A few bloggers commented on how those who saw Bush's Thursday Iraq speech on a high-definition television, as opposed to a regular television, said the President looked very exhausted.  Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly predicted what this will mean for the future of televised political speeches:

Clearly we're seeing a technology paradigm shift at work. Just as Richard Nixon "lost" the 1960 debate because, although he sounded fine on radio, he looked bad on TV, so modern politicians are going to have to learn to look good even when they're looming over their audience on 80-inch HD plasma screens. Looking good on a scratchy 32-inch tube doesn't cut it anymore. I predict booming business for a whole new generation of media advisors and skin care consultants.

So who benefits from the HD era?  John Edwards and Mitt Romney, some might presume.  Maybe not so much Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson.  No offense.

It is sad we are even bringing this issue up, but the reality is that all throughout US history appearance has, to some extent, affected the presidential vote.  From the paintings of George Washington; to Franklin Roosevelt's unwillingness to reveal his medical condition; to John F Kennedy's debate performance; to George W. Bush's World Trade Center megaphone pep talk -- appearance does matter.