The U.S. Presidential race has brought out the worse in pundits and in tank thinkers. Candidates have been rattled over their pocket books, their Rolodex, their spouses and their cleavage? In a desperate attempt to mince Hillary Clinton’s judgement, Washington Post writer Robin Givhan pointed out to Mrs. Clinton cleavage.
Givhan writes: “She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable. It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking “
When is it that it became acceptable or printable in one of America’s leading newspapers, to deconstruct a politician – a potential future President, nonetheless – down to their anatomy? The United States have a grocery list of objectives. The candidates have a thousand debates worth of points to make & to sale. Couldn’t the Washington Post find something else to point out about Mrs. Clinton’s campaign? Commenting on her cleavage creates a precedent. We are just one edition from reading about how tweezed her eyebrows are, how frosted her highlights seem to be or how she’s put on pounds since the beginning of the campaign. It’s pathetic, tacky and unworthy of the capital’s leading newspaper.