisms of sen obama backfired. so invent another faux controversy to change the subject. a very nice wag the dog attempt to change the news cycle at the end of the week. it really took them a WEEK to formulate their true displeasure in the form of a memo, surrogate statement and a donation plea??

The real issue is civility. Does Mrs. Clinton have a right to be treated with civility? I would argue that just because she is a public figure does not mean that she deserves less civility that the average person on the street.

Ms. Givhan has a habit of making her column very personal. Unfortunately, it feels more like a gossip column than fashion news, mainly because the pieces that stand out are negative ones. Perhaps Ms. Givhan could figure out who she thinks we should emulate as fashion icons and write about them. Problem solved.

Judging by the above comments, it seems that the clinton campaign is on its way to achieving its goal of changing the subject. the entire week has been about the post-debate spat, in which sen. clinton's criticisms of sen obama backfired. so invent another controversy to change the subject. a very nice wag the dog attempt to change the news cycle at the end of the week. do people actually buy this? i suppose so, or the clinton campaign would not have done something so obvious; it really took them a week to formulate their true displeasure in the form of a memo, surrogate statement and a donation plea?? don't they have enough 'exprience' to react 'from day one'?

This article is an utter disappointment and disgrace! I'm German living in the USA for 7 years and am still reading a German newspaper daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) because I get more information from my German newspaper about US politics than I get from any American newspaper (not to talk about international coverage). I read the Washington Post regularly online, but it never keeps my attention for long and still this seems to be the best newspaper available. How pathetic! This article certainly was a new low, I already found all the stuff about Edwards haircut ridiculous. Are there really no more important, interesting and relevant topics? What do her outfits or anybodies for that matter have to do with whether they will make a good president? I found the tone of the article completely inapprobriate! Why does the Washington Post not just do away with the Style section till after the next Presidential election and use those sections for some real reporting about what matters, their style of governing instead of clothing?

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy - the Reagan-Bush administration's protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb's marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, was found dead of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb's death, American history owes him a huge debt. Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb's contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal - the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal - but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA's inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA's confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA's "executive summary," which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz's findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA's report was published, though Webb's initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times' cover-up has now continued after Webb's death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA's inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb's death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb's allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up - even after the CIA's inspector general had admitted the facts - the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media - the chief competitor to the mainstream press - isn't going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled "Dark Alliance," editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News' sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb's series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb's series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early "crack" production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb's conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb's series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack." A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to crumble on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. "Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Well, im_timmaaay, you might be onto something.

CNN uses Opinion Research as their polling company. They are part of Info USA, which is owned by the Clinton's largest backer (Vinod Gupta.) Bill Clinton is a "consultant" to Info USA and according to court documents in a shareholder's lawsuit has been paid several million by them. Bill has also spoken in front of Info USA for a $200,000 fee in July, 2001.

I still find it kind of funny that Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. were the keynote speakers for the telecommunications loby known as CITA.

Great shot of Bill and Bush Sr. on stage together here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=1155

So the "Bush lite" line may stick, even though Obama did not actually call Hillary that. (He said the policy of not talking to other leaders was "Bush Lite.")

I think the article was inappropriate on some level and unworthy of the post. I'd expect to see that sort of thing on CNN, perhaps TMZ, maybe even in the NYTimes, but not in the Washington Post!

I think the most significant part of Howies' op-ed is that he actually admits that the media is a very unpopular institution. The media gloats all the time about Bush's approval ratings but the media are in the single digits and Bush towers over them. But you never read that, do you?

I would appreciate it if "The Washington Post put a picture of Anne E. Kornblut's cleavage on the paper's front page.

One of Howard Kurtz's crotch would also be most welcome.

These are serious political issues, folks.

Best post!!!!

"Ugh!
The words 'cleavage' & 'Hillary Clinton' should never be used in the same story, unless it's something like:
'Boy, that Pamela Anderon has some nice cleavage, noted Hillary Clinton.'"

Posted by: texan767

Ann Lewis, somebody had to put you up to this or else you are an idiot. This is a non starter.

This was a fashion piece done by a fashion writer. I didn't even read the piece until it came to my attention by the "..ado about nothing".

If you are going to worry about crap like this and not to using the usual political rhetoric that is de rigueur of politics today, the Senator will never get my vote.
I may be fed up with politics, but I still vote and she needs Virginia this election.

In remembering the opening introduction to Stat Trek, where the Enterprise would "boldly go where no man has gone before, I have to think that this (Hillary's cleavage) is a place that Captain Kirk would have avoided like the plague.

Dear Robin-
I suggest you read the book about your job duties as a journalist: "...American Journalism in Peril."
You are way out of line with this article.
Furthermore, we have tremendous crisis's in this Country. It's fine if you *don't* do anything to make this Country (or the world) a better place, but do us all a favor and do your job-- Report on Senator Clinton's record, not her breast--because at least she is trying to do something positive in this world.
God Bless.

Hillary's cleavage is in the news? Yuck! That's about as base as the colon exams reported for the presidents!

what's the 'biggie'? If she can level the playing field and have some fun, just let her be.

I say Clinton should be able to use her cleavage for political advantage. What do you think? vote on it: http://youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=244

I'm confused. I cleavage just a plunging neckline? I thought it was the fold of fat between the bazooms.

Givhan claims that she did not comment on "a body part" in her cleavage column, but her own words belie that. She compared Hillary Clinton's "cleavage" to a man's unzipped fly: "No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" Her underlying tone was pre-adolescent, more what one would expect from an 8-year-old. Flesh is apparently always sexualized to her, female bodies are repulsive and breasts can be equated with male genitalia. It was a rather astonishing and insulting piece, but sadly typical of the nonsense we can expect from the WaPo now.

If you wonder why your subscription rates are plummeting faster than bush's approval ratings, look at articles like this one. The Hiatt/Downie Post is one step above the Washington Times and the tabloids in terms of credibility and its quality of writing.

More great stuff from the First Lady of Porn!

More great stuff from the First Lady of Porn!

swan480: Have you forgotten the photo-shopping that was done to Al Gore's "package" on the front of GQ when he was running for president?

Have you forgotten Naomi Wolf's "earthtones?"

Have you forgotten John Kerry's method of "sporting" and how it affected his "masculinity?"

Have you forgotten the "wimp" factor when GHW Bush was pictured on the boat?

EVERY CAMPAIGN IS A BEAUTY CONTEST even though the contestents were male. Think JFK over Nixon. Think HHH. Think Keyes. Think Newt. Looks matter. Period.

Everyone who throws in their hat for the presidential nomination knows exactly what they are getting into, senator Clinton included. While I don't give a F*&k what Sen. Clinton decided to wear on the senate floor, she decided to seek the highest office in America and any out of the ordinary decision she makes is fair game. If she actually makes it past the primaries into the general, they are going to throw things ten times worse at her. Were talking about 527's saying she had an abortion while performing a gay marriage.

The second fact that is important not to overlook is that Sen. Clinton didn't just throw something on while preparing notes for the Senate floor, this was a decision that I am sure was discussed by her campaign and she made a conscious decision to wear this hoping that people would take notice to her newly found femininity. She was obviously hoping for a more subtle reaction. When it was published by a columnist they reacted with a "Well I've never!"

In spite of this i do agree on one point with some of the dissenting opinion, any woman with only half a brain would find this offensive.

mmeyerdc: Hillary LOVED the article. So, why does Robin owe YOU an apology for writing something that Hillary loves?????

new_jobkh --

I'm not bent out of shape because the word "cleavage" was meantioned. I'm upset because, as several other people have mentioned, no one would ever consider the bulge in a male candidate's pants grounds for forming an opinion of his ability to lead.

Think Progress » VIDEO: Cheney Still Lying About Iraq-Al Qaeda LinkVIDEO: Cheney Still Lying About Iraq-Al Qaeda Link Think Progress, DC - 16 hours ago Pat Roberts (R-KS) concluded that there was absolutely no relationship ...
thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/ - 146k - Cached - Similar pages

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE

PERSISTENT FABRICATION BY THE VICE PRESIDENT BY FRAUD????

Pentagon: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link, Meanwhile, Cheney Repeats ...Saddam Hussein did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the Iraq war, the Pentagon said in a report based on interrogations of the leader and his aides.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/iraq/main2655316.shtml - 106k - Jul 26, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

BBC NEWS | Americas | Cheney asserts Iraq-al Qaeda linkThe US vice-president reasserts Saddam's Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda, but a Pentagon report says the opposite.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.comVice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam ... Al Qaeda Family Feud · Olbermann: Go to Iraq and fight, Mr. President ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/ - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2