In a 2.3.08 N.Y. Times column about irrational Hillary haters, inspired by Jason Horowitz‘s GQ piece about same in the January issue, Stanley Fish notes two rational reasons for being against the New York Senator: (1) Believing that “her personality [is] unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people,” and (2) believing “that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.”
Then he mentions “the next level” — i.e., “personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts.” One permutation is the obsession among some with the “strangeness” of Clinton’s eyes. (Horowitz’s piece says that “analysis of [her] eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries.”) I always stand by reasons #1and #2, but the deep-down truth is that her eyes bother me also. They bring back an almost primal reconnection with the eyes of a particular eighth-grade teacher who used to get on my case and give me detention and bring levels of misery into my 13 year-old life that I didn’t know existed.
It’s deeply unfair and hurtful, really, to bring up a facial feature as a sticking point, but it’s also fair to say that your basic attitude and spiritual essence starts to work its way into your features once you pass 40. Because it does.