That would be because all the nice/attractive/real women are at home with their innumerable babies...

This article makes it seem like she was flashing her nipples or something.

"Just look away." WTF? I'm sorry, but Hilary Clinton in a black top with pink blazer can HARDLY be compared to Rudy Guiliani sporting Fabio's chest hair or a man with his fly down.

Geeze, what is the Washington Post coming to.

And speaking of nice/attractive/real women, the hard-core out here have noticed Ms Valenti's "sell-out" shaved armpits. Tut tut tut.

Note to feminist-haters: this is a joke, I don't give a fuck if Jessica shaves her armpits, her head or her back if she thinks it needs doing.

I was going to write a long comment about this issue, but we all know what it's like. We can never win. It's not like there's a choice that we'd rather not make, but we know that if we do, we'll be deemed acceptable in the eyes of the patriarchy. When, as women, we try to be taken seriously, the patriarchy gets pretty dirty in its desperate attempt to take us down. There is good news, though: Michelle Bachelet went through the same sort of bullshit on her way to the Chilean presidency (there was a lot of commentary about her weight) but she won anyway and is a damn good presidenta!

I'm so glad they're reporting on the most urgent news issues of the day. . .

On the other hand, every time I read one of these reports, I'm that much more likely to vote for Hillary purely out of sympathy. So perhaps it's a vast left-wing conspiracy to use media breast-attacks to garner votes?

Oh my God. Why the fuck is there an entire article about Hilary Clinton's breasts? Nice journalism.

"I'm so glad they're reporting on the most urgent news issues of the day. . ."

Yes, between reading about this and Bush's upcoming colonoscopy (and hearing about it on NPR for god's sake!), I don't know if the news of the day could get more, uhm - urgent...

"On the other hand, every time I read one of these reports, I'm that much more likely to vote for Hillary purely out of sympathy."

Human Bean (cute name!) - I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the article this morning. Every time she gets bullshit thrown at her for being a woman, my ambivalence about voting for her lessens.

Now, imagine if a similar piece was written on a male politician...

Senator Mc Such-and-Such stepped up to the podium and began his speech on the recent trade embargo placed on Central America. He was wearing a pair of brown slacks that matched the stripe pattern on his tie perfectly. The pants were snug around his package, and the outline of his testicles could be seen distinctly, if you focused on his crotch for a few moments. Not obscence ball-huggage, mind you, but just enough to say "HEY SENATE! CHECK OUT MY NADS! NOW THIS IS POLITICS!"

Aside from the obvious problems with the article (like, why was it written in the first place?), did anyone else notice that the writer seems to think it is impossible to be sexy without showing skin? They said Clinton had a gown altered to raise the neckline and add long sleeves, but why did that make it automatically not sexy?

why is this news?

BURN HER AT THE STAKE!!!

Jeez, what with the handwringing tone of this article I thought I was reading The Watchtower instead of WaPo for a minute.

(Not to be negative Knicole, but most Chileans are not very happy with Bachelet right now.)

Damn that was fast. And are we ever going to get past this? It's just because men don't have the parts that are easily visible and easily exploited to show off so you never hear anything about their dress.

And Althouse is already back on her how-dare-women-have-boobs schtick

As I was scanning the newspaper in my office breakroom I noticed this article, Exclaimed "what the f***" and proceeded to discuss loudly how it's inappropriate that female candidates are continually judged on appearances. How many of our male colleagues would be elected into these high offices based on what they wear? Not many my friends...

I'm glad to see you all picked up this article :)

WHORE!

Just kidding. I don't really have anything to say that everyone here isn't already thinking or saying, so I'll just make a sarcastic comment like that one. :)

That's not even sexy. It's just pink. Alert the media! Stupid Washington Post.

The enlarged picture has such crappy resolution, I can't tell if that's cleavage or an artifact anyway. My answer to this entire article (!!) is "who cares and why is this news?"

Is it really true that women weren't allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor until the 90's? Or was it just taboo?

I've often thought that if I were in the Senate, it would be easiest to just wear suits like the men (tailored to fit).

Emperor George W. Bush has no clothes, yet the media just can't stop talking about what Hillary Clinton is wearing!

cupcakesofdeath(best screen name ever!!!)

Those type of stories get written about male candidates plenty. Just ask Edwards. The man takes a lot of flack for having a good head of hair.

This, if anything, seems like another calculation by the Clinton team according to schedule. They have already done the Thatcher performance at the debates, now they are reminding the country that she is feminine . But as always it seems so planned. Senator Clinton will never seem as comfortable in her own skin as someone like Elizabeth Edwards, who invites reporters to her house in her comfy pants and speaks her mind indapendantly(sp) of John, like calling out Ann Coulter. I find it hard to believe that every comment out of Hilary's mouth hasn't been triangulated and vetted with her posse and Bill. Enough calculation, we need a real person, woman or man, as our next president.

Happily, the comments on the article all seem to express the same sentiments we're expressing here. And most are downright hilarious, from this one, which echoes cupcakesofdeath...

"I think it's pretty appalling that an article regarding a senator and presidential canidate's clevage has made it to a newspaper of supposed journalistic quality as the Washington Post. I didn't think I was reading US Weekly, but now I'm not quite certain. I am however, looking forward to the follow up article about whether or not Obama's pants are tight enough to flatter his package. Keep up the ground-breaking reporting folks!"

...to this one, which cuts right to the chase:
"Excuse me, the issues are Iraq, health care, etc., they do not include fashion. Why are you trying to change the subject? Who cares what Hillary Clinton was wearing? WHAT DID SHE SAY? That's all I want to know. Thank you very much."

And my personal favorite:
"On behalf of Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Monica Goodling, Scooter Libby (FELON), Harriet Miers, and a disreputable cast of thousands, I would like to thank you for casting a light on the vastly underreported case of the woman with breasts."

LOL! Forgive me, I'm a bit gleeful at the moment. The more the press grasps at straws to divert the public, the more obvious it becomes, and the fewer people buy it. Keep up the good work, WAPO!