Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Let’s turn back to Cook for a bit today…
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Boland; LaHood; Lindner; CTA; Budget; Frerichs (Use all caps in password)
Posted in:
So, I was reading this story today about why Abe Lincoln’s face was shaped the way it was, and something struck me. See if it stands out for you, as well…
The left side of Lincoln’s face was much smaller than the right, an aberration called cranial facial microsomia. The defect joins a long list of ailments — including smallpox, heart illness and depression — that modern doctors have diagnosed in Lincoln.
Lincoln’s contemporaries noted that his left eye at times drifted upward independently of his right eye, a condition now termed strabismus. Lincoln’s smaller left eye socket may have displaced a muscle controlling vertical movement, said Dr. Ronald Fishman, who led the study published in the August issue of the Archives of Ophthalmology. […]
Mount Rushmore sculptor Gutzon Borglum described the left side of Lincoln’s face as primitive, immature and unfinished.
A weird, wandering eye? “Primitive” facial features? Heart illness? Depression? How could anyone get elected to anything these days with those sorts of problems?
To be sure, the President was roundly mocked…
Lincoln’s appearance was mocked by his political enemies, historians say. The author Nathaniel Hawthorne, a Lincoln fan, wrote of the president’s “homely sagacity” and his “sallow, queer, sagacious visage.” Hawthorne’s description was deemed disrespectful and deleted by a magazine editor, said Daniel Weinberg, owner of the Abraham Lincoln Book Shop in Chicago.
But he won. Twice. Not to mention that he was a state legislator, a congressman and his US Senate bids made him a national star. I can’t imagine him having a shot in Hades for dog catcher today with a mug like that.
So, I guess the question is: What’s wrong with us?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:06 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Let’s turn back to Cook for a bit today…
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Boland; LaHood; Lindner; CTA; Budget; Frerichs (Use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
We have developed a “Hollywood” mentality.
Comment by Patriot Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:12 am
I’m reminded of this problem whenever a Republican says they support Mitt Romney because he “looks presidential.” Voting for someone because they are attractive is the worst possible justification for a vote. Well, maybe not the worst. But very vapid.
Comment by Dan Johnson-Weinberger Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:26 am
TV, cable TV.
- Dan Johnson-Weinberger uhh, hello, Obama? Much of his support comes because he is seen as handsome. Didn’t Rahm base part of his strategy this past election of running young, handsome/pretty candidates?
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:30 am
The good thing about television news is that, at its best, it expands significantly the amount of information available to the public about elected officials. At its worst, though, it reduces those officials to a face and two sentences of canned response. Many members of the public get lazy and use television as their sole source of information about politics; that’s obviously not an affliction anyone who regularly reads this blog is stricken with, but we all know it’s out there.
At least at the state level (and probably to some degree at the national level too), I think TV matters more to the executive branch than the legislative branch. Speaker Madigan and Senate President Jones didn’t get where they are because of their TV presence. The prerequisites for legislative success are (a) a strong local power base (which in many regions of Illinois doesn’t require a TV presence), and (b) the ability to work effectively behind the scenes (which doesn’t require a TV presence — indeed, too strong a TV presence might subvert that ability).
Rod Blagojevich may be to many the embodiment of somebody elected primarily on the strength of effective TV ads (and undoubtedly those ads were an essential part of his election and re-election), but it would be naive to think that when he exits the stage that we’ll somehow return to an era when TV presence wasn’t one of the most critical aspects of the public’s decision about a new governor. And given that, we’re never going to get another person who looks like Abe Lincoln in the chair. Which is not to say that somebody like that couldn’t still have influence; executives need trusted counselors (think Karl Rove) who can potentially have significant influence without being major TV personalities. Lincoln might not be president today, but somebody with his skill set could still be a legislative leader, or an executive chief of staff, and put their skills to work that way.
Comment by Gus Frerotte's Clipboard Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:31 am
I’d say there are two reasons. First: television. I think many would agree that Kennedy would have lost if he were not much more attractive than Nixon. Partially that is natural charm and charisma, which Kennedy had in spades, but partially I think it led to the second reason: the demystification of the presidency. Once the president became an accessible figure, people started thinking about him or her in a different way. The theory that we would want a president who we could “have a beer with,” to me is ludicrous. If we don’t view the presidency as a position that is somehow above the normal, average person, than looks become a great deal more important. We have to decide whether or not to like him or her, as oppose to respecting him or her, and we don’t have much data to go on. Looks is one of the few factors.
Comment by Crooked Nose Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:31 am
Today we would also be concerned about Abe’s health. He most likely was born with Marfan’s Syndrome which would be considered by most more serious than our current VP’s heart ailments.
Abe freed the African-Americans, who still suffer now with difference as benign as skin color. But we do it with height, weight, hair color, tatoos, blemishes……..sad.
Many gifted and talented people throughout history worked behind the scenes, while someone else received the creidt — because they were “different”.
It is well documented that Thomas Edison sought talent and not looks in his team. Two of his most significant team members were considered so different that their contributions were not well known. One was a hunchback and the other an African-American. Without these two we would not know the name Thomas Edison today.
How many of our “great” politicians were great themselves, or instead surrounded by talented people. The reverse is also true, I believe today.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:32 am
We learned how to teach but forgot how to learn.
Comment by Mr. Ethics Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:33 am
I was just thinkin’ that this all meant that Bill or AA could have a shot at the big time, scary mugs that we are. If he ever comes around again, I’ll make a point to raise the issue.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:41 am
That vanity is skin deep…
Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:43 am
Television.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:45 am
Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes all the way to the bone.
Comment by Enemy of the State Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:49 am
Don’t believe this? Look at the Lincoln head on the 1st floor of Morris Library on the SIU campus. I always thought it looked a bit lopsided… now I know why.
Comment by Southern Illinois iPhone Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:53 am
Look who many republicans are waiting to join the race….Fred Thompson. Why? Because he is an actor and has acted presidential in a number of his movie and television roles.
I remember when Paul Simon ran for president in 1988 and many folks were concerned because he didn’t “look presidential”. He was not a “made for TV” candidate.
What is wrong with us? TV! Everyone running for president has to look good and speak in sound bites.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:54 am
Rich,
Before television, dermatology and cosmetic surgery, how many Americans ever saw someone who was truly attractive? Damn few.
But now voters have grown used to beautiful political actors — like ourselves.
– SCAM
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 8:54 am
Television. Newt Gingrich wrote an excellent op-ed piece on this subject just days ago. James Madison was what, 5′ 2″? He’d never have gotten in. How bout FDR & his polio? He’d be sorting paper clips in an office bldg somewhere in washington.
Comment by anon2 Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:06 am
We live in a world of the five-second soundbite and the $400 haircut.
People cannot be bothered to delve into the details. Give them two sentences from an hour-long speech, and they are happy. They will not sit and listen to a political speech on big issues. Lincoln’s brilliant Cooper Union speech would get a 20-second story on the nightly news; newspapers would only give two paragraphs to Lincoln’s actual words, while the rest of the article would give others’ opinions about the speech.
The “great unwashed” don’t want reasoned thought or decisions based upon a consistent philosophy. Those require too much time and effort. Give us the sensational sin and requisite apology, the emotional feel-good story, and we are happy. From those emotions, we’ll make irrational and inconsistent choices and feel good about them because true ignorance–while it is not bliss–feels as though it is.
And, sadly, that is what the majority of Americans want. What we should want are candidates who embody Lincoln’s final words in the Cooper Union speech, candidates of action who “have faith that right makes might” and who “to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”
If only we had a constituency who could recognize and who are deserving of such candidates.
Comment by Fan of the Game Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:13 am
Our idea of beauty has also changed drastically over the years since Lincoln’s time as well. Back in the Civil War era, well-brought up women tried to be as pale as possible, because a tan signified that you worked outside like the common folk. They were also a bit plumper than what we are today, as the healthy weight indicated that they were well fed, again a sign of wealth. The supermodels that are scarily thin and tan would be considered low-class in Lincoln’s society. They also didn’t usually marry for love, they married for status, wealth, family connections and political gain. Looks didn’t really play that much into it…as long as he was “amiable”, well brought up and didn’t beat you, he was a catch!
Comment by Miranda Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:23 am
I’m sure that if he had the right campaign advisors they would refer him to a good plastic surgeon, problem solved.
seriously, I agree that the problem is the media and that the type of exposure has been reduced to sound bites rather than something of substance to let you get real insight about the candidate. This has “dumbed down” voters. Lincoln was a brilliant writer and orator but now very few would understand him-they don’t speak the same language!
Comment by liberal louisa Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:23 am
Back in the old days, we had Puritans denouncing human nature as the root of all evil. They had a complete understanding of Earth and science. Everything that happened, they blamed on our human nature. We consumed too much, we were too shallow, we were too vain so the rain didn’t come, and the winters were too severe. To satisfy God and Nature, we needed to return to our roots and turn away from our depravities. (Today, these Puritans are Environmentalists, aren’t they?)
So now our human nature is keeping ugly people from being elected to office? Our societal ills are due to our biological urge to select mates considered attractive.
Baloney.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with us. We are biologically conditioned to discriminate based on appearance. Yesterday, as today, a person’s appearance was important. Men look for women they consider attractive. That is based on looks and is an important factor in choosing spouces, friends, and yes, elected officials. Ever see Mary Todd? She wasn’t homely, was she? Abraham Lincoln may have been a facial mess, but he did what every guy does - goes for the hot chick.
Don’t blame TV. Have you ever been on TV? Your face is coated in makeup. With the right makeup and hair stylist, you can make Rudy Giuliani passable as a woman. You can make Al Gore look redder than a tomato. You can make ugly guys look quite passable. Have you seen what makeup and lighting can do for Hillary Clinton? She can pass for a woman on camera with the right visual magicians. So, don’t blame TV. Abraham Lincoln would have been made up to look like John Edwards, if he ran today.
Back in Lincoln’s day you see Franklin Pierce. A useless alcoholic, but a babe magnet elected by looks. George Washington? Hottie - wooden teeth and all. Martin Van Buren dressed better than Paris Hilton. Buchanan had a Queer Eye. Appearance mattered.
Then there are the guys who look great on radio - even before it’s invention. John Quincy Adams looked like a prune because he couldn’t smile; he had black teeth due to his mercury-filled medicines. Jackson was skinnier than a corpse, riddled with pain and filled with old bullets, (what a guy!).
Look at the 1860 candidates. Stephen Douglas looked like a pregnant Oompah-Loompah. John Bell looked like an eggplant with fur. Compared to these guys, Lincoln’s excuse for a face wasn’t so bad. The only hottie that year was Breckenridge, but his heart was blacker than Lindsey Lohan’s left lung.
So stop picking on us! Stop pretending that there is something wrong with us. On one hand you claim we should have given Quasimodo Lincoln a vote regardless of his looks, but on the other hand you say he was so full of disease and health problems, he was one BM away from death. You want us to put a guy riddled with illness in the Oval Office? Look at that face. It says NO.
Our TV - Hollywood - Paparazzi culture isn’t making us stupid. We’ve always been stupid. We are biologically conditioned to make decisions about people based on their appearances. No matter how many political correctness concentration camps we force ourselves through, we will have fantasies about Bradgelina, not Michael Moore - (Sicko!).
Stop being a Puritan. It is not our culture that is destroying the Earth. SUVs didn’t cause the 1930s Dust Bowl - which we now know were hotter years than today. Americans today are so full of themselves, they are convinced that what they eat, drive, and vote for is suspect of destroying life on planet Earth. Get over yourselves Pilgrims!
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:33 am
I agree about TV, but it’s kind of impossible to know for _sure_, since Lincoln today hasn’t been given a chance to register his personal charm, wit, and warmth, all of which might score him well in our media age. You can generate quite a bit of TV star power even if you are by all accounts an ugly man - James Carville comes to mind. Humphrey Bogart was not an attractive man, but the camera worked well with his face. Lincoln _might_ not be a hopeless cause today. Though that eye roll would have been tough to deal with in the debates. Maybe they could have shot him exclusively from the right side? Many Americans remained unaware throughout his candidacy that Bob Dole was paralyzed in one hand.
If looks on TV dominate everything, Obama and Edwards would be kicking Hillary’s behind. Skilled politicians know how to work any system to compensate for their personal defects, and you don’t get much more skilled than Abe.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:40 am
In addition to what all the others have said, politicians now only need to worry about 1) “looking presidential”, i.e. clean up nice and have a good smile for the camera, and 2) NOT saying something that will come back to haunt them. It doesn’t matter what profound ideas you have or what great things you say in a 60 minute speech, but it DOES matter if you spend 10 seconds saying something that can be twisted or manipulated to sound “bad”, and then is played ad nauseum on TV and radio. And unfortunately, these facts have gotten us to the candidates we have today.
Of course I blame the voters, but given the realities of short attention spans, voter apathy, and media manipulation, I firmly believe we need term limits on each and every political office in the land. In an ideal world, no, we would not, but ideals are almost always out of reach, and sooner or later you have to deal with realities.
Comment by schroedk Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:47 am
Of course it’s TV. You want to greatly reducethe influence of money in politics? Ban TV and radio ads.
Campaign finance the easy way.
As for Abe? I’ll be a good boy and not make for topic drift.
Comment by Pat collins Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:49 am
“What’s wrong with us?”
The space provided here wouldn’t be adequate for an executive summary of the answer to that question.
Comment by JonShibleyFan Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 9:59 am
I guess there is some truth that at least in today’s world that “politics is show business for ugly people”…except for readers of Capitol Fax of course.
Comment by Taylor Street Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 10:04 am
Ethics’, morals, respect for ourselves and others, dedication
Comment by Just Because Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 10:34 am
More attractive people always get the breaks in life. Attractive people make more money. Heck, studies show that babies look longer at people judged “more attractive” than at less attractive types. www.cnn.com/2005/US/Careers/07/08/looks
Still, don’t lose hope. The most thoughtful, progressive, effective Congressman happens to be the most unattractive member of Congress - Henry Waxman. And Waxman is consistently relected by the most shallow of all constituents - those of California’s 30th District which includes Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Malibu. Go Henry!
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 10:51 am
Vanilla Man.
Comment by Happy Thanksgiving Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 10:57 am
It reminds me of John “Walleye” Schmidt. His problem wasn’t that he couldn’t do t.v. ads — you can always shoot from a profile. His problem was that he couldn’t look voters straight in the eye. That’s a powerful personal connection when you’re shaking a politician’s hand. When I first met John Schmidt in 1997 and saw his left eye staring blankly into space, I was certain that he’d never get elected.
But let’s be honest, Illinois’ General Assembly and Congressional delegation aren’t exactly a beauty pageant. George Ryan wasn’t a handsome man, and Topinka’s face didn’t help her win the Governor’s mansion, but it didn’t prevent her from four terms of statewide office.
Sure, all other things being equal, its better to be pretty, but when are all other things equal in politics?
Let’s not forget, that Blagojevich’s critics have turned Rod’s “prettiness” into a weakness, painting him as vain, and the same was done with Kerry and is being done with Edwards.
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, a smart campaign chooses its battlegrounds to match it’s greatest strengths against its opponent’s greatest weaknesses.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 10:57 am
LOL@VM: I like how you managed to tack a little global warming denialism on to your rant. Also, “there’s nothing wrong with us” but “we’ve always been stupid”?
Abe was aware of his looks. He grew chin whiskers to soften the contours of his jawline. Cartoonists of the time labeled him “Honest Ape”, mocking his homely face. He was elected because of an unrepeatable (I hope) set of political circumstances. Even without TV, I’d guess that if thing had been calmer and the electorate less worried for their security, a more conventional-looking candidate probably would have beaten Lincoln.
Comment by Ok, no Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 11:02 am
True, TV is now a very big part of political campaigns. However, TV is also a very big part of the JOB.
Once the person gets elected, he appears on TV nearly every day, both to U.S. audiences and to enemies and allies in other countries. Someone who looks “presidential”, for better or for worse, generally makes a better first impression once in office. It’s now a job requirement.
Comment by Skeptical Optimist Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 11:16 am
I already weighed in, but things were a lot different back in Lincoln’s time, too. A lot of people never got to see the President up close, except in early photos (which could be taken of his “good” side).
But, politics in general were different back then. You’d vote, go home, shave your beard, come back, vote again, go home, shave your ’stash, go shave again, go to the barber, get a haircut, go vote again…every time you voted, someone would pay you, or promise you a job, or give you a shot of whiskey. You could bring your voting stub to the local bar and get wasted after the vote. You were expected to vote repeatedly for a particular slate of candidates.
When the candidates are slated in smoke filled back rooms, and precinct captains get the vote out by hook or by crook, the ability of an unattractive man to get elected increases substantially, provided he’s got the right friends.
People who made “informed” votes back then largely relied upon newspapers, which were every bit as biased as FoxNews is today.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 11:49 am
I agree TV is a big drawback to those running for president if they don’t have the looks. But for other offices it hasn’t stopped someone from getting elected. I don’t want to get into trouble with Rich so I won’t mention any names but I can think of many who are probably afraid to look at themselves in the mirror and have somehow managed to getted elected. My own congressman from the southwest side would make Lincoln look like Brad Pitt compared to himself.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 11:55 am
The first criteria is looking “respectable” but in a relatable manner. The best looking candidate who shows up on the campaign trail in ratty old clothes or some over-the-top, slick suit won’t be treated seriously.
A related concept is people want their candidate to look “presidential” or “senatorial.” Good looks may be part of this concept, but it also includes looking “fatherly.” For instance Fred Thompson is not a good looking man, but he is literally cast as president because of his “presidential” looks.
On a different train of thought, I always heard that the problem of electing candidates based on looks started when women were given the vote and Harding was elected. I don’t think this theory holds up and am not saying I agree with it; but it was the conventional wisdom at one time.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 1:15 pm
Obesity simply ticks us off. Those greedy people consume much more than their fair share of gravity leaving less for the rest of us. We don’t reward that!
Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 1:33 pm
“Hey Stan! Did you get those Lincoln lithographs I sent you for approval? The campaign went nuts over them! They expect to print up lots of pamphlets and brochures and start running news ads tomorrow.”
“Yeah, I’m good! I got Matt Brady to get some shots in, some action shots he calls them. And some glamour shots. We found a corset that slims Mary Lincoln – extra whalebone – she looks fabulous, doesn’t she?”
“I especially love the rail splitter lithograph. Abraham, all sinewy and buff, raising that massive axe over his head, swinging away – talk about beefcake! The guys has height going for him, that’s for sure. We have about six shirtless shots of him splitting rails. No, we oiled his pecs for that one!”
“What about those wrestling lithographs? Yup, stripped and ready for action! Abe is bent over with his arms all around that young guy – ripped! Yeah, Matt Brady calls those his action shots. There is no way those Vermonters will see that and not get all excited. I see New England going Lincoln’s way this fall.”
“You better love them! Those are what Matt is calling his glamour shots. Isn’t the beard ingenious? With those whiskers hiding half his face, we can trim it up so that you don’t see how lopsided it is. I have Sol working up a story line about a little girl writing Lincoln to grow the beard. Listen, if this campaign works out as I planned, I bet every President of the United States will have to wear a beard. I told Mary, who doesn’t like the whiskers by the way, that Abraham looks good enough to but on a coin, but she won’t listen.”
“Yeah, I’m good! You know me! Where you in London when that Buchanan rumor broke out and I had to fix it before it got out of control? I thought you were – here’s the ugly details. Seems that the First Lady, that’s the President’s niece, found one of the President’s interns, under the presidential desk… Lets just say he was resting his face on Buchanan’s lap. NO – I was happy to fix that problem right away. I highly doubt we will ever see another Oval Office sex scandal involving interns and Presidents again, right?”
“No Stan! - YOU THE MAN!”
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 1:50 pm
Look south of our border. The nation of Mexico is comprised of both native (indian) Mexicans, as well as those of european (spanish) descent.
Virtually every President elected in Mexico possesses the European look. A Mexican (Indian) friend pointed this out to me. He stated that even the Indian/Mexicans look upon the European Mexicans as being smarter and better leaders.
At the same time, when we elect our national leaders, I believe we subliminally are selecting our “face” for America. How will we be perceived by those overseas (via our President)? Hence a Romney, Obama, and Thompson are gaining attention by the voters.
Comment by Downstater Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 1:52 pm
Marty Feldman for President.
Comment by Little Egypt Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 1:55 pm
It’s not just the politicians.
Look at the TV journalists and commentators.
Virtually every single one of them has had plastic surgery done. Yes, every single one of them.
All you have to do is look at a photo of them from a few years back. They look younger now than they did then.
Comment by True Observer Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 1:59 pm
- True Observer -
That must be why Fox News seems so much better! Remember when Cal Thomas commented on their bevy of trailer trash blond lawyer female newscasters? I thought they’d can him for sure but I guess Rupert was proud of them. They even make bad news more enjoyable - you’d think more liberals would watch Fox.
Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 2:04 pm
It isn’t just TV. It’s also these expensive campaign “advisors” and “consultants” who cram all of this crap like two-year presidential campaigns and 30 second non-answers during a debate down our collective throat(s). People like that want candidates who are either attractive, controllable or slick - or a combination of all three.
I disagree that “ugly” politicians and candidates cannot be elected. Rudy Guiliani is not that handsome; John McCain is seventy and has had numerous cancer spots removed from his face; Hillary is, um…; and other national figureheads are not all that attractive.
And several of our statewides, both past and present, ain’t pretty either.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 2:06 pm
Its not TV only…you remember FDR hid his polio disability so our vanity goes back at least that far.
Comment by Millstadt News Guy Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 2:06 pm
The governor has amend-vetoed the budget…and Emil Jones is supportive of it. Barf.
Comment by Crimefighter Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 2:11 pm
2 moderates are in the race- Hatcher and Richmond. The next to declare will be a conservative who will be the eventual winner.
Comment by 50th Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 2:16 pm
The Governor has Emil Jones on board? Hmm… I hope Rich posts a non-subscriber update soon so I can see what’s going on.
Comment by Skeptical Optimist Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 2:32 pm
America was superficial before we watched TV. Warren Harding won the 1920 Republican presidential nomination because he projected the image of a president — tall, white-haired, deep-voiced. Nevermind that he had no substance behind the image, or competence to run a government, the party selected him, the people elected him, and he followed Lincoln’s footsteps into the White House.
That’s about all Warren Harding had in common with Abraham Lincoln.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 2:47 pm
Rich or Paul must be gone. The SJ-R had the article about what the gov did at 2pm today.
Comment by Crimefighter Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 3:20 pm
Abraham Lincoln’s favorite limerick:
In beauty I am no star,
There are others more handsome by far.
But my face I don’t mind it,
For I am behind it.
The folks out in front get the jar.
Comment by Limerick Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 3:28 pm
Also, part of Lincoln’s facial deformation was do to having been kicked by a horse on the right side of his face when he was younger. That kind of trauma could have been a precursor of some of his later medical maladies. Perhaps our avoidance of the not beautiful/handsome stems from a perceived notion that there is a commensurate underlying deficiency - medical, psychological, intellectual, etc. Human Nature is not fair but more survival of the fittest. Does not attractive equivocate to not fit? Perhaps subconsciously it does.
Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 3:30 pm
That’s like asking us who we’d vote for - Paul or Rich?
I know, that may be cause for banishment…
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 3:32 pm
Superficial?
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Aug 14, 07 @ 4:06 pm