Clinton capitalizes on cleavage coverage

WASHINGTON — A journalistic assessment of Hillary Rodham Clinton's cleavage became the most improbable presidential campaign controversy yet as her team Friday rolled out a fundraising letter calling a Washington Post column on the subject "grossly inappropriate" and "insulting."

One week after the piece by fashion writer Robin Givhan took note of the Democratic candidate's relatively low neckline during a speech on the Senate floor, senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis urged donors to "take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture."

Givhan, who won a Pulitzer Prize for criticism last year, said she disagreed "that there was anything in the column that was coarse, insulting or belittling. It was a piece about a public person's appearance on the Senate floor that was surprising because of the location and because of the person. It's disingenuous to think that revealing cleavage, any amount of it, in that kind of situation is a nonissue."

Stories about the physical appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tone wardrobe to John Edwards' $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama, have long been an entertaining sideshow. But since no journalist has plunged into this particular territory, given the predominantly male nature of past White House contests, Givhan's column has sparked plenty of reaction, much of it negative. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote Friday that Givhan "managed to make a media mountain out of a half-inch valley."

Clinton adviser Lewis said in an interview she was "appalled" by the column but initially dismissed it as "an inside-the-Beltway story."

"I didn't realize the attention and the anger it was setting off nationally," she added. Lewis said she has not discussed the matter with the New York senator.

Lewis' fundraising letter begins: "Can you believe that The Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary's cleavage? ... I've seen some off-topic press coverage — but talking about body parts? That is grossly inappropriate."

For candidates, using criticism — real or perceived — to raise money is catching on as a political maneuver. After conservative author Ann Coulter mocked Edwards in March, describing him with a slur used against gays, the former North Carolina senator featured the attacks in a fundraising pitch.

Givhan regularly patrols the intersection of fashion and politics. About two years ago, she chastised Vice President Dick Cheney for wearing a fur-trimmed parka rather than more formal attire to a somber ceremony in Poland marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

In April, Givhan scrutinized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her "generous collection of scarves" during a tour of the Middle East.

The column on cleavage described Clinton's clothing choice, as seen on C-SPAN-2, as a "small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity" that departed from her usual "desexualized uniform" of black pantsuits.

Steve Reiss, The Post's deputy assistant managing editor for Style, said, "Robin has consistently raised similar questions over the years about both men and women who are in the public eye. 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."

Noting that the newspaper has run dozens of articles on Clinton's policy positions and background, Reiss said, "I don't feel we have anything to apologize for."

Politicians often rip the media over what they see as unfavorable coverage. But the cleavage letter is undoubtedly a first in the annals of campaign counterpunching.

"I would never say the column was about a body part," Givhan said. "It was about a style of dress. People have gone down the road of saying, 'I can't believe you're writing about her breasts.' I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline."