The Washington Post writes up 735 words on Hillary Clinton’s cleavage??
Seriously.
Seriously?
The media in this country is so seriously broken, it is beyond repair.
» Breaking News
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
Murdered Anchorwoman Anne Pressly Was Sexually Assaulted, Parents Say
Trish Stratus @ The Gemini Awards
To be fair, Oliver, it is the Fashion column.
Up next, Fred Thompson’s “package!”
I could’ve gone without seeing the words “Hillary Clinton’s cleavage” for the rest of my life.
Oddly enough, I was just thinking of cleavage. Really.
I guess the WaPo was just following up on Oliver’s claim that Hillary was a “juggernaut”.
Who knew she had any.
One party runs a candidate with boobs. The other runs boobs as candidates.
could cause rips in the fabric of the universe.
Anything I can do to help gets out of this one.
As I’ve said in the past, the media will be a bigger threat to the Democrats than the Republican party.
So why is the article about her boobs? And why is a woman who writes a fashion column uncomfortable about boobs?
And do we really need a reminder on the drooling in the media over Bush’s “codpiece” during his “Mission Accomplished” debacle?
Point taken, Mouse. Let’s instead turn our attention to the frumpy pantsuits of the great fashion plate, Pickles!
Which would you rather read about this weekend: the Senatorial decolletage, or the Executive bunghole?
Myself, I THOUGHT I’d be reading that damn Potter book, but instead it looks like I’m being dragged to an art festival…
You want to see something really scary?
I do not own a television. I stopped watching cable news shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
I stopped watching television completely about 3 years ago.
So, the Washington Post prints an article about HC’s cleavage. Granted it is in the fashion section but still.
What frightens me is that I have no idea how Clinton, or the rest of the field, play on TV.
Television news has been abysmal for at least 20 years.
I watched a video clip of “The View” online once. It was either here or at Pandagon.
The clip was absurd. The talking head, allegedly on our side, was equally as idiotic as the talking head of the opposing view.
It frightens me that people who watch television are allowed to vote.
It’s that woman from 24, the one married to Blue-Rinse Dan. Apparently every episode my mother would shout at her to do the top button up.
We’ve gone from stories about Britney Spears’s cleavage to Hillary Clinton’s cleavage, from frivolous to inane. Next up — Bea Arthur’s cleavage. Please, shoot me first.
(FYI, the Google search “Hillary Clinton’s cleavage,” with the quotes, brings up only 32 hits. That’s 32 more than there need to be, but still only 32.”
Now I have the biggest and best argument AGAINST a Hillary Clinton presidency: some folks in the media will be too busy whacking off to pictures of the President instead of reporting the news. I liked the idea that they were out-of-touch, corporate sycophants much better.
On the plus side, this may well lead to a Scarlett Johansson presidency. But that Google search only brings up 62 hits … dammit, only about twice as many. Something is wrong with this world!
I am waiting with great anticipation for the stories comparing the packages of the male candidates. I am not holding my breathe for those stories though. Only women are objectified in this kind of way.
When I saw the picture, I did not think “decolletage.” I thought “this lady looks stoned.” Granted, it’s a pixellated shot for which she did not “pose.”