OK, see if you can follow this.
(1) Herald columnist Margery Eagan seems to say that Hillary Clinton has had “work” done, only she (2) takes it back toward the end; (3) the Herald runs some pretty stunning before and after pictures, except that (4) they turn out to be after and before; (5) Drudge (right) picks it up; (6) Herald spokeswoman Gwen Gage says it was all a mistake or something.
Whew. Greg Sargent explains all at TPM Cafe.
Wouldn’t it all be so much easier if we’d just stop obsessing over Hillary’s looks? I know, I know. It makes too much sense.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I read through the thing twice and as far as I can tell, Eagan does not say Hillary had “work” done. She just tries to get other people to say it.Just think, there’s 17 months of this silliness to go!
Steve: So noted. I just changed “says” to “seems to say.”
One thing we can all agree on: she’s much better looking than other previous democratic females in power. Janet Reno’s dance party, anyone?
I have a friend who ran for State Rep. She did a kickoff speech on education, in front of the local school, and outlined two bill she would file to address funding inequities.Next day coverage? She did not oppose gay marriage, and a description of her suit and jewelry (which was not outlandish – just a nice, rhinestone elephant pin). Not a word about education or her possible legislative priorities. Women in politics are fed to the teeth with this crap, and MSM continues to churn it out.Oh, and about Hillary? I have two words for you – Mineral Veil.
Her looks aside, what about her outrageous comment at the debate — “Something must be taken away from some people.” This is her idea of “sacrifice” for the good of the nation. That’s not the America I know.
Suspect that such nonsense rolls like water off a duck’s back.
Dan,You need to start actually reading your local newspaper. The web made a mistake, now fixed. The newspaper photo captions and Margery’s column always said Hillary was smooth-faced Sunday and wrinkly Monday. That’s why Margery presents it as a question and talks about the speculation: did Hillary get work, makeup, or some wonder treatment? And why she talks about the general issue of pols getting work done. At the end, after seeing the post-debate sag, Margery concludes makeup. Personally, looking at the dramatic overnight change, I’m leaning heavily toward quickie facelift that failed under the strain. Now here’s what I’d like you to do. Contribute 50 cents toward Margery’s salary and mine, read the actual inky newsprint, and then go explain it to Sargent, who still doesn’t seem to get that Sunday night, Hillary looked like Dorian Gray and Monday, she looked like the portrait. He thinks its lame, but several hundred thousand hits suggest inquiring minds are keenly interested in the structure of Ms. Clinton’s face.Thanks,Jules
Jules: I had no problem understanding Margery’s column. She started out seeming to say one thing, and then veered off in another direction toward the end. That’s what she did and that’s what I said she did. As for what was in print and what’s online, I linked to Sargent and let him explain it. Sorry I’m not suppose to read the Web edition.
Don, remind me again what JFK said. Something about, “Ask not what your country can do for you …,” perhaps?And that gets taught in high school history classes as an example of great speech.
Jules, I’ve got a better idea: why doesn’t the Herald freshen up the opinion side of the paper a bit? This is further evidence of a deterioration in quality.I’m a big Herald fan but think a money-losing paper should experiment a bit more in order to liven things up.And by the way, where I live, the Herald costs 75 cents, more than the Daily News (50 cents). The Sunday Herald is not worth $2.00. Both NY papers are $1 on Sundays.
Mike, read it again: “Something must be TAKEN AWAY from some people.” What do you want taken away from you?
Um, I’m not a professional photographer but I know enough about photography to opine that people look differently under different make-up and primarily lighting conditions.What was Eagan’s point really? Merely to produce enough words to qualify as a column to justify her salary?–raj
Eagan is such a hack – I’m surprised anyone reads her. Love the crack about the “PC, anti-war left.”Sorry there, brave pro-war mom.
Wondering – Can a “Is Obama really Black?” piece from Eagan be far behind?
Meanwhile, anyone seen Eagen lately? That’s one time warp of a face, if you ask me. Were she to be invited to make a major appearance somewhere – laughable as that is – I’m sure every known age-ameliorating technique would be employed. Oh, and she didn’t seem real quick on the uptake, either. Major disappointment – I was hoping to have a good, nasty, protracted argument. But I quickly realized she says things without really know why she says them. In print, she’s so in-your-face abrasive. In person, you need to use small words and then explain the premise to keep her engaged.