I think he looks very artificial, but I think the same thing about Obama, who actually looks like an android. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. And the press, which is devoted to Obama and considers him incredibly handsome, is clearly in need of a vision check.
But my point is that a candidate doesn't have to be ravingly good looking or a brilliant speaker, but simply somebody you can trust and somebody you think means what he's saying and that he's saying what he means.
Obama obviously doesn't do either, and without the press to promote him, he would have been laughed off the stage.
Romney, on the other hand, does mean it, although I think he's probably needed a bit of instruction from other people in his campaign on how to express it, because he has always come across as a bit wishy-washy until now. But at least he was smart enough and humble enough to go and get help.
Don't forget Shakespeare's famous words in Twelfth Night: ...some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.
You may think Romney looks “artificial” but he does have classic good looks (which will go over very well on the international stage i.e. Presidential appearance...).