You just don't look presidential

But Obama does

As a foreigner I make absolutely no effort whatsoever to keep my opinions to myself on US politics. And so I'm taking this opportunity once again to stick my nose where it's not wanted and make a few statements about what's happening in the world's most natural disaster-prone country these days. 

You see, I'm convinced that Barack Obama should be the next president. It's not really because I'm a sucker for a pretty speech, although as a card-carrying member of the champagne socialist literati I do love anyone in possession of a way with words. It's not even because he's black, and therefore his token should have its time blah blah blah.

No. It's not about that at all.

As a thoroughly fickle man, for me it boils down entirely to appearance. I think the American people feel the same way. Who was the last genuinely ugly president? Carter, maybe, although he did have the benefit of being more attractive than Nixon. But that was the 70s, when body hair was rampant and people thought polyester clothes made them smell good. The LSD most of the world took in that decade was responsible for worse than ugly presidents, in my view, but we digress.

McCain (coincidentally the name of a ready-to-microwave meal manufacturer) and Clinton just don't compare.[more]

McCain is everyone's grandfather, complete with stories about the war and a tendency to ramble about things that don't seem very interesting really - God only knows what, I know I fade in and out whenever he starts talking. If you know give me a buzz down below, but I can't promise I'll play along with the old man and pretend I was really all that interested.

Clinton has a famous name, but she looks tired and she's a little too aggressive. While I've never been one for set gender roles, I've never much liked the mean-spirited back-stabbing bitch as an archetype, and Clinton seems to be embodying it in her dress and facial expressions more and more each day. Function defining form, I suppose. Every time I see her presumably once beautiful face screwed up in another oh-my-I'm-a-lady-but-I-must-tell-you-I-don't-like-those-foreigners moment I get an irrepressible mental image of a gargoyle perched on a cathedral. The building might be beautiful, but all I can see is that twisted face and tortured stone.

Now Saint Obama, on the other hand, is a ordinary looking man. Not handsome except in a distinguished sort of way, and certainly not pretty, but he looks like the kind of man who could quite easily deliver a speech about a ludicrously unlikely terrorist attack on television and still come off presidential. There's an aura of Sinner Clinton about him, and his gluttony for change, although rightly decried by the populace, means he can always wear a very sharp suit. Even an ordinary man looks good in a sharp suit, but Obama looks presidential. And that's what the world wants. George Bush was a caricature, a sign of the US's disbelief in the importance of appearances. We didn't begrudge his policies, not really, but his presence was irksome and his rhetoric tiresome.

So long as you can exploit us charmingly we'll be the best of friends. But please, vote in someone good looking this time. Because it's always harder to justify getting screwed over by ugly people than by the spectacularly beautiful or even the winsomely attractive.

Vote 1 Obama in November. 

21,188 views 23 replies
Reply #1 Top
Night owl, eh?

And please, speak your mind about it. It is frustrating enough for those who care (in comparison to the millions that dont care that live here), and cannot vote.

And you are right. He is the pretty man. And he will get some votes just for that (probably getting some of the democrat votes now for that reason).

Nixon was dog ugly, but was not a bad foreign policy president (lousy on the domestic side - and that is not even counting Watergate). Carter was and is Mr. Sourpuss. The cranky uncle that everyone endures, but no one likes (appearnce not content). And the rest have been, while not pretty, at least not dog ugly.

So he has a real shot. And quite frankly, the only difference between him and McCain is similar to the difference between Ginsberg and Stevens. I dont really see either being much different in practice, only in preaching.
Reply #3 Top

None of the above for me.  I'm sitting this one out.

Reply #4 Top

I don't like any of them either.  I may be sitting out as well....it all depends on who McCain picks as his running mate.  Otherwise......I'm getting my hair done on election day. 

 

Reply #5 Top

I don't like any of them either.  I may be sitting out as well....it all depends on who McCain picks as his running mate.  Otherwise......I'm getting my hair done on election day. 

 

Reply #6 Top

(in comparison to the millions that dont care that live here),

 

Doc, I must differ on this.  The many people who have been voting thus far proves this wrong.  This is the most votes that have been made in a very long time.  Don't ask me to quote anyone or anything. However, from the majority that have come out to let their voices be heard on either side, i would say a lot more people do care, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.

 

Cacto, very 'tongue in cheek'?!LOL!  Interesting observations though! 

Reply #7 Top
Doc, I must differ on this. The many people who have been voting thus far proves this wrong. This is the most votes that have been made in a very long time.


In 2004, about 125 million (or just under 60%) of the voting eligible population voted. If this year is better, that may go above 60%. That still leaves at least 100 million not voting.

That is millions to me. It is not the many that have voted so far (still a very small number in relation to the total population - but then it is just primaries), but how many will vote in November. I bet it will not exceed 65%, and will make you a Pizza bet it will be within 1% of 60% (I will order a pizza delivered to your office for lunch if I lose. ;) )
Reply #8 Top

Hillary reminds you of a gargoyle?  Hmm, let's see.

 

Yeah, you may have a point there, cacto. :D

~Zoo

Reply #9 Top
I dont really see either being much different in practice, only in preaching.


US presidents are never really that different in practice, that's their secret. They don't hold much power (not in comparison to a PM in the Westminster system) so they rarely have the opportunity to wield power in a particularly novel way.

So you may as well vote for someone who rocks your world or at least knows how to speak effectively.

Loca: I'm not saying she's without her charms, just that when it comes to politics she seems to prefer to screw her face up and insult the enemy. It's so unsophisticated. Compliments with a sting, that's the ticket. "Obama's policies are great, if you like paedophilia, drug abuse etc."

Draginol and KFC: How very unpatriotic of you both! You should at least write in a name on your ballot. It may not make sense to you to vote, but if you want better candidates you need to make it clear that that is what you want - the more invalid and write-in votes turn up in the election results, the more obvious that becomes to those in the position to choose. Also, you've both criticised Obama, you may as well make sure you vote against him in some way.

FS: I'm never tongue in cheek, I only ever say what I mean with neither exaggeration nor understatement.

Zoo: Usually a few less flames and more of a humanly ugly face, but yeah, more or less yes. The resemblance is uncanny. If I didn't know that Bill was never a church man I would be convinced he was such a player he'd seduced the very stone to life.
Reply #10 Top
:LOL:

Who gives a flying fuck :) Oh, wait, that flying fuck could be Hilary in her true form for all I know.

So if I had to vote, Obama would get mine but only, and I stress ONLY, because, as you say, he does look good in a sharp suit. And perhaps because he and Rudd would look good in photos together.
Reply #11 Top
Oh, wait, that flying fuck could be Hilary in her true form for all I know.


It's all very transformers.

And perhaps because he and Rudd would look good in photos together.


Rudd's a pretty short man. I think they might look a bit funny next to each other, although if you dragged the Chinese premier into the shot you'd have a great multicultural stereotypes picture for the office wall.
Reply #12 Top
US presidents are never really that different in practice, that's their secret. They don't hold much power (not in comparison to a PM in the Westminster system) so they rarely have the opportunity to wield power in a particularly novel way.

So you may as well vote for someone who rocks your world or at least knows how to speak effectively.


Very astute - and accurate. And the founders designed it that way. As they were so afraid of royalty, they wanted to make sure America never had any.

Did not quite work out that way (the kennedys are the most glaring example of it), but at least it did not promote it.
Reply #13 Top

Is this what it boils down to... a beauty contest? Well here is something to ponder: there are many beauties on the outside that are ugly as sin on the inside. So thanks, but no thanks; I'll stick with the issues. Obama's all ready has enough glossy-eyed, superficial supporters that care only about looks.

Reply #14 Top

That still leaves at least 100 million not voting.

That is so sad!  And then they wonder why our country goes the way it does! 

 

I bet it will not exceed 65%, and will make you a Pizza bet it will be within 1% of 60% (I will order a pizza delivered to your office for lunch if I lose. )

Make that Mushroom pizza please!  In fact, make it the works!LOL!   Papa Johns or Red Brick Pizza is closer to me!

 

FS: I'm never tongue in cheek, I only ever say what I mean with neither exaggeration nor understatement.

LOL!  So very clear!LOL!

Reply #15 Top
Papa Johns or Red Brick Pizza is closer to me!


Never heard of red Brick. Are they any good? If so, I may just deliver it myself. ;)
Reply #16 Top
Well here is something to ponder: there are many beauties on the outside that are ugly as sin on the inside. So thanks, but no thanks; I'll stick with the issues.


You're living in the past wo/man, stop living in the past.

PS Sin isn't always ugly. There are lots of sins that are quite attractive, really, in an artistic way - a good, shiny theft of the Ocean's 11 style can make a movie. A bit of lust has made the adult industry very rich. And ostentatious wealth (a new sin for a new century!) is always in vogue and can sometimes border on beautiful even if it's not tasteful!
Reply #17 Top
PS Sin isn't always ugly.


Oh, a Hillary supporter! ;)

(j/k)
Reply #19 Top

PS Sin isn't always ugly. There are lots of sins that are quite attractive, really, in an artistic way - a good, shiny theft of the Ocean's 11 style can make a movie. A bit of lust has made the adult industry very rich. And ostentatious wealth (a new sin for a new century!) is always in vogue and can sometimes border on beautiful even if it's not tasteful!

I'm not giving 'sin' a standing ovation, but well-said!

Reply #20 Top

Excellent!!!!! Nice piece of satire. One of the things I look for in a candidate is how well they look in cartoon prose. And the two democrats are the perfect candidates for political cartoonist.

Reply #21 Top

Rudd's a pretty short man.

Ah, we can always get him a milk crate to stand on.

Reply #22 Top
Ah, we can always get him a milk crate to stand on.


Or platform shoes (what the short leading men used in the movies). ;)
Reply #23 Top

If you're going for looks, there's no doubt Obama wins. Hillary... sorry, there's a reason Bill cheated. McCain looks to be in quadruple digits without wrinkles, so, yeah, Obama looks most presidential.