Bookmark this page |
Tag to del.icio.us
| Add to Technorati Favorites
|
Our discussion forum is open for business. Come say hello. |
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Who has the bigger boobs, Hillary or the Post?
By VictorM: Last week there was quite a bit written about an article in the Washington Post about Senator Hillary Clinton's cleavage. We posted about it. Now, a Post ombudsman adds her take to the story, adding more context from the author of the article's point of view.Whether you agree or not, this Post article about Hillary's cleavage as news is worth a read. I don't mean to debate that whole issue -- frankly, it shouldn't be such a big deal anyway -- but a few statements in the article stood out to me:
[W]omen couldn't wear pants on the Senate floor until 1993 -- not exactly an environment where modern attire is robustly welcomed...I have seen Hillary Clinton's cleavage. With all due respect, it's not worth all the hoopla. How about we talk about her health care plan and Iraq war stance? Wouldn't it be great if that became the biggest story?Readers said that Clinton's cleavage isn't news. [The original article's author, Robin] Givhan disagrees. "It is news because it is out of the ordinary and says something about clothing and sexuality in our culture and the way that we perceive people and the way that people want to be perceived."
There's a bigger issue about her Clinton piece: Does this have anything to do with whether Clinton should be president? Not a thing. But do we want to read the column about her cleavage? Yes indeed. It was the most viewed story on the Web site all day.
Tags: hillary clinton, cleavage, boobs, washington post
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
You are not on our Home Page.
Click here to return to ARGville's Home Page
Links to this post:
You are not on our Home Page.
Click here to return to ARGville's Home Page
