Can the Democrats sink any lower?

Unbiased cite.

Now that the Obama campaign has destroyed the economy and used its corpse for political gain, its media whores have pulled out all the stops. See, for example, the above Newsweek cover with its horrible depiction of Sarah Our Beloved.

By refusing to airbrush its news photo the way gossip magazines do the photos they buy from paparazzi, Newsweek has thrust upon America the very nose hairs of Our Lady. If you look closely on a high definition screen at sufficient resolution, you can see some of her pores! And if you have a keen eye for contrast and shadow, you can discern a vague hint of facial hair above her lip.


Is this really the way a treasonous friend of domestic terrorists ought to conduct his campain? What do we really know about that one? That he’s half negro? That he’s named after a Muslim dictator? That his mother was a witch? That his wife hates America?

Yes, yes, we know all that. But what about his character? Why won’t he tell us the reason why he lies? Why is he such a celebrity in France? Why is he always looking at white women?

I hope all the board’s McCain supporters will join me in expressing utter disgust and condemnation for Newsweek’s transparent ploy to rig the election so close to November. Join me in demanding an audit to find out just what Obama’s cronies paid for this blatant negative political ad that masquerades as a magazine cover.

The humanity. Have democrats no decency?

Let’s demand that Obama stick to the issues, and stop putting out all these distractions. We have an economy that needs fixing, and John McCain knows how to fix it. He can do wars and economy fixing. He will suspend his presidency and fly to Iran, where he will personally beat up Ahmadinejad. Talk, hell.

God bless you all. And God bless the United States of America.

I’m Joe Liebermann.

And I’m Lindsay Graham.

We endorse this ad because Obama has just gotten too uppity.

I can’t decide whether to release the radioactive bees upon you or to offer you a position in my regime once I am emperor. Just to be on the safe side I’m going to release the bees.

I don’t understand why people are bothered by that cover picture. I think it makes her look good.

Edited to add: That wasn’t sarcasm. I really think it’s an attractive picture.

Maybe Sarah should talk to Larry or Hugh about another photo shoot, complete with airbrushed poses.

I’d do 'er.

But I still wouldn’t vote for her.

For someone her age, Palin is an attractive woman; I think they’d have to obvious try to make her unattractive. I’m not seeing that here.

Lib, your unbiased source is nucking futs.

<cough, splutter> SHE’S NOT THAT OLD!

Someday, NinjaChick, you too shall be 40 and spluttering into your keyboard when whippersnappers use that phrase.

I think she looks fine. And I can’t stand her.

You’re just trying to distract people from the OP. This isn’t about sources. This is about judgment. Do you really want a black radical from Chicago making judgments for you? Especially one that befriended domestic terrorists when, in his own words, he was “only eight years old”? Think, man. Use your head for something besides a hat rack.

Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama are the same age, and to my mind Ms Obama is the prettier woman, on top of which she doesn’t appear to use the same tricks (such as hair styling) as Governor Palin to look good.

(But I’m old enough to be their father, if I’d started fathering when still a teen-ager).

Absolutely. But it’s not a slam particularly on Palin.

I don’t want any of you idjits being in line for the Presidency.

You’re right. The left wing media is trying to put Obama bin Laden into the White House by not portraying Palin as a cover girl. Those bastards.

BTW, on a scale of 1 to 2, I’d rate Palin as a 1.5. I’d do her if she got a brain transplant.

re: Can the Democrats sink any lower?

I dunno, have they made a big deal about the confession that McCain signed when he was a POW?

I agree, when I was 8 years old, and befriended the neighborhood bully, you can bet I’d be paying the price and rightfully so!

The very reason that my hat isn’t in the ring in fact is that as a youth, my father had friends that in later years ended up as jailed mobsters! I’ve been haunted ever since, now and then I have the dream that I’m pressing the Red Button and taking out some third world cesspool.

I blame Mr. Rogers, the stinking commie, he’s turned entire generations against good, fair government.

I’m something like 299,999,999th in line for the Presidency… be afraid. Be very afraid!

(Picture me as Jabba, with Sarah Palin in a gold bikini reclining in front…)

Stop, you’re making me hot.

From the site:

News magazines do not touch up cover photos to make individuals “look better.” In fact, it was a pretty big deal in the journalism community when an overly eager designer filled in a gap on the tooth from that woman (from Iowa was it?) who had that huge multiple birth around ten years back. I can’t remember whether it was Time or Newsweek who did it, but photojournalists were pissed. Also, Time got a lot of flak for making OJ Simpson appear more menacing on the cover of their issue during the arrest for the murders. Time didn’t retouch anything, but futzed around with the contrast and brightness of the image enough that it was considered beyond what’s permissible in journalistic ethics. Newsweek ran a cover the same week which showed OJ Simpson to be much lighter skinned than the Time cover.

Now, non-news magazines can do whatever the hell they like with their covers, but retouching, as in removing skin “defects,” smoothing skin, compositing photos, etc., is absolutely forbidden by any serious news magazine. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but, as a rule, news magazines do not “generally touch up” cover photos.

I second that vote- the bees may actually imbue him with superpowers, which would only enhance his utility in your regime!

Ah, both examples I mentioned can be found here. Actually, it looks like the Time photo went beyond just simple contrast and brightness adjustments.