Is Mark Warner attractive enough to be President?

I know that is a socially inappropriate question but I am going to ask. How important is attractivenesss in electibility? Personally that wouldn't bother me but would it matter to the public?

...and am I the only one whose gaydar goes off when I see him?

And, no gaydar going off here - but I'm no bloodhound in that area. Curious what others think.

would be an improvement imo.

Limpballs and the rest of hate radio will bash his looks mercilessly if it comes to that.

He is just shy of handsome and the right wingers will use his looks to attack him because God knows Rush, Hannite and O'Reilly are handsome devils.

I don't think he's bad looking, he has a little bit of Kennedy about him, although some I've asked disagree (they think he's.. not). The only thing that really bothers me is this strange way his mouth looks when he talks.

But I can never really gauge this sort of thing, I mean look at the chimp, I find him physically painful to watch.

:shrug:

as his mouth.

... looks damn fine to me. And the fact that under his leadership, his state was determined to be the Best Managed State in the country
-- I don't think you can get more 'attractive' than that to the voters.

Asked how he managed to be so popular and efficient in a conservative state, he said he LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE'S NEEDS AND THEN DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO MEET THOSE NEEDS, their biggest concerns being jobs, education, transportation systems, etc.

LISTENING TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS? You know, it's so CRAZY it just might work -- and it did!

He's much better looking than your average politician though.

I want to tell some people about him, so I am looking for specific info on him, not just "Mark Warner loves America" bumpersticker info.

Not "John Edwards handsome" or "Barack Obama handsome", but Warner is an attractive guy.

I don't think looks should be THAT big of a role in electability. Looks are superficial, after all. They don't bespeak of intelligence or compassion or other more important traits.

I admit I don't know enough about him to form a real opinion yet, but I think he is attractive enough.

It's most important that he have something distinctive about hi appearance, IMO, and he certainly has that with his teeth. I have a hard time believing they're real, though, because they don't match his lower teeth at all. He looks like lots of British news readers...too white, too big caps on their upper teeth and gnarly lower teeth.

And I don't think these "shallow" questions are inappropriate because that's one of the things that attracts non-political junkies to politicians.

It would be a minor whispered attack point for the other side, snide remarks or comparisons regarding his facial features. Bring it on. In an open race after eight years of governance from one side, IMO looks and likability are not quite as vital as when trying to oust an incumbent. I thought it was huge last year and that's partially why I supported Edwards. After eight years it becomes a referendum on what has transpired and what the other side offers as an alternative. Richard Nixon was elected in an open race in '68 and damn near in '60. He would have had close to zero chance to evict JFK as an incumbent in '64, if JFK had lived, of course.

On edit: you did specifically mention electability. I missed that originally

:eyes: For crying out loud! Kerry looks like freakin' Lurch!

On edit: changed post entirely upon retrospect...

but attractive?

Perhaps gangly is a better descriptor.

His look reminds me a bit of Norm Coleman (minus the fake Chiclet choppers).

The question SHOULD be:

Do you want someone the DLC has hand-picked to step in in case Hillary goes down in flames, or to be her VP if she doesn't, so they can run the Democratic Party and control the White House with their shamelessly Corporate-friendly/Republican-like agenda for 16 years?

Think about it.

TC

Largest increase in education spending in state history, balancing the budget, increasing taxes on the wealthy while slashing the food tax and increasing the earned income tax credit for the poor, supporting minority owned businesses, providing health care for 97% of eligible children, and the list goes on, and on, and on. But still youd rather refer to 3 little letters.

Sounds like a Republican-lite agenda to me. :eyes:

Clinton DLC
Gore DLC
Kerry DLC

Your starting to make yourself look desperate.

There's nothing wrong with being a Centrist Democrat with a Progressive agenda. He has tremendous cross over appeal with Repubs and Indies, which also crossed over to electing Kaine Gov. In a red state too ! So that's proof right there :hi:

How can someone be "a Centrist Democrat with a Progressive agenda"?

as a center/center-right Republican. For most its hard to imagine how a solid Democrat could be so popular in a state like VA.

He's been fighting the good fight for four years. Record spending for education, covering poor children with health insurance, progressing minorities and minority owned businesses, slapping down bigoted pieces of legislation, slashing taxes that effect the poor while incresing the earned income tax credit, etc...

Sounds like a solid Democrat to me.

Haven't you heard, it's being test marketed right now. :evilgrin:

Have you been paying attention to what the republican party has become in the past decade? If you have, there's no way you can suggest that an administration led by Warner (or B. Clinton or H. Clinton or any other DLC member) would be "republican like".

onenote

of Shrub's administration.

he looks more like a kennedy. yes, he does have big teeth, but he is attractive and i think (unfortunatley) that people do like a good looking candidate.

anymore and I used to be one shallow person in that respect.

It's who a person is not what they look like. Mark Warner's looks never entered my mind when thinking about him.

actually made the People magazine as a sexy politician. Warner is no threat in that category. Obama will be there next year.

...than John McCain.

Actually...he is much better looking (softer, less harsh) in person. He has a youthful, energetic quality that is very appealing.

If looks were a deciding factor, we would have won 2004 by a landslide on John Edwards movie star good looks!

Was he more attractive than Kerry or Gore? (Leaving aside the issue of who "really" won the 2000/2004 elections, its pretty clear that physical attractiveness wasn't a big determinant in those elections).

onenote

...apparently some people disagree.

Maybe we see too much of his ugly soul behind his average face.

I think both Kerry and Gore are quite handsome in a distinguished sort of way.

Warner...dunno. There's something weird about his face. Like whoever designed it was trying to go for handsome and overdid it. But he's not even close to Bush-ugly.

so he lends himself to being rendered as a Simpsons character, this could be a significant plus in the primaries.

:silly:

and wondered about the big teeth.

Only because I want the Dem candidate to win. Don't mean to be petty.