Daily Kos

View Story | 115 comments

  •  Absolutely (none / 0)

    on purpose. If they were going to do something like this, why not show Kerry in full battle garb? Of which I'm sure they could have found some pictures. "They" have a video of him carrying a rifle, why not cull a picture from that? But NOOOOOO!! That would highlight the differences just a bit to much, now wouldn't it.

    by SteveLCo on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:46:17 AM PDT

    •  I guess we should be happy... (none / 0)

      ...that they didn't "find" an obviously Photoshopped photo of a red-eyed Kerry in a marijuana haze with a peace symbol attached to his helmet.

      Or is that next month's cover?

      lighthearted mental sewage

      by sixthdoctor on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:49:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  1971 (3.66 / 3)

      In 1971 we know that Kerry wasn't wearing full battle garb; he was wearing suits like the one in the photo.

      The problem is that with Bush, we don't know that he was wearing his military uniform in 1972.  About the only thing we know he was wearing in 1972 was a smirk.  So USN&WR cops out and picks 1971.  Nice way to draw the contrast, avoid the issue that is uncomfortable for Bush--whether he showed up for ANG duty in AL in 1972--and still reinforce the perception that Bush served while Kerry was a protester.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:52:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess (none / 0)

        this was my point. USN&WR, could have picked another period of time, couldn't they? They did this on purpose.

        by SteveLCo on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:01:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Too specific (none / 0)

        I haven't read the piece yet, but the fact is, by picking a specific year (1971) they have chosen to highlight the two men in different stages -- Kerry in post-war civilian mode and Bush in military PR photo that doesn't necessarily represent what he was actually doing...

        Kerry suffers further because back in 1971 ties and jackets were thick and sloppy looking and so was your hair unless you were still in the service sporting a "high and tight".

        In the interest of fairness they should have had the cover represent the "Vietnam Era" and shown both in uniform. Or did they narrow the scope of the story to one specific year to deliberately to represent them differently?

        Technically accurate? Perhaps. A fair portrayal? Not really.

        "I'm so mad, I'm bulletproof!"

        by Mr Furious on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 10:04:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 115 comments