Clinton And The Feminists

There's a lot of talk going on in the feminist blogosphere about Gloria Steinem's op-ed for Hillary. I don't have a whole lot to add because I think Ann Friedman covered it. I do think that "feminist" debate is actually masking is debate over centrist verses leftist politics. (Although I am getting rather sick of older feminist icons telling younger women they don't know how to be feminist enough...and are they not voting for Hillary because they resent their moms or something like that.)

Its funny because, aside from the issure of Iraq, what makes Hillary centrist is actually her economic policies (well and her militarily hawkish position...which can be a whole 'nother issue). It's a debate you don't hear about from voters trying to decide between Edwards and Obama. (Around early 2007, quite a few veteran progressive campaign workers were having an internal debate about whether to join Edwards' or Obama's camp, I rarely heard of a anyone trying to decide between Hillary and either of the other two.).

I'm not sure if it's good for Democrats that the debate about "centrist verses leftist" politics is masked by "feminist verses anti-feminist" terminology. It could be though, because it prevents Obama from having to run as the liberal candidate (which I'm hoping is how he would govern).

But I basically have to agree with Atrios about Hillary verses anti-Hillary. I make not like her politics as much as I prefer Obama's or Edwards' but her enemies are not my friends.

I don't know if reaction to the media treatment of Clinton had anything to do with voter choices yesterday, but I certainly know people in real life who a) don't want Clinton to win and b) are tempted to vote for her every time they're exposed to the way she's treated by the deeply broken monsters in our mainstream media.

Makin Hay Out Of Her Breasts

Oh Lord will Clinton’s breasts ever go away? Now both The Washington Post and Hillary Clinton’s campaign are trying to spin this into gold. “Controversy and breasts, boys! That’s what brings in the Sacagaweas!”

Now on some part I can’t blame the continuing coverage entirely on the Post. Apparently more than Ms. Magazine cited the Post story to get attention. The Clinton campaign also used the article in a fundraising letter. That act keeps the angle alive.

So now we have the Post’s Let the Cleavage Conversation Begin

Begin?! I want this story to fucking die a fast crib death!

But have you noticed that whenever the Post get any kind of criticism, when they talk about it in their own pages (or webpages) it always comes out like “we examined the critique and decided our writers are smart people and can’t possible be incorrect or be taken the wrong way.” (They have pure hearts so alternate interpretations don’t factor either).

One week after the piece, by fashion writer Robin Givhan, took note of the Democratic candidate's low neckline during a speech on the Senate floor, senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis urged donors to help fight treatment she termed "insulting." [Hmmm…it’s like only connected people criticized the story? Well only them and one Boston Globe columnist.]

Givhan, who won a Pulitzer Prize last year, [SO SUCK IT CRITICS] said she disagreed "that there was anything in the column that was coarse, insulting or belittling. It was a piece about a public person's appearance on the Senate floor that was surprising because of the location and because of the person. It's disingenuous to think that revealing cleavage, any amount of it, in that kind of situation is a non-issue.

So did you get that? Givhan doesn’t think there was anything wrong with the column…so that’s that I guess.

This article isn’t actually by Givhan, it’s Howard Kurtz with Anne E. Kornblut. I swear I think it was really Howard Kurtz’s article and he probably felt he needed a beard to "co-sign” his column, hence Kornblut’s byline. Without that feminine touch it might just seem…I don’t know ... sexist.

The Washington Post’s editorial voice, even its ombudswoman is always “I can see why you might think that but you are wrong.” I’m not just talking about facts. This wasn’t an issue about facts. It was an issue of coverage. What is appropriate, what is fair, and what is sexist. There is more than one way to view their coverage, but the Post acts as if there’s only way see their stories, their way.

I love how utterly dismissive of all the criticism the last paragraphs are. As if everyone is getting impossibly upset over nothing. Boy what is all the fuss about? No one could possibly fault Givhan (or by extension) the Post for its writing. Well, people can but they'd be just plain mistaken or, even worse, have an agenda for their criticism.

Politicians often rip the media over what they see as unfavorable coverage, hoping to score points against an unpopular institution. But the cleavage letter is undoubtedly a first in the annals of campaign counterpunching.

"I would never say the column was about a body part," Givhan said. "It was about a style of dress. People have gone down the road of saying, 'I can't believe you're writing about her breasts.' I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline."

See, you haters all were wrong! It wasn’t about breasts at all!

The Breasts of Hillary Clinton

I know this blog post is going to get a few accidental perverts, but it wasn’t until I looked at the cover of the Washington Post’s Style section today that I realized Hillary Clinton has breasts. I mean, not only does she have them, but they are obscene. Truly. Look at that picture. They’re all hanging out there. It’s practically the J. Lo dress. What kind of woman allows her breasts to be out in public? Clearly not the kind of woman we need to take seriously.

What, you think I’m just making this up? Well how else to take the Washington Post’s fashion writer Robin Givhan’s oh-so-demeaning take on Hillary chest.

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton. 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’s almost like Hillary is some kind of…woman? What is she doing with those breasts of hers! (I don't know...talking about education or something...I wasn't paying attention).

The cleavage, however, is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's being revealed. It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!

So a v-neck shirt is just like an embarrassing faux pas? That’s good to know Robin.

This new emerging meme on Mrs. Clinton’s breasts isn’t just Robin’s idea however. It’s the beginning of pack journalism. I realized that when I saw on Feministing this story by Susan Donaldson James at ABC News, on the exact same subject but dated a few weeks ago. Next the New York Times will do a piece. Or some conservative columnists will write a whole “witty” column about “Hillary’s sexiness.” And once again somehow Mrs. Clinton didn’t satisfy the 250 million conflicting opinions about how she should dress, speak and behave in public.

Robin is just one more reporter jumping into the herd mentality that if one media outlet has an angle then, by golly! the Post will push that angle too.

“But if people are talking about Mrs. Clinton and fashion…why shouldn’t we cover it?” the editors will whine if criticized.

What “people” are talking? No it’s bus mentality. One person writes a story and then everyone writes a story. Someone was bored writing about Iraq and make a crack about Hillary’s neckline which inspired a story. The fact that, at the moment, its women reporters doing it, makes me realize that women covering politics doesn’t exactly guarantee that the coverage isn’t misogynist.

To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d'oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever.

In other words to have breasts you must have balls of steels. That’s not even a joke.

Washington Post: Newsflash!!! Lukewarm Gossip About Hillary!!!

Apparently the policy of the Washington Post is their newspaper prints only the most relevant news on its front page ... except when they are trying to promote books by their writers, then any bit of gossip is good enough for their A1-above-the-fold.

Their lead story this morning, “Books Paint Critical Portraits of Clinton” has no reason to justify its placement on the front page, let alone in the lead-story location. Here’s my theory, the story is actually a “favor” to Carl Bernstein but because it would look pretty bad to have publicity piece just for a friend-of-the-paper, they puffed it out by including another book by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., that has even shadier research.

The article in the ninth paragraph really tries to justify its classification as “news.”

Unlike many harsh books about Clinton written by ideological enemies, the two new volumes come from long-established writers backed by major publishing houses and could be harder to dismiss. Bernstein won national fame with partner Bob Woodward at The Post for breaking open the Watergate scandal, while Gerth and Van Natta have spent years as investigative reporters for the New York Times.

Yes unlike all those other imperfect books about Hillary the Bernstein...I mean BOTH THESE BOOKS, are serious investigative books written by people without agendas. (I mean other than the agenda to sell as many books as possible).

I haven’t read either but apparently Gerth’s and Natta’s book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton has a former girlfriend of Bill Clinton, Marla Crider, (who’s not quoted directly) make the claim that it was always the plan of Bill and Hillary to have his-and-her presidencies. So it’s already second-hand “I heard that someone else said that Hillary and Bill have a plan...”

Even the Post points out a source for the story denies it.

They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons "still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary." Contacted last night, Branch said that "the story is preposterous" and that "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president."

The people who hate the Clintons will eat that shit up. But I’ll be damned if Hillary knew she’d even ever become a U.S. Senator before 1998.

I can’t believe the Post decided to run a front page story about either book, let alone Gerth and Natta’s. I mean, I can believe it because who said The Washington Post isn’t a run like a high school rag or a MySpace blog. “Did you hear the one about Hillary, I heard she’s a total bitch!” That's pretty much what the article implies.

UPDATE: I've beening wondering who the heck Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. are since I figure there's some kind of bad track record behind them but I too busy to go look for it. Whiskey Fire has more on Gerth.