Long Haired Freaky People Need Not Apply?

Question: Could this candidate (pictured left) be elected President?

According to an exclusive Mic's Tape/Gallup poll of 706 likely voters, the answer is a resounding (94%) "No".

Why is this? Is it because voters are not yet ready to elect an androgynous commander in chief? You might think so, but according to our survey "Gender Bending" would only hinder 11% of the populace. Rather, the overwhelming reason why voters (82% of our sample) would not support this candidate is, quite simply, "Long Hair".

Still playing the hair card
Given recent events, our survey is no mere hypothetical exercise. On the contrary, while America might not want to admit it, Hillary Clinton's recent decision to end her 2008 Presidential bid has undeniably thrust "hairism" back into the fore of US politics.

The failed candidacy of Mrs Clinton—once considered a shoo-in for her party's nomination—has left many of her supporters searching for someone to blame. While potential scapegoats range from the media to the often damaging exploits of former President Bill Clinton, our survey points to a deeper-rooted explanation.

"I attended one of Hillary's rallies in Scranton", said Stanley Hallauer, a 79-year-old retired construction worker and one of our respondents. "I liked what she had to say until she took off the construction hat she'd been wearing and I realized she had long hair. Right then, I shouted, 'Imagine that, huh, me voting for you!', and just stormed out. Seriously, she looked like a godd*mn hippie".

Such antagonism highlights the apparent failure of Mrs Clinton's "short-hair revolution" (SHR) which, according to this definitive chronicle of Hillary's Hair, began with her 2001 election to the US Senate. Implemented (presumably) to confront speculation that "if [her hair] was long, she wouldn't be taken seriously [as a Presidential candidate]", the SHR culminated in The Huffington Post's Feb '08 declaration that Hillary had at last obtained "presidential hair". But alas, it seems the revolution did not go short enough.

Confounding our fathers?
While Article II of the US Constitution clearly states that "No person [...] shall be [...] eligible to [the Office of the Presidency] who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years", there are no such limitations (e.g., "not greater than 3.5 centimeters") placed on Presidential hair length. And given our founding fathers' fashions, is this really any wonder? Who can forget the original George W's prolific ponytail, John Adams' lusciously lengthy locks, or Thomas Jefferson's "Monticello Mop"? And yet, could any of these venerated figures be elected President in 2008?

All this begs the question: When did the American electorate become so dead set against long-haired leaders? Professor Bruce Meyfrark, formerly of Temple University, has researched this topic extensively for his upcoming book, "Founding Follicles". In it, he writes:

Many attribute hairism to a Tea Partyesque, anti-British reaction to Beatlemania, but in truth the movement predated the Fab Four by over a century. Indeed, not since James K. Polk (1845-9) has our nation elected a long-haired President, and a major party hasn't fielded a maned candidate since the Democrats/Liberal Republicans nominated Horace Greeley way back in 1872.

Whatever its root cause, the bottom line is that hairism remains an unseemly flake of dandruff on the proverbial shoulder that is our great country. In John McCain and Barack Obama, we are once again left with two close-cut candidates lacking the one "change" necessary to help our nation finally confront this issue. But it's not too late. With five months left before election day, there is still time for McCain and Obama to let their hair grow out and, in doing so, let the "Long-Hair Revolution" begin!