The Politics of Bein' Purty

Disclaimer: I'm writing this as the polls begin to come in on the New Hampshire primaries.

Living here in Texas, John Kerry hasn't been all that important to me. Yeah, I know a little bit about him, a Dem from MassaTaxes, was a SEAL in Viet Nam, so on and on.

But I never paid much attention to him until he became the Democratic Messiah to save them from the fate of nominating Howard Dean.

Dean was entertaining, with the angry dwarf/bombastic/rantacular speeches, but I couldn't help but wonder why the Dems were driving their campaign bus right off a freaking cliff, all the while pleading for everyone to get on board.

Once Democrats outside of his circle of True Believers started hearing them, the wiser heads said, "Holy Freaking Dukaki! Sacred Mother of Mondales! This feels good, we got this mouse in our pocket, but whacko-ing off with him, pleasant as may be for us to play with ourselves, ain't gonna get us a date at the inagural. We need to court somebody we can't see in the mirror every day."

And so, along comes Kerry, faithful party stalwart, egg-sellent liberal credentials, boodles of moolah, etc. Has a military resume that immunizes him from the sorts of attacks that would kill most anti-war folks.

But the poor sumbitch has no chance whatsoever of beating Bush for at least two reasons, both demonstrated in the past.

Two: The poor guy is ugly. Waaay ugly. Fugly. I just took a good look at him last week. Poor guy looks like a cross between Lurch and Howdy Doody. Can you imagine wanting to look at this guy for at least four years?

Look, I know it shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. But I know human nature. Studies have proven, time and time again, that pretty people have a marked advantage in life. Rail and rant and moan, but it's reality. As real as me not getting to play in the NBA, as I'm too short and slow.

Two: Carter - Not coyote fugly, but not strikingly handsome - but he's from the South.

Three: Clinton - handsome, much as it pains me to admit it, charismatic, from the South, wins two terms, the first against an incumbent that had just won a war.

(Disclaimer: about ten years ago, I wore my hair in a do like his - was told a few times I resembled him. Pissed me off to no end, but I did get to boink an intern or two - there is no unmixed blessing or curse. :-)

Dudkakis: looks like a turtle, from Massataxes, tries to revamp image by putting on a Snoopy hat and riding in a tank - gets beat like a red-headed stepchild.

Gore: A fine enough looking man, and from the South, but is so wooden as to make a fence post look like a stand-up comic, and spent his life in DC. He runs against Bush, no matinee idol, but no Hall of Fame Speaker, either. Born up North, but raised, for all purposes, from Texas - the uber-state of the South. Their advantages cancel out, the result being the tightest race in modern history.

What does this tell me? That if they run Kerry, long face, helmet hair, and all, with his lib Massataxes baggage, Bush will win in a walk.

Best advice to the Dems - go with Edwards. As handsome a man as has ever run for office, from the South, and by all reports, could talk the panties off a nun. Men wanna be him, women wanna do him. Has the polished aplomb only found in the best trial lawyers. His similarities to WJC are striking.

Issues and platforms aren't gonna matter - after he gets nominated, Edwards will run to the center like a man with his ass on fire to the nearest body of water, where he'll violently collide into Bush, who's already sitting there soaking, camped out slightly to the left of center.

So, there it is. Will the Dems do it, ditch Kerry? Too early to tell - lots will depend on the primaries next week, see how well Edwards tromps 'em in the South.

But if they don't - well... I thought Dean might lose fifty states. (And evidently lots of the Dems did too.) Kerry won't do that poorly, but he'll lose all but the most hard-core blue states. Edwards could win it if the cards fall right.

mld, 1/29/04, 4:23 AM

You make my point for me.

Recall that Nixon *lost* to Kennedy, in no small part because he refused to wear make-up for a televised debate, thus looking like a bad case of embalming?

Though he was certainly older during his terms, the public's view of Reagan was firmly planted during his days as an actor, and later governor of California, when he was still looking like a movie star.

Or are you telling me that that older men cannot be attractive? That would hurt my feelings. :-)

Finally, I would also mention that I think conservative voters tend to look more at the man and the issues, and are less swayed by such superficial notions as appearance. Recall all the news articles when WJC was running, about getting the female vote as he was just sooo damn sexy?

Wait a minute - am I cracking on liberal, or female voters? Maybe I otter shut up now? :-)

... link

ceridwen, 1/29/04, 7:25 AM

Uh-huh

And it's not just the liberals who think that females are shallow and vote according to how the candidate looks--since George the First supposedly chose Dan "No Brains" Quayle because he was (supposedly) so good looking they hoped the ladies would vote for the Republican ticket on account of that.

Didn't work for this girl--I never thought Quayle was that attractive anyway. And speaking as a female, I have never voted for someone based on looks. Speaking as a citizen, I have seldom voted for anybody based solely on political party--though it has happened.

As for whether "older" men can be attractive, it depends entirely on the man. Reagan, with his painted face and his wrinkles-on-wrinkles, wasn't.

You? Haven't you figured out what I think of you yet?
Besides, you're not all that much "older" than me. :)

... link