Hee hee, looks like they took Krauthammer's face-saving advice.

Wow.

Now I'm very worried. Very.

Man, if only this had happened a year ago.

A year ago I was in Ohio, working my ass off for no pay to get Kerry elected. And we lost by 100,000 votes.

≡ Click to see image ≡

my baloney has a first name
it's H-A-R-R-I-E-T...

Her face is made from silly putty.

omiewise,

Why are you worried?

A person who wasn't eminently qualified to be on the Court withdrew her nomination. That is a good thing.

Assuming we get someone eminently qualified to replace her, that would be a good thing, yes?

I think omiewise is justifiably afraid for the president's political life, dios.

You know, I'm not sure having someone qualified is as good as having someone dumb and pliable. Dumb and pliable beats smart, evil and filled with agenda. At least we could be reasonably sure that Harriet wasn't going to start anything - she was just going to ride along.

Did you see the resignation letter:

Dear George Bush.

I'm writing to tell you that my nomination is over with. It was real nice being the nominee for awhile. I really wanted to work on the Supreme Court and make abortion illegal and make torture legal. But these questions from the Senate is just so tough to answer!!!

I really hope we can still be friends. Good luck finding someone who will legalize the Bible and who is a minority or a woman.
-H

* COUGH *

It's gonna be Robert Bork with bits of tape used to pull the corners of his eyes back so he looks "ethnic".

The first image below was posted on CNN's front page at the time this story broke, only to be replaced later by the second one.

Anyone have any idea why they seem to have prefered the second image?

How would you feel about sharing your favorite of the two with us?

≡ Click to see image ≡

Why does what she looks like matter one bit?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is uglier, and I don't recall that being an issue with her.

This lady is, from all accounts, a good natured person. She just wasn't as eminently qualified for the job as we should demand. So she withdrew.

Why kick her for her looks?

The first image below was posted on CNN's front page at the time this story broke, only to be replaced later by the second one.

Anyone have any idea why they seem to have prefered the second image?

How would you feel about sharing your favorite of the two with us?

Where did I kick her, dios?

My questions were seriously about the editorial choice.

Both pictures are nearly identical so I wondered why the change-- that's all.

That's why it's so hard to replace O'Connor. She's such a hottie.

The second photo is more flattering and it's obviously been tweaked a bit.

I don't care what she looks like.

Fair enought, dfowler. I suppose you didn't. But I have seen comments like that and find that kind of ill will and hatred to be contemptible. My apologies for associating you with that mindset if that wasn't your attention.

I see how it appeared that I was making fun of her by posting the images, but you know how the little things often stand out? I noted the slight adjustment in the image and wondered about how images are micromanaged as part of telling a news story.

She looks less disappointed in the replacement photo to me, and I figured the change was intended to keep her from appearing so glum.

stolen from elsewheres:

"If the radical secularist liberal left has its way, Israel will be history, there'll be a orgy bathouse on every corner, drive thru abortions at McDonalds, and our president will be a mexican transexual movie star in a bi-certain relationship with an adopted rain forest pet monkey and a white "aryan" butler just for laughs."

... and now the original image is back where it was. Check it out. Bizarre.

You know, I'm not sure having someone qualified is as good as having someone dumb and pliable. Dumb and pliable beats smart, evil and filled with agenda.

I wish I lived in a country where we didn't assume that people are gonna promote their agenda on the freakin' supreme court. I'm not snarking at you, mgl, just at the fact that the argument is over beliefs and not competence. Harriet Miers didn't have the chops to be there, and I'm glad she's withdrawn.

The second photo is more flattering and it's obviously been tweaked a bit.

I think it's just the opposite.

In the first photo, the glance is upward, the lighting is not even but there is a subtle key light off her shoulder, she is framed off-center toward the right. It's more hopeful and forward-looking.

The downward glance in the second photo reads more pensively, saying "I have failed." We see those chiseled wrinkles are caked with the powder of her foundation mask. The use of the closeup shot in a news context indicates that the subject is undergoing some emotional state, but juxtaposed with the first photo perhaps CNN wanted to send the message that she's out of options -- there's no place for her to go. If the photo has been tweaked, then it was to bring out the reds in her skin tone, perhaps to suggest embarrassment. That, I imagine is what the hack photo editor at CNN.com was thinking.

You know, each time I look at her face I see something new. Oh to know what truly lies behind that plastered-on grimace!

He got his own blog, fuckwits.

at least she knew to finally leave.
"you won't have [blank] to kick around any more"