Cleavage within Wash. Post over Givhan's Clinton neckline coverage
In a July 25 column, The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus criticized Pulitzer Prize winner Robin Givhan's July 20 Washington Post Style section article in which Givhan wrote that the "cleavage on display" during Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) July 18 speech on the Senate floor was "startling" in the case of Clinton, "someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both." Another Post columnist, Dana Milbank, also seemed to distance himself from the Givhan article during a July 26 appearance on MSNBC News Live.
As Media Matters for America noted, Givhan called Clinton's look "unnerving" and wrote: "[I]t was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" In her July 25 column, Marcus, also a Post editorial writer, wrote that Givhan "dissected" Clinton "for showing cleavage." Marcus added, "Might I suggest that sometimes a V-neck top is only a V-neck top? As a person of cleavage, I'd guess that Clinton's low-cut shirt simply reflected a few centimeters of sartorial miscalculation, not a deliberate fashion statement."
Additionally, on the July 26 edition of MSNBC News Live, anchor Chris Jansing said that the public dispute between Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Clinton -- in the aftermath of the July 23 Democratic presidential debate question, "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" -- may be "potentially a good thing for voters," because "maybe we're getting a better idea on how they stand on something that's very important." Washington Post columnist and MSNBC political analyst Dana Milbank replied, "That's true enough. And at least it's a high-minded issue. They're not bickering about --" Jansing interrupted to suggest, "The color of her jacket," referring to former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) response at the debate: "I admire what Senator Clinton has done for America ... I'm not sure about that coat." In response to Jansing, Milbank added: "[O]r exactly where her neckline is."
From Marcus' July 25 Washington Post column:
... [Clinton] was being dissected by Post fashion critic Robin Givhan for showing cleavage: "It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative -- aesthetically speaking -- environment of Congress." Givhan contrasted Clinton's decolletage with the more abundant display by Jacqui Smith, the new British home secretary, and her complaint seemed to be that Clinton was showing too little, too unassertively.
Might I suggest that sometimes a V-neck top is only a V-neck top? As a person of cleavage, I'd guess that Clinton's low-cut shirt simply reflected a few centimeters of sartorial miscalculation, not a deliberate fashion statement.
Breasts may be an advantage in certain settings; the Senate floor isn't one of them. If you're giving a speech on higher education, as Clinton was, you don't want Ted Stevens thinking about -- and you certainly don't want to think about Ted Stevens thinking about -- your cleavage.
From the July 26 edition of MSNBC News Live:
JANSING: You -- I wonder if this potentially a good thing for voters, Dana. I mean, these two are really being very clear about how they would approach one aspect of their foreign policy, and so maybe we're getting a better idea on how they stand on something that's very important.
MILBANK: That's true enough. And at least it's a high-minded issue. They're not bickering about --
JANSING: The color of her jacket.
MILBANK: For example, or exactly where her neckline is.
JANSING: Yeah. A segment for another day, perhaps.
Now let me see if I have this right;
1) When the media talking heads, who need to fill airtime, discuss shallow issues such as Hillary's cleavage or Edward's hair, they are the bad guys who need to be exposed and redirected to more important topics - forget the fact that these cherry picked instances are a teeny weeny percentage of what is actually beinh covered in the media as a whole.....
2) But when MMFA exposes this, they are not furthering the narrative or titilating with more salacious stories at all.
Got it.
Yes, Tommy.When the cops grab you for walking downtown with no pants on, you're the bad guy.
And when they review the trouserless tawdry technicalities of your transgression in court, they're just doing it to be salacious.
Now get that cocktail shaker moving, and pop the spigot outta Pearlene's wine.
So, when I get arrested for walking pants-less down the street, and TMZ.com splashes it all over their web page - they are not being salacious?
And boxed wine is not my thing, I prefer paperbagged cans of generic beer.
Bravo Tommy.....Good point!
Go ahead. Flaunt your wealth. While you're complaining about drinking generic beer, here I am with nothing to drink but sterno.
Store-bought Sterno, Mr. Rockefeller ? well, La-de-da !
I personally prefer anti-freeze tapped from radiator hoses.
If it's good enough for the marmots at Mineral King it's good enough for me!
I did see a pantless guy walking down Venice yelling, "Where's the mis-information!? Where's the mis-information!?" That wasn't...Naaaaahhh...
That was Venice? Wow. The pants must have been around my head 'cause I could have sworn it was Beverly Hills.
The main point is, Tommy got on here first yet again and, to absolutely nobody's surprise, asked "why is this story here?" It's another big success for him. Only six or seven more hours left of Tommy attempting to hold court.
This is a variant of the classic “why is this here?” This form uses a tactic best described as deductive condescension. Making your point in a reasoned, rational manner simply doesn’t cut it in forums like this, especially if you love drawing the attention and ire of other posters.
Or in other words, you can't or won't really defend "why these thread topics are here", so you attempt to insult those who pose such a question.
That's called transference.
I'm calling it as I see it, Tommy. In addition, I wasn't replying to you. If you feel insulted by it, I would first suggest you get a life, then use the flag link, that's what it's there for.
I do find it intriguing that you've spent at least an hour and a half revisiting and scanning an item that you've already declared unworthy of MMFA's webspace. Somehow, it's still worth your time though.
By the way, I'd be happy to defend this topic if the indictment had any teeth.
And I call it as I see it, Pete.....to each his own.
I'd suggest if you find my posts so repetetive or unworthy, that you stop wasting your time responding to them. You're only fanning the flames by drawing the attention and ire of other posters.
I was responding to WHTG's post, not yours. As I stated above, I did not defend the item because your indictment wasn't worth a squirt of ****, or in other words, it was unworthy.
because they are using nonsense talking points to belittle presidential candidates but it only seems to happen to democratic candidates ?
Bravo HBL....good point!
I notice that the brilliant and insightful Milbank and Jansing managed to avoid telling readers exactly what question provoked Edwards' comment about the pink jacket, so that they could get another dismissive, baseless jab in about "bickering."The YouTube/CNN question asked each Dem debater to say something good and something bad about the candidate next to him/her. Like any smart politician, Edwards decided to make a substantively good statement about Clinton and then to make light of the "bad" about his fellow Dem, and he succeeded. If Dana and Chris were disappointed in this, they should tell CNN they don't like the question they selected.
Tommy, it's simple. Don't click on articles that you think are pointless.
Oh wait, sorry I just realized, that's how you have fun.
Sorry. Now I get it.
"Another Post columnist, Dana Milbank, also seemed to distance himself from the Givhan article during a July 26 appearance on MSNBC News Live."LMAO - the hypocrisy of liberal media icons like Dana Milbank is nauseating. This is the same clown who wore an orange TRAFFIC VEST to a Keith Olberman segment on Cheney's shooting accident. WaPo had to apologize for Milbank's blatant partisanship and his poor taste.
Your posts are nasueating. Yeah shooting someone in the face is just like wearing a low cut dress. Go away and let the adults talk now.
Here's the question...if Hillary is the nominee, will the GOP Professional Liars like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make an issue of this? Will they constantly refer to Hillary's boobs in a desperate attempt to galvanize the ever-outraged knuckledraggers in the GOP base? How long before they figure out a way to tie it to the terrorist threat? Perhaps the sight of Presidential mammaries would further incite jihadists to attack us?
Hannity and Limbaugh will do whatever their listereners and the rest of us expect them to do.......diss Hillary at every opportunity.
All the while hoping she gets elected,in my opinion, which would be a juggernaut for them personally.
Heh! "Juggernaut". Way to pick up on the theme, Tommy!
The "jug or not" issue...oh my
"Rack" up another one for Tommy.
Well "knocker" over with a feather, I didn't even catch it when I wrote it, so can't take credit for it however, gotta give to HBL and CD.
Commentator 1 : "The candidates seem to be talking about actual issues"
Commentator 2 " Good for them! They're not talking about crap like we are!"
Commentator 1:"Yeah, like for example (starts mentioning crap)
On a more Friday note, MMFA is getting punny with the headlines.Good for them!
I have no idea what MMFA is trying to say by trumpeting this "story."
Givhan is a FASHION WRITER, who makes no claims to be involved in anything more serious than that. And she was making a valid point: Hillary has carefully avoided making her sexuality an issue, and seems to be adjusting course. To me this is as relevant -- no more, no less -- as her spot-on rip on Cheney for wearing a parka to a Nazi deatyh camp rememberance.
Likewise it is important to point out that in '84, Geraldine Ferraro NEVER touched Walter Mondale in public, not even to shake his hand, for fear that voters would raise stupid, ugly questions about the relationship between a president and a female veep. That's the world Hillary is trying to deal with now. And it appears she has made some decisions of late.
It is the mainstream, so-called "serious" journalists who have some 'splaining to do as they try to straddle the line, knocking Givhan for her observations while devoting precious air time and column inches to them.
To the two staffers that it took to write this senseless article...
"Uh...what?"...ala the geico caveman.
With this type of "reporting"...I can only guess what must go on at recess in the mmfa conclaves.
Have a mug, or get mugged. The choice for all free range correspondents during recesss.
For the vertual grownups, A glass of eternal champaign from the eternal chalice, to a toast from the eternal chairman. To be followed later by eternal chunkars.
The thing that really frosts me about this is that MSNBC doesn't have the decency to remove the "Frontrunners Fight" screen caption like FOX News would when a lovely and talented young lady is on the air. They could really learn something from those FOX News people on that front. I'm just sayng...
on the other hand we could be looking at this, scroll down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21104-2005Apr2.html
Oh, [retching]...[/retching] now why did you have [retching]...[/retching] to link to that.
you thought that was bad?
http://www.exposay.com/princess-anne-state-opening-of-parliment-westminster-2006/p/4341/0/?j=46762
Damn, that's a UFO hat if ever I've seen one. These Reptilians are really getting in your face about it.
The Post, too high minded to say,
That the cleavage is NOT on display
They'd rather report
with a derisive snort
On their own inter-office melee.
Good one, Mary!
I can see the graphic on Hannity's America. "Is Hillary Clinton's cleavage emboldening the enemy?"
And then Colmes could respond, "No those genuine USA breasts are being used to cower and defeat the enemy!"
Oh please elect HR Clinton everyone, I cant wait to see which she wares first the "Burka" or a "Murphy Robe". I am leaning toward the Burka myself....but I could be wrong.
Of course you are wrong. I dont even have to read your posts just your nick and go with the odds. So far you havent made a cogent argument or a decent point and have been wrong virtually every post you have ever made. You ARE wrong pretty much goes sums you up to a tee
Was looking for something more uplifting in this post. But much of what has been posted above has been a hoot___ anyway.
Have a great weekend!!!
Another example of a "news" media that doesn't cover the issues but engages in infantility. All meant to dumb down the discourse and keep the public un-informed as to the actual positions of the candidates. Another excellent reason to turn the tv off.