Sorry to disagree. I don't think racism or sexism is ever acceptable material for humor.

This is an interesting post MJ. My opinion -- these jokes and sniggers are inevitable, low-level sexism is the air we breathe without noticing and there is no way to prevent it. The best we can do is to act dignified in response.

Strange to say, Clinton elected President will be a big step towards marginalizing the joksters and the sniggerers.

By the way, never a need to apologize for disagreeing with me. I respect you, even though we're at odds from time to time.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

It is wierd and disgusting enough that this whole cleavage thing got into the mix in the first place. But, if I understand things correctly, it was an actual topic of discussion on Meet the Press on Sunday, and John Harwood said something like, well since Hillary does nothing without calculating its impact on her election prospects, she had to have deliberately displayed her breasts on the Senate floor (a calculated flashing he surmised).

Outrageous, even if Hillary hasn't come out with a ringing endorsement of the ERA; maybe this will induce her to do just that?

No kidding? That's a real show on Cinemax? Yikes.

We are usually on same wave length.

My point is about sexism in politics. I am not saying HRC should be President just that she should not be disqualified because of her gender.
Her vote on the war is something else.

This is an example of the kind of thing that Gore is writing about in "THE ASSAULT ON REASON."

And the fact that the cleavage nonesense is a blatent example of the assault on reason should be the central talking point that Hillary supporters should be constantly be repeating.

Another talking point should be "Hillary is a 60 year old woman, let's get real."

MJ:

Your point that there is no place for sexism in politics resonates particularly forcefully for the very reason that you have been critical of Hillary on the war, etc. It's one of those things that transcends one's views about any particular candidate, and thanks for addressing it.

Bruce

That means that, unless we make it as utterly unacceptable to employ sexism against Clinton as it is to employ racism against Obama, old-fashioned misogyny could cost us the election.

Good Luck. America is far more sexist than it is racist.

Oh for Pete's sake. Robin Givhan is a fashion columnist. She's actually a pretty good one I think, and typically goes beyond the superficial into some fairly interesting reflections on how people present themselves in public, and with what purpose - particularly people in Washington. She wrote a very good column on Cheney's clueless Parka at Auschwitz and about Obama's cover spread in Men's Vogue.

Frankly, this Cleavagegate episode passed me by completely until yeasterday. I hadn't heard a thing about it last week. But it seems that another Post writer wrote a column to criticize the first, and then the Clinton campaign kicked the issue into overdrive with Ann Lewis' faux-outraged fundraising letter, which masterfully plays to both the right and the left on this question.

The line we are apparently not to cross now is discussion of "body parts". So from now on a style columnist can't say anything about Obama's shoulders or Edward's chest or Kucinich's ears or Biden's gray hair? Fine, let's see how long this new mandate lasts. I personally have no interest in talking about any of the candidate's body parts. But if people are still going to be permitted to write fashion commentary about candidates, it will be rather hard to do so without mentioning various body parts from time to time, since a large part of the arcane science of fashionable dress has to do with how a person's dress does or does not conform to or hang upon their bodies.

Obviously yes, nobody in a mainstream publications is likely to say anything about Barack Obama's "package". But if Barack Obama wore a pair of tight designer jeans to a public event, you can bet you would have people saying something about his "package" - although they would use some more decorous euphemism, just as Givhan used the popular euphemism "cleavage".

This all started, I think, when Edwards made his crack about Hillary's outfit during the BoobTube debate. You have to think that some of the male candidates are irked by the cultural double standard that requires serious male candidates to wear dark suits, while HRC gets to wear bright coral jackets to debates and blaze like a lighthouse at the center of visual attention on stage, without compromising her serious. I guess turnabout is fair play, but it's an interesting topic of discussion.

I think you're probably right, but I also think that people who are sexist are less inhibited about expressing sexist thoughts than racists are about expressing racist thoughts.

I couldn't agree more! I don't think anything that makes fun of anyone for any reason whatsoever is ever acceptable material for humor! In fact I think humor itself is very dangerous, demeaning and against the progressive cause, and needs to be fought with every weapon we have.

Dan K, your attitude is reprehensible. It is important for women to vote for Hillary, because she is a woman, and it is absolutely unacceptable and sexist for anyone in the media to make note of any aspect of her womanness. She is qualified to be president by virtue of having been married to a president, and having stood by him in the time of his troubles caused by his interest in other women, and it is absolutely disagraceful and inappropriate to mention that he did so, that she did so, and that she is a senator and presidential candidate because she married well, and that given her natural talents, she would otherwise probably have risen to the level of undersecretary of Health and Human Services in the Gephardt Administration. Is that clear?

“You may ask, what is this real world all about?
What is this new life that I’m about to enter?
Ladies and gentlemen of the Class of 2005,
Life is not college.
It’s not high school.
Here’s the secret no one told you:
Life is junior high.
The world you’re about to enter is filled with junior high adolescent pettiness, pubescent rivalries, the insecurities of 13-year-olds and the false bravado of 14-year-olds. “
Tom Brokaw

Fifty years in the big leagues and this is what he concluded. Can any of you say he is wrong? I see a budding meme of the Clintons as sexually perverse. So how you gonna compromise with Republicans on this one? Republicans need to be grounded. I say defeat every single one of them.

Regarding the side discussion about Presidential packages, what was the flight suit on the carrier deck all about, if not to accentuate the Executive Privilege?

I seem to recall not just a few of the female commentariat swooning over how good Dubya looked in that flight suit.

Oh, good. How did we get from "sexual characteristics are an inappropriate topic for campaign discussion" to "women of a certain age have no right to be sexually attractive"?!

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT

Racism and sexism should be utterly taboo in any evaluation of a political candidate. Both evils are perpetuated by words (spoken or written), so any sort of ironic evaluation dulls the sharpness that they rightly represent.

I think MJ is right to bring up this topic. It would be too easy to "not dignify" it with silence, but silence has wrought much injustice for bigotry. I understand the absurdity of the original news article, but I am loath to joke about it because of its insidious origins.

I have a wife, three daughters, and countless friends who are not anglo-saxon straight men. I love them all very much and my responsibility is to honor them. To joke about their ability or motives based on their sex, color, crede or sexual orientation is simply not acceptable.

Note: I have an irreverent, sarcastic sense of humor and love a good dig. But there are limits.

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

There is a 50-50 chance that our nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton.

the hell with her g.d cleavage!

Just for the record, after 30+ years as a registered Democrat, voter and activist, if Hillary gets the nomination I not only won't support her, I will leave the party.

Among other reasons:

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Any subsequent statements to the contrary or attempts to put the blame soley on Dubya for the debacle that is Iraq are - at best - disengenuous. At worst, and I think more accurately, downright deceitful and dishonest. She said it herself - the Senate laid this power in Bush's hands.

And where the heck has the freaking funding for this war come from?!

She sits on the Armed Services committee for gods sake.

I have never read any article on a male candidate that made reference to his "package."

The Givhan article that started this mini-controversy explicitly compares displays of sexuality in male and female politicians. She asks us to consider how our reactions would differ at spotting Guiliani "with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far" or "catching a man with his fly unzipped."

I dispute your characterization of a man's "package" as the fashion equivalent of a woman's cleavage, and I doubt that on consideration you would seriously make that argument. I concede that, although Givhan has addressed sexuality in the fashion choices of male politicians, she focuses much more attention on female politicians. But, frankly, there are way, way, way more fashion choices for professional women than professional men so there's just a lot more to talk about. There is also much more ambiguity about what fashion choices convey professionalism, strength, leadership, etc. for women, as compared to the long static and slow-evolving culture of men's fashion. There is also a stark difference between the way American female politicians dress as compared to their foreign counterparts, a difference Givhan points out.

It is not sexism to raise and discuss these issues. The exploitation of Givhan's article for humor or attacks or partisan advantage may be sexist, but you seem to suggest that discussing the sexuality of female politicians' fashion choices without comparable coverage of male politicians' groins is evidence of sexism per se. I think you're wrong and I think that shaming people for discussing this issue is bad for political discourse.

The best we can do is to act dignified in response.

And make those who propragate sexism/racism pay for the behavior. People have criticized the Clinton campaign for hypocrisy for trying to raise money, but I say (just like with the Edwards campaign)go for it, people!

If a major media outlet publishes some braindead fluff crap about haircuts, cleavage, abs, etc, then the campaign in question should make it an issue, and get money from it. Stop hiding, and take it head-on.

I fully agree with you about sexism in politics. This stuff about Hillary Clinton's cleavage is stupid, sexist, and inappropriate.

Much simpler answer. She and Kirkland are both very much tied to the kingmaker of the Democratic party, Mayor Daley.

As, of course, is Obama.

Sand,

they're all in it together.

CT,

while reading jalmari's post I thought of Matthews too. He was practically orgasmic.

Hillary Clinton's support has yet to melt. I guess that at some point most of rank and file Democrats supported the war, so they empathize more with Clinton that the folks who never did.

I wish you were right, Dilan, but as it is, only combined Obama/Edwards support could stop her. Clinton's husband, for all his fault, had competent Administration that presided over an economic boom, and the latter did trickle down to the working class. So Hillary has a good brand. I think that there was a time when DLC suggested a reasonable course, and that it is clearly over.

Dean should not loose, Lieberman should not win, reality often sucks.

Which stuff? MJ's stuff?

No, the stuff that originated this, i.e., the people who were commenting about Clinton's outfit.

I'm glad someone can work the system.

Buddy, they are the system.