Wednesday, Aug. 18, a horrid and despicable display was shown on CSPAN2. A display so horrible that it overshadowed an important message intended for the show.

It was cleavage. Yes, people, I said it: cleavage. But not just anyone’s. It was the cleavage of presidential candidate Hilary Clinton. Gasp!

Clinton was on CSPAN2 to discuss the cost of higher education but all anyone could focus on the next day was her shadow of cleavage. I’m talking about less than an inch on display. I do repeat, less than an inch, which is practically nothing. You could not have noticed unless you were really trying to catch a glimpse of Clinton’s chest.

Journalist Robin Givhan wrote an article dedicated to nothing but Clinton’s fashion choices and sexuality from her days as first lady to her controversial cleavage incident on CSPAN2.

After she informed her readers about Clinton’s shoulder revealing fashion decisions, Givahn went on to say, “clothes were off the table” when she “launched her first campaign” and had ditched her glamorous look for “a desexualized uniform: a black pantsuit.”

Clinton is a reserved, mature and experienced woman who deserves to be acknowledged for her ideas instead of her wardrobe.

However, Clinton isn’t the only woman in politics accused of being too provocative. The new British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s cleavage was recently exposed as well.

According to The (London) Times article a reporter quoted a source as saying, “Honestly, it looked like she had someone’s a-s-s in her shirt.” A very crude and immature comment I would expect from a kid in middle school.

She was addressing the House of Commons about the terrorist attacks, only hours into her new position. I highly doubt she was thinking, “I should show some breasts today, maybe it’ll stop terrorism.”

Come on, what is all this controversy really about? They are women, and news flash: women have boobs.

Maybe it’s more than that. Women have come a long way to earn equality. We may have thought that women had finally won equality in today’s society but this is proof that women are still being judged more for their appearance than their thoughts and ideas.

Shouldn’t we be focusing our attention on the terrorist attacks and costs of higher education rather than getting angry over a little bit of cleavage?

Shouldn’t we concentrate a little more on the intelligence and morals of our female representative leaders instead of criticizing them for their make-up and hair?

It is really a shame when women in the political field have to be overly cautious about every action and detail ranging from what they wear to their hair color.

Instead of being accepted for their views and ideas, they are criticized for their outfits, something men in the political field rarely have to deal with.

If a woman is wearing make-up and a shapely suit, they are accused of being too provocative. However, if their face is barren and their suit is plain they are dubbed desexualized.

Women in politics not only have to win support for their views but they also have to prove they can be just as good as the male candidates.

What is wrong with this world?

This is just another trick to distract people from seeing the real points and ideas, only to focus on inconsequential details.

Neither Clinton’s or Smith’s cleavage is going to save us from terrorist’s attacks and what Clinton is wearing isn’t going to stop poverty. People need to learn how to ignore the miniscule details and concentrate on the real problems occurring today.