I'm going to have to look at this cover in person. I stared at the cover shot as posted, and I was like, what is wrong with this? What could they possibly find to argue about here? There are a few wrinkles, but really, she looks pretty good for 44.

I'm not a Palin supporter, but I do think she's beautiful. This cover, more than many other things, proves it.

And that Andrea woman is a moron!

I'm not a Palin supporter, but I do think she's beautiful. This cover, more than many other things, proves it.

And that Andrea woman is a moron!

So it doesn't surprise me some people are upset. But I, as a liberal hater that I am, I enjoyed the picture.

If they're legit she must have a pretty weak prescription. In my experience, prescription eyeglasses typically distort the size of the eye, and you'd see shifting at the edge of the lenses. In this pic neither are noticeable. Is it just a clever angle?

She keeps saying "This is mortifiying" and its not ... its normal.

Also, from what I can tell on my monitor, it is somewhat retouched. It's not fashion-photography retouched, but it's what you'd expect from editorial photography.

Besides, I'd prefer my politicians have a little yellow on their teeth like I want my pilots to have a little gray on their head. If Photoshop didn't whiten those teeth, they're bleach to all hell.

She thinks THAT is as bad or unedited as they could get it? This woman as NO. IDEA.

Try looking at this same photo with no adjusted levels, no color correction, no editing out of the background flaws or imperfections. With its less-than-perfect lighting (as ALL LIGHTING is in reality). I'm 100% sure she looks much, much worse in the REAL unedited photo.

And, quite frankly, I thought this cover was extremely flattering! She's 44 for god sakes! Editing out every wrinkle would be a BAD THING for a VP candidate. She already looks too young- any younger and people may be worried about a twenty-something year-old a heartbeat from the president instead of a 44 year old idiot.

What a bunch of hacks at Fox News. I bet somebody at the show did a quick google to look for Obama's Time cover shots and skipped over this one in favor of that "halo" shot. Those fucking ass-clowns.

I figured that's why they only showed the one eye...

The problem I have with the cover is the text. "She's one of the folks (and that's the problem)" Newsweek says. What's wrong with being one of the folks? I may not like Palin, but my dislike of her has absolutely nothing to do with her being "one of the folks". I know plenty of absolutely brilliant "folks". It's ridiculous.

And so insulting. This would never be a discussion were she a man.

the assumption is that the actual face of a woman is FLAWED.

The subtext is even funnier -- the GOP spokeswoman is more TV-attractive and taking the position designed to incite -- all candidates should be shown literally in their most favorable light at all times. The opposing, "body-positive feminist" view is delivered by a fleshier, less-angular spokeswoman who merely smiles and says she thinks Palin looks great. This second woman is the main message that this segment is transmitting -- it's a faux-feminist "real women have flaws" spin aimed straight at Hillary voters. The "MSM hates Palin" angle is secondary, a Trojan Horse.

At no point in the discussion does the issue of Palin's views on policy or record on supporting women's rights come up.

"you'll just have to trust me", sheesh...

This is the greatest example of talking head leading commentary. FOX news thinks adding the or is there one?" makes them fair and balanced. It's sooooo disturbing from a Media Matters perspective!

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm