I didn't say I would vote for them. I answered your question. The one with the most votes wins, right ? This may shock you, but I was born and raised a Democrat. Unfortunately my party has been taken over by panderers. Just to bare it all, I wanted Russ Feingold to run, but right now I would hold my nose a bit and vote for Obama.

...especially since in this country's 200-year presidential history, this is the first time we're seeing anything resembling a "subtle V" or a sweetheart neckline -- let alone spaghetti straps or, say, a skirt -- on the stump.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the first woman to ever run for President of the United States.

You vote for the candidate who most slavishly panders to the whims of the lowest common denominator?

I take it Giuliani's your man!

Only if they want to get elected.

"...a women of her age should not be displaying cleavage, there is nothing sexual about it. I was grossed out."

OK...

And if a significant number of people were "grossed out" by the image of a presidential candidate in a dress, or standing next to a significantly younger mate, or voting to continue to fund the Iraq War...should the candidate respond by ceasing to do these things?

Let's face it, it's only a matter of time before some "journalist" steps up to the microphone at a Clinton event and ask the big question: "Boxers or briefs?"

Oh. Waitaminnit...

and it was more decolette than cleavage. It was a suit and blouse no different than the kind of outfit millions of women wear to work everyday. It was similar to many outfits she had worn in the past. And as for "gross," wll I guess to each his own when it comes to Mommy issues, I thought she looked very attractive in it.

I guess it does strike a chord because women have been objectified in a way that men were not until very recently subjected to and even that is still somewhat contained to popular culture though we did get some of this discussion with shots of Obama in the water wearing board shorts and Edwards which has the double punch of "feminizing" him, as Xander so nerve strikingly observed, but of accusing him of some sort of bizzo world hypocracy that he cannot champion the working class without living like a hermit himself. As women we are keenly aware of how we are sexualized and how when you are older you are desexualized and devalued and often referred to in terms of biological acheivemt, "grandmotherly," and so the sniggering tone of the article was just a little too much for my taste.

I like Robin Givhan's fashion coverage precisely because she does the sort of thing she did in the piece on Hillary's cleavage: she puts fashion in a social and political context--something I've seen very few fashion writers do. If, as you say, some readers said, "Hey, there's a story about Hillary's ta-tas!" then the problem is not with Givhan's story, but with the morons who missed its point. Or is she supposed to be writing for them?

By deciding to display cleavage for the first time apparently, ever, in the middle of a presidential campaign. Part of the problem of course is her age. Let the flames begin, but a women of her age should not be displaying cleavage, there is nothing sexual about it. I was grossed out.

Thanks for your pseudo-scientific burble, Xavier. Now please go back to your time machine and set it to Boston University, 1975.

The Women's Studies group at Boston College is waiting for you to return, but you still can't get into any of Mary Daly's seminars because you are a filthy, subhuman man.

So much for feminism!

One can almost hear the soundbite now from Hillary when asked the obligatory pointless question from one of our "serious" beltway reporters wanting to know how this whole "Cleavagegate" has affected her campaign strategy. She could score big points with scores of voters with a simple off-the-cuff retort that could never be challenged. All she has to say is..."I can't control who writes what, but I sure look better wearing it than Guliani does when he's wearing it."

Hillary doesn't need to dress or look more "feminine". But it wouldn't hurt her to every now and then show the voters that not every single detail in her campaign has to be scripted and rehearsed by a team of media advisors. A witty comeback like that would suggest to folks out there that while she's serious about what she's trying to achieve, that she doesn't take everything written about her too seriously. I wasn't a huge fan of her husband, but I do think he had that way of communicating back in '92 where people felt like they were hearing what he thought at that very moment rather than the typical rehearsed talking points most candidates now rely on.

I think many voters, although not myself, still whether right or wrong want on some level to FEEL like the candidate is talking to them personally. To do that I think Clinton has to "let more of herself out". And no, by that I don't mean show more cleavage.

I like Rebecca Traister's take on the article, but I do have to wonder about why nobody mentioned the context. Ms. Clinton was dressed to do an all nighter in the Senate chamber. I suspect not all the men were in suits either. I wouldn't have been.

I know you want to take both sides in every argument, but it just doesn't work here.

Either the Post is right and it's OK to talk about the attire of the Democratic front-runner, or Lewis is right and its out of bounds. But by saying that "I like both dogs in this fight" you simply cop out and take no position.

Here's why I think that Givhan is right and Lewis is wrong: using the standard Lewis is proposing, you are an inviting target for scorn simply because you referred to both Ann Lewis and Robin Givhan as "dogs." Think this is silly? So do I. This is why I think Lewis is all puffed up over nothing and, to paraphrase Joan Walsh, you should have the balls to call her on her idiocy.

If Joan Walsh can go into friviolous details about the three wives of Rudy Guiliani and we can all talk about all manor of irrelevent details relating to male candidates, then we certainly can do the same about a front-runner who happens to be female. If women really want to be taken seriously as presidential candidates, I think it's time for feminists to grow up and acknowledge that they are playing in the big leagues. So stop complaining when you take one high and tight every once in a while....