[Doogle]

...Kucinich has had that look since his first haircut

[webheart]

She looked so awful that even some conservative commentators noted the unfairness of using such a manifestly unflattering image.

The key point is that conservatives are already aware of how the owners of the propaganda organs of the democrat party use photography, verbal imagery and emotional appeals to influnce public opinion. No surprise, conservatives are the thinkers, liberals like feelings. It is only noteworthy at this time because their candidate of choice is the one the tactic is detrimental to. They've been doing this to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld since 2000.

It's interesting to note the position of the photographer relative to the subject when Pelosi, Clinton, Reid or Murtha is shown, always from slightly below, with the subject looking out overhead. But when it's Bush or Rice or Lott, the subject is seen from above, with an unpleasant facial expression. Right now, Giuliani and McCain get the "from below, looking out over" treatment, but after one of the gets nominated, watch the camera angle change.

[norwaypinesavage]

Seems to me to be an awful lot of words, just to justify a bad (realistic?) picture of Her Highness. I bet that if a similar picture of Romney were available it would be on the WAPO front page for a week.