BS

[erpowers]

I know that some people may not like this post and may think that the post itself is BS, but I wanted to make a comment about an article. If you go to the Huffington Post thre is an article about how a babyface can be a bad thing for some candidates. One of the examples used was a picture of Russ Feingold and his opponent in the 2004 election. The idea of this article and the example is to point out that since Feingold's opponent had a babyface the opponent lost the election. The survey claimed that people thought just by looking at Feingold's photo that he was more compentant and this belief stayed with people.

I think this is BS. First, my first impressions of the picture was that Feingold had more of a babyface. Maybe he does not have a babyface, but he is definitely better looking than the other guy. Second, the people who did this survey claimed that the people who did the judging of the pictures had never seen Feingold and the other people used in the survey. I contend that that means nothing. It is possible that a person may not have seen or known much about Feingold, but had heard some of his stances and even maybe heard him speak. I was one of those people who became a supporter of Feingold without seeing his face, but just hearing him speak and learning about his stances.

[MessiahRp]

1. Actually I volunteered for Feingold here in WI

and it wasn't his Babyface that lost Tim Michels this election, it was his lips glued to Bush's ass and complete lack of knowledge on any issue that lost it.

Feingold handed Michels his ass in every debate they had so badly that it was almost as if Feingold was also moderating it.

Completely unfair to put a Bush Stooge in there against someone as bright as Russ.

Rp

[MsTryska]

2. don't misunderestimate the voting public.....

i had a coworker tell me he wouldn't vote for Kerry because he has a long face.



and my mom won't vote for Bushes because thewy have thin "sneaky" lips.



biolgoical imperative and all that, is my best guess.