- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 70,163
- Reaction score
- 199
- Points
- 73
In this day and age of mass visual media, do you think a non-astheatically pleaseing person could be elected President of the United States?
Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton - they are all good looking men. There have been some exceptions in the 20th Century, like Nixon and Bush Sr, who I don't think looked that appealing when in office... but that was then.
Look at someone like Abraham Lincoln. He is a strange looking man. Look at people like Bill Richardson - a capable man who never had a chance because he is not handsome. During the same election, there was running criticism that Hillary would not age well if elected and "we'd have to look at her wrinkles and sags for the next four years".
What do you think? Could someone who looks like the Toxic Avenger win popularity with today's society? Do we value superficiality over ability?
Considering many historians believe that Nixon did not win the election against Kennedy because the debates were the first to be televised.....it probably doesn't hurt....
In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin