|
|
July 18, 2006Hillary: Nothin’ wrong with a little cleavageYou folks can never call me predictable, I think. Yesterday I admitted to not being terribly offended by swear words (taking the Lord’s name in vain bothers me, but the rest of it? Pfft, mere words, and lots of them are pretty useful, sometimes…) Today, I am going to come to the defense of one Hillary Clinton. Kathryn Lopez at The Corner writes: I know it’s July and ugly hot but my junior senator needs to get into a little light modest layering. You can check out the screen shot and judge for yourself.
I think she looks perfectly fine. Fresh and feminine and that color blue is probably very effective with her blue-tinted contact lenses. In fact, I think Hillary has never looked better than she has in recent years. The hair is always washed and usually pretty well coifed. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen her looking wrinkled (face or pantsuits) and her make-up is well done. None of that changes the fact that - at State of the Union addresses - she often comes off like a startled and constipated prune (and you have to really, really be tight to be a constipated prune). It doesn’t change the fact that her speeches are either mind-numbing adventures in droning, or ear-shattering rants, or that I would never vote for her under any circumstance, in this life or the next. And I would certainly never “sit out” any election in which she was running. It doesn’t change the fact that she’s done little-to-nothing in the senate, that she did little-to-nothing in the vast period of time before that. (Oh, I forgot, she was an advocate!) It doesn’t change the fact that on too many issues she flops around like a star gymnast performing on uneven bars of entitlement and expectation with enormous help from her team and her coaches in the press, who never, ever let her fall. It just means I think she looks pretty good, and - maybe I’m an oddball - but I think if a woman has an inch of cleavage, it’s kind of pretty to see. UPDATED: She may look pretty good lately, but this bust does not flatter her. UPDATED - 2007. Apparently someone brought up the cleavage thing again, because I’m getting lots of google hits on this. Absurd, don’t you think, that we as a society are so wrapped up in this? But since I’m updating let me say that I think Hillary’s speeches have improved since last year, and she’s much better on the stump than she has been. Still won’t vote for her (heh…she’s way too partisan for my liking), but I’m trying to be fair about it. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/07/18/nothin-wrong-with-a-little-cleavage/trackback/ 18 Responses to “Hillary: Nothin’ wrong with a little cleavage” |
July 18th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Plust it’s very useful as Storage
July 18th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Cleavage is OK with me.
There’s something about a dirndl, as you know- here.
You know, if weren’t for you, the words ‘lift and separate’ would still be a mystery.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Nope, there’s a time and a place, and a Senate hearing is not the place.
Cleavage is very pretty indeed, but save showing off the girls for the evening soirees.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Even if you ignore the issue of modesty, that shirtless suit look has always looked to me as if a lady forgot something when she got dressed that morning. I mean, what happens if you get too hot and want to take that jacket off? I’m not saying one should wear a shirt and tie (though I’ve always been partial to that look in a lady’s suit); a nice shell—and not the spaghetti-strap kind—works wonders.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Heh. We’ll have to agree to disagree, Miss Kelly and JMC. I think she looks fine and not excessive. I think of Pam Anderson/Mariah Carey type things as “showing off the girls,” and I frankly wish they’d put them away!
‘
BUT…THAT would certainly make a Senate hearing more interesting, in many ways, wouldn’t it? Ted would show up…
‘
LOL
July 18th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I think she looks just fine in that picture. I have plenty to pick on Hill about without having to dwell on that minimal amount of cleavage.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
And here I was hoping for another Bryn post;)
July 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Not bad for a 60-y.o. woman, frankly. And it looks like she actually might have been wearing something underneath the suit jacket. To my eyes, anyway, there seems to be a strip of light blue around the edges.
.
Who knows? Her cleavage might have looked perfectly fine in the mirror that morning, whilst standing up straight. And the jacket might have slipped during the day. Lord knows, I’ve unintentionally shown off a bit more than I intended when my blouse and/or jacket have been tugged and pulled by the weight of my purse or briefcase!
July 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Shoot, I am not at all fond of Herself, but I think she looks fine here.
And like you Anchoress, some salty language doesn’t bother me. Non stop cursing does, and dropping indiscriminant F-bombs does.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I can’t help but notice that you conservative folks seem to be altogether tolerant and reasonable people about this.
‘
Imagine if this was about Laura Bush showing an inch of cleavage, on some of the lefty blogs! Take a bow, people! LOL
July 19th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Maybe because we’re grown ups?
July 26th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
[...] Eyes burning. No. No. Must look away. But it's like a train wreck. No matter how horrified you are, you have to look. I know that The Anchoress supports is in favor of isn't against doesn't object to defends Hillary's cleavage (I just can't make that one come out favorably), but this is far, far different. [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
[...] I don’t especially like Hillary Clinton, but I have acknowledged on this site that she is both smart and clever (there is a difference) and that she works very hard to get what she wants. I’ve even defended her right to cleavage. I’ve called Bill Clinton “full to the brim with talent,” and “gifted.” [...]
November 1st, 2006 at 8:08 am
[...] And three months ago Hillary Clinton appeared on C-SPAN, this time with her formidable cleavage peering through her tailored blue dress. [http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/07/18/nothin-wrong-with-a-little-cleavage/] What is it about the Clintons and blue dresses, anyway? [...]
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
[...] “We’re on vacation; don’t want to hear it,” the family said, and I agreed, and shut up. We did miss the crossword puzzles and Sodukos, but we really didn’t miss the news. And why should we? Every day’s news is exactly the same as it was before we left. Two and a half weeks later, the Congress still hasn’t done anything (they may have started a few more investigations into President George W. Bush, but that wouldn’t exactly be different, would it?) The way-too-early political campaigns are meeting with the yawns of a public already burned out and bored by the stultifying and predictable speeches, the content-less debates and the transparent pandering and re-tooling that used to go on behind closed doors but now happens as we watch, with no one batting an eye in surprise. Oh, yeah…Hillary showed some cleavage - that was apparently compelling enough news for coverage in the Washington Post - except that Hillary’s cleavage was really neither new nor news; I wrote about it a year ago, here. [...]
July 30th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Who cares about clevage of an elderly woman. Her own husband doesn’t even care about them. I sure don’t, bad enough she’s running for president. So focus people! Obama isn’t much of a choice neither! Why not talk about his clevage, atleast they are where they are supoosed to be without wires and bricks..
August 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
[...] to have been “victimized” which I suppose is the case now that she’s keeping the cleavage-gate non-story alive. Hillary knows how to play the victim, and she has lots of “the world is so mean to [...]
August 1st, 2007 at 7:03 pm
SHE IS FAR FROM A VICTIM, MORE LIKE A PREDITOR AGAINST HUMANITY AND AMERICAN TAX PAYING PUBLIC. WHY IS SHE AND HER HUSBAND RIPPING OFF AMERICANS WITH THIER OUTRAGIOUS RENT TO THIER PROTECTIVE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS AT A MILLION A MONTH? PLUS ALL THIER MILLION DOLLAR GIFTS? SHE IS A CLASSIC THIEF!
ANY NORMAL PERSON WOULD HAVE THEM THERE FREE!! I SURE WOULD HAVE THEM THERE FOR FREE. GOVERMENT ALREADY PAYS WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS FOR THIER PROTECTION. HOW AND WHY DO THEY NEED TO PROFIT OFF WHAT IS THERE FOR FREE AT OUR EXPENSE??
CLASSIC FORM OF ABUSING THE GOVERMENT DOLLARS FOR THEMSELVES AND NOONE ELSE!