Many writers of the day comment negatively on Lincoln's appearance. Do you think a candidate's looks play a role in their success?

Many writers of the day comment on Lincoln's appearance, using words such as "ungainly," "uncomely," and "ugly." Do you think a candidate's looks play a role in their success? Why or why not?

Unfortunately visual appearance seems to always play a role in public success. It didn’t seem clear as to whether Lincoln’s beard improved his popularity but he felt it made him appear more handsome and is how we remember him today. I think people were impressed with his height and demonstrations of strenghth and endurance.

Even in the 1860's, it appears that people judged others on their looks. I believe that is even more so today. Maybe if Lincoln was the same man in today's political arena, people would have dismissed him. It has always made me sad, because noone is really able to change their genetics - ethnicity, height, etc.

It is unfortunate, but people are often judged based on appearance. It did surprise me that even in the 1850's so much emphasis was put on his 'homeliness.' I don't know if Lincoln would have been President if he lived in modern times, that is such a shame that we could have capable, amazing people that are overlooked because of outward appearance.

Now a days very definitely with newspapers, magazines and esp. TV and esp. deebates.

I think looks will always play a role in what others think of us, unfortunately. What's different now is that no one actually says anything, even though they might think it. I can't imagine a newspaper now commenting on a candidate's appearance. Can you imagine the backlash??

I think appearance will always play a role; we are a visual people.I don't think anyone really knows what goes on in the minds of folks when they are in the ballot box.

people are judged by how they appear. In books this must be, because we have to imagine how people look. In many old westerns they described negative traits vividly, so we knew that someone was a villain. Some current candidates appear more attractive than others. That is part of the voting process. Do they appear trustworthy to us.

Looks do play a part in political decision-making, But they are not always definitive. Compare, for instance, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, or Richard Nixon to John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton -- all presidents, but with varying degrees of attractiveness. We seem to have a concept of what a president should look like, but that image can be overcome by sterling rhetoric or political skill.

I think looks always play some role. I was a little surprised to read that people of that time were so disparaging about Lincoln's looks. When I look at pictures, I don't see someone unattractive; I see someone tall and strong. I tend to think that looks are only one element. I know I also consider how someone presents themselves overall, including personality and clothing. And I care more about how respectful a leader is to others, even those they disagree with, than I do about their looks.

I think that appearance, unfortunately, plays a role in acceptance especially at the beginning of interface activity with the public. As things progress and the individual becomes known for their finer ideas, skills, motivations, etc., appearance takes a lesser role. Assuming that the ideas and the like are acceptable to the observer, then the perceived appearance challenge may fade completely.

It would be naive to think one's appearance does not play a huge role in their
acceptance in the public forum, at least initially. One can only hope that eventually
the content of their character outweighs any perceived attractiveness.

Unfortunately looks, appearance and presentation skills play a huge role in persons perception of a person. It sounds like this was even more true 150 years ago.

While it may have seemed less aggressive to comment on appearance in the day of Lincoln, certainly appearance is still a significant factor in an individual’s likelihood to attract a following yet today. Especially in our era of social media and the ease in which negative comments can be lobbed at anyone, our human tendency to judge a book by its cover remains.

Yes. More so for women than men but most certainly. Simply recall the Nixon and JFK first televised presidential debate. I wasn’t even born then and I still have seen and heard about how awful Nixon appeared on camera compared to JFK. Why are looks important? I think every woman who has applied for any position, for which she was qualified, or even walked this earth has been asking that same question since time began.

Gerrieb, I'm glad you mentioned the Nixon and JFK televised debate. It's probably the prime example of appearance in modern presidential politics. TV shows us so many more visual images of the candidates than previously possible. Study the photos--whether its positive or negative may depend on political preferences and beliefs of a particular channel.

Unfortunately, appearance matters to many people. I feel that social media makes it even more important to some.

I do think a candidate’s looks (clothing, height, weight, mannerisms, etc.) play a role in their success. Commenting on these things today, can be problematic for some making the comment. For example, Nikki Haley commented that leaders over the age of 75 are past their prime and should take a competency test. Don Lemmon reflected on Haley’s comment, noting that Nikki Haley wasn’t in her prime and that women are considered to be in her prime in their 20s, 30s and maybe 40s. Looking back to the televised Nixon and Kennedy debate, many comments were made about how sweaty Nixon got while debating Kennedy. Unfortunately, the important things like values, vision, leadership and experience often take a back seat to the candidate’s appearance.

Yes, it is very important now in these times.

But then again, Lincoln’s appearance had people talking about him which can be a plus for someone who is not well known.

Initially yes, but in the long run I think that "informed" voters pay more attention to what the candidate says. What the candidate says may resonate with people's better natures or it may feed people's darker sides. For some reason, we have a lot of "dark side" folks in this country.

Unfortunately, I do believe appearance and the way a candidate carries themselves does affect how people feel about them. I would think this is true more today then back in Lincoln's time as we now have 24 hours putting the candidates out there all the time as opposed to just reading about them in the newspaper or maybe being one of the lucky few to see them in person.

Absolutely-- Jack vs Nixon, Billy Boy, Obama, yes, young and handsome or statesman like in dress and behavior and appearance. And being a woman, but even there, the looks are open to debate--

Studies have been done proving attractive people tend to be more successful This has been true through the ages.I think, however, Lincoln’s unusual looks helped distinguish him from the rest. His height even by todays standards made everyone look up to him.

There were newspaper articles written about Lincoln's height physical frame and gaunt face. Fortunately, not everybody could read or was able to get a newspaper. When people saw Lincoln, they marveled at his height even without his top hat. With a beard he looked statelier and more presidential.

Much of our population is sighted, we use our eyes to make judgment but that is one of many ways that we evaluate people.