Superficial (or not) question about Sarah Palin.

I didn’t see the cover. But it is funny that now people are complaining about a picture not being Photoshopped.

beauty is truth, truth beauty.

and she’s not truthful

There have been both photoshopped and unretouched covers of both the (major party) presidential candidates, as well as Hillary Clinton, with no big outcry. It just seems like anything regarding Palin is crossing some imaginary line. Personally, I think no pictures in truthful publications should be allowed to be photoshopped.

Yeah, I think it’s a fun little Illuminati trick. Look at the photo and then look at the back of the dollar bill. See the eye? See the pyramid?

See all the fake outrage that’s serving to get Sarah Palin in the news and perpetuate a non-issue?

OMG! Caribou Barbie is NOT a barbie?? Well, if she’s not actually pretty there goes one of her qualifications…luckily the other two seem legit

I’ve seen prettier facial images on iodine bottles.

Kevbo called it – this is a non-issue.

I think Palin or the McCain campaign asked not to have the photo retouched. Why on earth would this maverick soccer mom want to be seen as highfalutin super model who has her photos touched up? I’m sure there would have been an outcry either way, i.e. “What? Isn’t this woman good enough without the magazine trying to make her fake in order to live up to some liberal Hollywood standard of beauty?”

I think the picture is not unattractive. I have seen Obama magazine covers on Newsweek that clearly show a five o’clock shadow, lines, and other non-beauty features. However, the republicans have mostly been bringing up the backlit Obama cover that naturally hides any defects—that is one of the advantages of backlighting.

If you look at the Obama cover where it is his profile, he’s clearly got a bit of scruff that should be shaved and some wrinkles, but you know what? He looks great—very presidential.

If you look at this cover, I think Palin looks great. She’s beautiful and it shows her great eyes up close and fabulous. Demanding to be retouched like a model is ridiculous. Now, I would agree that the cover isn’t incredibly VPish, but that was the point—the article is called something like “she’s one of the folks (and that may be the problem)”. But it is still in the Women in Leadership issue, so by being on the cover of that issue, Newsweek is naming her one of the most important women in the US today. If not the world.

So. I think she should get over not being re-touched, she looks great and no leader should be treated like a model. She should, instead, take pride in being on the cover of that issue.

I think: Eleanor Roosevelt, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Marg. Thatcher, Sister Theresa, Madeline Albright, Benazir Bhutto, for starters.

Madeline Albright was a real hottie in her salad days but no one wanted to go near the teen-aged Baroness Thatcher.

SRM

Neither campaign asked to have the photo unretouched. Newsweek is a news magazine. Their editorial policy is not to retouch any cover photos. The reason they gave for running the extreme close-up was that they were fascinated by Sarah Palin’s ability to make people feel connected to her and wanted to feature her eye and her smile.

Fox News has led the outcry. They really have no room for complaint after the things they have said about Hilary Clinton.

It’s one more non-issue distraction from the issues.

It is also Newsweek’s policy to not photoshop their cover’s. I saw that in a report on tv about it.

I thought she looked fine. The focus, in my mind, was clearly on her eye.

SRM. Maddie Korbell Albright was a class below me at a NE sister school. She was young, fresh, perky and smart – but by no stretch a hottie. (Allie McGraw was also in my dorm, just for comparision.)