If you bother to do an image search on Google with the words "Hillary Clinton," you will find literally thousands of photos out there of the New York State senator. Some of them are flattering, while others are anything but flattering, as you can imagine.
Many people have taken to aging Hillary. What will she look like in 5 years? After all, she'll be 65-years-old. She'll have a few more wrinkles, yes; which of us won't, after all? Let's be honest about it. Then there's the picture taken of Hillary in New Hampshire which makes her look prematurely old. They say it isn't "doctored," but I'm not so sure. (You be the judge.) At at any rate, this same photograph of Hillary has been used by Rush Limbaugh, previously, as a sexist ploy against against women.
Limbaugh made it appear that it is okay for men to age, because they seemingly become more "authoritative" and "distinguished" as they age, but when a woman, like Hillary, ages, she becomes decrepit and unattractive. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is thirteen years older than Hillary. What about him? He's no spring chicken at the county fair. He has white, wispy old man hair, more wrinkles than some of those funny looking dogs, dry, translucent skin, and he seems stiff, as if he has been stuffed with cotton. I do not believe age is important when electing a president--either a man or woman. Republicans are fond of Ronald Reagan. He was the oldest person to be elected to the presidency. If McCain wins, of course, he'll beat the Reagan record for age at his first inauguration, because, let's face it, he's three days older than God!
So Republicans, and Obama-fanatics, leave Hillary alone. I think she has aged gracefully. And she looks damned good to be sixty years old!
No comments:
Post a Comment