For all the palaver about John Edwards’ appearance, haircuts, and Breck-Girl qualities, at least he isn’t distributing items at his campaign appearances about his “sensational good looks.”
But Mitt Romney is. One of Garance Franke-Ruta’s Republican sources in Iowa picked up a jaw-dropping flyer at a Romney campaign event.
His promotional flyer says, “In this media-driven age, Romney begins with a decisive advantage. First, he has sensational good looks. People magazine named him one of the 50 most beautiful people in America. Standing 6 feet, 2 inches tall, Romney has jet-black hair, graying naturally at the temples. Women — who will play a critical role in this coming election — have a word for him: hot.”
Oh my.
Now, it’s worth noting that this flyer about Romney’s appearance wasn’t written by his campaign team, but Team Romney is distributing it at campaign rallies. In other words, the campaign is proud enough of this fluff that they want Iowans to see it.
In 2004, People magazine named John Edwards one of the 50 most beautiful people in America — and Edwards was embarrassed about it. When reporters would bring it up, he’d laugh it off and quickly change the subject. The whole issue was silly and unworthy of a serious presidential candidate’s time and attention. Team Edwards did not distribute flyers about the candidate’s “sensational good looks” and appeal to women voters.
Two other quick thoughts. First, from Jonathan Chait on how a story like this one can undermine Romney’s appeal among Republicans.
I think the sexism of that will not hurt him as much as it would if he were running in a Democratic primary, but the vanity will hurt him more. The GOP is deeply invested in the cult of manliness. Real manly men are supposed to be handsome in a non-threatening (to other men) way, but they’re not supposed to take note of their own good looks, and they’re certainly not supposed to be described as “beautiful.”
Exactly. This is why Edwards went out of his way to distance himself from this talk in 2004. For Romney to promote materials that effectively say, “Vote for Romney; he’s pretty” is to get the broader political dynamic backwards. Men are likely to find the pitch weak, women are equally likely to find the pitch arrogant, and serious voters who care about the issues will wonder what on earth the campaign was thinking promoting fluff like this.
Second, from Garance:
If Democratic campaign consultants can’t figure out how to have a field day with this, they all ought to just hang up their cleats and go home.
Yep.