Cleavage, legs; what's the difference?

There has been a lot of coverage about Hillary Clinton's choice of wardrobe. She decided to wear a v-neck shirt on the Senate floor, and was thus, exploited by a Washington Post columnist because she has (gasp!) female anatomy. In fact, this line really sticks out in Robin Givhan's article, and really pisses me off:

"There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable."

So, I mean, what is the big deal? Of course it is undeniable; she is a woman! Is it a surprise that the presidential hopeful has breasts? Are people that shallow that this is a constant nag on her campaign?

This reminds me a lot of a similar knock on the physique of women (in addition to the constant barrage of sexist b.s. that graces nearly all modes of media in our mainstream society), when Katie Couric was promoted to one of the most coveted positions in nighttime news.

We really need to focus less on complete coverage of clothes, the hair, the boobs, and so on. Let’s really smash that perpetuation and begin to truly value women for what they are: humans.