All of the attention paid by the media to the recent briefest glimpse of Senator Clinton’s cleavage provokes three responses:

 

First, the media really needs to stop and honestly ask itself whether they devote the same level of attention to the crease in Senator Obama’s slacks and the color of former Senator Edward’s shirts as they do to Senator Clinton’s wardrobe selections. From a perspective of pure fairness, no more observation should be made of Senator Clinton’s choice of attire than is made of any other candidate’s clothing selection.

 

Second, given the amount of media attention paid to Senator Clinton’s exposure of a small amount of cleavage, I’m curious as to what the media is attempting to infer. If the suggestion is that a nearly 60 year old woman is attempting to sexually excite or entice a male audience, give me a break. Nor do I believe that the reveal is part of some conscious effort on Senator Clinton’s part to soften her image. Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse.

 

Third, the media’s attention to this issue confirms what so many professional women have long known: Dressing for success as a professional woman continues to be problematic. In a conservative workplace, like the Senate chamber, any man who dons a suit knows he has dressed appropriately. For women, because our wardrobe choices are so varied and because others may read intended or unintended messages into our selections (What does it mean when a woman presidential candidate chooses to wear a pink jacket with black slacks instead of a blue suit?), we need to maintain a constant level of awareness. We should opt for more coverage rather than less and pray the media gives our messages as much coverage as our attire.