WI John F. Kennedy were bald?

[Bradipus]

His look had been less youngey.


Or WI he had a scare in his face? (War wound?)

[WolfBear]

Post by Bradipus
His look had been less youngey.
Or WI he had a scare in his face? (War wound?)
--
Bradipus

Um ... perhaps Nixon wins in 1960 by a very narrow margin?

[Bradipus]

Post by WolfBear

Post by Bradipus
His look had been less youngey.
Or WI he had a scare in his face? (War wound?)

Um ... perhaps Nixon wins in 1960 by a very narrow margin?

"My kingdom for a wig!"


Kennedy campaign drew advantage from his look.
Another look, another campaign (more traditional)


p.s who was the last president that used to wear a wig?

[jerry kraus]

Post by Bradipus
His look had been less youngey.
Or WI he had a scare in his face? (War wound?)
--
Bradipus

He might have been less successful with the ladies. And, he might not have gotten shot.

[Bradipus]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Bradipus
His look had been less youngey.
Or WI he had a scare in his face? (War wound?)

He might have been less successful with the ladies. And, he
might not have gotten shot.

I think ladies don't care that much men's beauty, rather their
power.

And I don't think he was shot because he was successful with
ladies...

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Bradipus
His look had been less youngey.
Or WI he had a scare in his face? (War wound?)

This is old stuff, cf. "Cleopatra's nose."

[s***@yahoo.com]

The big thing is that he was pre-selected by big-media to win. They could spin his image the way they wanted. I don't recall the year, but an advertising gimmick "mr Clean" was bald and muscular, so they could choose to match him with it. The main thing they did was not tell Nixon you need makeup, and then zoom in on Nixon's sweaty pores.

Nils

[MummyChunk]

Post by Bradipus
His look had been less youngey
Or WI he had a scare in his face? (War wound?
--
Bradipu

He probably would have never been elected to th
House in 47 or the senate in 53.... I am sure his youthful good look
played into his early successes somewhat


This is a response to the post seen at
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=295865912#29586591