Turns out there’s some scholarly, if sexist, justification for Sarah Palin’s pricey wardrobe. Northwestern University researchers asked 73 college students to look at photos of congressional candidates from 2006 and rate the candidates for competence, dominance, attractiveness and approachability. The study indicated that in male candidates, seeming to be competent is what counts for potential voters. “For female candidates, it really matters if they’re perceived as competent and perceived as attractive. Those two qualities are sort of twin predictors of whether or not someone is going to be more or less likely to vote for them,” said Joan Y. Chiao of Northwestern’s psychology department.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
56 Comments
Beauty is skin deep or as deep as your wallet will allow you to spend to make oneself (beautiful/handsome.)
Of course, times have changed – Abraham Lincoln was pretty scary looking and in today’s world who have most certainly frightened Democrats and Libs away from the polling facilities.
(chortles)
Sure Palin is attractive, as long as she isn’t talking. Memo to Palin, Montreal is in Canada, not France.
On this formula, the young Anna Nicole Smith should have been a two term president.
Its true for everything not just politics. Women have to be thin and appeasing to look at- it matters in job interviews too. America is horrible for putting attractiveness as a measure of the quality of the individual.
There are intelligent Republican women in Congress. The problem for McCain was that they were simply too intelligent to tow the conservative party line. McCain had to go far down the list of Republican women until he found one dumb enough to think remodeling an office is more important than paying for rape kits. And there he found Sarah Palin.
ACORN?
How about widespread attempts at voter fraud and intimidation through deception?
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/some-voters-hit-with-dirty-tricks/235328?icid=100214839×1212675196x1200806876
Keeping people who have a right to vote from the polls is actual voter fraud.
“There are intelligent Republican women in Congress. The problem for McCain was that they were simply too intelligent to tow the conservative party line.”
That’s not really fair to McCain. I know what the idea behind Palin was, it was to try to get a candidate who would energize the base and yet be attractive and unknown enough to not drive off the middle. The problem is that she comes off as woefully unprepared (and that has less to do with experience than it does with when she opens her mouth). McCain is walking a tightrope, but it is not fair to claim that McCain wanted someone because they “toe the conservative party line”, because in all fairness, he really hasn’t (he’s done more this election both to hold onto the base and because the conservative line has mastered the psychology of fear tactics).
A better known right winger (woman or man) was too much of a risk because there is a backlash against the right, and a moderate was not attractive to the base. I don’t know if McCain really did want Leiberman, but it was apparent from the obvious lack of vetting that he really wasn’t thinking about Sarah Palin. This was obviously a pick from beancounter advisors.
No doubt the ‘jawless fish’ thought the topic was about nut-bearing trees and the Stanford-Binet assessment placement of conservative women.
Palin attractive? HARDLY.
I don’t find her fetching in the least. Once she opens her mouth, I REALLY want to head for the hills.
THE first, best candidate for President among women is Senator Hillary Clinton.
“No doubt the ‘jawless fish’ thought the topic was about nut-bearing trees and the Stanford-Binet assessment placement of conservative women.”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
And HERE Sarah is to entertain us with some fancy pageant walkin’ and that windshield wiper wave.
I think she is very pretty and physically fit, all around attractive! If she was so easily “used and manipulated” by the RNC it indicates to me she is fine with women being tools and decorations. She allowed herself to be a dressed up doll, a showgirl. She has a wardrobe of professional clothing. She represented Alaska at several meetings all over the country. Take a look at the expenses she claimed for her and her family! She “looked” great at her introductory rally.
She sets back women’s rights almost a decade!
I didn’t give the RNC any money. When the RNC thinks it’s OK to spend political contributions at Saks, I question that judgment, but it wasn’t my money. I’m happy with the campaign that has been run by those I donated to.
Now on the subject of competence and Palin — expensive clothes, makeup, attention to every detail of appearance won’t make Palin competent to be VPOTUS. A pleasant appearance will not make Palin highly educated, deeply thoughtful, well prepared to govern, knowledgeable of law and our constitution. It is utterly inexcusable that one with so many weaknesses would be in the position to take over the presidency of our great country.
It’s human nature to find something unappealing in the opponent’s physical appearance and go for the jugular, and it escalates as the fear gets stronger. It’s also childish.
Why else would Hank constantly refer to Hillary Clinton as “Her Thighness”?
Sarah looks simply Marvelous. But I wouldn’t vote for her.
Hank doesn’t have an original thought.
That insult comes from con radio shrew mark levin.
test
Because nothing says “hot babe” like Margaret Thatcher, Andrea Merkel, or Golda Meier.
It is no more acceptable to be sexist than it is to be racist.
Why do some of you think being sexist is fine?
You would be all over someone for being racist.
Is there no respect left?
Didn’t looks have alot to do with the Kennedy and Nixon debate? Nixon looked old, sweaty, uncomfortable and downright mean. Kennedy looked young, confident and confident.
With all the talk about Palin’s $150,000 expense for designer clothes – the issue should have been how can the GOP justify spending that kind of money when the average American does not make that kind of money in an entire year – especially at a time when the economy is failing.
As far as looks go, McCain’s handlers really do need to tell the old man to go get his teeth fixed – that $150,000 they spent on Palin’s clothes would have more than covered the dental bill. McCain does have a smile (kind of a smirk, actually) that does tend to be creepy.
Contrary to what Elizabeth Hassebeck thinks, it is not sexist to think the GOP spending $150,000 on Palin’s designer clothes (not to mention the little girl’s designer handbag) was a stupid move.
The McCain/Palin mantra is they are mavericks and don’t follow the good old boys thinking. If this is true, then why cave into the need for designer clothing?
That move was totally political suicide and what scares me is that McCain, Palin and the RNC still don’t get it – do they?
So, what charity have they given them to?
(chortles)
Yes, sunflower.
I respect Brenda Landweher.
Who knew that someone could do so well in politics without looks, a college degree, or an original thought in her head.
it’s no different for male candidates either. Women gawking about JFK’s looks. Bill Clinton’s charm, and mens height in general. People are more likely to respect and trust a male candidate who is taller in height. If anything, popular vote for a candidate would probably be counterproductive, as seeing most people vote for a candidate based on emotional reasons, and physical appearances.
“But one of the most famous political fashion designers of the year, Susanna Chung Forest, who designed Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits says it would be unusual for a candidate as famous as Sarah Palin to need to buy clothes.
“Why do you need to pay for it?” Forest told CBS News from her boutique Susanna Beverly Hills saying that most designers would offer to clothe a candidate for free. “It’s an honor, you are going to design for someone who could be the president of the United States,” noting that the exposure any designer would get from dressing someone as famous as Clinton or Palin would be worth much more.
The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this year that Senator Clinton’s custom made pantsuits from Forest were worth about $6,350 a piece retail. Clinton’s spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/cbsnews_investigates/main4539410.shtml
—————————–
Do you think that Hillary pays for her clothes or do you think that this designer gives them to her free of charge. So the dems say it is ok to take them for free but not to pay for them.
Clothing companies don’t donate to a loser, Mccain probably had to pay upfront.
That 150k is about 4 yrs. wages for Joe.
If designers want to donate to candidates why would we question that? It’s an advertising expense they are free to make, or not. And campaigns accept (even encourage!) donations. Donations are sometimes monetary, other times time and talent is donated.
Mainly, I don’t think the way a person dresses is as important as many other attributes. I haven’t seen that “attractiveness,” or expensive clothing, haircuts, outward appearance improved a person’s abilities to think, to govern, to lead, to analyze…
Looks do count, whether in bus. or pol., sad but true. Sarah will probably end up on a few corporate boards, or get a CEO position at a large company.
I expect to see Sarah Palin with her own talk show – either on television or right-wing radio. I wonder if her days in Alaska politics is coming to an abrupt end? After all, there are alot of questions that have been brought up in all this investigation into her dealings since being picked as VP choice of McCain.
McCain has a knack of picking people and using them for his own personal political gain, doesn’t he? The only problem is, Palin has alot of political baggage and Joe the Plumber has alot of personal baggage that McCain did not know about or did not care about?
This shows alot about McCain’s judgment.
“I wonder if her days in Alaska politics is coming to an abrupt end?”
Palin demanded and got another investigation by the personell board. She was required to testify under oath. Given that she seems to “not tell the truth” a lot, I’m guessing she will eventually face perjury charges or husband Todd will.
There is another investigation into the expenses she claimed. Seems the light has been turned on in a few dark corners in Alaska. karma.
When the started it’s smear campaign with this, the rest kind of has trouble getting any legs in my opinion.
http://mediatakeout.s3.amazonaws.com/photo/1220106076palinscandal.jpg
mom,
Talk show? Maybe a pilot and a douple episodes, but Palin has pretty much milked her 15 minutes for all they’re worth. She’ll make a dull speech at the 2012 convention and that’ll be the end of it.
Would this thread by out here if Hillary would have made it?
Wow. It took a study from Northwestern University to find the obvious: Looks matter.
Duh.
Let me guess – gov’t money paid for this astounding bit of obviousness.
Criminee, people: all things being otherwise roughtly equal, more attractive people have an advantage. Duh – like that’s shocking. And, shockingly, the RNC wanted their VP candidate to look good.
More duh.
Are liberals always this dense? (that’s rhetorical, of course).
“Are liberals always this dense? (that’s rhetorical, of course).”
I think GMC70, our tax dollars probably funded this study so our nanny government can start an equal opportunity program for ugly people.
You must start somewhere, and past experience on the method of operation of liberals:
1. Pay for a study to support your outcome.
2. Begin a media campaign showing ugly people who did not get the job.
3. Show statistical information on pretty or ugly (not pretty ugly, although that MAY be a legit classification). Pay/jobs/failures.
4. Have fat and ugly people demonstrations in the streets of America.
5. Congress then introduces legislation to set quotas for hiring of ugly people.
6. Force employers to maintain statistical information on the hiring of ugly people.
7. Provide tax incentives to corporations which hire ugly people.
8. Provide a tax break for ugly people, who have a lower “dumbed down salary than pretty people.
Oh and I forgot the latest from Obama’s handbook:
9. Give a tax incentive to corporations which hire ugly people.
Rdonda is sure envious of Palin, she just keep her off the Blog. When the election is over I’m sure the WE blog will get back on emissions and save the world global warming.
“When a candidate’s looks count”
This isn’t sexist, it is just how life works. Palin would never have been taken seriously if she showed up to the debate in her camo.
When I go into a restaurant or store after work dressed in my nice business clothes, I get a lot better service, more eye contact and smiles by staff, and overall better, more attentive service than when I go into the same places on a weekend dressed in shorts, sandals, and a t-shirt.
For most people, if a service or repair person comes to their house dressed in a crisp uniform with shiny company vehicle, they will have a different reaction than if the same person were to show up in dirty sloppy clothes and a beat-up pickup.
And it is not just whether someone is attractive or not. Not everyone has God-given good looks, but everyone can put a little effort into their appearance to look their best. I think to an extent, this effort is more important than the actual outcome of the effort.
It is all about perception, for many.
VT – perception matters. And it’s more than just perception, it speaks to the person. One’s looks, to a certain extent, are within the control of a person. It matters whether one has the self-confidence and self-image to project an air of confidence; as the old saying goes, wear the clothes for the job you want.
I can’t tell you of the defendants who come to court in a T-shirt with a pot leaf on the front and are shocked that the judge hammers them. Duh. Or defendants who have pins in their eyebrows, loops or studs in their lower lips, tatoos all over their arms and necks, and then wonder why it’s hard for them to find a job. Duh.
The image you project matters.
GMC, all that you post is correct. However, there is a disturbing trend, IMHO, where the perception of something or someone as being “favorable” overwhelms the substance of the thing or one.
If I may, perception of Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama is driving the votes of many in this presidential year. I don’t know whether this is happening at a higher degree than in the past, but I sense a higher level of it this time around. It seems to me that Sen. Obama has projected a cool, steady hand during campaigning; Sen. McCain, with the erratic twists and turns of his campaign, tactical vs. apparently no strategic plan, has projected someone who doesn’t know what he is doing. For voters to cast votes based upon this alone is disturbing to me (while totally expected).
Yup. I can’t tell you of the number of people who, when you talk with them, agree more with McCain than Obama on the issues, agree that Obama hasn’t had the mettle testing required of a president at this point, yet plan to vote for Obama because he “looks and sounds presidential.”
And yes, he gives a hell of a speach. If only there was some substance to the rhetoric . . . .
Last Sunday, “Meet the Press” confronted John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) with video tape of statements he made earlier in the campaign.
Aside from the obvious contradictions of policy, the thing that really struck me was how much he’s aged in nine months. A presidential campaign is a rigorous enterprise; but then, so is serving as President of the United States.
Dismiss it by framing the issue that “a candidate’s looks count,” if you want to. What’s become painfully obvious is McCoot is a cranky old guy who’s sold his soul and “maverick” status to toe the right wing-nut line. And it’s taken its toll on him.
A bunch of people I’ve talked with during this election season have expressed a fear some nut will try to assassinate Barack Obama. Far more people — Republic Party advocates, most of ‘em — have considered the prospect of a “President Sarah Palin.”
I think, hope, the Secret Service is better at what they do than in 1963. I fear, suspect, McCodger’s medical history bodes ill for his survival for another four years.
The United States of America is a pretty powerful force in the universe. A McPalin presidency probably wouldn’t ruin it all. But it would continue the course George WMD Bush set when the SCOTUS handed him the 2000 election. And look where that course has gotten us.
No one with even “Regular’s” “half a brain” should look forward to the prospect of a President Moose-Dresser.
Poor ol’ McCoot isn’t the same man who might have been a good president had he been elected in 2000. In fact, the guy who was slimed by George WMD Bush in 2000 probably wouldn’t vote today for the candidate McC*nt has become this year.
I’m suddenly reminded of the “nickname” the right gave Kerry four years ago. Of course it had nothing to do with looks. Riiiiiight.
Never vote for a candidate that requires daily shaving of the middle portion of his ‘uni-brow.’
MH,
I noticed the same thing about McCain’s aging. If nine months have taken that great of toll on him, imagine what being a President for for years will do. I’ll admit he was a very good looking young man, back in the day. I’ll even admit that Dubya wasn’t all that bad, either.
Every president has aged considerably while in office, no matter how young or old they have been. Compare Dubya in 2000 to now. If I remember, Clinton’s hair had not turned white when he first took office. They all age rapidly, which just goes to show how strenuous, both physically and mentally, the office of POTUS is.
They all age rapidly, which just goes to show how strenuous, both physically and mentally, the office of POTUS is.
Someone should remind Palin of this. She’s currently 48. In 2012, she’ll be 52. Someone should warn her that once you hit 50, gravity takes over. Maybe she can book ahead for facelift appointments.
Troopergate II Report to be Released at 3:30 Election Eve! (AKST)
BREAKING NEWS:
Independent Investigator Tim Petumenos, who was hired by the Personnel Board just said he will release his troopergate report at 3:30 p.m. today. This is the second report, following on the heels of a Legisltative Investigation whose report last month indicated that Palin had abused her power in the firing of former Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan.
Kyle Hopkins from the Anchorage Daily News is on the scene.
He said the report would cover Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of Walt Monegan as well as a separate complaint from Anchorage activist Andree McLeod alleging alleges that state hiring practices were circumvented for a Palin supporter.
Petumenos has two staff members with him, and each has a thick, yellow-bound document on their lap. I should note that when I called
Personnel Board chair Debra English before the meeting to ask about
the Palin investigation, she didn’t say anything but recommended
showing up.
Buckle your seatbelts.
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/
She has the authority to fire them, for cause (which can always be found), I expect it’ll be a whitewash.
A fallin palin wouldn’t sell in 2012, she’d better make hay while she can!
CapA – Bill Gates does not have a college degree so what’s your point?
Worry Brenda.
Call up your pal Susan and tell her to REALLY worry.
Looks do count [img]http://www.wichitarcraceway.com/board/download/Obomba.gif[/img]
Sunny5–
Bill Gates dropped out of HARVARD to start what became MicroSoft.
Yeah . . . he’s exactly like Brenda Landweher.
Oh, yeah.
Bill Gates also scored 1590 out of a possible 1600 on the old (harder) SAT’s.