Beauty and Politics: Kamala Harris and Jennifer Granholm v. Scott Brown and Sarah Palin- Difference?

One theme I always here about Republican candidates, particularly if they are women, is a focus on their appearance even if they are moderately attractive. In the case of Christine O'Donnell, I just don't get it, because she reminds me of Elaine on Seinfeld, yet I find her appearance being mentioned in news reports. The fact that Scott Brown was a former nude model did not hurt him for a party that prides itself on family values. Conversely, with attractive Democratic candidates, their physical appearance is often downplayed, and rarely talked about.

My question is whether there is a difference between the way the media covers Republicans versus Democratics with respect to personal appearance? Is it just an accident or is there a hidden agenda by the corporate media to tout the fact that a candidate may be physically attractive?

Likewise, is the difference in focus due to the candidates themselves? Due attractive Democratic candidates downplay their potential hotness, while Republicans tend to overplay it?

Kamala Harris:
<>

Jennifer Granholm:
<>

Gavin Newsom:
<>

versus

Scott Brown:
<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oN6Y1jtbSK8/S4O8txkf1nI/AAAAAAAAAzg/QhzUvj6KuyM/s320/scott+brown+boston+globe.jpg>

Sarah Palin:
<>

Christine O'Donnell:
<>

The Republican women, on the other hand, project some kind of wanton, unbalanced deviance- that's what gets the repuke men all steamy and aroused. Functional brains don't fit into their rut-fantasy.

For example, I just can't see a male Democratic candidate who was a former nude model, benefitting from the piece of history. Likewise, if Kamala Harris was a former beauty contestant who appeared on a fashion magazine, do you think it would help or hurt?