I have to admit it, I kinda like Hillary Clinton. I always have. As I’ve said in other places, if she takes her husband’s approach to political leadership, she would make a pretty good President, and the country would be better for it. She would take public opinion into account when making decisions, and as dumb, misguided, or whatever, the public can be at times, it is our country and we should have a say in its policies. But that’s neither here nor there, I want to talk about her campaign’s response to this Washington Post article, written by fashion writer, Robin Givhan.
"It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress. After all, it wasn’t until the early ’90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. It was even more surprising to note that it was coming from Clinton, someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both."
The Clinton campaign’s response (via Reuters):
"it was inappropriate for the news media to be "talking about body parts" and that the 2008 presidential campaign should be focused on the issues."
"Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It’s insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting."
Did you miss the part where it was written by the FASHION writer? Did you miss the part that Senator Clinton wore something that showed off her body? Or did she think that nobody would notice?
Sexuality is part of who we are as human beings, whether we talk about it or not. It influences our opinions of people and things. Marketing gurus didn’t invent our appetite for sex, they are just capitalizing on it. And Sen Clinton, by wearing revealing clothing, is capitalizing on it, whether she knows it or not. (I think she does, she’s pretty smart.)
I personally think it’s good. It’s nice to see a woman as a woman and not trying to fit in with the boys.