This is terribly important, and Ann is totally right about it. (Drudge has posted a photo of Hillary Clinton looking her age and then some; Immodest Proposals crows that it is "the most significant photo taken in the year 2007," the one that has "effectively ended Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign," the "Dean Scream" of 2008. "Her image in that photo isn't the image most Americans would want us to project as a nation. [...] She's done. [...] This photo will turn off the people who were on the fence regarding Hillary." Oh, come on.)
First of all, the photo may have been doctored. I don't know that there's any way to tell. Just the fact that someone might do that -- and don't doubt it for a second -- says a lot.
Second, this is the one form of sexism/ageism Hillary would be justified in vigorously protesting. (Disclosure: I've been a victim of it myself. Have mentioned before that when I published a book in the '80s about the '60s that conservatives hated, David Horowitz made a point of saying that I looked older than my age in my jacket photo -- as if that was somehow a legitimate criticism of my book? Like if someone critiqued a book of David Horowitz's by saying they'd heard he had a small penis, it would, you'd think, reflect poorly on the reviewer, might even be a sign of desperation.) It is fair to scan a potential leader's face for clues to character -- or cues for caricature -- not for the skill and freshness of her latest facelift. This has nothing to do with leadership. If anything, the lack of lines on Obama's face is a little worrisome. But of course, people will try anything to win. They would throw shit, like chimpanzees, if they could.
Third, whatever happened to Washington being Hollywood for ugly people?
You know I'm not a Hillary fan. I don't know what it would take to get me to vote for her. (Maybe if she was running against Tom DeLay? Or Al Sharpton?) I'd never vote for her just to avenge or protest this kind of tactic. But it is the ultimate in damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't disempowerment. If you're pretty, you're not serious and seasoned enough. If you look serious and seasoned, you're not pretty enough. It's just a way of cutting the legs out from under any woman contender that has no equivalent on the male side, unless it's . . . I don't know . . . "Have you stopped molesting your nephew yet?"
I don't know if you went into Althouse's comments, or when, but I expressed some skepticism about this photo myself, and then I e-mailed to Ann a snapshot that I had taken of Sen. Clinton (with my son) in Davenport earlier this year (using a Coolpix 4600, not my iPhone, which I wasn't clear about but since have clarified in comments). Althouse updated to put up that picture (with my son cropped out, per my request) as a point of reference.
Pictures may paint a thousand words ... but it doesn't mean they're always true, or fair.
Posted by: reader_iam | December 17, 2007 at 04:31 PM
You know I'm not a Hillary fan. I don't know what it would take to get me to vote for her. (Maybe if she was running against Tom DeLay? Or Al Sharpton?)
Or Mike Huckabee? ;)
Posted by: Icepick | December 17, 2007 at 05:22 PM
I'm a bit perplexed by this, as Drudge has been rather fawning over Hillary these past many months. There have been several stories written suggesting that a close Hillary insider has been feeding him information, which he has used to their mutual advantage. I find it very odd that Drudge would post this photo today, with the headline he gave it. It's more than past time that Drudge himself be scrutinized, given how big a role he plays in driving news coverage these days.
Assuming the photo has not been edited to add wrinkles or whatever, I don't think that printing the photograph is wrong in any way. I like Fred Thompson, but I've seen him in many pictures and TV appearances looking even older than he is, and that makes me wonder whether he's up to the job. Certainly a great deal of attention was paid to Ronald Reagan's age and physical (and mental) ability during his campaign for reelection, at least until he famously defused it in the debate. It was an appropriate issue. At 60, though, age really shouldn't be an issue for Sen. Clinton.
By no means should one photo be the determining factor in any campaign. I was among the few wondering what the big deal was with the "Dean scream" last time.
I'm rambling a bit, amba, please forgive me. I am curious as to which precisely you find offensive, assuming that the photo is not doctored. Should the photo not have been taken? Should it not have been published by a news media? Would those be ok, but the line would be crossed if an opponent used it? Is the photo and its usage ok, but the Immodest Proposals blog discussion inappropriate?
Posted by: PatHMV | December 17, 2007 at 05:24 PM
The photo doesn't change how I think about Hillary. I was surprised at how she looked only because of the sharp contrast to the image she normally presents.
In some ways, she's getting the treatment every candidate gets -- the unflattering campaign photo (Bush as a chimp, Kerry in that clean suit/overall thing, Romney pulling on the glove in a fudge shop, etc.). But no doubt women are judged more harshly on their looks than are men.
Posted by: Pastor_Jeff | December 17, 2007 at 05:31 PM
It's easy to do anything you want with photos now. Hillary is in her 50s and that photo has the wrinkles of an 80-year-old. It's fake.
Posted by: realpc | December 17, 2007 at 05:35 PM
I actually wouldn't be surprised if (a) the photo has NOT been doctored, and (b) it generally isn't reflective of her looks.
It looks like it's cold wherever that pic was taken, so it her face may be more scrunched up than normal. The cold may be effecting whatever kind of makeup whe's wearing (I assume some sort of pancake-type, but that's just a guess) and the cold may be affecting that to highlight "flaws" rather than hide them. The pic appears to have been snapped while she was both turning her head and speaking. Her face is in a transitional expression, which isn't going to be all that attractive in any event.
Also note that the scarf is pushing up flesh that would normally be hanging naturally and smoothing out a lot of smaller wrinkles on her face below her eyes. She appears to have pulled her chin inwards too, which combined with the scarf would really impact how her flesh hangs. Compare with the pic Reader snapped, in which Hillary's chin is thrust out & up. Her cheek bones are much more prominent in that picture. I suspect that this picture is legit, but unfortunate.
Of course, it also won't be a surprise to find out it's been doctored. ("Let's get real, here!" as a frined likes to say.)
Posted by: Icepick | December 17, 2007 at 05:39 PM
What will be devasting, though, is when someone combines this pick with Hillary's laughter from the debate a few days ago - the one where the moderator was asking Obama how he could bring change if he was reliant on so many old Clinton hands.
Unfortunately, these things do have an impact. People get judged on their looks, demeanor, speaking vocie, etc. Lincoln could never get elected in today's political environment.
Posted by: Icepick | December 17, 2007 at 05:45 PM
Pat --
I am most offended by Immodest Proposals' remarks. Why seeing Hillary looking her age, or older, should torpedo her campaign is beyond me. As many commenters on Althouse have said, anyone can have an unflattering photograph taken. Large sections of all the tabloids are devoted to "gotcha" photographs of (female) celebrities' cellulite. To scrutinize a presidential candidate as if she were Britney Spears is just so puerile and hyena-like.
The optimum years for serious political power are probably the 50s, 60s, and early 70s, which combine continued vigor and mental sharpness with experience, perspective, even wisdom, and accumulated contacts, debts, and chits!!
Posted by: amba | December 17, 2007 at 05:46 PM
I can agree with that.
Posted by: PatHMV | December 17, 2007 at 05:52 PM
Her lipstick looks fabulous. It's crisp and not feathering around the edges and looks shiny-smooth. The make-up looks freshly applied, too. I think the cold weather/excess travel is causing her skin to be drier than normal, thus the appearance of more lines than in Reader's photo at the start of the campaign. She probably needs an excellent eye cream, frequently applied, and a couple good nights of uninterrupted sleep. She should probably cut out coffee/other caffeinated drinks and just plump up that skin by drinking lots of clean water.
I think she just looks weary.
Posted by: Ruth Anne | December 17, 2007 at 07:16 PM
She is running for president, not entering a beauty pageant. So I don't understand why the photo matters. No one complains that John McCain isn't pretty enough to be president.
Posted by: realpc | December 17, 2007 at 07:21 PM
That's because John McCain IS pretty enough to be president.
Posted by: Meade | December 17, 2007 at 07:23 PM
Hillary looked good here.
Posted by: Ruth Anne | December 17, 2007 at 07:39 PM
Who's the stoner she's with?
Posted by: Ruth Anne | December 17, 2007 at 07:52 PM
My only real point of departure from the consensus is that while I think Ruth Anne's correct about it mainly being a question of too little sleep and too much stress (and one can't rule out the possibility of photoshop), there seems to be a tacit assumption under the "does this hurt her" question that she actually looks bad (if not, why in the world would it hurt her), and as I've said in other places, I think she looks attractive even in this pic. /shrug/
Posted by: Simon | December 17, 2007 at 08:06 PM
Ruth Anne, I believe that's Sully that she's with.
Posted by: Simon | December 17, 2007 at 08:07 PM
It's helpful to think of Maggie Thatcher and the late Jean Kirkpatrick in this context. They have/had an inner glow that age can not whither, nor custom stale. Hillary's dead eyes betray a person of "no scruples or ideals whatsoever," as Eric of Classical Values writes today.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | December 17, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Ruth Anne, you appear to be channeling Maxine Weiss.
Sissy Willis wrote: It's helpful to think of Maggie Thatcher and the late Jean Kirkpatrick in this context. They have/had an inner glow that age can not whither, nor custom stale. Hillary's dead eyes betray a person of "no scruples or ideals whatsoever," as Eric of Classical Values writes today.
Please, this is just silly. Her eyes aren't 'dead'. She's mid-blink and turning from the camera. Judging anyone's appearance by one snapshot, especially an unflattering one, is asinine. I'm sure that unflattering pictures of Kirkpatrick and Thatcher exist, perhaps even pictures where the subjects have the dreaded red-eye.
Hillary has a long track record. THAT'S where we should look to judge if she's fit to be President, not one bad snapshot.
Posted by: Icepick | December 18, 2007 at 09:53 AM
"Ruth Anne, you appear to be channeling Maxine Weiss."
*snort, chuckle, chortle*
Posted by: Meade | December 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Icepick: Perhaps so, but Maxine cannot do an embedded link to save her life, so it's obviously not her.
Posted by: Ruth Anne | December 18, 2007 at 02:49 PM
Icepick: Perhaps so, but Maxine cannot do an embedded link to save her life, so it's obviously not her.
True. But understand that the lack of puns is really disorienting.
Posted by: Icepick | December 18, 2007 at 03:05 PM
A pun is your calling card.
Posted by: amba | December 18, 2007 at 03:11 PM
Is that all I am to you? Just a play-on-wordstress? I'll have you know I learned skin care and make-up artistry with the best. I can comment on this with some authority. Gawd, man, my sister drives a pink Cadillac!
Merely punny? That's puny.
Posted by: Ruth Anne | December 18, 2007 at 04:05 PM
No one said puns were the ONLY thing you do, just that they're your calling card.
Posted by: Icepick | December 19, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Does anyone remember Golda Meier? (sp?) Who put appearance ahead of competence in her case? I am not making a pitch for Ms. Clinton--merely for simple sanity and justice! Get off the Womean's Looks Bandwagon, everyone!
Posted by: Mom | December 19, 2007 at 08:55 PM
And, she was played by Ingrid Bergman in a movie or TV-movie or miniseries -- a marvelous piece of casting against type!
Posted by: amba | December 19, 2007 at 09:17 PM
Icepick: I'm not talking about that one picture. I'm talking about 13 years of studying the woman's words and actions. She sold her soul years ago.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | December 20, 2007 at 05:40 PM
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.
Posted by: RC | December 21, 2007 at 01:01 AM
Apparently, the photo in question was one of a series--of nine, if I counted correctly--in a Reuters photostream. (Cal e-mailed me, once he discovered it, bless him.) None of the rest look like that.
Posted by: reader_iam | December 21, 2007 at 07:04 PM
Wow. Do you have a link?
Posted by: amba | December 21, 2007 at 08:26 PM
E-mailed you.
Posted by: reader_iam | December 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM