". . . You're just 'seeing' things. . . "<br><br>Gotta love it when the liberal media apologists have it shoved back in their collective faces and the bastards pulling this crap finally are getting their hands slapped . . . <br><br>From USA Today:<br><br><blockquote>"Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."</blockquote><br><br>Michelle Malkin retains the photoshopped version, originally published by USA Today . . . <br><br><br><br>Here's the origianl, undoctored version, to which USA Today has now changed . . . <br><br><br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.

She's still scary looking.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Gotta love it when the liberal media apologists have it shoved back in their collective faces and the bastards pulling this crap finally are getting their hands slapped . . . <p><hr></blockquote><p>Gotta love it that you can pounce on something so small in the grander scheme and drool like a puppy with his first bone. <br><br>[color:blue]My, My Baby Blue . . .</font color=blue>

so, USA Today made the editorial change? they policed themselves?<br><br>um, great. <br><br>the bigger story here is that michelle malkin had nothing better to write about. i have no doubt that liberal hacks are having a field-day right about now with a multitude of stories about republicans in trouble. <br><br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Gotta love it that you can pounce on something so small in the grander scheme and drool like a puppy with his first bone. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>EDIT: I removed my original comment. I post something about the liberal media getting caught and the editors having to release an editorial disclaimer. You want to make it personal as per your above comment. I won't get pulled down that road with you, Lea. Take your personal shots . . . <br><br>Meanwhile, this photo bias crap is finally surfacing, and I love it. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.

your second photo looks photoshopped. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05

Looks like a Claritin Clear ad. <br><br>She looks pissed in both versions. Smile, Condi. Veepdom may be right around the corner. <br><br>

<font size ="3">Captains Log: Liberal AP photo bias #14,657 - Condi Rice Photoshop job</font size><br><br><br>As usual with these posts, I don't get it. I can kinda see that the sclera of her eyes is a bit washed out. Is that it, or what should I be noticing between the two that is "liberally biased"?<br><br><br>

i think the intent was to use some distraction to get the second photo displayed so that they could have a photo of condi looking too pale on the record. her face looks flushed from the stress the white house is under, i'd guess. anyway, it worked perfectly . (shrug)<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05

And there was me thinking it was a promo shot for her appearance in the Stargate TV show.<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..

<br><br>Nah. Couldn't be.<br><br><br><br><br>Could it? <br><br>