Your Comments on the Cleavage Controversy

By Meaghan Lamarre, Internet Communications Coordinator

On Friday, we wrote of a ridiculous story in the Washington Post Style section about Senator Hillary Clinton appearing on the Senate floor in a relatively low-cut top, and what that might mean about her and her candidacy. We asked for your comments on the subject and got a flood of responses! We promised to post the best one, but we couldn't stop there; below are selections from some of the hilarious commentaries you sent in about "cleavage journalism."

Here are our favorites!

Best poetry submission

News break! News break! The Post now attests
that Hillary Clinton has cleavage and breasts!
But take a deep breath and try not to alarm;
she also has lips, and a nose and two arms,
and--news of all news!--they also weren't robed!
In fact, she hung jewelry in naked ear lobes!
And her chin--it was nude of all facial hair
and protruded in space so totally bare
it's entirely a scandal! Politicians and stars
can never be publicly just who they are.
Though "cover ups" might be the nation's disgrace,
it seems the "uncovered" get newspaper space.
So, Washington Post, I hope you will note:
Ms. Clinton has breasts, and has brains, and my vote.

sent in by Debbie W. Parvin

Best satirical submission

There was crotch bulge on display on May 3, 2003 on CNN. It belonged to President George W. Bush.

He was talking on an air craft carrier about how he was calling an end to major combat missions in Iraq. He was wearing a pilot's jumpsuit and a helmet. The straps on the suit's legs caused the material to bunch up between his legs, forming a not-so-subtle V-shape. The crotch bulge registered immediately. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary.

It was startling to see that frantic uncertainty about masculinity peeking out. After all, the President usually wears the conservative business suits that most male politicians favor--suits that aren't designed to show off a man's better parts. The choice of wardrobe was even more surprising in that it was coming from Bush, someone who has been so publicly identified as a son of privilege who used political connections to avoid combat in Vietnam and the completion of his stint in the National Guard.

The last time Bush wore anything that was remotely sexy in a public setting surely must have been more than six years ago, during his first term in office when he was photographed wearing tight jogging shorts that offered the American public an accidental glimpse of what he had to offer Laura Bush in the bedroom.

The crotch bulge, however, is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what Bush was wearing but rather what he was revealing. Stuffing a sock down your pants is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a man is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest someone who is eager to appeal to hyper-masculine constituents. It could also mean that a man is eager to be perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen (hopefully) as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, and witty.

To display such an obvious crotch bulge in a setting that does not involve g-strings and horny patrons in a strip club is a provocation. It requires that a man be utterly at ease with symbolically empty photo-ops, coolly confident about his ability to BS millions of Americans into supporting an illegitimate war, and unflinching about the consequences of his actions.

Sent in by Ebony Edwards-Ellis

Selections from the comments we received

Next you'll be telling me she has a uterus and vagina and Chelsea was not, in fact, hatched!
-Rebecca

I always bring my breasts to work with me. I am so happy to hear it's a sign of my confidence and sexual ease and not just merely a sign that I AM A WOMAN....
-Andrea

Cleavage IS. Can we take a giant leap out of the Victorian Age, people!?!
-Heidi

I say bring em on! I guess some are still hoping we really will burn our bras this time. Wonder Woman would be proud!
-Diane

This article is just one among many that seems to set woman (the author) against woman (Hillary). It reminds me of the Mommy Wars...

If we truly want to support a woman for president, be that Hillary or another woman in another time, female journalists need to concentrate on the issues at hand, not to just write about what women are WEARING? I understand this was a style column, but please, stick with fashion, not the sexuality or hidden meaning behind our choice of clothing.

Get real.
-Joann, New York

This reminds me of marching with take back the night in the 80's, chanting "no matter how we dress, no matter where we go--yes means yes and no means no!" are we seriously about to be forced back to the days of, "well, look what she's wearing--she's asking to be noticed/criticized/raped" ?! This is perhaps the basest display of fear by the paternalist faction currently running the country: if we can't keep this strong, confident, smart, capable woman out of our business, we'll have to get up in hers to make her be quiet. It smacks of the campaigns of silence used in battle, silencing women's voices through attacks on their bodies, and it represents EXACTLY the reason we need a woman in office. Displaying her cleavage has perhaps done more to convince me that Hillary Clinton is the woman for the job than any campaign ad--now I know she's not only smart, well-informed, and compassionate...she's also confident and not afraid of being called a woman.
-Candace, California

Remember Marcia Clark from the O. J. Simpson trial? Never did the media write about her excellent skills as an attorney; the copy was about her hair style and length of her skirt. Unlike in the Mid-Eastern where women are covered from head to toe in black, loose robes and head gear, women from the U. S. express themselves with freedom of dress. Even Queen Victoria, from the U. K., long ago showed cleavage in her lovely portraits.

Hilary Clinton is a gracious lady and U. S. Senator. This is a woman who is aspiring to be our next president and is far better equipped to serve this country than any Republican running for office. My hat is off to her! She is a first-rate woman not a "want-a-be" man. She needs our support and she has mine.
-Anonymous

I am so happy to hear you standing up for Hillary. I am glad she showed cleavage. We are women after all. I feel better knowing that if I have a shirt that might show a little cleavage, I can still be considered a feminist. This is something I have major issues over after years of sexual abuse. I am so tired of men blaming women who are dressed appropriately for being a bimbo. After all they are the ones sexualizing Hillary's breast. GO HILLARY!!!!
-Paula

I've had boobs for as long as I can remember and they've only threatened my posture. I can't begin to imagine the kind of threat a breast might have to national politics. Beware of the biggest boob in the White House.
-Candace

Would a male politician's clothing ever be the subject of a major news story? Do men have to stand in front of their closets in the morning debating what to wear, worried that they may not be taken seriously in a certain color, fearful that a particular suit may make them appear fat, or even concerned that those pants may accentuate their abs or glutes and send the message that they are a sexual being rather than a political figure?

The media coverage of "stories" such as this one further objectifies women and prevents society from focusing on the real substance of powerful women. Eve Ensler was correct when she said that, by keeping women in front of their mirrors and at the make-up counter, society keeps them out of the boardroom. If we must worry about our hair and clothes, we cannot have the energy to worry about political issues as well. Unfortunately, if we do abandon the aesthetic issues for the public ones, we are persecuted for not being "feminine" enough. Women need to demand to be taken seriously and be judged by the same standard as men are. The first step is to express our disdain for frivolous "news" stories such as this one. Thank you, NOW, for taking a stand.
-Anonymous

I am not surprised at the hubub over Hilary's breasts.

• I have been on interview teams that refuse to hire a highly qualified woman because she has breasts.
• I have been on managment teams that eject a woman because she isn't "comfortable enough about herself to relax with a group of men" (doesn't ever show cleavage).
• I have had to rescue my daughter from the principal's office where she is held for wearing a shirt that shows some cleavage; I had to point out that you can't have a dress code that excludes large breasts, you can only specifiy neckine requirements (which my daughter's blouse met).
  I have used them when I needed them and joked about them when they were getting in the way. Like Nora Ephron's wonderful article says - our lives are highly impacted by our breasts.

So what is Hilary to do: She should dress as she sees fit, use humor to deflect the immaturity and hostility she will face and she should persevere. She is our best hope for a positive leap forward in governance and in women's rights.
-Joyce

But the Hillary critics have it all wrong - it's not her boobs that are the big threat (even though white conservative males believe that they are the root of all temptations). If they want to worry about her showing her body parts, they need to be concerned about that big set of cajones she has developed while playing with the big boys for the past several decades. Her "balls" are way more threatening than her bosom, particularly considering hers are bigger than most of the prominent men in American politics today.
-Alana

I’m 58 and still working. I live through a sad time in the 80s when women who wanted to be taken seriously had to dress very plain and act more like a man. One of the things I think is great now is woman can look attractive and even sexy and still be considered a good engineer, manager or whatever. I guess some parts of the media haven’t caught up yet. Or course I’m forgetting that today’s media only covers real news as a last resort.
-Alex

I thought I was the only woman who had breasts AND worked in the paid laborforce. Are there more of us out there? Say it ain't so.... Does this mean Mitt Romney has a....penis? I know George Bush does because it lives in his brain.
-Kris, North Carolina

Can we stop looking at a woman's cleavage long enough to look at her platform (and no, Robin, I don't mean her heels) . . . But can we stop talking about what's below her chin and focus on what's above it?
-Kirsten

Oh please! I’ve seen more cleavage on Ted Kennedy. I am a woman 7 years Hilary’s senior and I like to dress in a stylish, feminine way that is appropriate to the season. If Hilary is trying to soften her look, I say “you go girl”! I’m glad to see her in something other than the basic black pants suit.

Gawd! They complain that she’s too masculine when she avoids feminine dress, and then they complain when she’s clearly feminine. I wish they would all just get a life.
-Deanna, Nevada

God forbid that someone discovers that working women have breasts, too. Don’t they know that breasts are reserved for nursing mothers and bathing suit models?
-Chris

Almost as scandalous as Brandy Chastain's sports bra… ;)
-Christine

Really, the only male politician we've had these discussions about is Dick Cheney (see photo). And he's not running for office. We need close-ups, people! Close-ups of the crotches of every man running for president!
-Amy

I read the article on Mrs. Clinton's use of cleavage. So what? We're not living in the 19th century. And, how many times has she displayed her chest or shoulders since being in the public eye? Very few. As long as she's not trying to gain or sway votes or "sympathy" from her fellow Senators (and other government official) let her show some skin in a delicate and unsexual way. By unsexual I mean, not using her sexuality to gain something. Who knows, it might have been a hot day or she was having hot flashes! That's not something that the rest of us need to know, it's a personal thing. I understand that some people are very conservative in this day and age, but Mrs. Clinton wasn't violating any dress code rule, was she? Give the gal a break!
-Sandra

Of course Hillary has cleavage!!! She's a woman. Just because she is kicking some big boys' butts and taking names, doesn't make her less of a woman; it may however, make some of the boys lesser men. Stop trying to distract us about stuff that does not matter, let's talk about the issues.
-Karen

It's why I'm leaning to voting for Clinton rather than Gravel, who my politics are probably closer to, or Edwards or Obama, who more of my allies will vote for. It's because when it comes to something like The President, The Senator, a role with that stature, these weird psychosexual theories and worldviews are the main game. It's not so much that we'll get a lot of policy gains for feminism by electing her, it's that all those people who fetishize a commander in chief and authority, and well, have these weird Victorian theories about necklines, they are all going to have to adjust those theories to deal with someone with breasts in the role of power. And with damage done to the old patriarchies, to things like work and home roles, so much of the oppressive nature of patriarchy is the psychosexual theories and emotions around power, subtle and omnipresent things like the way men condescend and women acquiesce, and big things like an authority fetish that's destroyed the American constitution. The people who will most have to adjust to a female president are the people who will most be startled and disturbed by cleavage and power in the same place, and all the anger and fear that will come from those people (who aren't just Washington Post writers--I can introduce you to a lot of San Francisco progressives who will have the same issues), all of the grown that's going to happen, that's the primary reason to support Clinton.
-Greg

Reminds me of a former boss who told me that he never paid any attention to what I said 'cause he was too busy staring at my boobs. I guess Hilary should add tight shirts to her low cuts ones and she'll add a voting block of ignorant cavemen to her supporters. Her message will go over their heads but their attention focused on her other assets.
-Stephanie

Give me a break. This is just an example of humanity as a bunch of little children again. Can we not be mature adults and listen to what the woman is saying? Can we not watch what she is doing without commenting like little children that we can "see her boobies"?

This is pathetic. Men can walk around in this country with no shirt on at all and women can't wear a low neckline?

What's that all about? This is no longer the prehistoric age. Let the men control their own penis and the women be comfortable.

You do have to laugh at something this silly, or you would cry. I hope Senator Clinton has some good one-liners in response. I also hope this is not an indication of the Post's level of sophisticated coverage for the 2008 campaign.
-Kenny, Colorado

I guess they feel as long as she doesn't hint at being a woman, it will be easier for the "good ol' boys club" to deal with her. So long as she doesn't look to much like a boy. I remember that she looked great with that short hair cut she had, and for one reason or an other some people made a big stink about her hair cut. That it was too short, that she looked too masculine, silly stuff like that.( I can't totally remember, I was younger then and didn't totally pay attention to the news.) Point is that mainstream is taking way too long to adjust to women holding power, so that they're conflicted and confused when they see a woman in charge looking feminine, and threatened (homophobic if you ask me) when they see her in a pant suit and short hair.

As for the article, it must have been a slow news day. What?! It's not like were fighting a war nor our health system is on the verge of collapse. No, there isn't anything that this administration is trying to pull over on us that the media should be involved in that they have so much time that they can report on stuff like Ms. Hillary's cleavage and Paris Hilton. Ah, right...
-Erika

Unbelievable! This just goes to show how intimidated men get when an attractive, well spoken, intelligent woman is in the spotlight. A woman's physicality becomes some men's retreat or "safe place" so to speak, when their own intelligence is threatened. I say show em' the whole breast next time, Hill! Make them retreat all the way back to the 1950's where they came from!
-Elizabeth, New Jersey

Can this be the most important thing happening with a President breaking the law and crushing our constitution?

Hooray for Hillary who has the courage to be a real woman who is confident in herself as a person.
-Phyllis

Gee, is it possible Robin Givhan was just trying to be, uh, humorously satirical, in a real, uh, eighteenth century sort of way? No? OK. I was just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt...

A "request to be engaged in a particular way?" Not "overshadowing" my other characteristics (with the shadows apparently in danger of being cast by my not-so-prominent mammary glands, I guess...)? Aside from the aforementioned "You've got to be kidding?" and "What century is this?" I don't know what to say.

I do have a question to ask of the Post's resident pop-psychologist, though. If "displaying cleavage" indicates my personal confidence that my other characteristics are "apparent and undeniable" enough to not be "overshadowed," does that mean that if I run down the street stark naked, it means that I am "confident" enough to "have all of my attributes on public display?"

Just wondering.

Along with the major media outlets' "Newsflash - Women Have Breasts," what's going to be next, "Newsflash - Women Have Brains?"
-Tammy, Pennsylvania

Hmm, it's interesting that Robin Givhan said, "It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person..." when referring to boobs being in the public view. Boobs are always there, they may be covered by clothing, but they're there alright. I am a mom who breastfed her daughter, and will with our next child as well. It's a funny thing, this breastfeeding, because it makes your boobs HUGE. But believe me, they are not a sexual thing, not for the breastfeeding mom, not for dad or significant other either (as I guarantee the boobs - tempting as they may be - are off limits), and certainly for the baby they are not sexual at all. Boobs aren't THERE to be a sexual thing, they are there to feed a baby. That's their sole purpose, really, although other fun uses have been invented for them over the years.
-Lynn

Shocking. Senator Clinton does indeed have breasts. Perhaps what is even more shocking, a woman wrote this article. My thoughts? This is ridiculous and frustrating. The issue is not about what she was or wasn't wearing. The issue is that even in 2007, a female politician is sexualized in an attempt to silence her and put her in her place. The only newsworthy aspect of the day's events regarding her appearance was what she was wearing? Come on. Nothing is mentioned of what she said. According to this article, the only important or thought provoking message Clinton has to offer is in the form of cleavage. Whether you are a fan of hers or not, you have to realize on some level that this type of garbage is sexist and ignorant. She deserves to have a voice and to be taken just as seriously as the other (male) candidates are. I highly doubt a male presidential candidate and senator would be held to the same standards. Would an entire article be written on how snug McCain's pants were but no mention of what he was actually doing or saying while wearing the pants? I could understand this reaction perhaps if she were wearing something overtly sexual and inappropriate given the setting, but that is not the case by any means. There were no leather mini-skirts or tank tops in sight. As a country, we should be listening carefully to all of the candidates and making our own intelligent and informed decisions, Clinton's cleavage aside. I would hope that most men and women were offended after reading this article. Unfortunately, I feel like this is just the beginning and as we move closer to the elections, there will plenty more of this to come.
-Kate

I was inspired to write my own Top Ten List for you in response to the Washington Post idiotic reporting:
10. Forget the cleavage, what kind of shoes was she wearing?
9. With a little music and some cocktails, the Senate sounds like a fun place to work now that the Democrats are in control.
8. I know that C-Span is boring, but it’s a pretty sad state of affairs if they have to bump up ratings with shots of T’s and A’s! Murdoch didn’t buy C-Span too?
7. She never did this when old Strom was around!
6. Senator Clinton: “Sports bra or full figure bra?”
5. What’s the big deal? Male politicians have been padding their pockets for years.
4. Tomorrow’s Headline: Check out the package on Fred Thompson!
3. The real test is: Did her colleagues know what she was saying?
2. The Republicans are just jealous since they have to pay.
1. First the Senators stay up all night—they even bring in folding beds—now breasts? At least they are not like the House—all on the same Page.
-Christopher

I don’t remember reading stories about how cute Bush’s tush looked in his Wranglers but clearly he was going for the virile young man look for the women voters. Hillary, use your whole arsenal to win. If being an attractive woman will help you, go for it. If you got it, flaunt, just like the men have been doing since JFK with their boyish good looks.
-Doris

This reaction to the slight exposure of a prominent woman's breast shows how sexist our society is. It seems that feminism has only been able to give women equality on the surface. The littlest act can put a woman on the spotlight for objectification, criticism, and to be demeaned. Without the involvement of more young women becoming feminists, I fear, as a young feminist myself, what the American society of women will evolve into. The scarier question is, what will the women of the world become if our society cannot even get it straight? The media needs reform, we as a society need to unlearn the double standards, gender roles, and sexism taught to us, and make the world a better place for both women and men. I hate to think about how much work there is to be done until that day.
-Natalie, Virginia

Oh my God, as a well-endowed woman myself, cleavage is just another part of me. Hillary Clinton is just being herself. What next? News flash "it appeared at today's press conference that the president had an erection" perhaps not a full erection but a partial.... good lovely grief!! It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the media can be. With all the real news not being reported, time and money wasted again......let's talk impeachment and I'll listen!
-Laurel in Michigan

Why are boobs still taboo? I personally like boobs, they are beautiful and they feed our future generations. I wish they weren't so taboo to the point that if a powerful woman displays (I suppose display is not the right word...perhaps let a bit of them show) them everyone has to analyze it. They are tits and they rock! Enough said! Rock on for boobies, rock on for mamas, and rock on for a woman president!
-Katie

Can't imagine this article being so much as conceived if Hillary was 30-something, can you? The age-ism is more perturbing than the sex-ism!
-Lisa

I took the time to read the entire article and enlarged the photo. I wanted to be sure that my response didn't fall into the category of "knee jerk." The author writes, "No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary." Preposterous! In fact the entire article is preposterous. Hillary Clinton's a woman, so.....

The article was not only sexist, it was voyeuristic. Does Givhan look at a male candidate's crotch to see if she can detect an erection!
-Kaye, Colorado

The news media have sunk to a new low. This is clearly an attack on Hillary Clinton for no reason other than gender. It's totally out of line and quite honestly it's absurd.
-Robert

I can only conclude that we are traveling on a retractable time-line! On the one hand, we are at a moment in time when a woman can be viewed as a credible candidate for the loftiest role in the land; presumably not only by women but also men. On the other hand, we have traveled backward at warp speed to an era in which a woman's body contours are, once again, the most significant matter for description and comment. It's simply inconceivable that male candidates would ever be subject to this kind of assessment. The time-line continues to stretch out in front of us, i.e., we've a long way yet to go!
-Nancy, Pennsylvania

Another female superpower always portrayed with a low neckline is Queen Elizabeth I. In fact, books on historical fashion credit her with getting rid of the "ruff" and bringing decolletage back into style. I'm pretty sure Queen Victoria as well wore low necklines early on in her reign. So did many of the First Ladies, along with many other "strong-willed women" who go unnamed. Fancy that: female leaders who dress like women.

The news' coverage of Hilary's cleavage suggests the outdated controversy over whether one can be a feminist and still be fashionable. This is the third wave of feminism. I'm disgusted that it's still an issue. So just because a woman is smart, it should be shocking that she is showing off her body? For shame, media.
-Julie

When I first read "there was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton." I thought I would see a picture of her wearing a push up bra and maybe a halter top. When I reviewed the video of her wearing business casual attire...I thought...does the media want her in a burka? Will C-SPAN be reporting on the tightness of the male candidates pants next?

Isn't there "real" news going on such as: scandal in the White House, the pardoning of Libby, the degradation of the separation of church and state, how Bush is turning the presidency into a monarchy/dictatorship and the future ramifications of him doing so, soaring debt, a war going on and on and on...

Hilary could have a wardrobe malfunction at this point and still not do as much damage as Bush has on the country spiritually, morally, and ethically.
-Mary Kay

Apparently, it is still the case in the political arena, and just about every other arena that, in order to be taken seriously, women must not show any hint of femininity, including anything that may dissolve the illusion that they are women, and not men. It must be very difficult for people in certain male-dominated professions to accept that women can not only succeed in that profession, but do it without having to hide the fact that they ARE women behind male inspired suits, altered for the female physique, but designed to completely mask it. This uproar over the undoubtedly tasteful showing of cleavage is depressingly reminiscent of the initial concerns raised over whether women should be granted law degrees. The people in a position to decide this issue feared that, if women were granted licenses to practice, they may eventually become judges, and any ability to make coherent, unbiased decisions rested solely on whether they were in the throes of PMS at the time. It seems as if women want to succeed in a male dominated profession, they must first avoid any signs or mention of their sex. Perhaps that is the only way in which these men can accept that they have not cornered the market on rational thinking, and while we have ovaries, and yes, breasts, we are still capable of making intelligent decisions. Perhaps we haven't come as far as we thought as a people, if the sighting of a powerful woman's cleavage overshadows what she may have been saying when the sighting occurred.
-Petra, Ohio

This is truly ridiculous. Stunningly backwards. Obviously, this writer was severely lacking for a topic. It just proves how our news outlets, even once-respected newspapers, are reaching the point of almost being a joke. What happened to integrity in reporting an unbiased piece? In writing about relevant matters? In progress regarding the portrayal of women? Are Clinton's clothes and breasts running for president or is it her mind and behavior that we care about? What exactly was the point of that article, anyway?
-Christine, Massachusetts

Perhaps Robin Givhan, who is actually fashion editor of the Washington Post, ought to be awarded another Pulitzer Prize (she received one in 2006) for noticing that Hillary has breasts. I wonder if she has ever considered the fact that most men and, no doubt, a goodly portion of women, also notice that Hillary has breasts even when her cleavage is not showing. I can't wait for Givhan's next story that Hillary is NOT showing her cleavage. What will that mean?!

What really upsets me, however, is that there is no coverage of how the trousers of all of the male Presidential candidates are cut. Don't we all want to know whether they are tailored to emphasize or de-emphasize their "packages?" Don't Washington Post readers want Givhan to tell them which of all those men have the most aggressive tailoring and what it tell us about the "confidence and physical ease" of each man?

Inquiring minds want to know.
-Stephen, Vermont

In her book "It Takes A Village", Mrs. Clinton first describes the power of her breasts. The first time she ever deployed her breasts, Mrs. Clinton fed Stanford and Oxford scholar Chelsea Clinton. This act of nourishment was so aggressive, milk spewed forth from Chelsea's nose in a great font of excess.

For decades, Mrs. Clinton concealed these mammaries of mass destruction. Intelligence analyst and fashion designer Oscar De La Renta was aware of Mrs. Clinton's "lovely shoulders and a very nice decollete" (sic), but blatantly ignored the security threat, dismissing her as "very prudish".

Recently, reconnaissance photos leaked to the Washington Post have revealed that these breasts have not been dismantled. This breast leakage suggests that, despite our false sense of security, Mrs. Clinton has been carrying those things around with her everywhere! Security staff at the U.S. Capitol refused to comment on whether Mrs. Clinton is authorized to carry concealed weapons into the Senate Office Buildings; however, an anonymous tip from a source close to a metal detector manufacturer indicates that even the largest breasts don't make the security machines go *beep*.

The question remains: Why couldn't Mr. De La Renta put one and one together? He had all the intelligence in front of him but simply didn't see anything but a couple of breasts.

As taxpayers, we must protect our valuable real estate in DC by equipping the Capitol security staff with X-Ray Glasses in addition to those metal-detecty-wandy-things. Only then will we guarantee that people who run our nation leave breasts at home, where they belong. If we don't, Mrs. Clinton might come after you next, and protect, care for, and nourish you until your sinuses overflow.

Will any of us ever feel safe in the presence of a mother?
-Julie Anne

As a woman, I would be deeply offended if the media only cared about how my cleavage looks. My breasts are not going to be running the White House; I am. If I were Hillary, I would be deeply taken aback by these comments and demand some respect from the media. When her husband was running for office, they didn't analyze the size of his penis, did they? I don't recall any coverage done on that, only when he was accused of sleeping with the intern which was in and of itself a whole other story. Therefore, I think that stories and comments like these should be retracted and apologized for. They are deeply offensive, and objectify a woman who has earned the respect of everyone with her intelligence and political experience.
-Rachelle, New York

It is a women's prerogative to wear what she wants. It's someone else's problem if they misinterpret it.
-Lydia

I think it is extremely ridiculous that people are upset over Hillary Clinton's cleavage. If someone like Tyra Banks was showing cleavage, there would be no objections. But since Hillary Clinton is an authority figure, I guess it isn't right? People need to start living in the 21st century. Cleavage is nothing to get upset over anymore.
-Brittany, a 16-year old feminist

Washington, D. C. --- In an unprecedented move today, a number of top ladies in the Senate and House of Representatives have been seen wearing pants. This move shows that these lovely girls are not ashamed to admit loudly and proudly to the world: I have legs. While the amount of leg visible was in the best taste of modesty, it still can not be ignored that these broads are not worried that their male colleagues will not be distracted by such a blatant show of femininity.

It is too easy for us to forget sometimes that women, having the vote, are actually allowed into the public sphere by their husbands. When Bill Clinton was called for a response on how he feels about his lovely lady wife, the one first lady of the nation, parading around in such attire, not just on the beach, but there in the hallowed halls of our nation's capitol, he could not be reached for comment. The thoughts of those women involved were deemed unnecessary and unimportant for a truly intelligent discussion of the issue at hand.
But for now, until their husbands come to pick them up and put them back in the kitchen, we will all have to divert out eyes to ignore the flagrant mockery that these women are making of our country. Someday it might be completely acceptable for women to behave in such an audacious manner, but today is not that day.
- Satire by Chandra Gioiello

Everybody is free to decide for him-or herself what to wear. That should be obvious. After all, we don't live in Afghanistan, so I hope that's already well known as an established matter of fact over here. And if Hillary wants to wear a decollete, it's no one's business but her own. All that talk about gender role stereotypes is just kind of backlash stuff, in my opinion. It's not relevant either, I hold. And of course, Hillary felt well when she was wearing that - if she had not enjoyed wearing a low neckline, she would not have done that, I guess, plain and simple. Probably she did look very pretty with her decollete also. After all, it's summer and nice warm weather. So she needn't wear pullover and pant and coat and stuff, right? We are not in the winter, are we? Since Hillary has had a lot of experience with bad press and weird articles, I hope it won't bother her too much and she will just understand it's something minor and not that relevant and I hope she won't take any nonsense to heart.
-Cornelia, Augsburg, Germany