By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
With today's New York Times fronting a piece comparing Minnesota's nutty House member, Michele Bachmann, with Alaska's flighty ex-governor, Sarah Palin, the looks debate was bound to come up again (remember the study this past spring purporting to show that Palin's looks undermined her candidacy?). As in, to quote one blogger:
C'mon folks, admit it. If Sarah Palin had all the same qualities but wasn't pretty you think she'd be a sensation?
What is somewhat surprising is that this comment comes from Christian Broadcasting Network blogger David Brody (who GOP 12, which first flagged the item, describes as a "leading evangelical reporter.")
The main reason Sarah Palin gets so much attention of course is because she was the first female GOP vice presidential nominee. Beyond that she and Bachmann both get pub because of their propensity for saying things that—take your pick—stir controversy or are simply flat-out dumb (often both).
So how do their looks factor in? Weigh in below with your thoughts: Would they get as much attention if they bloviated in the same crazy way but had less visual appeal? What about if they were men? Post your take in the comments section.