I know Bro's dont like to get too political. But Yo, this is crazy
The cover of Sunday’s New York Times Magazine a couple of weeks ago featured a garish photo of Democratic Presidential hopeful Mark Warner. The lighting, color correction and camera angle depict an individual who can only be described as a bastard love child between Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. Adjacent to the image is a button reading "The Anti-Hillary."

Straight up, the Times tried to make this dude look like a bucktooth, inbred, used car salesman when they introduced him to the nation. Why? Because right now, this dude is Hillary’s main competition and in a stroke of shameless and misguided activism, they aimed to assasinate him.



As it turns out, the Times was forced to issue a correction on this very photograph and admit that they changed the colors of his clothing and made his skin appear sallow. They tried to say it was a mistake, but take a look at what this dude really looks like. Here's what they said:

The cover photograph in The Times Magazine on Sunday rendered colors incorrectly for the jacket, shirt and tie worn by Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor who is a possible candidate for the presidency. The jacket was charcoal, not maroon; the shirt was light blue, not pink; the tie was dark blue with stripes, not maroon.

Now beyond being completely unethical, why were the Time's actions so misguided? Because nasty-ass Hillary has no shot to be president, not because she is a woman, but because Americans see her as lacking in integrity. This is partially because she accepted being a cuckold in a lifelong marriage for political gain and partially because since she has been in office she has played it safe the whole time, while clearly positioning herself for the 2008 race. Maybe this Warner guy doesn't have a shot either. I dont know. But I do know that this situation typifies why the left has been politically impotent in the past decade, and why John McCain will be the next president. Its because they would rather attack each other, and make decisions based on pride than put up the candidate most likely to win and steer the nation in a more positive direction. These folks have such a hard-on to say "We nominated the first woman to the presidency," that they are blind to the truth which is that Hillary Clinton is about as prepared to be president as George Bush was in 2000, with none of the chances of winning.