New York Press, NY
08-09-07
HILLARY'S CLEAVAGE PROBLEM
It’s about boobs, sex, power and gender on the campaign trail
By Jill Colvin
When Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan published her July 20 story
about Hillary Clinton’s less-than-plunging neckline during a Senate floor debate
broadcast on CSPAN, the media and the nation seemed to take a collective
gasp. We scrutinized the TV clips and YouTube footage like wet-dreaming, 12year-oldboys, desperately trying to make out that holy grail of shadowed territory.
As it turns out, it wasn’t even good cleavage. But it was a glimpse of something
unknown, something we’d never seen before.
Clinton’s wardrobe choices have, since her days as a governor’s wife, been
decidedly conservative: think chin-high, wrist-grazing gowns, loose, boxy jacket
and that ever-present androgynous black pants suit. And for a woman with a
reputation for precisely managing every aspect of her persona, the question on
many minds was whether this foray into sexuality could really have been
unintentional.
“When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton
does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by
her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with
flaxseed oil,” argued CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood on
the July 29 edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
To make the case more convincing, the incident came at precisely a time when
Clinton was facing heightened criticism from opponents for acting too masculine.
In an interview published July 17 by Salon magazine, Elizabeth Edwards wrote
that her husband would make a better advocate for women’s issues than Clinton
because she’d be too preoccupied trying to prove herself as a woman on the
world stage. “Sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk
about women’s issues,” she said sympathetically. Bill Clinton even came to his
wife’s defense, telling “Good Morning America,” “I don’t think [Hillary’s] trying to
be a man.” Meanwhile, in recent months, we’ve seen Hillary trade her senatorial
campaign’s black pantsuits uniform for cheerful pastels and more fashion-forward
styles in what many have painted as a concerted effort to reaffirm her femininity.
But the Clinton campaign has met the coverage of Clinton’s bust line with shock,
outrage and criticism. Senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis issued a letter to Clinton
supporters, deriding the story as “grossly inappropriate” and “insulting.” She
urged donors to “take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in
American culture” by—what else?—donating more money to the Hillary
campaign. Steve Reiss, the Post’s deputy assistant managing editor for Style,
however, defended his writer’s right to discuss the candidate’s wardrobe choices.
“We know these people take a great deal of care in how they present themselves
on TV and in public, and that is fair game for analysis,” he said.
The media has already jumped on a slew of stories about presidential
candidates’ appearances, from “pretty boy” John Edwards’ $400 haircuts to
Barack Obama’s boyish good looks, to Mitt Romney’s $300 pre-debate make-up
jobs. Until now, it’s the men who have been attracting the spotlight for their
vanity. But what’s different about the cleavage controversy, according to many
who have spoken out against the Post story, is that the discussion there was not
focused on attire—on the color of a candidate’s tie or the fur trim of his jacket—
but on a candidate’s anatomy.
“I’ve seen some off-topic press coverage—but talking about body parts? That is
grossly inappropriate,” Lewis wrote in her letter. This isn’t about boots, it’s about
boobs, they say, and that’s what matters. But Givhan, among others, has denied
the distinction. “I would never say the column was about a body part,” she said. “I
wasn’t writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline.”
The fact that appearance is a relevant factor in any political campaign is a longproven fact. More attractive candidates are more likely to win elections, as are
taller candidates and—oddly enough—those with the longest last name. Further,
thanks to the so-called “halo effect,” attractive people tend to be seen as more
intelligent, more talented and generally better people. Just think back to the
famous 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon and the difference in appraisal
between those who listened on the radio versus those who watched on TV.
Striking evidence of the power of attraction is everywhere.
But according to experts, it’s female candidates who are most often subjected to
such discussion by the media.
“Women have been treated differently in the media,” explains Dianne Bystrom,
the director of the Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State
University, whose research examines differences in media coverage of male
and female candidates. In her study of Senate and gubernatorial races over the
last three election cycles, Bystrom found that 5-6 percent of women’s media
coverage focused on appearance, versus just 1 percent for men. And while
neither of those numbers is particularly high, the disparity means that male
candidates receive about 5 percent more issues coverage than do females. “If
the percentage of coverage were more equal, maybe it wouldn’t be as
discriminatory,” says Bystrom.
But even when the discussion is not about appearance, it is, even more often,
about gender. Republicans seem to be particularly adept at building their
candidates’ images as strong, protective and masculine: We see Rudy Giuliani
as the no-nonsense father figure laying down the law, Bush clothed in military
gear stomping around an aircraft carrier or as the archetype cowboy defending
the West from invaders. Michael Scherer went as far as to described the GOP
debate in May as an “alpha male test…The Republican primary has become, in
many ways, a fatherhood audition. Only a man’s man will save us,” he observed.
And GOP criticism of top Democrat contenders, from John Kerry as an elitist,
liberal, wish-washy Frenchman to Edwards as a “faggot” pretty boy, more often
than not, paints Democrats as too weak, too sissy and
too feminine.
According to Bystrom’s research, both male and female candidates must work
very carefully to balance stereotypical masculine and feminine traits. Candidates,
she says, must be seen as strong, yet compassionate, forceful, yet friendly. But
for women, the balancing act is especially difficult. “I think women candidates,
they really have to walk a tightrope that men aren’t expected to walk,” explains
Bystrom. She said her research has found that winning women candidates are
typically those who are best able to balance stereotypically masculine and
feminine images and issues, posing with children as well as in formal suits, and
discussing both healthcare and defense. Those who are seen as too feminine
tend to lose races, while those who are seen as “too hard” work frantically to
soften their images.
But just because their personas are gendered, doesn’t make candidates
sexualized. And some have argued that it is overwhelmingly women who must
bear the brunt of sexual imagery. Back in 2005, for instance, Givhan wrote
another column examining an outfit worn by Condoleezza Rice, likening her
black skirt, knee-length jacket and knee-high boots with stiletto heels to a
dominatrix get-up. “Stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form
that is purely sexual,” she argued. As one blogger acutely wrote, “One can’t
imagine, for example, a discussion of the sexual connotations of President Bush
attired in western wear at the ranch.”
But to say that sexuality doesn’t play a role in politics when men are concerned
seems just a little bit premature. After all, the “charisma” of Bill Clinton, Barack
Obama and other male candidates seems nearly impossible to separate from
their likeability, attractiveness and sex appeal. The famous “Obama Girl”
campaign video includes a woman provocatively fawning over her “so black and
sexy” political crush, even dancing bikini-clad against a photo of the presidential
hopeful frolicking shirtless in the Pacific. Could one imagine Obama or Bill
Clinton or Reagan divorced from their sex appeal? And can one possibly imagine
such a tribute to a female candidate?
Perhaps the most provocative aspect of the whole cleavage controversy is that
no one has yet criticized Clinton for dressing inappropriately, and there have
been surprisingly few jokes about people wanting to avert their eyes from the
chest of an older woman. Instead, everyone except for Hillary’s campaign seems
strangely pleased with the development. Even the latest Rasmussen poll shows
that Hillary has been steadily gaining support in the last two weeks, and now
leads Obama 43 percent to 22 percent. Are the developments related? Who
knows. But perhaps Hillary has learned what male politicians in this country have
known for decades: that using sex appeal to get elected is just part of the game.
Maybe next week we’ll even see her in a skirt.