Photo © 2010 AAP Image/Kym Smith, The Australian Pool 

As Tony Abbott rolled out wife Margie on his campaign trail yesterday, Julia Gillard faced questions about the absence of de facto partner Tim Mathieson from her appearances. She replied by pointing out that Mathieson is “not a Labor Party official, he's not a candidate or a minister.”

Turn to page 5 of today’s Australian national broadsheet paper, The Australian,  and you’ll find articles under the Election 2010 section titled ‘Relationships’, ‘Fashion’ and ‘Image’ and another about the pair of shoes Gillard declined to wear for a photo shoot.

One article states “The most interesting aspect of the evolution of Gillard’s appearance is her hair… When she has it coloured you just know that something is afoot.”

Then there is the focus on the leaders’ ears, quoting blogs on the Leaders’ Debate: “I can’t remember a thing from the debate – just those earlobes” and digs at “The Lober party”.

Australian journalist Kate Legge notes that “There is no law of physics to explain the phenomenon but once a limp or a scar or a tic is pointed out to an audience, that small thing becomes magnified to the exclusion of everything else.”

More than 1100 people have since signed up to one of the several Facebook sites dedicated to the Prime Minister’s earlobes. Yesterday, when pressed on radio to comment on her ears, Abbott declined. Perhaps the pot wants to avoid calling the kettle black?

Is it relevant to focus on the appearance or family status of someone who wants to be PM? Or is it simply muckraking? Could it be a sign that voters aren’t interested in the policies on offer? Log in below and have your say!