If you read what I think was my first post (I've lost track) I pointed out somewhat similar attacks that were perpetrated upon John Kerry. Who was, last time I checked, male (although he didn't grow balls big enough for my tastes until after the election).

There's two issues at play here: 1) Women's looks and age are taken into account much more often then those of men when deciding whether or not they can do a job, and 2) Conservatives have a tendency to launch childish, schoolyard-bully-level attacks on Democratic candidates.

You keep bringing up how male physical attributes are also criticized, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Has anyone ever said "he's too short to be president" or "his hair is too grey to be president" or "he's not handsome enough to be president" or "he's too chubby to be president"? NO. Male candidates are not judged that way. And what, we wouldn't be watching a MALE president "aging before our very eyes"? The male candidates all drink from the fountain of youth?

That's what happened here, and what we're talking about... conservative commentators expressed the concern that Americans would not want to watch a woman aging on a daily basis, right before our very eyes. No such concern was raised over either a male or a conservative candidate. Period.

Wondering if Ronald Reagan's advanced age would hinder his presidential abilities was justified. Wondering if Hillary Clinton's unsightly wrinkles would hinder hers is not. It really IS that simple.

Wondering if someone of a very advanced age--of either gender--will be able to carry out their duties or even live out their term is a valid concern. Wondering if a woman who is well under retirement age is dewy and pretty enough to be president is another thing entirely.

Yes, absolutely, we have seen plenty of articles and photos detailing how presidents have aged in office. However, I've never once heard it suggested that we, as a country, might want to think twice about electing a certain candidate because do we REALLY want to watch them age (translated: become "unattractive") on a daily basis, before our very eyes? The logic that was employed reiterated the old saw that men become distinguished with age, while women just become ugly. And that just won't do.

How on earth is this a valid issue in a presidential election? And why has the "oh my God, we'll have to watch this person become old and ugly!" card never been played with regard to a male candidate? Quite the contrary... John Kerry was roundly ridiculed (by these same conservatives, naturally) for the mere notion that he might have done something to his appearance to make him look younger.

More stupid, puerile stereotypes employed by these morons. Hillary Clinton is lambasted for not looking younger, like a real woman should. John Kerry is lambasted for supposedly doing something to look younger, because a real man doesn't do that.

They're like schoolyard bullies, with this crap.

Hillary Clinton is still a beautiful woman, and her age does not preclude beauty. Nor do either of those factors affect her ability to do the job, either positively or negatively. I can't believe we're even discussing this, but when you're dealing with American conservatives--not exactly known for being non-judgmental--nothing should be surprising anymore.

Everything with them is superficial, especially their pious "humanity." Somehow, it always comes down to appearances with these people. The appearance of being religious, the appearance of being heterosexual, the appearance of being faithful to their spouses, the appearance of being morally upstanding, the appearance of being honest... and now this.

So here we are, back in high school, as if picking the next president of the United States is like picking the prom queen. Who is the fairest of them all? WHO CARES? Grow the f**k up. Anyone mature enough to vote should be mature enough to know that PEOPLE AGE. All people, not just women.

(Sheesh... are we REALLY discussing this?!)

I was perusing the Macy's sale online today, and saw what looked like a nice, comfy robe. But had I not read the customer reviews, I would have ordered it and been disappointed to find that it fell apart and pilled after washing, and left fuzzies all over the house every time I wore it. Some loved it, but most said it was a piece of crap.

Thank you, Macy's customers. Your reviews were very helpful!

You know how they always suggest another item to pair with your purchase, which they present as "Better Together"?

Well, here's what it says on the product page for this one:

Better Together

Buy this item with Back to Basics TEM500PDWH Paula Deen Egg-and-Muffin Toaster today!

Total List Price: $99.98

Buy Together Today: $69.94

1) It's the same product, just a different brand.

2) As usual, their pairing offers no discount. That's the same price you'd pay if you bought them separately (as neither sells at the mythical "List Price").

I find that a lot of Amazon reviews are tarred with the "not helpful" brush not on the basis of the review, but by whether or not the reader's opinion agrees with the reviewer's. If you give a positive review to, say, a liberal book... guaranteed the conservatives will gang up to shoot it down just on, um, "principle." Not because your review was unhelpful.