In 1947, one year before the landmark election when the improbable occurred and Harry Truman was returned to the White House, absolutely no one in this country would have dreamed that 60 years later a candidate's cleavage would be a flashpoint in a political campaign.

In fact, the word then was generic, meaning division or valley, as opposed to today's definition meaning the chasm between certain female body parts.

It boggles my mind that a senator's bosom became the subject of political and speculative discussions even in this new century. Furthermore, a story in the Washlngton Post, touching on these once untouchable subjects, may have even more implications.

The Post, just as a multitude of metropolitan newspapers, is facing hard times. Circulation has fallen, employees have been terminated, and profits are down in news publications throughout the country, The Post and the New York Times included.

Could it be that these once highly respected publications are turning to “tabloid” journalism in a frantic resort to restore readership? Such measures in the present climate are within the realm of possibility.

If she approved publication, she may be exhibiting a facet of savvy that justifies her rank as one of the country's shrewdest political operatives.

But Senator Clinton's passion appears to voters to be power and position, not femininity. If clothes make the man, they often reveal the woman. Her new wardrobe gave voters a glimpse of a woman whose mountains are not the mole hills as suspected and whose goal is not the one-track mission widely imagined.

Her recent wardrobe adds new dimensions.

Newspaper pictures of the senator's outfit reveal a woman, a term rarely mentioned in describing her as a person. Indeed, details emerging of a young Hillary Rodham suggest the more generic term “female” rather than the warm and attractive term “woman.”

Substantiating beliefs by a volume of voters that the senator was calculatingly clinical in her relationships with the opposite gender, a series of letters, written by Hillary to a male friend while in college, reveals a highly disciplined female, not unemotional, but by design insulated from masculine stimuli.

Both she and Bill Clinton targeted ultimate goals. The difference in them was that the former president stopped along the way to view the cleavage - meaning, of course, the Grand Canyon or maybe the Great Divide in the Rocky Mountains.

The Washington Post's story, if designed to tweak Hillary's sexuality, succeeded in calling attention to a female adorned with attributes appertaining thereto. After nigh onto a decade of cautious conduct and delicate decorum, this clever politico exhibited latent traits of feminine guile subdued as a first lady and uncharacteristic of her as a young lady.

Senator Obama's reaction to his opponent's finesse was stoic silence. So, score a coup for Hillary Rodham Clinton who knew just how much to titillate, how much to disclose and how much to leave for speculation.

But in this columnist's opinion, another leadership quality of the senator should be examined. Do her ankles meet the standards needed to lead this nation?