An Observation

I had originally posted this on a forum that I frequent. The usually rabid right-wing fascist that likes to call me bad name refused to respond to it, so I guess it was too close to home for him:


In the attempt to give all the accessible candidates a fair hearing, I went to see Ralph Nader speak today (and yes, I took my daughter). It was a good forum and he actually took questions from the audience that weren't scripted. I know they were off-the-cuff because I was late and still got to ask something.

The point that this is leading up to is a question my daughter asked. Not knowing that Nader has Bell's Palsy, she asked why he didn't smile as much as Bush or Kerry. She assumed it was because he was very serious. This, along with a poll shown on Meet the Press this morning, got me thinking about appearance.

The poll asked two sets of people the same set of questions about the issues with one difference: however, one group was asked about which candidate looked more "friendly" and "presidential." The first group was more for Kerry based solely on issues, but the second was more for Bush because he looked more accessible.

The frightening prospect is that too many people will be making crucial decisions based on looks. It's all about the outer package as if how any man looks is more important than how he acts (ie: BMBF, the name-caller, and his "Lurch" comments). In this day and age, are we still teaching this to our kids? I was taught that judging strictly on looks is a bad thing for any person.

If you recall some history, rememember that there were two sets of numbers during the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. Nixon had the flu and looked like sh*t (unshaven and slightly green) on Kinescope TV while Kennedy looked like he had just been laid. Those who saw the debates on TV thought Kennedy had won. However, those who only heard the debates on the radio gave the victory to Nixon. The upshot was that Kennedy went on to win, partially based on how good he looked vs. Nixon. That was also an issue that came up in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore (Bush was the cool frat boy and Gore was the class nerd).

I can't help but wonder how many people are voting pure appearance and really couldn't care less what the candidates are saying, as long as their hair is "right."

(Oh, yeah... As for Nader, he's the same candidate he was in 2000 and his platform/message is the same. His purpose for coming to Nevada is to challenge the way this state counts petition signatures for all ballot initiatives and candidacy qualifiying. Georgia ain't got nuthin' on the "new math" used in Reno!)