Please.

I'm a Democrat who will never vote for Hillary, but this is just disgusting and adds nothing to social discourse.

Nothing.

Would you people decide what you're about before you pusblish another piece of dreck?

Museum director Daniel Gluck thinks that the sculpture "will stir debate on whether a woman need squelch her sexuality in order to succeed as leader of the free world."

Oh, really? 'Cause I'd be willing to bet Museum Director Daniel Gluck thinks that the sculpture will get him a lot of media attention, hopefully fattening his wallet in the process.

Well, mission accomplished on the media attention part. What do you think is going thru the heads of museum directors who are actually putting on serious and important exhibitions right now? They must be ready to jump out of a window. If they did it while naked it might actually get their museums some media attention.

As we've seen with someone like Condoleezza Rice, for a woman in higher office, sexuality is scrutinized as much as policymaking.

This is a bad joke, right?

If Condoleeza weren't working for the most incompetent president of all time and doing a lousy job herself (example: she was present at the briefing regarding Al Qaida's plans), I don't think anyone would care if she had three arms and green skin.

Fact is, she's incompetent. The person she works for is incompetent. Her sexuality is irrelevant.

2008 can't get here fast enough.

Does a woman need to highlight her sexuality in ANY endeavor in order to be considered 'a woman' ??

Of course HIlary - and any other woman running a serious enterprise - should squelch her sexuality. Men should too for that matter. In all jobs in which the execution of the job isn't ABOUT sexuality, sexuality is irrelevant. Georege Bush doesn't walk around in a leather thong, after all. Nor does he wear tight-fitting t-shirts on his casual days, nor does he leave he first 3 buttons open to display manly chest hair. Men don't seem to have any confusion at all about what amount of sexuality is 'appropriate' to highlight in the professional enviors - none. Women should follow suit if they wish to be taken seriously. If, on the other hand, they wish to remind people of their sexuality and have it considered on par with their ideas, then by all means, show the cleavage, but take the consequences.

As we've seen with someone like Condoleezza Rice, for a woman in higher office, sexuality is scrutinized as much as policymaking.

Please don't fall (yet again) for the mainstream media's problem of not seeing the news right in front of their collective faces and resorting to tabloid/TV news items and trying to fob them off as "news". Like the story about Condi's workout routine. Regardless of the fact that no other self-respecting Sec of State would encourage such a lame-a$$, lighter-than-light feature about him/herself, the media ate that up just like the rest of the crap the W.H. throws its way.

If a Sec of State is actually engaged in policymaking, most are, that would be news...instead, we have the Harriet Myers-ism of the Sec of State's office, the Barney-ization, if you will, in which Condi is covered much like the W.H. doggies.

This issue is less about sexuality and more about the inanity of today's media coverage.

As far as the Hillary bust goes, you just fell for the museum's PR pitch...

I thought that various celebrities, and even us normal folks, had some rights concerning how our image is used. I would be horrified to find myself the subject of works like these. Couldn't either Spears or Rodham-Clinton sue this sculptor if they were opposed to his use of their likeness?

Each is of a famous man. Each is naked and sporting an erection. Of course, the artist would have to approximate the size of the erection, but I'm sure that he could use photos of the men in swimwear to make a guess. Would this be stirring debate on male sexuality, or would it be a childish way for an artist to get attention?

...for helping the public take the idea of women in power so seriously.

You betray women with these "cheeky" editorial decisions.

IT IS IRRELEVANT IF SOMEBODY MADE A BUST OF CLINTON, FER GODSSAKE.

Distracting trivia, thy name is Broadsheet.

I'm so sick of people talking about this jackhat as if he is a legitimate artist with something to say. It was bad enough when blogs took the bait on the "Britney" sculpture--which is so completely not her likeness that it's obvious he just tacked on her name because he knew it would garner attention. Are you people just so intimidated by the concept of "art" that you'll humor something that clearly is not?

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: THIS IS A VERY SEXIST ARTICLE. WHETHER ONE LOVES OR HATES CLINTON OR RICE NEED WE PREOCCUPY OURSELVES WITH SIZE OF THEIR BREASTS? IS THERE A DISCUSSION OF BUSH, CHENEY, RUMFELD'S ANATOMY? IS THIS IMPORTANT? THERE ARE MORE PRESSING ISSUES TODAY THEN THIS SUPERFICIAL DRIVEL, THE OPIATE OF DENIAL & IGNORANCE. DO YOU REALIZE THAT OVER ONE THIRD OF THE LEBANESE CIVILAN DEAD ARE CHILDREN? CONCERN YOURSELVES WITH THAT FACT. CONCERN YOURSELVES WITH THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PEOPLE SUPPORT THAT SPECIFIC GENOCIDE.... IT'S NOT WHAT IS ON THEIR BODIES OR YOURS THAT MATTERS, BUT IN ALL OF OUR HEARTS & MINDS THAT HAVE HELPED CREATE THESE ATROCITIES...