I worry that as we move from the primaries to the general election, that the looks or, more specifically, the physical attractiveness of the candidates will become increasingly important. Despite what people generally don’t like to admit, but which the late night talk shows sometimes feature, many in the general electorate often cannot match names with pictures of mainstream elected officials let along have any clue about policies of individual candidates.

Particularly as move to the general election, I would imagine that Obama’s stereotypically tall height, thin weight, full head of hair, and youthful appearance will weigh heavily against McCain’s much shorter average height, more typical heavier average weight, a thin comb-over hair style, and less than youthful appearance. Historically, with rare exception and, yes, with some exception the more physically attractive of the finalists have been the victors. Most notably, of course, is the routinely acknowledged physical attractive differences between John Kennedy and his counterpart, Richard Nixon.

Dr. Gordon Patzer
author of "Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined"
Physical Attractiveness Phenomenon by Gordon Patzer

Why is the price of oil higher now, than it was before our our invasion of Iraq? Are you implying that increases military requirements are not one factor in any increase in consumption? Does having reduced the capacity of oil processing, in Iraq, also have nothing to do with it? There is no reason for oil costing more, other than our anarchistic use of force to deny and disparage the rights of another sovereign state in our global economy.

Why was it that the UN was not in favor of an invasion of Iraq? What did we really accomplish over there, that we could not have accomplished better, with UN inspectors; and at lower cost than we currently have now. The success of the UN, was that there was no need to invade another sovereign state, since there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.

Why are you neglecting severe USD devaluation due to fiscal irresponsibility, better known as the tax on oil producers passed on to consumers, and commodity speculation due to US ME military aggression, in particular threats made against Iran?

Simply funding UN mandates could be less expensive than any such task undertaken by a single State.

We have plenty of nation-building to do domestically that could result in lowering public and private sector costs while creating jobs that cannot be exported overseas.

Why are our politicians involving us in foreign entanglements that require the use of our exorbitantly expensive superpower?

Who cares what the UN is in favor of or not? That institutions is a failure. I asked someone here for one accomplishment of the UN and I am still waiting. What did we accomplish by invading Iraq? We removed a ruthless dictator who committed genocide on his own people, who ruled by murder and intimidation, who threatened his neighbors, and was pursuing WMD. Don't forget that before the war Saddam was found to be producing missiles that went beyond the UN mandated range, that could carry a cluster of exposives, and had not accounted for some 2 tons of chemical weapons material. Furthermore an even greater accomplishment is that the war has served as diversion for Islamic extremist keeping them focused there instead of here on our home soil.

You need to read that Rand report a little closer. When the UN left it did not leaven democracies in place, but dictators in most cases who were able to keep the peace for a while, but at what price to the people of those lands?
The current crisis in Africa is largely a UN failure, the UN has been in nearly every nation there that is currently in crisis at sometime or another.

The devaluation of the dollar is a recent problem brought on by the housing slump and over extending credit to those in a high risk catagory. Not to mention that as a nation we save less and buy more stuff on credit than any other nation. These however, have nothing to do with the war in Iraq or any posturing towards Iran.

Quit ignoring the facts, so that you can hold to your dellusions and personal bias.

Is the irrational Obama mainia slowing and will it fizzel out? Are people finally asking, 'What has this man accomplished, and why should I trust him to be any different?'

An Obama supporter stopped by my house the other day and I asked him, if you can tell me one accomplishment of this man, I will consider voting for him, but he could not.

I have never understood why so many people were getting on the Obama bandwagon, when the man has done nothing, accomplished, and rather than being a instrument for change while as Senator he was a party loyalist towing the party line, voting 97% for the time with his fellow democrats.

Then you should find a much well informed Obama supporter. That one supporter cannot tell tell you what you would like to hear does not mean Obama lacks politic accomplishments.

It is my view that the Clintons will try anything and everything to win; no matter who they hurt in the process. The evidence is bold and clear. They are proven liars and will continue to do so unchecked.
Unfortunately, some people have a very short memory. Have they forgotten all the scandals in the Clinton Closet??!!
In my opinion, they left the White House in disgrace.
We can not allow Barack Obama to be smeared by unfounded accusations and inuendoes.
This is not what the Democratic Party is about. We must stand united if we are to regain the White House.

The world is watching us!

You seem to be implying that destroying the capacity of an oil producing state to produce oil at optimum capacity would have no effect on world oil prices. Would oil be more or less expensive if we had left the UN weapons inspectors in place, and simply helped upgrade Iraq's oil production facilities?

Since when has it been the responsibility of the US to police the world? Where, in our Constitution, does it say that Providing for the common Defense, really means, to involve ourselves in foreign entanglements, to the detriment of a form of democracy that includes state's rights?

That "ruthless" dictator, was put in power by the US, in the first place. In the second place, he was elected to office in a democratic election.

Simply stating that we shouldn't care about the rule of law, as embodied by an organization duly authorized with such concerns, does nothing to promote respect for the rule of law in the US.

What I did read, is that the more of the UN led nation-building exercises were at peace, than were the same number of US led nation-building exercises.

If you had read the report better, you would have understood the difference between the moral authority of the rule of law by an institution authorized to such purposes, versus the lack of such authority by an individual state engaging in political opportunism for short term gain.

Why are we not funding more UN efforts, at lower cost to the US, instead of engaging in foreign entanglements, and then complaining about it afterwards, when some of the foreign states object to our encroachment on their state's rights and sovereignty?

I suggest you do a bit of study on currencies. USD was in serious decline long before the bottom falling out of the housing market.

Sorry, I don't recognize the UN's authority as lawgiver. I am not going to trust my sovereignty and rights to a bunch of Communists and Socialists.

Again I do not recognize the UN as having any moral authority or as a law giving body. To have moral authority you need moral absolutes and the UN does not promote absolute truth, or absolute right and wrong. They are primarially a bunch moral relativists whose morals change given the situation.

We as a nation already contribute more to the UN than any other nation. I think that we should not be funding more, but less. In fact we should withdraw from the UN ASAP. It has never had our nations best interests at heart and has worked to undermine true democratic reform around the world. Why didn't it leave functioning democracies in the Congo etc., why did it leave before finishing it's job? Because its not democacy it promotes, but socialism.

I suggest you do a bit of study and then post your findings along with your sources here.

BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Why the dollar's in decline