Defending Givhan's cleavage coverage, Harwood asserted "calculati[ng]" Clinton knew "what she was communicating by her dress"
On the July 29 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood declared his intent to "defend" Robin Givhan's July 20 Washington Post Style section article which referred to the "cleavage on display" during Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) July 18 speech on the Senate floor. Harwood then asserted: "When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil." As Media Matters for America has documented media figures frequently portray Clinton as "calculating" or overly ambitious, while rarely offering actual examples or support.
In the article, Givhan called Clinton's appearance "unnerving" and wrote: "[I]t was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" Since the column, Post employees such as columnists Ruth Marcus and Dana Milbank have distanced themselves from Givhan's remarks, as Media Matters noted.
From the July 29 edition of NBC News' Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: I want to give Gene Robinson equal time for barber shops.
EUGUNE ROBINSON (Washington Post columnist): Well, I'll take equal time for barber shops. I think [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] needs to find some barbershops in New Hampshire to visit. And, you know, you won't have a lot of hair left if he gets it cut there many, many times. It's pretty short right now. I also -- let me jump in and offer a word in defense of Robin Givhan, the Washington Post columnist who wrote the cleavage column. As her former boss, you know, you either cover fashion or you don't. And I think it's legitmate to argue that you shouldn't worry about fashion, but, you know, it's the way we present ourselves to the world, to others. We make decisions every morning on what we put on and how -- what sort of image we want to project. And unfortunately in our society, women are scrutinized in a way that men aren't. I mean, what did John Edwards wear at the YouTube debate? What did Barack Obama wear?
MITCHELL: Eugene, arguably, if you look at the Senate floor any day of the week, if you look at the floor of the House of Commons when a new cabinet minister was speaking, who had a far more low-cut neckline, this was so marginal. This was like microscopic evidence --
HARWOOD: I'm going to defend that column too.
MITCHELL: --of inappropriate attire.
HARWOOD: I'm going to defend that column too. When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil, OK?
MITCHELL: Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse.
[crosstalk]
RUSSERT: I'm going to move on to South Carolina because this is important. Here's the polls from South Carolina.
It is a shame that someone who is as talented and as tuned in to racist behavior as is Robinson does not get it with regard to sexism. He decries the fact that women are scrutinized in a way that men aren't but defends exactly that behavior in the same breath. The letters to the Post that were published Saturday did the best job of sizing up Givhan's sexist and ridiculous column.
This week - Is Hillary the hottest babe in the preseidential race? Next week - a look at Joe Biden's legs.
Harwood manages to score two slurs in one attack: not only is Senator Clinton dressing inappropriately (even though he did not mouth the words), but doing so is further evidence of her cold, calculating character.
He is, by his very existence, evidence that someone goofed up the distribution of the integrity gene. So much for "intelligent design".
Eugene Robinson had to split his attacks: while he took the gratuitous slam at Senator Clinton, he also got a cheap shot in on Edwards.
Maybe it is not raw genetics so much as some sort of selection by the Corporate Media? An externally imposed selection overriding the natural process by which we purge our species of the most dangerous?
Excellent point. Robinson may prefer another candidate and see it as appropriate for him to trivialize that candidate's opponents. If he does not apologize, I hope he will at least refrain from this behavior in the future. There is so much at stake.
the amazing thing is that this is even considered a controversy. you would have thought she wore a bikini top on the senate floor. she showed basically nothing. some people need to grow up.
I don't know which word riled me more--'inappropriate' or 'calculation.'
In other ages, women who were very careful about what they wear were called 'well-groomed' or even 'stylish'. But not Hillary, oh no--she's 'calculating.' And in other places, a woman who commits a fashion faux pas (like, oh , wearing a cocktail dress to a morning news interview) would incur the jugement of 'tasteless' or 'careless'--a woman who doesn't pay attention to her appearance. But Hillary? She's calculating.
And 'inappropriate'? Are we back in prep school? Of course fashion columnists have claimed this right forever--but that's the reason fashion columnists have been laughed at forever. But of course, when it's about Hillary, the fashion columnist, far from being relegated to chatting with Joan Rivers on E, gets repeated appearances on the news channels.
I don't like a bunch of Hillary's positions, and like Obama and Edwards (and Gore) better--but all this nattering shows me more and more why we need a woman president sooner or later.
After my third re-read (yeah, four times total - I am kinda slow sometimes) I finally remembered the first thing that irked me about Harwood, from the intro: he failed to explicate what it was that Senator Clinton was trying to communicate.
Again, being slow, I am asking for help: does anyone have a clue what the message of the garment is?
He's implying she's a sl#t, I suppose.
WOW - that is a heavy message for a blouse! And to think, I was under the impression that hate-wingers had fingered Senator Clinton as a closeted lesbian. Guess now you know why I admitted to being kinda slow.
And I guess I know why he didn't spell it out: didn't want to get bleeped on TV?
Again, being slow, I am asking for help: does anyone have a clue what the message of the garment is?
My guess is that Harwood was implying that she was attempting to show the world that she is in fact *womanly*
Don't forget this photo appeared shortly after Elizabeth Edwards claimed her hubby was more apt to be a better advocate for woman & that Hillary had to appear tough [read that manish] & therefore was not able to be the advocate she should be.
MMFA covered this here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707190009
On this subject I believe Andrea Mitchell summed it all up perfectly:
MITCHELL: Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse.
J,
That is as good an explanation yet of this whole cleavage idiocy. Politicians are very calculating creatures, and very little, if anything, is done spontaneously or by chance. The media covers it, this website covers it - and Mrs. Clinton probably got the reaction she was looking for.
One "explanation" I have yet to see appear: after hours sorting through all the lingerie strap and huge print blouses, sundresses, shorts, etc. that the fashion industry (which is generally NOT headed by female CEOs, by the way) decided women will wear to work these past few years, Sen. Clinton finally gave up and bought the only thing she could find that was remotely professional. Many of the expensive "professional" blouses have much lower necklines than these and simply cannot be worn by someone who is on the small side.
My middle-aged professional women friends say they are tired of seeing nothing but Brittney Spears fashions in the stores, and their old clothes are getting threadbare while they wait for this trend to pass.
Here is a picture of hipocrite Robin Givhan showing 60% of her sagging boobs.
When did Meet the Press become a Project Runway spinoff? And if that is the case what about the pictures of Rudy in heels, what is he saying, Tim? What a sham this show has become.
You nailed it, Ufleirx.
As "news' shows compete with greater & greater urgency to Hoover up those advertising dollars that are up for grabs, they'll edge ever deeper into the aggressive shallowness of 'reality' shows in order to attract viewers, Serving the public good has been drastically overshadowed over the last few years by the corporate demand of increasing profits. Further, those issues that DO attract the interests of the public often conflict with the financial interests of the corporate masters that SUPPLY the MSM with the advertising dollars that they so achingly desire. Which interests do you think the MSM will dutifully serve?
I think that we can realistically expect news & politics will increasingly go the way of American Idol.
Thank God for the f*cking internet!!!
Well, thank goodness these folks are spending time on things that matter.
Oh, by the way, there have been 3641 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. But yeah, they're probably right. Boobs are more important. Silly me.
Sicarus,
Exactly, talk about anything and everything that keeps us from thinking about another soldier being killed in Iraq. But then who really watches Meet the Press anyway?
I can't believe they spent ANOTHER 40 minutes opining about the 2008 presidential field and only 10 minutes on our AG lying to congress AGAIN!
Ol' Russert can't fathom that most people DON'T CARE about 2008 yet. Dem's don't care who gets in as long as its one of us and the Repugs don't care because there is no candidate to care about.
Actually, to quote another long time poster, “Why is this here?” Actually I’m more inclined to say, “Who gives a crap what Robin Givhan or those who critique her have to say?” On for the days when MEET THE PRESS had substance and meaning about politics, government and the real world and not who showed the most "clevage" and what is she really saying. Sheese, Louise give me a break?
I dunno about this but someone told me that the Republan Senators and Representatives wear baggy pants because if they wore tight pants, it would show that they don't have any b@lls. Not that this has anything to do with politics.
Add my voice to this choir. This so called "controversy" is so inane it's disgraceful. Add to that the ridiculousness of seeing this beltway band of merry men opining on fashion ala Joan Rivers sans the botox. It would be laughable if it weren't so seriously dangerous in pandering to the new world entertainment order, or what passes for serious journalism these days. Could this be the biggest hen party of the season? There were moments when I was watching these self-appointed fashionistas gleefully gutting Hillary with their prerequisite smirks thrown in for maximum effect and they sounded like Billy Bush weighing in from the red carpet for Access Hollywood. Thank God for Andrea "Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse" Mitchell.
Another corporate media biggie preoccupied with the latest Hillary bashing: fake cleavage-gate. Harwood own responses are at least as calculated as he claims Clinton's every action is. Ignore them; Givhan and Harwood are trying to trump up a scandal. Incidentally, did Harwood claim he actually viewed the great cavern itself, or is he taking Givhan's word for the scandalizing display. And was his fly unzipped to mark the event ?
How long before Clinton is dogged by "Show Us Your Teets" signs at her rallies?
Tommy wrote:
"The media covers it, this website covers it - and Mrs. Clinton probably got the reaction she was looking for."
Much in the same way a woman "has it coming" when she's raped right? Or much in the same way a woman who's a victim of domestic violence isn't a victim at all but merely "guilty of bad choices" right"
You misogynists never cease to amaze me.
What possible reaction could Mrs. Clinton have been looking for?
The reaction is all in the minds of the beyond their expiration date frat boys flogging this non story.
p.s. MMA doesn't cover it. It covers the media's reaction.
John Harwood, like Chris Matthews, has an overactive imagination when it comes to women's apparel. He seems to suggest that Senator Clinton was "asking for it (his response)" because she chose to wear a blouse that he thinks exposes inappropriate "cleavage." Oddly, he compares a professional male athlete accused of using illegal pharmaceuticals to cheat at his job with a woman wearing a particular blouse one day to work. I seldom agree with Andrea MItchell, but gee boys, she got this one right: "Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse."
As we used to say to guys like Harwood back in the day "uh, hello, my eyes are up here."
The point that some of you seem to be missing here is that many of us can remember when the Press stood for something. They had a job to do and they did it well. It's time for them to get back to work and stop wasting our freaking time playing word games. I don't give a rat's behind what Barack Obama's middle name is or where he went to school when he was six. Why would anyone care about that? I couldn't care less how much John Edwards pays for a haircut. And I'm sickened by the knowledge that people who call themselves journalists are actually debating Hillary Clinton's cleavage, for Christ's sake. This is all BS.
If you really can't see how this AP article is an example of misinformation, then you can't remember the days when the Press worked to provide oversight of the institutions that govern our lives. It is their job to keep our government from becoming what our government has become. It's a national disgrace. If you don't "get" this, then you've accepted the complete sell-out of our news media by their corporate masters. It's looking more and more unlikely that we're ever going to get our country back.
See you at Gitmo!
Sorry, y'all, I got so worked up I posted my comment in the wrong thread. That'll teach me to log in before I write my long and well-thought out comments :-).
Hillary, who is so calculating of everything she says and does, can’t fail to realize that everything she does will be scrutinized. This isn’t the first time she did this. Shortly after Bill had his surgery for his knee while in the White House, she proudly and clearly showed cleavage. She got up that morning, decided she’d push the envelope a little and did so.
Whatever you say, good or bad, this was no accident.