They wrote a story about Hillary Clinton's boobies: Tits to win?
Then, rather than apologize and correct for the lack of judgement, they tried to defend the nonsense (here) with an article that begins "A journalistic assessment of Hillary Clinton's cleavage became the most improbable presidential campaign controversy yet".
I will take my response no further than to point out that you cannot conflate "journalistic assessment" and "cleavage" in the same sentence if you want to maintain credibility. You will hold your readers attention, Janet-Jackson-like perhaps, but do people take their news from Janet Jackson?
In the interest of journalistic thoroughness may I suggest a few more topics of national importance which the Post must assess?
- Just exactly how large of an imprint, in square inches, does the backside of Karl Rove make at the beach? What is the volume in cubic centimeters? How many yards of cloth does his tailor use to make his pants?
- What is causing the sickly pallor of John McCain? It seems to have come on about the time he "made nice" with the president. Is he still in possession of his soul?
- How is Condi Rice's bust-line holding up these days? We have been treated to an article about her boots and her shoe purchases but her titties have been sadly devoid of thorough journalistic attention.
- Is Joe Biden a Pomade man or does he prefer Dapper Dan?
- How much does president Bush pay for his haircuts?
- Certainly Madeline Albright must have had days where her hem-line was a little higher. Are there any articles in the archives equating that with saucy teasing? What about for Margaret Thatcher?