It's an issue at the forefront of American politic discourse this past week: Hillary Clinton's cleavage.

Robin Givhan, a fashion writer for the Washington Post, wrote about Clinton's appearance on C-SPAN2, a cable television network that airs government proceedings, as the presidential candidate talked about the cost of higher education. But the focus of the Post article wasn't schoolbooks; it was Clinton's pink jacket, black shirt with slight v-neck and what is evident at closer scrutiny, a shadowy bit of cleavage.

"It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative," Givhan wrote, going on to compare it to catching a man with his fly unzipped. "To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d'oeuvres is a provocation," although the writer seemingly took issue not with the cleavage itself but that it wasn't as up-front and dramatic as that displayed by the new British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (remarked upon in the blogosphere at the time with comments such as "Could someone tell Jacqui Smith that when she is giving a stern speech about terrorist dangers . . . it might not be such a good idea to show so much cleavage . . . it was inappropriate and unprofessional").

Since then the Post story has been lambasted in newspapers such as the Miami Herald and The New York Times, where Judith Warner, the author of Perfect Madness, wrote "I always thought that middle age afforded some kind of protection from prying eyes and personal remarks".

The story has even been taken up by the Clinton campaign itself, in a fundraising e-mail that went out to supporters saying, "Frankly, focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting" and urging readers to "Take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture. And take a stand for Hillary, the most experienced, most qualified candidate running for president.”

In fact the blogosphere seemed to come out in reignited support of Smith for "owning" her breasts (Clinton's seem to belong to someone else, perhaps?) and showing them off proudly. If anything, several said Clinton should show more acceptance of her form and ditch the dowdy pantsuits and unflattering styles she's worn in the past.

It's a view echoed by the Times fashion editor Lisa Armstrong. "If this had been a cavernous drop into some gigantic valley of cleavage, the outraged critics might have had a point. But this is so discreet as to be barely detectable without a magnifying glass - more cleavette than cleavage. Good on Hillary Clinton for finally acknowledging that she is, you know, a woman and for daring to presume that the public is sufficiently adult to listen to her making a speech on the cost of higher education whilst wearing a non-poloneck, without being inflamed by lustful feelings. What a shame she was wrong."

Others bloggers scoffed at the "newsworthiness", with one writing, "the Washington Post has [the story] covered from every possible angle, except upskirt".

As for the Post, it has followed up with an article from its Ombudsman and a post on The Trail blog entitled "Let the Cleavage Conversation Begin". It's a conversation that respected Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman said has already made a media mountain out of a half-inch valley and sure to see a lot more comments about the importance of image in politics and breast intentions.

Times recommends

• Live chat: Thrifty ways to update your winter wardrobe
• Is anybody out there really listening?
• Nutrition Q&A: Will eating late make me fat?