Clinton's Cleavage: Senator's V-Neck Top Sparks a Controversy

Thanks to the Washington Post and the New York Times, Hillary Clinton's cleavage has become an issue in the presidential campaign.

It started as a mild controversy, one that was easily overshadowed as Clinton and Barack Obama exchanged barbs over comments during the YouTube debate. But, brewing over on the sidelines was this debate over Clinton's cleavage.

Many in the voting public may have missed this one, mainly because it started as something of an insider's issue. To review, though, the issue developed July 18 when the New York senator gave a senate speech that was broadcast on C-Span.

Washington Post columnist Robin Givhan saw the broadcast. In her weekly fashion column two days later, she wrote a review of the senator's clothing. Givhan complained that Clinton's clothing "sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape," adding that "The cleavage registered after only a quick glance."

Eventually - one week later - the New York Times got in on the melee by running an article, written by Sarah Wheaton, about the controversy. The Times article was itself sparked by the Clinton campaign's use of the issue in a campaign fund-raising e-mail.

The Clinton e-mail used the one-word title "Cleavage" and referred to the Washington Post article.

"Frankly, focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting," the e-mail read.

Meanwhile, Givhan disappeared from the Post's editorial team. Her column, which usually appears every Saturday, was not available this past weekend. Instead, the Post ran a short notice saying the she was "away" and her column would return when she returned.

There was no explanation for the reason for her departure, nor a date as to when she would return. It triggered speculation that the Post wanted the controversy to at least die down.

It didn't. In Sunday's (July 28) issue of the Washington paper, writer Deborah Howell acknowledged that the Post had received thousands of letters from women complaining about Givhan's column. Howell's column included an interview with Givhan, indicating that she was at least still accessible for the newspaper.

Regardless, the Clinton campaign has to be smiling over the entire uproar. It is, after all, one of those controversies that can only help her campaign.

She recognized that quickly. Hence its use in a campaign fund-raising appeal, although that was probably secondary to their real goal. Using it in a fund-raising appeal probably keeps it on the news agenda for them, at least for a few more days.

So, what's going on here? Simple. The article gave the Clinton campaign a chance to shore up their support among women while distracting the media from other issues.

Women will be offended by the media's attempt to make her clothing an issue. And offended women voters are likely to feel an affinity for a woman candidate.

Women outvoted men by a 54%-to-46% margin in the 2002 presidential election. Within the Democratic primary, they play an even larger role - accounting for up to 60% of the total vote within some electorates.

Do the math. in a multi-candidate primary, Clinton only has to win a majority of the vote from Democratic women to be a contender. In some cases, its enough to win a primary.

Thus Clinton's cleavage becomes an issue that works to her advantage, and one that none of her male competitors can use - either for themselves or against her.

That has to make the Clinton campaign happy.

#

REFERENCES

Howell, Deborah (2007, July 29). A column prompts a dressing down. Washington Post, B6.

Givhan, Robin (2007, July 20). Hillary Clinton's tentative dip into new neckline territory. Washington Post, C1.

Wheaton, Sarah (2007, July 28). Latest campaign issue? One candidate's neckline. New York Times, A11.