Clinton struggles trying to re-define who she is?
 

Showing us her grandmother? Her mother? What she looked like 40 years ago? What she looks like now sfter leaving the wardrobe and make up departments?

None of which address who and what she is today.

She is spending time and money too make us feel better about her and like her?
I fault her confidants and advisors for embarking upon an impossible mission.

She is what she is today and all the pumping of the past does not change that.
She flashed and disappeared in 2008 and it is starting again:

Shades of 2008 for Hillary Clinton - Chicago Tribune

Her story of who she is is what she is what it is and putting a new cover on the book will not make the story come out any better.

The republicans may look dis-organized because of the size of the herd of candidates. The democrats ARE dis-organized as they enter the "what are we gonna do now" phase of the Clinton flame out!

When I first read the title of the thread, I thought maybe she was doing the Bruce Jenner thing, in reverse. After looking at a recent photo of her, I could see why.

I am certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton, etc, but I do not think these kind of comments help in anyway.

Disagree with issues and that is easy for me anyway, disagree with character issues if you want, but this kind of thing does not add anything to any discussion

What I see that is pertinent in the make over is that they are now dressing her hair, putting make up on her and somebody, thank God, is doing something about her usual atrocious clothes she always wears. She always looked haggered to me in the way she did not attend to her appearance.....before the make over(s).

Yes candidates do things to be more appealing to one audience or anothertaking off one's jacket or showing up in a open shirt, jeans and cowboy boots, etc......

For Clinton it is always about making her look better, sound better, act better (like she cares, etc.). What can she do this time to make people like her.

Don't they know all that staging and scripting and isolating, etc. does not change who or what she has become and is.

Let there be no doubt, the Clintons, likeable or not does not matter....everything they do is for the personal gain of the Clintons and that is what the American people see and do not like.

It's very enlightening that there are so few comments about the male candidate's appearance. Jeb Bush has been on a diet, Chris Christie had gastro-bypass surgery, which is slightly more extreme than getting a new hairstyle. But in the end, this election will all come down to the issues, as it should.

Obviously, someone does not have a sense of humor this morning. :MOJE_whot:

I agree. Women's looks get picked on way more than men.



I agree. Women's looks get picked on way more than men's. And remember, anyone can have a bad hair day. [emoji6]

Attachment 53856

Yep, you are right...the issues. How much is in it for me..me...me. Not the country, but me. But, we do enjoy a stand up comic like Obama. After all, where would SNL be without him?

:ho: There are dozens of clips of her as SOS, looking haggard and frazzled. Unable to cope. She would never be my candidate, but it made me question her stamina to cope with the presidency.

The dramatic improvement in appearance is, as you said, staging. She's still the same empty suit.

:agree: Totally

Bruce Jenner is trying to re-define who she/he is. They should get together and compare notes.

You can rearrange the spots on a leopard and when you are done you still have a leopard.

My comments about her looks are deserved. Most women I know her age or older are very conscious of their appearance and always look nice.
Clinton as I stated in the original post at best always looked unkempt, untidy, no make up, totally ugly mis matched clothing on top of looking like she had been out all night (in the same clothes).

Another level of not caring (to me).

Ouch! I agree. That's about what her former employees from the DOS say about her.

The clintons about money, either way they are making money and that's what politic's is about making and controlling money. Service of county has NOTHING to do with the two party system. IMO parties should be outlawed along with lobbyists. IMO there is nothing worst that lobbyist and crooked statesman. Both when caught should be hung by the neck till dead.:boom: IMO that will fix everything.

A bit extreme, but I believe that would work to a point. Corruption would probably just end up being less visible. As far as doing away with the two party system, I am in total agreement. Let each candidate run on his experience, reputation and what he "says" he stands for. They'd still lie, but at least everyone wouldn't just be voting party line. That probably wouldn't work, but the divisiveness between the two parties is not helping this country. We are on a down hill trend right now, and we might as well consider that we may very well be company with Greece if we don't stop the fall.