While no one (with the exception of, say, Eleanor Clift) would ever call her
a 'babe,' Hillary's visage no longer brings forth an involuntary flinch. This 'transformation'
was
immediately apparent at the recent Democrat debate. Hill's camp vehemently denies
any 'artifice.' Lighting and make-up can do wonders, they would have us believe.
Those who believe pigs fly need read no further.
A more reasonable explanation is, you guessed it, botox. A few well-placed injections
can make even Phyllis Diller look, well, acceptable. The only other explanation
involves shades of Dorian Gray.
You have to hand it to Hill. She has proven that it is possible to fool most of
the people some of the time. A recent Forbes poll found only one per cent thought
she was 'personally attractive.' (Compare that to Obama's 33% ranking.) Hillary
got the message.
And John Kerry. Amazing how his head of hair continues to thicken as the years march
on. During his last campaign, I couldn't tell if his hair was real. One can usually
tell by looking at the part. If you can see scalp and roots, it's usually natural.
Lately though, Kerry has this little lick of hair conveniently laying over the side
part, making me suspicious that he's wearing a rug. Ever since Kerry quit the botox,
his huge head of hair just doesn't look natural framing a face full of wrinkles.
I could be wrong.
Ever since the advent of television, physical appearance has played an integral
part in the election process. The rules are unwritten but ironclad:
For men to be elected, a head of hair is deemed essential, supposedly to convey
virility and youth. Even top-notch politicians like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott
have had to acknowledge this unwritten rule. (It's possible that Fred Thompson could
be the exception that proves the rule)
For women to be elected, wrinkles are the culprit. It's okay to have a chicken neck,
wattles and all, but the face must be relatively wrinkle-free. The rule here is
'too much is not enough,' as proved by Nancy Pelosi. Her facial skin is so tight
as to be transluscent and she has barely enough skin left above her eyes to close
them completely. No problemo.. enough voters perceive that wide-eyed look
as alertness as opposed to bug eyes that I predict her political fortunes will remain
intact.
More a suggestion than a rule, the hands, an excellent indicator of age, should
be kept out of sight unless script calls for 'passion' or 'outrage' at which time,
the hands can be waved. The wave should be quick, however, so as to obscure any
liver spots. Those are definite vote-losers for both men and women.
For men and black women, it's okay to be fat. (Think Cynthia Mckinney, Edward Kennedy,
Jerry Nadler, etc.) However, if you're a Republican woman, excess fat is a no-no.
Oh, and easy on the make-up or you'll suffer the fate of Katherine Harris.
When it comes to appointed positions, the rules change. Then it becomes okay for
a woman to display her sexuality. This is usually done via silicon lips and breasts.
Although, in the case of UN Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie, I have to say her
'bee stung' lips are extremely distracting. Silicon-enhanced lips are meant to convey
sensuality. As in 'pout' or 'bruised,' purposely evocative of recent, uh, activity..To
me, they merely look infected. Color me catty.
Sex appeal is the greatest sales tool of all time. For decades it has been used
to form favorable associations with various products. Now politicians are realising
this primal truth. Witness the recent 'I Have a Crush on Obama' video that is making
the rounds on the net. A few teen-age girls in short shorts fawning over a cardboard
cut-out of Obama. I predict a huge bump in the polls of the 'twenty something's'
for Obama. Another demographic group locked up.
Hillary is currently pursuing the same 'twenty something's' group. I predict she
will re-release the famous photo of her and Bill dancing on a desert island. (I
suspect a video of twenty-something's fawning over Hillary wouldn't work) Ouch...
In our increasingly visual world, more often than not, what you see is not
what you get. Perception is now reality to many voters. (Thanks in large part to
the liberals' focus on 'feelings' as opposed to facts.) An 'earnest' look by cute
John Edwards holds more sway than his policy on Iraq; Romney gets points for 'looking'
Presidential; and Fred Thompson's TV persona will definitely factor into his presidential
chances. If one hasn't mastered the art of the artificial, like say, Mike
Huckabee or Ron Paul, there's a better than even chance they will never rise to
the rank of contender. No matter how smart or qualified they are.
Thanks to technology, plastic surgeons, implants and botox, politicians can now
fool us on one more level. Couple that with the rise of the MTV generation and I
predict the old reliance on merit, character and actions will continue to decline,
to be replaced with an over-reliance on superficiality, sound bites and botox.
True character will eventually out. But unfortunately, by then, the elections will
be over and the candidate who has best mastered the game of misperception will be
safely ensconced in whatever political office he or she won...with the added layer
of incumbency to guard against the voters' second thoughts.
Once in office, the elected official will have learned how successful one can be
by relying on form over substance. Hence the endless series of feel-good, relatively
empty but beautifully packaged legislation will continue. And we, the American people,
won't have any right to complain. After all, we're getting exactly what we voted
for.
