Dr Patzer,

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the thrust of your point. Of course physical attractiveness can be an asset to a campaign, and it's a given that any candidate has to have some base level of physical attractiveness to even be a candidate at all. I'm not denying the "physical attraction phenomenon".

But to extrapolate from that "a significant portion of his (Obama's) good political fortunes tie rather directly to his good looks." sounds like more of an over analyzed homo-erotic obsession of yours (See Mitt Romney? I don't.) that neglects taking into account obvious cultural, physiological, and subjective qualities tied into 'attractiveness' that renders pure comeliness insignificant in comparison. You don't make clear what sort of metrics you've devised in your claim it's a 'substantial component'. Substantial as opposed to what? It would seem charisma, intellect, and wisdom are far more important currencies in presidential primaries and general elections. Woman continue to swoon over Bill Clinton, not because he's exceptionally physically attractive, but because of his intellect and charisma. In contrast, Dan Quale was primarily mocked for any presidential aspirations he held despite having the asset of physical attractiveness.

You also choose to blatantly ignore cultural influences by such a superficial analysis of Obama's success. For instance, it's only been within the last few generations that a majority of American women of other races would even CONSIDER an African American as attractive at all because of deep cultural prejudices that have been ingrained in the fabric of our society for centuries.

By calling pure physical attractiveness a 'substantial component' you are very unfortunately trivializing the process. The components that have put Obama over the top so far with primary voters is his message, intelligence, wisdom managing his campaign, consistency, apparent (so far) integrity, charisma, circumstances, and at least half a dozen other qualities before physical attractiveness would come into the picture, making it rather insubstantial by comparison.

The reality is that men value physical attractiveness far more highly than woman when it comes to choosing a mate or even a sex partner because of the physiological component that the success of the individual is innately tied into how attractive a woman finds a man. This is where charisma and intellect play far more prominently in a woman's (and assuming that's half the electorate) propensity to 'swoon'. For heterosexual men, comeliness alone would appear to be a far less important factor with male candidates. It would still admittedly be a factor, but to call it 'substantial' is pushing it.

Your analysis looks to carry the most hope amongst homosexual men, a far smaller electoral subset, with far less influence than in the past. I lived in San Francisco for 7 years and have nothing against homosexuals, but should it be any surprise that your quoted citation of Kennedy winning because women swooned over his good looks came from the San Francisco Chronicle?

Dr. Y

The Rolling Stone! Let's play some Oasis - Don't look in anger. Yes, The Mac and Hillary Show offer us the same "looking back in anger" song Oasis gave us a few years back. But they forgot something - something Obama remembers. The song says "don't look back in anger". What we need is a tomorrow we can define. Not a tomorrow defined by the burdens of yesterday. Being better than yesterday is a pretty loe aim. We want a tomorrow we can build. More on this in my blog at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/dont-look-back-in-anger-a-cover-by-the-mac-and-hillary-show/

Leonard,

Many years ago, a popular 1970s American rock band named “Dr. Hook” recorded a hit song with portions of the lyrics that seem to apply well to Barack Obama now making the cover of “Rolling Stone” as you’ve reported. A small portion of the lyrics from that song, titled “On the Cover of Rolling Stone” magazine, proclaim: “We got a lot of ... groupies, Who do anything we say. We got all the friends that money can buy, So we never have to be alone, And we keep gettin' richer.”

Within the similarities between the old “Dr. Hook” rock group lyrics and the new Barack Obama presidential political candidate circumstances, it seems that a significant portion of his good political fortunes tie rather directly to his good looks.

In the United States, the link is strong historically between being elected to the position of president and possessing rather stereotypical high physical attractiveness. Yes, that superficial feature of a person that defines his level of good looks or, in other words, handsome appearance. Maybe in comparison, a particularly pertinent political campaign in somewhat contemporary times pitted the victorious John F. Kennedy, routinely acknowledged as very good looking, against his defeated challenger of much less physical attractiveness, Richard M. Nixon. In fact, the San Francisco Chronicle has written that, “Some historians have suggested that John F. Kennedy won the presidency because female voters swooned over his looks.”

For those of us who have long studied “physical attractiveness phenomenon,” a robust body of published research documents that persons of higher physical attractiveness experience a much more favorable life than their counterparts of lower physical attractiveness; despite the lack of recognitions or outright denials that people express against these dynamics. And, despite the discomfort it might cause us, it is near certain that Barack Obama’s traditional good looks should not be overlooked as a substantial component in his success thus far among voters in the American primaries leading up to election of our next president and, accordingly, among financial donors to his candidacy.

Dr. Gordon Patzer
author of "Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined"
http://www.GordonPatzer.com