“WOW. Hillary aged about 30 years overnight. Or was it makeup & fancy hair stylist & doctor potions all along?” asked one lovable Trump supporter on Twitter.
“Hillary Clinton looks terrible. I mean terrible!” added another helpful male observer. “Seems she didn't bother to do her hair or makeup. This loss devastated her whole world. Wow.”
From there the commentary devolved into tedious but entirely predictable conspiracy theories: Hillary is eschewing makeup to look like a victim, was one frothy hypothesis. Others were certain she was being paid (by who, a tissue company?) to cry. And others gloated that she must now be too poor to employ a makeup artists (almost certainly the same people who were deriding her – wrongly - for making millions from The Clinton Foundation.)
But other, normal people thought HRC’s choice to forgo makeup made her seem more powerful and – perish the thought – likeable than ever before.
“I think HRC prefers no make up longer hair and glasses. She can be who she wants now. So glad she is doing things her way,” wrote one.
But the fact that Clinton’s makeup attracted more interest than sounds to us like yet another case of raging double gender standards. Clinton goes one day without piling on the eyeliner and it attracts columns of coverage. Donald Trump walks around all day caked in more bronzer and fake tan than 15 Vegas showgirls and he wins the presidency.
2016 gets weirder every day.