Mary Tyler Moore circa “Dick Van Dyke Show”.
Holy St. Thomas Aquinas in The Bronx! What a difference a real smile makes. By all accounts, she’ll look great in the movie.
I always thought the hair was supposed to be newscaster-style helmet hair meets Veronica Lake. With bad results. What’s up with that swoop of hair on the side of her forehead? Hair isn’t supposed to be arranged in lobes fer crying out loud!
I think she’s actually pretty–when she forgets to make those faces. And if you disregard the hairdo. I like the gap between her teeth.
I don’t even know where to go with it. Sometimes she looks great - like in the second batch of photos, but just yesterday I was watching the proceedings of what she’s been going through in DC (I only caught a few minutes and only barely paid attention - what the heck is going on?) and she was hard to even look at.
It seemed the longer she sat there the more her face collapsed on itself until she looked like a dissapointed Yoda.
I agree.
Thing is, this thread would be just as bad if everyone was saying how beautiful she was. We really need to get out of the mindset that women in business and politics and the professions should somehow be evaluated on their looks more frequently than they are evaluated on their performance.
I don’t think anyone here is seriously implying that how she looks should be or is relevant to her job performance at all. Women (and men) in the public eye – high profile professionals, movie stars, politicians, you name it – will always have people that are going to evaluate their appearance/how they present themselves. I think this sort of thing is mostly the product of boredom. I know what someone looks like has zero to do with if I actually vote for/support them or not. Bush looks like a chimp and Kerry looks like a horse. Who cares? Just something to talk about.
I think she’s kinda pretty when she smiles. Unfortunately, she’s rarely had anything to smile about. 
I’m still waiting to see where someone said her looks affect her job. Just because someone is a hard working professional, doesn’t mean they couldn’t have taken a few beatings from the ugly stick.
Fairly or unfairly, I tend to size people up – male or female – by the eyes. In the eyes you can see intensity, empathy, peace, angst…they can be warm and outreaching, clear and direct, or dead and hard, or 101 things in between.
Rice’s eyes are pretty much dead. Not hard, not cold (it’s hard for brown eyes to be really cold), just dead. You see a lot of dead-eyed people in Washington.
I am the Lizard Queen!
Actually, from what I understand there are a number of foreign leaders who appear to be quite smitten with Condi.
While her hair might be a bit of a distraction, overall I find her quite pleasant. In over her head, but pleasant nontheless.
I think you are wrong there. I think the scowl is one of her most endearing characteristics. I like to see a woman scowl in front of the media. I am tired of everyone expecting all women to smile all the time. Also, I can see it as a bit hot if you are into the disipline thing.
I think you are right that she is not ugly, especially for someone in politics, but I must say, I could do with seeing less of her and not just because she is part of an administration I despise. She looks like my sister in law. Gap and all, except my SIL is fair skinned. I do not like my SIL. She is not as bright as a pile of coal dust. She is judgemental, neurotic and whiney. She wrote a nine page christmas letter mostly about her yeast infection. Seeing Condi reminds me of that. I always thought the hair was kind of kicky though.
and
Just because no-one uses the exact words “Hey, she’s ugly so she’s obviously also incompetent” does not negate the point i’m trying to make. Actually, i don’t believe, if people were asked to articulate more coherently on the issue, that anyone would actually say that they believe that job performance and physical appearance were connected. The key problem here is one of ingrained cultural habits and expectations, and in my opinion these tend to lean in a direction in which more attention than necessary is paid to the physical appearance of women in professional life, and actually in society generally.
And the sort of thing i’m talking about need not be a message board thread entitled “Condoleeza Rice’s face is painful to look at.” It is apparent in the type of descriptions the permeate the media when women are being discussed. References to hair color, clothing, and general attractiveness are commonly made when discussing female politicians, professional and business executives, and this is done with a frequency and a consistency that is unmatched when discussing men.
And on the specific issue of politicians, it’s true that people comment on the appearance of men like Bush and Kerry, but these issues are rarely at the forefront in discussions of men the way they are in discussions of women. I read a report a while back in which a media group compared descriptions of male and female politicians and businesspeople in the media, and noted the much higher instance of physical descriptors used when discussing women, like “the blonde executive,” or “the attractive CEO,” or “the willowy representative.” I can’t remember the name of the report now, and i’m not sure if it’s online. I’ll try and track it down.
As i said in my previous post, this stuff is problematic not only when it’s criticizing women for their appearance, but also when it’s praising them, because the gender disparity in the way such descriptions are used reinforces the idea that attractiveness should be a factor when discussing women in such positions.
Look, i’m not suggesting that appearance need be off the table altogether, especially if it’s a case of how people actually present themselves. If Condoleeza Rice had turned up to her confirmation hearings in sweats and running shoes, or jeans and a t-shirt, that would have been an occasion for comment. Same goes for a guy in the same position.
But the fact is, she turned up in entirely appropriate attire, looking neat and ready to face the questions. This thread is not really about how she “presented herself,” it’s about how ugly she is, how bad her hair is, and how big the gap between her teeth is. All in all, a rather unbecoming display—the thread, not Condoleeza Rice.
Well said Mhendo, I totally agree. Perhaps I misunderstood what was being said before. Unfortunately with all the problems of our infotainment media, there won’t be any change soon.
I usually don’t care at all about the appearance of politicians, but I must admit there have been times when I’ve looked at Condi and been a little skeeved. I’ll agree with those above that it’s not an ugly thing, it’s a creepy thing. I can’t put my finger on it. There are photos of her that I think are quite becoming, so she’s got the goods if she wants to use them. Clearly, that’s not always the case, however.
But of a side note: Remember that episode of SNL, with Janet Jackson as Condi? Now I think Janet is pretty damn hot, as long as I blot all thoughts of Michael from my mind. But when they gave her the Condi makeover, I thought “Damn! Spitting image!” Makes me wonder if they could to a Janet makover on Condi! 
I’d pay good money to see she and John Ashcroft perform the “wardrobe malfunction.”
Eh, they do it to men too. Remember “Kerry looks like Frankenstein”?
Oh, and BTW, I’m not evaluating her on her looks. I actually think she’s reasonably attractive, but I think she did a piss-poor job as Security Advisor. There is absolutely no connection in my mind between her looks and her job performance.