(If) Looks Could Kill

Eric Alterman belittles the perception of "likeability" in a candidate:

Based on his intellect, experience and knowledge of the issues Kerry—like Gore—is obviously more qualified to be president than Bush is. Furthermore he is morally far better qualified to send men to die in battle if need be. And finally, he is also closer to the American people on the panoply of issues that people say matter to them. What Kerry is not is more “likeable,” at least as defined by the punditocracy. This may even be true. But so what? Just look where “likeability” has gotten us. We are the only advanced democratic nation in the world even to entertain such nonsense as a serious issue. And yet it will likely decide whether Bush and company are given a chance to finish the work they have begun: destroying the fiscal basis of our children’s future; ensuring the violent hatred of our nation for generations to come and inviting Christian fundamentalists the right to determine what rights we enjoy in our public and private lives. I know that sounds overheated and inflammatory. I only wish it were, but there it is. That’s all.

I don't know if I find Eric likeable. His writings depress me.

And, since when have most Americans considered candidates' qualifications? For the average Joe Shmoe on the street, the order of importance of a candidate's qualities are: looks, accent, speaking style, spouse's looks, political party affiliation, looks, and looks.

Come on, Eric, get real. Whose face would you rather observe giving a 90-minute lie-saturated SOTU: Bush or Kerry?