Could Hillary have just looked better, refreshed and ready to lead in the New Hampshire debate? It was only just after Christmas that Jim Cole's AP photo of "hangdog" Hillary, full of wrinkles and sags, was the photo for the WaPo feature on tricky photos that try to portray candidates as losers.
The photo at left shows a wrinkle-free, refreshed candidate as she faced off with Edwards, Richardson and Obama on the big Saturday evening nationally televised debate with Charlie Gibson.
Hillary found her voice. She was real. She had emotional moments. Women could relate... My first comment that night was how good she did look. Edwards was full of wrinkly facial contortions. Richardson looked worn. Obama has the rhetoric and the oratorical force. But maybe it is the Woman on the Rebound...Ethos and pathos. Who are the stylists/advisors/doctors who can keep the image refreshed? How could you stay looking good in all of that limelight?
I wasn't able to watch the debate, but what I was thinking was that women quietly went out and voted for her without, you know, saying much about it.
Obama came on as such a media star and had Oprah on his side, and yet he always has struck me as too intense for television. Edwards, too. Clinton is at her best, media wise, when she radiates calm and a light amusement.
Posted by: Hattie | January 10, 2008 at 12:54 AM
I think looks matter very much to our culture but I'm not so sure it would keep someone out of the whitehouse?
I'm also not sure if this is a sad thing or just reality?
Posted by: Rhonda | January 10, 2008 at 06:40 AM