Oklahoma GOP website features "Photoshopped" image of Speaker Pelosi

From OKIMC.org:

The front page of the Oklahoma Republican Party's web site presents an image of the Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, which they accurately refer to as "disturbing".

But the disturbing aspect of the image is its relationship to reality and its use on the website of a supposedly reputable organization of mature adults to disparage its subject in a not-so-subtle fashion. The image is clearly digitally distorted ("Photoshopped")in order to present the Speaker as old, haggard and ugly, with heavily rouged cheeks, sloppy lipstick and lines, bulges and veins that do not actually exist on the Speaker's face.

(This image shows the GOP image alongside a real photo taken from a similar angle, enlarged and cropped to match the first image for the sake of comparison.)

A screen capture of the web page (taken at 9:54 pm on Saturday, May 5) shows the image used to link to an editorial, "Tom Cole's Job: Take Back the House" by George Will which features the third-term Oklahoma Republican who serves as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee -- the group charged with finding good candidates and supporting their campaigns. Above the image is the teaser "Tom Cole's Job: get rid of Speaker Pelosi (click disturbing photo)".

Click here for (disturbing) screenshot of the section of the page in question.

The Oklahoma GOP version of the image was sent out to Oklahoma liberal and progressive activists Saturday evening.

OKIMC has requested a response from the Oklahoma Democratic Party. If and when one is received, this story will be updated.

•  Will they ever grow up?

  This has been another edition...

  by gypsy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:25:51 PM PDT

  •  No...

    I don't think so. Therein lies the problem.

    by Winter Rabbit on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:28:16 PM PDT

  •  No, becasue they are appealing to

    immature minds

    by Winnie on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:56:23 PM PDT

  •  well, in all fairness to them...

    ...they're trying to appeal to people who answer "No" to the question "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?".

    by Trix on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:06:45 PM PDT

  •  With the exposure(readership) Dailykos has

    how is what the GOP did any different than the work of such DailyKos contributors as Dood Abides  

    by JML9999 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:15:42 PM PDT

    •  Last I checked

      This was just a partisan blog, not an official DNC site.  We can do stuff like that.  The official sites of the RNC and DNC shouldn't do stuff like that.  I don't care if they mock Dems, but don't alter pics, it's not that hard to use facts.  Oh wait, it's the GOP...they would know a fact if it bit them on the ass.

      by fabooj on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:27:45 PM PDT

      •  Here's a n't

        to add to your would.  They get used here so frequently, we may have run out.

        by Terre on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:48:16 PM PDT

        •  Thanks

          I had a whole bag of them and misplaced it somewhere.

          by fabooj on Sun May 06, 2007 at 07:50:19 AM PDT

      •  exactly

        it would be like the DNC or a state Democratic Committee posting a picture of, say, Condi giving someone the evil eye like a steaming seductress in an Ed Wood movie...oh...wait...they wouldn't have to photoshop that, would they?

        Ok, it would be like the DNC or a state Dem Committee posting a pic of, say, Cheney snarling like a rabid shar pei...no, wait...

        Ok, it would be like an official Democratic org posting a picture of Bush strutting in flight gear with an overstuffed codpiece...ah, hold on...

        I got it: it would be like a Democratic Party organ posting a pic of Karl Rove's face enhanced to look like Porky Pig on steroids...ah...

        Um, can someone suggest a Republican that the Dems would have to photoshop to make look terrible?  Who? Romney?

        Ok, it would be like an official Dem organ posting a picture of Mitt Romney looking like a Ken doll with plastic hair...shit...

        In seriousness, I hope they don't take the photo down and that it is used to highlight the desperation that the GOP is laboring under these days.  What a great treat to watch the Party of Gingrich and Hubris, the Party that thought it had the universe by the short hairs a year ago, now behaving like a bunch of preteens with magic markers in the middle-school boys' room, scrawling nasty slurs about the Vice Prinicipal's wife, as their nemesis just happens pop in for a restroom check at that moment.

        Hold the butter, please.  I'm trying get my LDL below 200.

        by nailbender on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:49:19 PM PDT

        •  Ha!

          too funny.

          :)

          by delphine on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:17:08 AM PDT

        •  So by your reasoning if we catch the Dems doing

          this ie DNC.org we should come down on them equally hard if not harder.

          by JML9999 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:39:48 AM PDT

          •  absolutely

            as this thread points out, Dood's work is definitely off the reservation (dkos isn't the reservation, in case you wondered), as good, on-target, and hard-hitting as it is.  

            Similarly, The Daily Show provides appropriate satire for the times, which deserves the airing it gets, but it doesn't belong on the web page or mailings of Dem Party organs, which should strive to be taken seriously.  That's the bottom line: if you want to be taken seriously as a national party, parody isn't a path that will get you there.

            That's why I love this Oakie bit.  It allows us to point at them and say: "You really want to take this party seriously??"  

            If that pic had shown up on some wingnut blog, it wouldn't amount to a hill of chickpeas because they aren't the Party, any more than we, who spend almost as much time railing against the Dem establishment as we do against the GOP idiocy, are.

            by nailbender on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:36:25 AM PDT

    •  the fact that you post this is

      boggling my mind ..

      by shpilk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:40:37 PM PDT

      •  Please unboggle.

        I did not praise the GOP simply played devil's advocate  perhaps in retrospect I should have tagged my post as such.

        by JML9999 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:41:34 AM PDT

    •  i thought of Dood pretty quick too

      and suddenly wished he had an "update" of the musical "Oklahoma" handy....Something with the hicks hayseeds and hags of the OK GOP

      by sooner on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:38:11 PM PDT

    •  See, it's like this

      Dood is a private citizen makin' a joke.
      OK GOP is official and officially a joke.

      by LeighAnn on Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:56:45 AM PDT

•  My guess is that it's just

  a really unflattering (but real) picture.  I have had some real doozies taken of me, so barring some proof of photoshopping, I'm just not gonna get too upset about this one.

  by espresso on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:28:39 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    The cheeks are distorted, the makeup is clownlike, the nose is as pointy as a pencil.

    by gypsy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:33:02 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      They've changed her nose to make it pointier and the lipstick is clearly grotesque and exaggerated. It's definitely way more than just an unflattering photo. What's sad and unbelievable is that this is the official site of the Oklahoma Republican Party and not just some college Republican's personal blog.

      by anastasia p on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:38:55 PM PDT

    •  Tooth size.

      Obviously distorted.

      by Webster on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:39:27 PM PDT

    •  Also

      her right eye looks really deformed. It has to be photoshopped.

      by jiacinto on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:07:21 PM PDT

    •  the nose is a

      dead give-away.

      by gailwax on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:00:44 PM PDT

  •  Your guess is bad

    Look at the nose.

    by Demena on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:58:37 PM PDT

  •  Nope.

    It's obviously Photoshopped. The proof is in the looking. That rouge patch is so obviously done with a airbrush brush tip. The hard but soft edge is easily recognizable. The lips are unreal. There's no way Pelosi's lips would look like that, whatever state she might be in. They were probably done with that face warping software, but it could have been accomplished with the smudge tool. The highlights on the lips totally wouldn't exist in nature. The veins look like they were rubberstamped in though they might be regular crow's feet taken to high contrast and messed with. They've extended her nose, again perhaps using smudge and cleaning up or maybe rubberstamp.

    I know Photoshop and there's no way that photo is natural.

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:03:20 PM PDT

    •  The eyes give it away

      her left eye looks horrendous.

      by jiacinto on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:07:56 PM PDT

  •  Don't think so

    There is no way in hell that is an undoctored photo.

    by jillian on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:13:35 PM PDT

  •  Do you photoshop at all?

    Just curious.

    by shpilk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:37:13 PM PDT

  •  Here is what appears to be the real picture:

    Albeit cropped stupidly onto a vampire body.

    

    I'm pretty sure it's the exact same picture (look at the little pieces of hair peeking near her chin, and the forehead/temple).  She's not 25 anymore, and has some age lines, and veins, like ya know, a HUMAN BEING?

    Sheese.

    But the nose and teeth and lips are exaggerated like crazy.

    (I also posted this below).

    by delphine on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:19:35 AM PDT

•  I'm in Oklahoma

  And OK wingnuts are not OK.

  The good news is that there are less of them by the day.

  But the remainder are like cornered rabid dogs.  

  Beware.

  by BalanceSeeker on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:29:47 PM PDT

•  Gee, I thought it was an

  unretouched photo of Katherine Harris.

  by irishwitch on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:32:32 PM PDT

  •  No way

    On Harris' you'd definitely be able to see all the appropriate lines. Especially the lobotomy scars.

    by keirdubois on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:07:15 PM PDT

    •  She hasn't had the lobotomy

      yet.  She's just been marked for one.

      by delphine on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:20:43 AM PDT

  •  nope, no boobs

    can't be Katherine without the boobs hanging out all over the place.

    by shpilk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:39:40 PM PDT

  •  HHAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!

    by gailwax on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:02:07 PM PDT

•  Let Madam Speaker Know

  District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - [phone]

  Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - [phone]

  Her office should know so they can act.

  by jillian on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:35:50 PM PDT

  •  Good idea n/t

    by gypsy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:37:02 PM PDT

    •  Done! n/t

      by gypsy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:40:52 PM PDT

•  Yikes!!

  They made her look like a "Frankenstein" mix between Joan Rivers and Michael Jackson.  They have certainly stooped to an all new low.

  by Tainith on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:40:00 PM PDT

•  Thats typical GOP, try and crush the Dems by

  Caricature and outright slander and buse.

  And rethugs get pumped up by this.
  I can just see the big beer bellied, thin legged shaggy haired, cowboy boot strapping, humbly educated fellow putting the pic in his wallet and then showing the pic to his bunch of friends in a local pub and getting a good laugh.

  by wuod kwatch on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:52:20 PM PDT

•  I hate to say it

  But if the Dems lose a net of more than a seat or two in 2008, Pelosi and DCCC chair VanHollen have got to go after that election.  

  by UpstateDem on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:04:08 PM PDT

  •  Huh?

    Why?

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:06:32 PM PDT

    •  Me?

      I say this because if we lose seats with a President in office that has a 28% approval rating, there is something terribly wrong with our leadership.

      by UpstateDem on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:14:14 PM PDT

  •  I'd agree with that assessment

    but who in their right mind is seeing a loss of any seats in the House?

    Democrats should pick up at least another dozen seats in the House; I'llbe quite disappointed if they don't.

    They should be going for a 30 to 40 seat pickup.

    by shpilk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:36:37 PM PDT

    •  Im just saying

      That if we lose seats, the leadership needs to be changed.  I worry that the Democrats could fumble a great opportunity and blow the 2008 elections.  

      by UpstateDem on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:46:22 PM PDT

      •  Stick around here and read a bit

        You will find others who have since 2000 and 2004 been moving from your realistic worry to become hopeful enough to support and expand the fight for a change.

        At this site http://blog.actblue.com/... , for example, find out how you can contribute to fund candidates who will campaigning against republicans who voted to continue the war.

        by Creosote on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:26:02 PM PDT

•  While I do find the image disturbing

  How is this any different than any caricatures done of politicians from the beginning of print? Here is a Google search for some images. Some of the historical descriptions of Lincoln were anything but nice.

  Photoshop used like this does not strike me as much different than drawings--and political cartoons have always been brutal.

  by SeattleLiberal on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:14:23 PM PDT

  •  not the point

    They -- a state Republican Party, no less -- are not presenting it as a caricature. I would defend the right of an artist, cartoonist, activist, whatever to do this (on a public figure) but NOT to be deceptive about it.

    Besides which, at least in these parts, Republicans represent themselves (and many believe them) as being the epitome of all that is good, decent and honest. Therefore, this image indicates, once again, how hypocritical they really are.

    by gypsy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:21:39 PM PDT

    •  It could not be

      more obvious that it is a doctored picture. A cartoon. Photoshop has changed the way images will appear.

      I looked at the screenshot from the link you show. Where are they trying to say this is a "real" picture.

      I guess I am not sure what your point is if you understand that political caracitures are a form of free speech and protected under the First Amendment.

      by SeattleLiberal on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:26:59 PM PDT

      •  better tell espresso downthread ..

        he didn't get the memo

        by shpilk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:34:29 PM PDT

        •  espresso's a she....

          by espresso on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:00:25 AM PDT

  •  Such brutal political caricatures

    have become muted since the end of the Gilded Age.  We certainly have not seen them much over the past few decades.  That's why this photoshopping makes us feel so disgusted.

    by lazybum on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:26:37 PM PDT

    •  I'm disturbed by the image

      Photoshop has changed our perception of what is "real" and it will take some time to get used to it.

      I can't remember the show in Britian with the puppets but they were certainly brutal.

      by SeattleLiberal on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:32:08 PM PDT

      •  Spitting Images?

        I think that's it.

        by Tony Seybert on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:53:31 PM PDT

        •  That was it

          thanks.

          by SeattleLiberal on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:37:32 AM PDT

  •  Part of the difference

    between this and political cartoons is the basic difference between drawings/paintings and photography.

    Drawings are artistic renditions, whether insulting, comical, or accurate. Being inaccurate comes with the territory. The presence of an artist cannot be removed, so everyone knows that artistic biases are going to be present.

    Photography is more of a point-and-click sort of visual form. Someone seeing a photographic rendition expects it to be a 2D representation of what they might have seen in person in 3D. It's one thing to do a quick color and brightness adjustment to create good light or bad light. It's a slightly worse thing to do retouching, but still quite a bit accepted. Resizing parts of someone's face in an image and using it as one would use the original photograph is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

    by Cassandra Waites on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:29:04 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for putting it so well n/t

      by gypsy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:30:11 PM PDT

    •  I do photoshop and I believe

      this is no longer the case. Because I work with the software and have been known to change GWB and the Dood is famous here for doing some funny and totally unflattering images of politicians--I have to defend some images I don't like.

      I am not saying the image is not disturbing. I'm not supporting the use of the image but I really don't think there is a difference between what you describe and what I am seeing in the "picture" of the speaker. Our culture just has not realized how much Photoshop has altered what we consider art. It happened when photography was first invented and that medium is finally being accepted as pure art.

      I will step out now because I can tell this should have been one of those instances where I just agreed that it was a horrible image and moved on.

      by SeattleLiberal on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:39:50 PM PDT

      •  It's the use and the forum

        Caricature used as such is fine. This has no signs that it is anything but an unflattering photo unless one recognizes that her face does not look like that-look at some of the other comments, as even some people here thought it was real.

        When Dood does those famous Photoshop diaries, it doesn't take long to realize what is going on.

        This was put on a state-level political party website. There's a level of maturity and honesty that should be expected out of that forum that neither Dood nor a newspaper cartoonist is expected to reach.

        We've been arguing for honesty, maturity, and such from our politicians, but we're supposed to accept the opposite from the political party divisions they are affiliated with? Without saying, 'um, yeah, that's a bit over the ethical line there, bub' when they pull something like this?

        by Cassandra Waites on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:07:13 PM PDT

        •  Agreed--there is a HUGE difference between

          an interpretation of reality (e.g., editorial-cartoon caricature) which is clearly mediated & transformed by the artist, and reality itself, where there's no mediation except that of the camera lens. In this case the photoshopping is obvious to anyone who's messed around with the process, who recognize by the distortions that it's closer to caricature than portraiture--but it is NOT obvious to other folks, because enough of the shot is unaltered (or altered so little) from a photographic image to give the impression that ALL of the visual is an accurate representation of reality.

          Just FTR it doesn't always take photoshopping to produce a biased reproduction; often mere selectivity works just as well. I've been disturbed for years by how the "news media" slant visual (& auditory) coverage by choosing to show or play the least flattering photos or clips of those they don't like & the most flattering of those they do. (Cf. The Scream by Howard Dean.)

          I guess it's time to trot out that old Lazarus Long saw again:

          The second best way to lie is to tell the truth, but not all of it.

          by Uncle Cosmo on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:18:58 AM PDT

          •  And this

            may be part of my problem seeing this as something besides a manipulated image. I can see every warp, over-sharpen, mouth inversion/eye distortion. It screams photoshop.

            You make a very good point.

            by SeattleLiberal on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:31:29 AM PDT

        •  I don't disagree that there may be

          an ethical line crossed here. It is mean spirited and unecessary--but I am almost certain it would be protected under the First Amendment.  I don't have to like the image, and I certainly don't.

          I always forget that people have difficulty defending their opponent's First Amendment rights when they are angry.

          by SeattleLiberal on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:36:49 AM PDT

          •  The difference

            is whether in context it can be construed as truthful or not.

            You are allowed to lie provided the context makes it clear that you are lying (satire). See Colbert.

            You are not allowed to lie if the context suggests that you are telling the truth. See O'Reilly.

            The former may be painful to sit through, but the latter is illegal.

            by johnsonwax on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:43:26 AM PDT

  •  Easy

    What's the difference between slander and satire?

    One presents lies in a clearly comical context, suggesting they are not lies at all, while the other presents lies as facts.

    If you put Pelosi's face on a capuchin, that's satire. (See Dood's work, with text attached, to see what satire looks like.) When you do what's on the OK GOP page, that's slander. They're suggesting that Nancy really does look like that (it's not over-the-top enough to be obviously satire). They are presenting a lie as the truth.

    Photoshop is inherently different than drawings as a result. A drawing can never be construed as real. Photoshop can.

    by johnsonwax on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:39:37 AM PDT

•  here's an e-mail extraction from the okgop.com

  website

  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Email: [e-mail]

  FWIW - to try to link any of these e-mail addresses to the photoshopper [might they have a flckr or imagehost account, etc?] could prove to be interesting.

  People like to brag about their photoshop exploits, as we all know. I remember a certain Jane Hamsher that go into a little bit of hot water over a photoshop a while back .. remember that?

  Wouldn't it be fascinating to find other photoshopped works associated with any of those publicly listed e-mail addresses on the okgop.com website?

  Just sayin' - as it's all publicly available information.

  by shpilk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:22:11 PM PDT

  •  I checked with photoshop to see if

    the moron that did this was stupid enough to put his name [or to be fair her name] in there.

    No joy.

    But, a quick search for nancy_pelosi.jpg on google reveals this is an internet prank picture.

    While we all like Dood Abides work, I wouldn't want to see it on any official Democratic web site without some disclaimer that it is edited.

    Apparently, the GOP suffers no such need to meet any type of standard like that. How surprising is that?

    by shpilk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:33:05 PM PDT

•  It is a FACT that Nancy Pelosi. . .

  . . . once had (illegal?) aliens spring from the side of her head and attack a busload of nuns school children the Mormon Tabernacle Choir fetuses before the very eyes of Newt Gingrich's 2nd 3rd 417th wife doormat!

   I know this because a friend's cousin's accountant's secretary's son, who works at a Starbucks in Des Moines, overheard some guy who he thinks he may have once seen before, say it!

   Really!

   Hey!  C'mon!  Gimme a break:  it's better-sourced than 95% of Drudge's stuff!

  BenGoshi
  ____________________________________________________

  by BenGoshi on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:37:55 PM PDT

•  Can't say fo certain

  I use Photoshop a lot. Looking at it highly magnified, I can say the blush on the cheeks and nose looks like it was added in.

  There is a lot of variables at work here, so it's hard to say it was definitively one thing without an original to compare it to.

  Photography is weird-- the same person can look very different based on lens choice, exposure, etc. I once took a series of photos of a friend as she climbed a tree. One of them is the most beautiful photo I have ever taken. In every other photo in the series, she looks horrible. I would post them for illustration, but she would hunt me down and kill me.

  In Photoshop, there is a lot you can do to a photo without actually doctoring it. Play with the levels till a person is as red as a lobster or seaweed green. Use a little Unsharp Mask, and you make someone look like a Hollywood model. Use a little bit more and you make them look like Ruth Buzzy.

  The lips look like the work or the smudge tool, but people distort their faces in all sorts of ways when they aren't posing.

  Someone must have the original, right? That's the only way to prove this conclusively.

  by Olds88 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:48:52 PM PDT

  •  The nose does it for me

    The shape is TOTALLY different.

    by ganner918 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:33:32 PM PDT

  •  Her lips are not like that

    at all.

    She'd have to have just walked out of Meg Ryan's collagen guy's office to look like that.

    by delphine on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:40:08 PM PDT

  •  Here is what seems to be the original

    "brilliantly" photoshopped onto a vampire body (whaddall these guys come up with next?!!)

    

    So, yes, totally photoshopped bullshit.  You should see the other stuff they've done.  Nancy with a crown, Nancy looking like Michael Jackson, Nancy . . . well, they're scared shitless of Nancy Pelosi.

    Yay!  Go Nancy.

    by delphine on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:59:57 PM PDT

    •  Aha!

      Still, photography is a strange beast. Just look how different these two photos turned out because of different filters:

      

      The infrared hot mirror smoothes out skin tone but also reveals other marks.

      by Olds88 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:07:24 AM PDT

•  How do these people sleep at night? n/t

  by mischaDC on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:59:45 PM PDT

•  You said it.

  When will they ever grow up?

  by dem4evr on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:05:05 AM PDT

•  compare to this photo - see for yourself

  This photo of Pelosi is from 2002, taken from almost the exact same angle. The GOP photo is definitely manipulated - the nose is pointier and its slope exaggerated, teeth lengthened, chin shortened, eyes are sunken in and bloodshot, etc.

  by hatdog on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:20:28 AM PDT

•  ActBlue!

  The best way to deal with this is to start putting money in the Democratic Nominee Funds for Senate and the various Congressional Districts.

  Nothing we say will mean anything to them, but raising money will.

  It is unfortunate that I have already made my monthly political contribution, and will have to do Oklahoma next month, but it is now on my list.

  by Heyroot on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:34:42 AM PDT

•  Hey, whatever works!

  Fortunately, my spies tell me that in Conservative Western Pennsylvania Pelosi is gold. It's Senators Clinton and Obama they can't abide.

  Did you ever see the GOP short film of Pelosi as Darth Vader? Ad hominem. No substance, but big emotional impact.

  Look around YouTube and you'll find more anti-Pelosi material, ditto.

  I don't have a link, but Jesus' General did the #1 All Time Best photoshopping of a candidate:  (Mean) Jean Schmidt smiling...slightly exaggerated to the point where somebody, not knowing what she really looks like, said, "It looks like she's been catching too many frisbies between her teeth."

  by LNK on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:11:19 AM PDT

•  The bigger issue =

  If these people feel a need to feel "better than somebody else" then we need to give them something to feel good about.

  My mother warned me that stupid people are dangerous because they think they are smarter.

  So, play up their superiority complex.

  by LNK on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:13:37 AM PDT

•  Expect nothing less from a bunch of criminals

  For that is all the GOP has become, a herd of viscious criminal, who spit on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and trample it under their feet with their every action. They have tried to turn the USA government into a Stalinist state, with GOP appartchiks in every corner of government. We verge on a police state. They practice Orwellian tactics of media control, eternal war, and constant revisionism (as well as having very, very poor memory recall).

  These people are without conscience. They are evil.

  I am surprised by NOTHING like this by the GOP, in fact, I have come to expect it. It is their M.O., it is a window into their dark and diseased soul.

  by HeartlandLiberal on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:27:14 AM PDT