Hillary’s Voice

(cross-posted at Reclusive Leftist)

Lance Mannion has a fine post up today dissecting the truly weird Michael Wolff essay in Vanity Fair, the one with such gems as:

She’s the special-interest candidate of older women—the post-sexual set. She’s resisted by others (including older women who don’t see themselves as part of the post-sexual set) who see her as either frigid or sexually shunned—they turn from her inhibitions and her pain.

Dear God. Lance does an excellent job with this muck, though he focuses more on Wolff’s voyeuristic delusions than on his sexism. I could go into a whole feminist analysis here, but time presses and I’ll just confine myself to commenting on one thing that’s been amusing the hell out of me ever since this primary season started.

It’s this business about who’s old and who’s young and who’s middle-aged. I’m a 45-year-old over-educated ultra-liberal professional writer. Notice that I am one year younger than Barack Obama (who’s 46) and one year older than Michelle (who’s 44), both of whom are routinely referred to as “young.” I’m also about the same age as many of the Blogger Boyz. If I were an Obama fan, I would be considered a young high-information member of the “creative class.” But because I’m for Hillary, I’m automatically an old, low-information, “post-sexual” (thank you, Michael!) uncreative lump of suet.

45-year-old female Obama voter:

45-year-old female Clinton voter:

My question is, why aren’t the women’s magazines all over this? This is a fricking gold mine, people. To hell with diet and exercise and plastic surgery. If you’re a schlumpy old bat who wants to be hawt again, just join the Obama Movement. Automatic youth.

(And the flip side, of course, is that if you’re already hawt, for god’s sake don’t vote for Clinton. You’ll turn into a sexless bag of cellulite within seconds.)