NRO's Lopez predicted a Givhan cleavage article a year ago
In a July 20 Washington Post Style section article, headlined "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory," staff writer and Pulitzer Prize winner Robin Givhan wrote that "There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton." Givhan added that it was a "startling" display for Clinton, "someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both," called Clinton's look "unnerving," and asserted "[t]he last time Clinton wore anything that was remotely sexy in a public setting surely must have been more than a decade ago." Givhan wrote, "[I]t was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!"
More than a year ago, on June 8, 2006, National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez, "better known as 'K-Lo,' " wrote in a post for the National Review Online blog The Corner:
Cleavage in the Senate
Zarqawi might have knocked Ann Coulter out of the headlines and off our TV screens for the moment, but Hillary Clinton this morning seems to be dressing to full-out take on Ann....Senator Clinton's blazer is a bit lowcut today (I have C-SPAN 2 on).
UPDATE: Here's a screenshot. Prediction: Washington Post Style section piece by a Pulitzer Prize winner about Hillary's sex-appeal advantage.
First it's Hillary's hairstyles, then her thighs, now her cleavage? Conservative misinformation on these vital issues of our day is rampant.
Isn't there a rightwing site somewhere that you can be accusing of straying from their stated mission right about now?
I can multi-task, so that's easy to do too.
Perhaps it would be better if you contacted the moderators here and told them that only those that rubberstamp the topic threads are welcome.
Then you wouldn't have to read these contrary nuisances.
Distort and condescend, OK, I'll play along.
It is no more my place to tell MMFA how to run their comments section than it is for you to tell MMFA how to run their website.
Since when I am telling MMFA how to run their website?, I am simply commenting on a story put here.
You are the one with the problem with that, MMFA encourages comments. So your beef is with the men and women here for allowing it, not me.
Conservative misinformation on these vital issues of our day is rampant.
We get the meaning behind your sarcasm.
No, his beef is with you minimizing real examples of "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda."
This forwards the conservative agenda, and so Media Matters is doing their job by pointing this out. You're wrong. This is not you expressing your opinion, Tommy. This is you being wrong.
MMfA does let you post here, even if you're wrong. You're consistently wrong when you try to claim that MMfA has overstepped their mission statement or has exaggerated the damage done by any individual statement that forwards the conservative agenda.
http://mediamatters.org/about_us/
This is not you expressing your opinion, Tommy. This is you being wrong.
I totally disagree. Tommy's opinions are quite often wrong.
Tommy is only expressing what his conservative overlords have programmed him to express. He's unable to come up with an original thought.
Since when am I making determinations on what kinds of comments should be allowed? We already have someone that does that for websites, and his name is Bill O'Reilly.
By "multi-task", I'm sure Tommy means he can suck at several different things at once.....
Tommy doesn't understand that by focusing on Clinton's appearance, particularly with regard to her feminine attributes, is a way of dismissing her as a politician or leader. It tells the public nothing about what it needs to know of its potential candidates.
But Tommy makes the same childish, dismissive jokes whenever such issues are brought up, so it's too much to ask that he understand.
(Er, not "potential" candidates. They ARE candidates.)
There's a world full of things that Tommy doesn't understand.....
Givhan: "unnerving..."
Someone pass the smelling salts to Givhan, and Hillary, please cover-up your shame. Let's hope for her sake that other things aren't uncovered, like identities of covert operatives and other trivialities.
I'm worried about Tucker...
Advice to Hillary, next public speaking gig, have a set of these hanging on the podium and then pull speech notes out of cleavage. As Bonnie Rait says "Let's give'm something to talk about"
Then give a speech that just eviscerates the guts of the Republican administration.
That was hilarious :)
Tucker may be getting fitted for a pair of Kevlar® Underoos®.
First it's Hillary's hairstyles, then her thighs, now her cleavage? Conservative misinformation on these vital issues of our day is rampant. ..tommy
===================================================
Tommy, for the 1,000,00th time:
Feel free not to comment on any topics you feel to be beneath your standards for "conservative misinformation," which YOU are not in charge of for this site.
The theme of this post is how some in the shallow media apparently feel the depth of the neckline of a female presidential candidate is an important topic for consideration.
Or how shallow those are that are repeating it.
So now you don't know the difference betweening reporting someone's comments and repeating them?
The turrists hate us for our cleavage.
See, the National Review does get some things right. Thanks for highlighting this MMFA. The burning question in my mind is: does Hillary wear a thong?
Didn't Bill answer the boxers or briefs question on MTV? This could really seal the deal for me.
Oh, the humanity!
Relax, it's not like it's Mother Bush or Janet Reno...
Sheesh... Some people just have no stomach for politics.
I remember wishing I'd had a warning like that before seeing Bush in his codpiece.
And you provide a link, no less!!!
OMG!
Hillary should cover up!
Seriously, that's the best they can come up with?
She's lived in the South, where our motto is: If you got it, flaunt it. Unfortunately, some got it, but we don't need see it. ("Spandex is a privledge, not a right.")
That is correct. Nobody is born wearing spandex.
Givhan wrote, "[I]t was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!"
If the right hasn't been comparing everything Sen. Clinton does lately to behaving like a man.....then this statment would be just a stupid analogy from a ditz with a Pulitzer Prize.
However; I've never know a little cleavage to be in the same class as a man's unzipped zipper.
Revealing a little, or a lot of cleavage has become quite common these days. You can't go into a clothing store, turn on the TV, or pick up a magazine without seeing how widespread the "cleavage" fashion styles have become. That said, seeing cleavage should not be "startling" to Givhan.
When there is an open zipper, there are quite often shorts exposed, and most of all, the "unzipping" is not a fashion statement.....it's more of an "oops" moment.......and the "unzipped zipper" moment includes women, and yet she chose to refer to a man.
People use many ways to hint to a man that the door is open, but I haven't heard anyone whispering or pointing to a woman that their "V" neck, or deeply cut garment is showing a little cleavage.
DUH, what a surprise....who knew! Obviously not Pulitzer Prize winning Givhan.
Can I make a "prediction" of my own:
That in the near future, the right wing media will pounce on this... telling us that Sen. Clinton responded to Elisabeth Edwards' comments by exposing her breasts in a desparate attempt to appear more womanly ??? (or less manly, take your pick)
Spin, spin, spin.
my apologies to all true poets everywhere:
Said Givhan of Senator Hillary
She showed cleavage, we must sqawk, snipe and pillory
It just doesn't fit
With our narrative bit
Givhan's off by a mile (or a milliary)
I think we're all missing a really important point here.
They give a Pullitzer to the inane vacuity that is fashion criticism.
Big deal. I see more cleavage than that walking through my local WalMart. Hillary's "display" is virtually nothing.