Senator Clinton does, indeed, look older in the unflattering photograph. It is not the "bad" picture which is telling -- it is thousands, if not millions, of images of her which, apparently successfully, manage to hide that condition. If she is unwilling to campaign "as she is" in appearance, then there is reason to make the comparison and conclude, not that she is old, but that she is as misleading in her public appearance as she is in her public comments, speeches, and, most of all, advertisements. And the same criticism/comparison is made of every male candidate! Flattering images of the men in their own advertisements and appearances are matched by distinctly unflattering ones broadcast by their opponents. Amazingly, Hillary's supporters have now decided there is another message -- her opponents must dislike older women and, therefore, she is now a victim. As it is said, "tough.......luck." She puts on the makeup!!!

By far the best candidates for my Democratic Party are John Edwards and Joe Biden. Neither is a prisoner of those recently popular ideas which proved completely wrong; and neither is held hostage by those who like to manipulate a system which began to be completely and perversely rigged with the advent of the "Contract with America" (A deal in which corporate greed was allowed to steal the wealth of our country -- and ultimately its moral foundation.) Hillary is far too beloved of the old-line power brokers and has a personality virtually identical to George W. Bush, Barack's visions are vague.

Bethincary is absolutely correct. The Queen-in-waiting is hardly a victim to be soothed. The press created the Clinton-Obama "horserace" because of the supposed "story" value, without giving the other candidates genuine attention. A little, no a lot, of penitence is owed for that. But Hillary and her supporters were happy to accept the coronation -- and their smugness was palpable. What the lemmings give, perhaps they can take away. Their choices were: a) shout out questions, with little chance of real answers; b) shout out what they thought -- which would be quite rude; or c) remain silent. As Mom always said, "If you can't say anything good............................."

Glenn is absolutely, positively, and dangerously correct: our media "stars" love the power to choose who the rest of us should favor with our votes, and are unabashedly doing so --- without, of course, even attempting to analyze the issues themselves. And they love being the story. I disagree with Glenn's insistence that Senator Clinton is their victim -- I believe strongly that the supposed inevitability of her nomination was based on the media fascination with the possibility of a female president; and the gentle treatment of Senator Obama must have the same source. But the ABC debate last weekend demonstrated clearly that the "star" was supposed to be the questioner/moderator -- who relentlessly ignored John Edwards, allowed frothy responses from Clinton and Obama, and gave Governor Richardson more time than he could conceivably merit (watching people pass gas isn't news.) But Glenn's observation -- that those who are supposed to find "news" are rooted in the grand journalistic tradition of Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine, and wouldn't know how to report a candidate's fundamental beliefs, ideals, policies, or methods; is absolutely correct. They are happy to completely ignore the positions of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Huckabee - in favor of their looks, or Clinton's support for the Bush Administration in favor of her tears, and so it goes.

I cannot accept the "Hillary as Victim" theology now being bandied about. When she began her candidacy (sometime during her husband's Administration, really), when she was in charge of all of the illegal campaign contributions (particularly from foreign nationals -- and sent Al Gore to the Buddhist Temple), and when she formally entered this campaign, the Press treated her like a Goddess. The "inevitability" of her nomination came because the media simply refused to do anything other than focus on a horserace between her and Obama -- and left John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and Chris Dodd for dead -- apparently they weren't exciting enough. So all of that early free "buzz" was given to her -- not earned. When she treated the press, in particular, as her enemies, refused to answer questions, and had only "talking points," they finally tired of it. Further, like George Bush (her stubborn and condescending attitude makes them virtual twins) she was vicious in denying access to any journalist she deemed to have dared to treat her badly. So a lot of those folks don't like her. And they shouldn't. If she had been a male candidate, she would already have been out of the race; with Edwards, Obama, Dodd, and Biden ALL far better candidates, with better domestic and foreign experience, and without her record of support for the Bush administration. Those Democrats who, like me, would like to have a candidate from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, aren't ready for four more years of compromise, waffling, and a lust for power unmatched since Richard Nixon.