A week or so ago, GOP strategist Mike Murphy asked: "If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?"
I wish that both Palin detractors and supporters would not focus on her appearance in such degrees.
That being said, to answer Murphy's question, of course not. Palin would not get the attention and strange fervent support from a very vocal minority if she looked more like Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher or Janet Napolitano.
But to make another obvious point: Would Barack Obama even be in the White House if he looked like Victor Yushchenko?



Salon.com
Comments
One of the things I despised about Palin's ascension was that it seemed clear her "beauty queen" status had a lot to do with it.
Over here in the UK the TV companies just dump all their female presenters when they get old. Not even old, merely middle aged.
I think you're right that Palin's appearance helped her. But my point is that we don't criticize male politicians like Barack Obama for looking so good. (Unlike Palin, though, Obama does actually have knowledge and substance.)
Clearly there are a lot of attractive 40-something women out there who have not garnered vocal political constituencies. If just by being an attractive, mature, but postmenopausal woman were enough to get one elected, there'd be a number of OSers in Congress right now.
My point about Murphy's point is true or not, it doesn't really matter. Generally, we don't elect ugly people. What does that generality do for us in understanding Palin? Nothing.
So when, exactly, did looks become so important? Did video really kill the political star?