As the discussion about the Iowa implosion of Dean and Gephardt filled the living room this evening the Wizbang wife noted one as yet rarely discussed factor in the sudden rise of John Edwards; he’s not unattractive. In fact in he’s got more of the “hottie” factor than any candidate in recent memory, dating back to perhaps John Kennedy.
With most voters deciding on their candidate within the last few days, it’s not inconceivable that many voters came on board the Edwards train because he’s well… cute. If looks count, then images of Dean with bulging neck veins, and Kerry’s hang dog eyelids certainly turned off a percentage of Iowa voters. As to the looks argument, even Kerry can stake a claim to looks-based success, as many voters said in exit polls he looked “presidential.”
I had to comb the memory banks for where I’d first seen this kind of instinctive voter assessment, and then I remembered that I’d seen an endorsement from Courtney (who apparently has stopped writing):
Based totally on looks, this blog endorses John Edwards. Besides Bush, I mean.
It’s not nicknamed “a beauty pageant” for nothing…
I dunno. That Dennis Kucinich is pretty darn cute, too.
Did someone say cute?
Ewww – he’s got the scary serial killer teeth.
hln
I don’t trust the super good looking politicians. Edwards is too cute, imho.
Actually, I don’t trust anyone who’s super good looking.
Too purty. I’m not down with a purty (
Yah… Edwards is the only Dem whos not a left wing Wacko in the race AND hes hot!! The question is whether he or Bush is better looking since theyre both good politically…