Yesterday I posted a diary about Bill Richardson's successful negotiations to release a journalist and his assistants in Sudan. The commentary quickly went to Richardson's appearance.
While some contend that Richardson's appearance is authentic and "non-blow-dried" others were so unkind as to use the term ugly. I suggested the term "organic good looks."
I personally find his appearance attractive, he is a big guy with a genuine, warm smile, and twinkly dark eyes. He has nice hair. His face betrays an intellect suspiciously absent in the face of our current POTUS.
Granted he is not fashionably thin, a quality I find highly overrated (not being fashionably thin myself). Do we regard John Kerry as more trustworthy because he is skeletal? I personally think there is something a little more honest and genuine in the appearance of people who look like they may have recently enjoyed a meal.
What does it say of us if we can look at a man like Richardson, whose resume is by far superior to any other potential candidate, whose reputation for being an honest and humble public servant is unquestionable, whose dedication to the public interest is unmatched, and judge him based on his appearance?
I contend that people who are only interested in the appearance of the candidates should only vote on American Idol.