One popular theme we often see in the news is the presidential aging pictorial with before and after photos highlighting how the person's appearance changed for the worse over a period of years.
Camera lenses can do wonders for a person -- just ask Barbara Walters. So it's difficult to look at a picture and know whether to believe one's own eyes.
But take a look at Hillary Clinton. She was giving a speech the other day which was captured in this C-SPAN video. She looks so much younger than she did a few years ago. She looks as young as Madonna.
Now before you jump all over me for sexism, let me just say in the interest of equal harassment that had I know a few years ago that Joe Biden was headed for a VP spot I would certainly have put him under the microscope for the hair transplants and who knows what else way back then.
But really, since politicians' looks count as much with today's voters as what they say, then who can blame them for doing anything they can to improve their looks?
I'm sorry, George, but ... "so what?" If tue, she would hardly be the first person - man or woman, celebrity or not, red or blue - who's tried turning-back-the-clock, one way or another ... and she wouldn't be the last, either.
Posted by: Jeff | January 12, 2010 at 02:23 PM
So I take it that you agree she did have some "work" done, Jeff.
Next question: Who paid for it?
Posted by: Geo | January 12, 2010 at 03:25 PM
Actually, George ... no, I don't. My point was that, if it were true, "she would hardly be the first ... and she wouldn't be the last, either."
Now, your next post, the one about sex dolls ... now THAT is something I would take seriously!
:-)
Posted by: Jeff | January 12, 2010 at 08:25 PM
Did she or didn't she? Whatever it was, she sure looked good in that video. Maybe her husband will eventually blab.
Yes, Jeff, you are right. Cosmetic surgery is so common that there's hardly any stigma about it even though it should reflect on a person's credibility.
Posted by: Geo | January 13, 2010 at 07:16 AM