pageok
pageok
pageok
Photo of Hillary Clinton:

Rachael Larimore at Slate's XX Factor reports on the apparent controversy surrounding this photo:

My reaction is similar to Larimore's: I think this makes Clinton look more appealing, not less. But my reason is a little different from Larimore. She thinks it may lead people to feel a little sorry for Clinton:

I feel for her. No one likes to see pictures of themselves having a bad hair day, or after missing a few trips to the gym. And that's without the fate of a presidential campaign — her life's ambition — hanging precariously in the balance.

I think it just makes her look more down-to-earth: Less carefully put together and more lived-in, an older professional woman on whom time has taken its toll — as it does on us all — but who has acquired the advantages of experience in exchange. I still won't vote for her, for reasons entirely unrelated to her appearance; but I like the photo. Ann Althouse has more.

FantasiaWHT:
I completely disagree.

I think it just emphasizes how incredibly phony she is. Granted, the same goes for all the pre-makeup shots of movie stores in grocery-store tabloids, but I expect celebrities to be phony, not presidents.
12.17.2007 4:36pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
What's the provenance of this photo? A quick look through the links only goes back to Druge, which is hardly a respectable news outlet.

Photoshopped? I'm not claiming that it is, but I'd be skeptical until we know it wasn't the same people who gave us bat boy and the alien shaking hands will Bill Clinton.
12.17.2007 4:38pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
I think it just emphasizes how incredibly phony she is.

Yeah yeah, whatever. If she wears makeup, you'll complain about her being a phony. If she doesn't, you'll complain that she's ugly.
12.17.2007 4:40pm
Bpbatista (mail):
Fighting the "vast right-wing conspiracy" sure does take its toll. A real close-up of the phoniest woman in the world -- priceless!
12.17.2007 4:43pm
Chris Smith (mail):
>her life's ambition
While empathy for Hillary as an individual is fine and all, she's pursuing a high office.
The individual is consumed by the office, and quaint sentimentality is a distraction at best.
12.17.2007 4:45pm
anym_avey (mail):
An Althouse commentator already identified the dominant factor in this photo: the light is nearly vertical, which, in turn, exagerates every feature by casting a long shadow. Couple that with the fact that she was either looking downward or was midway through a blink when the shutter snapped, and the weathered hang-dog look is readily explained.

It's also possible she was very tired at the time or a bit sleep-deprived in general, which tends to make a person's skin look worse.
12.17.2007 4:46pm
FantasiaWHT:

Yeah yeah, whatever. If she wears makeup, you'll complain about her being a phony. If she doesn't, you'll complain that she's ugly.


Nah, I completely disagreed with a friend of mine years ago who said he thought Hillary was the ugliest woman she could possibly imagine.

It's all relative, and I'll thank you not to be so incredibly smug about what you think you might know about me.
12.17.2007 4:47pm
Dave N (mail):
I won't vote for her regardless of the photo--though I do agree with EV that it makes her look more down to earth. One of Hillary's problems is that she looks too prepped and properly coifed, too much of the time. Politicians are humans, too (believe it or not) and seeing her as more human than a Stepford wife does have a certain appeal (though the Stepford angle might explain why she puts up with Bill).
12.17.2007 4:48pm
tarheel:
Newsflash...politicians care about appearance because voters care about it (whether they want to admit it or not). Reagan dyed his hair. Rudy had a comb-over for 20 years. Biden has plugs. It doesn't make them phony, or at least any more phony than the rest of the population that also wears makeup, dyes their hair, or in any way covers perceived flaws.
12.17.2007 4:48pm
PLR:
Just aesthetically, I think it's a pretty terrific photo.

I don't plan to vote for her in the primary, but the general election will be another matter if she winds up as the nominee.
12.17.2007 4:52pm
rarango (mail):
Agree with uh_clem re photo's provenance. Question: what if it was authorized by the Clinton campaign? Going for a sympathy vote among older generations in Iowa and NH?
12.17.2007 4:59pm
Greg (www):
In other news, John McCain is jowly, Mike Huckabee looks like Nixon if you zoom in and the contrast is right, and Fred Thompson has more wrinkles than a shar-pei.

As for this photo, you do all realize that (most) women wear makeup, right? Is that phony? Does it disqualify (most) women from holding the office of President?
12.17.2007 5:03pm
Hoosier:
Full disclosure statement: I am consevative, vote GOP more often than not, and don't share the animus toward Hillary that a large percentage of my fellow people-of-the-right seem to feel. I also have no plans to vote for her at this time.

OK.

The picture does not strike ME as terrible. I accept that she would not WANT this to be the image out there on her campaign adds. But we've seen bad looking photos of other candidates in other primary seasons. (Though none of Mitt or Barak. Hmm . . .)

No one looks physically well with eyes at half-mast: Older people look sick, while younger people look drunk. That said, she looks so much fitter and younger than does Bill; the heart attack seems to have taken a real toll on the poor guy. He has rarely displayed his bouncy, high-energy persona since the hospitalization. And he seems to have aged 20 years since 2000.

I agree with Althouse's suggestion that we may be talking about this only because she is female. The obverse side of that also holds, namely, if you have a bad looking picture of a male candidate, you may use it at will.
12.17.2007 5:04pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
what if it was authorized by the Clinton campaign?

Then I'd want to know that too. (and I'd want to know who authorized it so he/she can be fired)

As it is now, a photo shows up out of the blue on Drudge and I'm skeptical that it may be photoshopped. Where'd it come from? Who's the photographer?
12.17.2007 5:13pm
Houston Lawyer:
The photographer is probably in hiding. I was surprised by the picture. Just ask Richard Nixon about how appearances can hurt you. It was generally agreed that his appearance in his debate with Kennedy in 1960 hurt him.
12.17.2007 5:24pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
Nah, I completely disagreed with a friend of mine years ago who said he thought Hillary was the ugliest woman she could possibly imagine.

It's all relative, and I'll thank you not to be so incredibly smug about what you think you might know about me.


Ok, that clears that up. Who could've ever assumed anything about you after these two comments???
12.17.2007 5:24pm
CJColucci:
I expect celebrities to be phony, not presidents.

What in your life experience has given you any basis for such expectations?
12.17.2007 5:24pm
Anonymouseducator (mail) (www):

No one looks physically well with eyes at half-mast: Older people look sick, while younger people look drunk.


So true.
12.17.2007 5:26pm
GetReal (mail):

As it is now, a photo shows up out of the blue on Drudge and I'm skeptical that it may be photoshopped.


Now you have my attention. What other photos that showed up on Drudge have been photoshopped?
12.17.2007 5:29pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
For me the shock was in how different she looked from any other picture of her I've ever seen. It's hard to believe she's the same woman I saw in photos from the recent debates.

Are there any male politicians who regularly have their makeup artists scrub as many years off of their faces before a TV appearance?
12.17.2007 5:30pm
William Oliver (mail) (www):
This reminds me of a conference I attended at Ft. Meade back when HDTV was still being developed and folk were talking about non-entertainment applications. One of the engineers involved some of the standards issues gave us names of some older celebrities who had in their contracts that they could not be photographed in high definition. The difference between standard TV and high definition TV was similar to the difference between this photo and others of Sen. Clinton.
12.17.2007 5:30pm
TerrencePhilip:
All of the presidential candidates wear makeup (I think). I don't want to see closeups of any of the candidates- none are particularly attractive people, except I guess Obama. Almost all are late middle age or early old age.

I think it's a horrible photo of her, and I can't see a very good reason for it to be prominently featured, other than to focus on her aging appearance. I think it's just one of Drudge's quirks- every now and then he does something kind of off the wall, appealing to his tabloid taste. But going with his own personal tastes is what made him a multimillionaire. Obviously he does not want her to be president; but I really wouldn't read much into his featuring the photo.
12.17.2007 5:31pm
Point of Fact (mail):
This photo probably came from the Clinton campaign in an attempt to stir up sympathy for Hillary Clinton. The purpose is to get conservatives and male Democrats associated with rival campaigns saying all sorts of nasty things about her appearance so Hillary and her cohorts can go on cable news claiming that the mean old sexists are beating up on Hillary because she is a woman. That way every old woman in Iowa will show up to caucus in the bitter cold because she is so damned angry that a female candidate for President is being taken to task for her wrinkles. It's the Faux-Indignation Gender Card. It is a pathetic attempt.
12.17.2007 5:34pm
tarheel:
William Oliver:

At the risk of high-jacking this thread, your comment reminded me of this great article in the Times earlier this year. No one of any age benefits from close-up, high-def images of themselves.
12.17.2007 5:35pm
ObeliskToucher:
Uh Clem,

What's the provenance of this photo? A quick look through the links only goes back to Druge, which is hardly a respectable news outlet.

Photo is attributed as (AP Photo/Jim Cole). The photo is up on Yahoo News at this location
12.17.2007 5:36pm
SenatorX (mail):
It's long been shown through experiments that people will "like" a person that shows some weakness more than someone who doesn't(conditioned that the weakness of the other doesn't affect them negatively). It makes you feel empowered and that feels good.
12.17.2007 5:44pm
Greg (www):
Here are two photos by the same photographer, the same day:

Photo 1

Photo 2

Did she lose her makeup in the minutes between these three photos, or are we just not used to seeing close-ups of Senator Clinton?
12.17.2007 5:44pm
Teh Anonymous:
A while ago I read an interview with Erin Andrews wherein she said that she'd like to have a more relaxed persona on the sidelines, but that she had to dress a certain way and wear makeup because of (a) dress code and (b) high def. She added that even her male colleagues wore makeup for the latter reason.

To be somewhat less tangential: even Queen Elizabeth (the first one) had officials in charge of making sure all portraits portrayed her in a flattering way. There's a surviving rejected portrait that made her look rather like this shot makes Hillary look. It was reproduced in a semi-recent book - I think The Confident Hope of a Miracle, but I may be wrong.
12.17.2007 5:44pm
byomtov (mail):
I'm mystified. What's the big deal? Whatever one's reaction to the photo, and I don't see any reason for any kind of strong reaction, is anyone going to base their vote on it? That's insane.
12.17.2007 5:46pm
Ian M:
Even if she is the phoniest woman in the world, she can't compete with the men in that category.
12.17.2007 5:55pm
Bobbi (mail):
Leave Hilary alone. She is a beautiful woman who is not afraid to stand up for our rights. Even physically, she is very attractive woman I would like to have as a friend.

My vote's for you Hilary, just try to use Kuchinik's health policy as it is more favorable to the medicare people and all poor people in general. A tax rebate doesn't help us pay for doctor appointments and medicines when we need them.

Viva Hilary ............
12.17.2007 6:07pm
CEB:

I'm mystified. What's the big deal? Whatever one's reaction to the photo, and I don't see any reason for any kind of strong reaction, is anyone going to base their vote on it? That's insane.

I think some people are trying to make it a big deal, either because they hate Clinton or because she's the frontrunner and they want a closer horserace. Whatever the case, it will be forgotten by tomorrow.
12.17.2007 6:11pm
holdfast (mail):
I think everyone who does indoor TV or movies has to wear makeup just to get them to "normal" because of the lights. As soneome who would only support Clinton in a contest with, um, Satan, I don't think this could change my opinion one bit. I don't hate her - I just think she has some very deangerous ideas, as well as an even more dangerous abiding belief in her own rectitude. Well, she looked like sh*t in this photo - likely bad light, lack of sleep and caught in the middle of a funny facial expression.

Given that all the (deserved) flak that Edwards has caught for his $400 coifs, and that Romney and Obama both suffer a bit from looking too slick, this photo might even help her. My three favourite candidates (Thompson, Rudy and McCain, in that order) all show some of the ravages of time, I don't hold it against them because I know that they are smart and hard working. Were I inlined towards Hillary's policies, I'd likely feel the same looking at her in this photo. Anyway, I don't think that Hillary was ever very good looking. In her 20s she looked like a total granola, and not a hot hippie-chick, but the too-serious kind. Once she because First Lady she developed some personal style, but she's never been hot.
12.17.2007 6:11pm
Cory J (mail):
This reminds me of Harry Shearer's Raw Feed project.

I don't think that site has some of the older ones that caused a stir (particularly the John Edwards hair clip) but you could probably find them easily enough by Googling Harry Shearer Raw Feed.
12.17.2007 6:24pm
stunned:
I'm in the don't-understand-the-fuss camp. She's 60 years old and hundreds of photos of her are taken every day. And -- quelle horreur -- one of them ended up accentuating her wrinkles.

I seriously doubt it's shooped, but it does look like the original size is as depicted here, in contrast to drudge who blew it up a small amount. The resulting artifacts make her wrinkles look worse. (For easily-detectable examples of the artifacts, look at the edge between her hair and the background; also see the folds of her scarf on the right side.)
12.17.2007 6:49pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
If a millihelen is the amount of beauty necessary to launch one ship, how much do we give this picture? Micro? Pico?
12.17.2007 6:50pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Uh_ Chlem:

"A quick look through the links only goes back to Druge (sic), which is hardly a respectable news outlet."

What makes Drudge "hardly" respectable? Has he falsified any documents?
12.17.2007 6:54pm
Hoosier:
"Leave Hilary alone."

OK. But will she reciprocate?
12.17.2007 6:55pm
JohnThompson (mail):
The ugliness inside is what matters. No mere skin-deep physical ugliness-not even that of Janet Reno or Helen Thomas--could ever compete in sheer repulsive power with the vile rotting mass of ambition utterly untrammeled by any shred of principle that constitutes the "real" Hillary.
12.17.2007 7:21pm
VincentPaul (mail):
Hillary looks much better here than she did in the beach photo with Bill.
12.17.2007 7:25pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
The purpose is to get conservatives and male Democrats associated with rival campaigns saying all sorts of nasty things about her appearance so Hillary and her cohorts can go on cable news claiming that the mean old sexists are beating up on Hillary because she is a woman.


I don't believe in conspiracies as a general rule but I agree with you that it would be wise for candidates and their supporters not to draw attention My IP prof has a story on her office door about how the "misogynists are out to get Hillary!" because some woman referred to here as a "b***h" at a McCain event.

My advice (which I know everyone is dying to here) would be to not make any sort of juvenile comments about any of the candidates as they (a) don't help your favored candidate gain support but (b) might cause some likely voters to not support your favored candidate because of the association with such distasteful tactics and comments.

Senator Clinton is entirely beatable unless someone is stupid enough to let her claim her favored mantle of "victim." She's not a likeable person, is wrong on most of the issues, and if she fails to get enough women to vote for her out of some misplaced sense of sisterly solidarity, she's done.
12.17.2007 7:28pm
Steve:
I agree with whoever said Huckabee can look like Nixon on the right day. I've had to do a double-take more than once.
12.17.2007 7:36pm
Objective Commenter (mail):
Huckabee may be Nixon. But Hillary! is Nixon in knickerbockers.
12.17.2007 8:11pm
DeezRightWingNutz:
Obama is considered good-looking? Seriously? I'm really asking if the person who said Obama is the only good looking candidate was serious, or if I missed an obvious joke. If it was a joke, I don't think he's ugly enough to make it obvious. Not Henry Waxman ugly. First of all, Mitt Romney would win any beauty contest with Obama, and so would John Edwards. I've always thought standards for politicians were very low, with Bill Clinton, JFK (not bad), and (good God) John Kerry all described by so many as handsome. Maybe with Kerry is was more of an urbane quality (French speaking, active, etc.) than pure looks, but I remember a lot of people describing him as attractive. FWIW, I think Hillary ain't bad for a 60 y.o. woman.

With looks being so important in people's subconscious, I'm really surprised how many unattractive or extremely obese people are elected to prominent offices; although presidents do seems to be quite tall, on average.
12.17.2007 8:36pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
This book has a lot to say on these issues. I commend it to anyone with an aging female loved one.

I am not a Hillary fan, but this photo will help her more than hurt her, IMHO. Rarango may have smoked this one out.
12.17.2007 8:48pm
Toby:
Huckabee does not look like Nixon. He looks like Wallace explaining Cristmas to the long suffereng Grommit.
12.17.2007 8:49pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
I don't get it either.
Mitt looks good, and he knows it, and he's joked about it.
Otherwise it doesn't matter.
I wouldn't vote for a Clinton either, but the photo doesn't change much. She looks her age. She reminds me of other women of that age that I've had dealings with.
People get old. Some people look better (my wife and her cheekbones seemed to look more and more like Katherine Hepburn every year), some grow into their looks, most look worse.
Candidates get worn out during campaigns, sometimes so do their shoes.
12.17.2007 8:49pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Hillary Clinton normally for years has had very controlled and very cooperative photo's published. Up until very recently she seemed to specialize in making sure photos of her were shot from a step up angle to make her look taller, more authoritative, and to slim down her weeble like enlarged hips.

So for a picture to surface like this from the AP no less is amazing in that the AP didn't self censor this picture and that is one of a few pictures that weren't somehow orchestrated by Hillary and her campaign staff and secret service protection.

Says the "Dog"
12.17.2007 9:04pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
Presidential candidates have hundreds of photos of them taken every day. Many of them are bad. What's so special about this one?
12.17.2007 9:04pm
therut:
Gad. What it does is change nothing as far as how I feel one way or the other about Hilliary but it sure does show how tv make-up, lights and angles and such make a BIG and I mean BIG difference.
12.17.2007 9:13pm
sashal (mail):
It makes me sad knowing the brainless masses really pay attention to this stuff, because most of them are too lazy and/or stupid to take the time to actually come up with valid reasons to vote for or against candidates.

BTW, how old was Golda or Thatcher ?
12.17.2007 9:36pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The photographer is probably in hiding. I was surprised by the picture. Just ask Richard Nixon about how appearances can hurt you. It was generally agreed that his appearance in his debate with Kennedy in 1960 hurt him.
Turns out that this is an urban legend. It arose from the fact that people who watched the debate on television were much more favorable to Kennedy/less favorable to Nixon than those who listened on the radio.

People assumed that the difference was that the television viewers saw Nixon rather than just hearing him. But in fact the two segments of the audience were very different demographically, with television viewers being much younger and more likely to support Kennedy.
12.17.2007 9:51pm
Andrew Janssen (mail):

Obama is considered good-looking? Seriously? I'm really asking if the person who said Obama is the only good looking candidate was serious, or if I missed an obvious joke. If it was a joke, I don't think he's ugly enough to make it obvious. Not Henry Waxman ugly. First of all, Mitt Romney would win any beauty contest with Obama, and so would John Edwards. I've always thought standards for politicians were very low, with Bill Clinton, JFK (not bad), and (good God) John Kerry all described by so many as handsome. Maybe with Kerry is was more of an urbane quality (French speaking, active, etc.) than pure looks, but I remember a lot of people describing him as attractive. FWIW, I think Hillary ain't bad for a 60 y.o. woman.


I think Obama's like another famous politician from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln: Charismatically Ugly. Unlike Nixon, who was just ugly, or, as mentioned, Henry Waxman, who's pug-ugly (did he run into a door as a small child?).
12.17.2007 9:55pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
Thatcher was 53 when she took office in 1978 and 65 when she left in 1990.

Meier was 70 when she took office in 1969 and 76 when she stepped down in 1974.

Golda was 27 years older (b. 5/1898) than Maggie (b. 5/1925).
12.17.2007 9:55pm
Floridan:
Given that Hillary Clinton's positions are more moderate than other Democrats, that every other presidential candidate is also overwhelmingly ambitious (well, maybe not Thompson -- he's willing to take what's given to him) and like almost every politician, from city commissioner to president, who has won more than a single election is not given to self doubt, one can only ascribe this virulent hatred of her to . . . perhaps . . . serious mother issues.
12.17.2007 10:09pm
Le Messurier (mail):
I think there are many who would see this photo and say that she is something that would surely have been happier hunting truffles in the forests of central France.
12.17.2007 10:10pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
DMN:

I was 20 when the Kennedy/Nixon debates were broadcast. I was going to school at AU on a US government seminar with senior political science students from all over the country. It was the first election that I was really interested in, and I was excited to be working evenings in the Kennedy campaign as an envelope stuffer.

I heard the debate on radio and was distressed because I thought Nixon had won hands down. Later that evening, I saw some of my fellow students half of whom were for Nixon and the other half for Kennedy. They had watched the debate on TV and it was unanimous: Kennedy destroyed Nixon.

We spent the next few hours discussing the whole thing.

From this, I have always believed that the difference in presentation and style as it played on TV and radio indeed made a real difference in the perception of the audience.

Not a scientific study, of course, but one man's opinion from a bit of experience.
12.17.2007 10:15pm
Hoosier:
"Huckabee does not look like Nixon. He looks like Wallace explaining Cristmas to the long suffereng Grommit."

George Wallace had a dog?
12.17.2007 10:39pm
Sara:
Oh for Christ's sake. It's not the lighting, it's not the shadows, it's not the lack of makeup, it's not some vast right-wing photographer. She's TIRED. There's a caucus in a few weeks. She's running for president. She's tired. And if she were a man, this would not be news.

I'm not a huge Hillary fan and I don't plan on voting for her, but I feel for her as a woman because she's incredibly intelligent, accomplished and interesting and yet has always had to deal with the media scrutinizing her appearance as if she were running for America's Next Top Model and not the President of the United States. Will she bring back her signature headband? What was with the salmon suit jacket? And now, why does she look tired after running a national campaign for months?

Hillary Clinton is an average looking woman. Much like George W. Bush is an average looking man, as are the male presidential contenders. And in any case, it just doesn't matter.
12.18.2007 12:16am
Truth Seeker:
Things like this work on the unconscious level, not the obvious one. No one votes against her because she looked ugly in one photo. They go into the voting booth wanting to pick the best president to keep terrorism away, boost the economy, run the armed forces, lead the strongest nation on the planet, etc. And somewhere in back of their mind they think of her as a hag and her opponent as stronger and more capable.

By the way, there was a story that her campaign has an in with Drudge and has been feeding him a lot of material. Either they scrwewed up this time, or he's trying to balance that out.
12.18.2007 12:21am
stunned:
@ Truth Seeker

"[S]omewhere in back of their mind they think of her as a hag and her opponent as stronger and more capable."

evidence?
12.18.2007 1:19am
Laura S.:
I don't think the picture is fair; everyone can be caught really dumb-ass looking on camera, but I also think the picture is cool because it epitomizes what I independently conceive the true Hillary to be.

When I pull the 'D' come election day, I hope it isn't for her.
12.18.2007 1:53am
tsotha:
Oh, sure, Democrats are gonna be complaining we "stole" the election of 2008 because their supporters were pulling the 'D' instead of the lever.
12.18.2007 3:06am
A. Zarkov (mail):
A better picture of Hilary and one that captures her essence.
12.18.2007 3:07am
Hoosier:
A. Zarkov--I'd hit that. (And vice-versa, from the looks of it.)

I had forgotten about that cover. Thanks for a laugh on a cold Tuesday morning.
12.18.2007 6:56am
Uh_Clem (mail):
Photo is attributed as (AP Photo/Jim Cole).

Thanks. That's the answer I was looking for.

I withdraw my photoshop hypothesis.
12.18.2007 9:38am
KenB (mail):
Count me among those who would not vote for Hillary for any public office under almost any circumstance.

That said, I think the picture offers a glimpse of humanity. I certainly have days when I feel like that. The picture doesn't put me off. Hillary puts me off.
12.18.2007 10:14am
CatoRenasci (mail):
Hillary looks like my image of the Handicapper General in Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron in that picure.

I confess to loathing Hillary to the point I would crawl over broken glass to vote against her, but I was shocked by the photo. The woman is more or less my age, and none of the women I know in their late '50s and early '60s look that bad. It just makes her look old and tired -- if simply campaigning for the presidency does this to her, does she have the internal and external stamina to actually hold the presidency, rather than be Bill's backseat driver? Despite my dislike of Hillary, before seeing that picture, her stamina was one of the few things I would not have questioned about her.
12.18.2007 11:58am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):

Given that Hillary Clinton's positions are more moderate than other Democrats,


Always good to lead off with a joke.
12.18.2007 12:42pm
CJColucci:
Given that Hillary Clinton's positions are more moderate than other Democrats,



Always good to lead off with a joke.



Actually, it's a commonplace observation of the other side of the blogosphere that Hillary presents the worst of all possible worlds from their point of view: she is perceived by the voters as the most liberal of the lot, thus making it less likely that she will win, while, in fact, she is the least liberal of the major contenders, thus making it less likely that, if she were to win, she would advance a liberal agenda.
Is this wrong?
12.18.2007 1:29pm
A.C.:
This is the danger of trying to look too young as we get older. Slip up just once and everyone makes a big deal of it. Nobody ever cared what Madeleine Albright looked like -- she didn't hide her regular face, so no one was shocked by it. Hillary has been overpackaged for too long. If she had taken a more natural (and age-appropriate) approach all along, we'd be used to it.
12.18.2007 2:32pm
JWF (mail) (www):
Someone suggested the photo was Photoshopped.

It originated with Reuters on Saturday afternoon, linked here at that time along with several other photos.
12.18.2007 3:19pm
JWF (mail) (www):
My apologies, it was an AP photo. Link still valid.
12.18.2007 3:21pm
Adeez (mail):
Isn't this AboveTheLaw shit? I thought the VC was above this nonsense.

If a pic of Hillary and Huckabee's dumb video are post-worthy, what about the news that Halliburton employees brutally raped an American in Iraq, then did everything in its power to cover it up---all with the help of gov. officials. Or how about the fact that Huck---the righteous Christian---pardoned a rapist who went on to rape more women despite the fact that other victims begged him not to. Because he's so forgiving, like Jesus? Nope, because one victim was related to Bill Clinton!

Or, how 'bout the fact that there's new evidence that the telecom. spying plan began in earnest well before that "surprise" attack on 9/11.

Nah, I'm just being silly. Hillary has wrinkles!!!
12.18.2007 3:41pm
Toby:
I am not sure if the "Why does this tired sexagenerian not look like she is ready for a FHM shoot" is any more jevenile than the "She must have been photoshopped because Drudge is Bad" group.

A pox on both reactions.
12.18.2007 5:04pm
jj:
She looks like a caveman.
12.18.2007 7:51pm
VincentPaul (mail):
Compared to Ukraine's Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, Hillary is pretty average looking, but aren't most women?
12.19.2007 5:01pm
Harriet Miers's Law Partner:
Ann Richard had wrinkles, nobody down here cared.
12.19.2007 7:20pm
Kath (mail):
if you enlarge the pic (quite a bit)...it you can see variations in the skin that do not match in certain area....looks photo shopped to me...
12.20.2007 9:04pm
DC (mail):
Or what about having to see someone like Obama on the news for the next 4 years. . .the man is ugly as hell. I'd much rather see Hillary on the news for the next 4 years. Is Obama sick or something? He's been looking malnourished lately. Somebody really should tell that gawd ugly man to eat a little more. He reminds me of one of those Egyptian mummies after they take all the wrappings off, showing leathery black skin on a skeleton.
12.21.2007 1:10am
fishbane (mail):
The ugliness inside is what matters. No mere skin-deep physical ugliness-not even that of Janet Reno or Helen Thomas--could ever compete in sheer repulsive power with the vile rotting mass of ambition utterly untrammeled by any shred of principle that constitutes the "real" Hillary.

...And people talk about BDS.
12.21.2007 6:28am