Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 14, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

HI-DEF BUSH....Last night Andrew Sullivan wrote that George Bush seemed "almost broken to me...his affect exhausted, his facial expression almost bewildered." Today he offers a second opinion:

I should say that I watched Bush in high-definition, and on regular TV, he didn't look so exhausted.

Clearly we're seeing a technology paradigm shift at work. Just as Richard Nixon "lost" the 1960 debate because, although he sounded fine on radio, he looked bad on TV, so modern politicians are going to have to learn to look good even when they're looming over their audience on 80-inch HD plasma screens. Looking good on a scratchy 32-inch tube doesn't cut it anymore. I predict booming business for a whole new generation of media advisors and skin care consultants.

Kevin Drum 12:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (75)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Or maybe people should just stop watching these guys.

Posted by: tomeck on September 14, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

He didn't look so great on our old 24-incher, either. But maybe that's me.

Cats look great at any resolution (hint, hint.)

Posted by: thersites on September 14, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

I read a funny article a while ago about how this is also a problem for the p0rn industry. One of many similarities between the two industries.

Posted by: y81 on September 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to have to get that hi-def TV. I want to see the Republicans demoralized and losing.

lol

Posted by: Swan on September 14, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hi-def ? For this??? What a waste of technology.

Posted by: junebug on September 14, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Lesser technology didn't help his performance. High-tech just made the problems more glaring.

Some of it was due to staging. The teleprompter has never been so far from the camera lens. The guy gave his speech to some unknown soldier 2 ft. off the screen to the right.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on September 14, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Sully watched that speech again? On two different televisions??? He needs to get out more.

Posted by: Tony on September 14, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Did Reed have a cold?

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on September 14, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

high definition won't improve the content, bs is still bs.

Posted by: supersaurus on September 14, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Bush actually came off better than I expected last night. I am so used to incoherent nonsense and garbage speeches, I guess its the soft bigotry of low expections at work here.

I will say, he does more or less look like crap, but so do pretty much all Presidents in their 2nd term.

Posted by: Joshua on September 14, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the demise of Shrub and Ron Jeremy - hand in hand off into the sunset.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 14, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm. I did too! Haven't seen Bush on regular TV, so don't know.

But it won't change my opinion.

Posted by: Tony Shifflett on September 14, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, I thought Bush looked fine on regular TV (and I hate the guy.)
I'll be politically incorrect here. Why the hell did the Dems put Jack Reed on? He has that New England, slightly effeminate voice that allows wingers to stereotype Dems as sissies. Jim Webb did a great job last time -- why not put him on again? Who the heck makes these decisions?

(Nothing against Reed who I am sure is a nice, honorable guy. He just gives off a Dukakis vibe.)

Posted by: Teresa on September 14, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

My prediction is that by 2012 the candidates will appear as hyperreralistic CGI versions of themselves a la Sin City and 300.

Posted by: Matt on September 14, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

A couple of months ago I was walking through Best Buy and saw HDTV for the first time (I threw out my TV in 2001, don't want it in my house). It's pretty stunning. But it may tell us more truth about our public figures'lousy skin, thinning hair, malign twitches, lip-curling lies, and pale flab than we ever wanted to know. It's pretty clear that America is not interested in whether the guy they voted for is a lyin' piece of pond scum. Someone will doubtless market a "softening" device for those huge, revealing screens and two bits that someone is a Republican.

Posted by: pw on September 14, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

The detached, fatigued look... Maybe it is the realization that what James Baker recently said is sinking into his thick head: "Foreign policy isn't social work"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II06Ak02.html
...Or maybe the White House staff recently done an intervention.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on September 14, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

I predict a demand for real-time automatic hi-def video "enhancement" to do cleanup of people. You could disguise skin blemishes, five-o-clock shadow, even add hair or a tan. There are already digital cameras that do "slimming", with enough compute power you could do that with video.
Just have to control the feed to the networks.

Posted by: JeffL on September 14, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

It would have been good if Sullivan had said whether he had watched Bush on high-def in the past, or if this was really his first time.

Obviously, the baseline of expectations is what would be critical here; maybe Bush always looked this way on high-def.

Posted by: frankly0 on September 14, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Can hardly wait for the BlueWave DVD of Shrub's speech - Of course, I can hardly wait for the cold day in Hell, when I will buy a BlueWave DVD player.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Back in '94, Neal Stephenson (in his novel "Interface") predicted that HD would make our current crop of politicians -- raised on pancake makeup and the exaggerated gestures necessary to get through a fuzzy 19" screen on broadcast TV -- look like garish, overemoting "clowns." Politicians who couldn't adapt to the "film"-like qualities of HD would find themselves like Nixon against Kennedy -- and out of a job.

Be interesting to see how close to the mark he was.

Posted by: WatchfulBabbler on September 14, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I predict that eventually our candidates will be CGI-generated animations, rather than real people. They never have five-o-clock shadow (unless someone thinks they look better that way).

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on September 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Oops! I see that Matt beat me to the punch.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on September 14, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Please tell me why anyone should give a flying fuck about darling Andy's "impressions"? Jesus, it's no wonder the twit loves America so much -- where the hell else can you make such a sweet living gazing at your own navel, and typing about it?!?!

Posted by: sglover on September 14, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Big Brother" will look good on any size screen.

Posted by: R.L. on September 14, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

He's always looked idiotically cock-sure and sounded like the not-so-bright school yard bully/privileged frat boy just kept in check. You've never needed high definition electronics of any kind to understand this.

Posted by: JeffII on September 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

One thing I noticed about politicians in recent years ("recent" meaning "since 1964") is that their speeches are almost completely free of the poetic eloquence of politicians of the past. I'm thinking of Lincoln's Gettysburgh address or FDR's "fear" speech or JFK's "ask not" speech. Politicians don't talk that way anymore.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on September 14, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Can hardly wait for the BlueWave DVD of Shrub's speech - Of course, I can hardly wait for the cold day in Hell, when I will buy a BlueWave DVD player.
Posted by: thethirdPaul

If this technological tussle shakes out the way VHS/BetaMax did, you may have no choice, AND YOU'LL LIKE IT! You whiny Birckenstock shod Bolshie Oregonian. That you don't have a center any more.

Posted by: JeffII on September 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

One thing I noticed about politicians in recent years ("recent" meaning "since 1964") is that their speeches are almost completely free of the poetic eloquence of politicians of the past.

That's true. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Ted Kennedy's great "the dream shall never die" speech at the '80 convention...and that was by far the best speech of his life. And it still would have sounded better delivered by someone less jerky and wooden.

Obama's speech at the '04 convention was quite eloquent and elegant, but it was more notable for its flawless delivery than for its content. Certainly not in the top tier of great American political speeches.

Posted by: shortstop on September 14, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Both sides' partisans and those independents who've made up their minds will see what they want to see: either a tired, confused liar or a determined, focused leader. I'm astonished Al hasn't already 'explained' again what a great man his president is, to be answered by the equally predictable assertions that W's a devolved buffoon. We've long passed the era when either side could be persuaded by evidence and dialogue from the other. Therefore, I don't see technology changing the image consultants job very much. They'll keep doing what they've done since the advent of TV.

Posted by: nightshift66 on September 14, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

One thing I noticed about politicians in recent years ("recent" meaning "since 1964") is that their speeches are almost completely free of the poetic eloquence of politicians of the past.

In a way, this is all the more odd since mostly the job of writing those speeches lies with a crew of speechwriters. John Kennedy's famous speeches were composed by others, for example.

Really what's changed, pretty obviously, is the expectation about how a politician should speak nowadays. It's like they must do method politics in analogy to method acting -- which likewise undermined the sort of elevated dialog of the cinema and theater.

Posted by: frankly0 on September 14, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Birkenstock? Why, I'll have you know that I wore Anywears which were started in SoDo by the guy who used to own the Clog store in Pioneer Square - Of course, being made by a right wing Dubber, they were always tilting to the right.

Have switched to those marvelous Muck Boots - So much better to slog through the muck and mire of Quack Land.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 14, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Just a tech comment but I'm pretty sure that Bush's speech was not broadcast in High Def. Just because you have a HD TV doesn't mean the broadcast is in High Def. You have to have HD cameras for that, and the stations need to send out a HD signal. I have an HDTV and I watched the speech on the networks, switching between channels, and none of them were broadcasting it in HD, to my eye.

Of course it's true that on bigger TV you might notice more detail than on a smaller TV, even if the signal is still Standard Definition.

As for me, I had to turn it off after the first few sentences when Bush said this was a moment when the American people would decide whether they are courageous, terror-fighting, etc., or not. That was a signal that this was just propaganda and political positioning.

Posted by: Huckleberry on September 14, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Really what's changed, pretty obviously, is the expectation about how a politician should speak nowadays. It's like they must do method politics in analogy to method acting -- which likewise undermined the sort of elevated dialog of the cinema and theater. Posted by: frankly0

That, and to flog the cliche, Dems have pretty much always wanted the smartest guy in the room. However, the great unwashed now are all intimidated by a candidate that isn't willing to talk down to them and appears as if he or she might actually have something more than a HS diploma.

Posted by: JeffII on September 14, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

However, the great unwashed now are all intimidated by a candidate that isn't willing to talk down to them and appears as if he or she might actually have something more than a HS diploma.

Good point. Mighty big difference between Ted Sorenson and that half-literate Peggy Noonan.

Posted by: frankly0 on September 14, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
I predict booming business for a whole new generation of media advisors and skin care consultants.

And I predict that the media will relentless mock candidates for using expensive media advisors and skin care consultants . . . if the candidates are Democrats.

Posted by: treetop on September 14, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I was about to buy a HD TV, but then the bank foreclosed on my ARM house.

So, I couldn't tell if the Preznit looked exhausted.

Posted by: Slothrop on September 14, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Huckleberry

I bounced through my broadcast network lineup and only one of them (I think NBC)had the speech in hi-def. And it was true hi-def, at least until they had some glitches and suddenly switched it to standard def. I'll admit I only watched a small snatch of the speech as I can't stand listening to the man, but I didn't think he looked any better in either format.

Posted by: jimBOB on September 14, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Already almost cost Kerry at least one vote in 2004 - his big craggy face scared my sister to death on her big sceen. She said he looked like one of the trees that throws apples in the Wizard of Oz. I think she ended up voting for him anyway though.

I'm afraid to watch Fred Thompson outside of the Law & Order set and makeup.

Posted by: Dawn on September 14, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

And it was true hi-def, at least until they had some glitches and suddenly switched it to standard def.

My favorite part was when his mouth moved independently and he looked like a talking photo from Conan O'Brien.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 14, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

at least until they had some glitches and suddenly switched it to standard def.

Speaking of glitches, who was shaving, blowdrying and weed whacking in the background while Reed was talking?

Already almost cost Kerry at least one vote in 2004 - his big craggy face scared my sister to death on her big sceen. She said he looked like one of the trees that throws apples in the Wizard of Oz.

The Guardian columnist who described Kerry as looking like a haunted tree (maybe your sister read him? Or maybe he plagiarized your sister) had the funniest line of the 2004 campaign season. Not that anything about that season was particularly comical.

Posted by: shortstop on September 14, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like some of you to weigh in on the hi-def porn thing. Kev, don't delete me, this is relevant to the post topic (for sake of comparison).

Posted by: Swan on September 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Might want to give the Playboy Channel and the porn thing a rest, Swan--if no one's laughed by the third or fourth try, they're probably not going to.

Posted by: shortstop on September 14, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

If hi-def doesn't revolutionize porn, we'll just have to wait for the next great invention.


Waiting.....

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on September 14, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Might want to give the Playboy Channel and the porn thing a rest, Swan--if no one's laughed by the third or fourth try, they're probably not going to.Posted by: shortstop

And this from a woman posting about "weed whacking." I'm just sure!

Posted by: JeffII on September 14, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

But I never expected anyone to laugh, Jeffy.

Posted by: shortstop on September 14, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Bush has never been a good liar. One can tell he is not comfortable. Clinton, on the other hand, really seemed to relish the challenge of getting in trouble and smooth talking his way out of it. Typical hillbilly hustler and charm boy.

On integrity, Bush > Clinton
On judgement, Bush

Posted by: Luther on September 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, didn't print. try again

On judgement Bush

Posted by: luther on September 14, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Still doesn't print

What I am trying to say is that Bush's judgement is worse than about anyone one could think of.

Posted by: Luther on September 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

What I am trying to say is that Bush's judgement is worse than about anyone one could think of.

It's apparently better than yours, if after the last six years you actually believe Bush has more integrity than Clinton.

Posted by: shortstop on September 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you are completely wrong about this.

Very few people will be watching this on HD. The vast numbers of people will be seeing this on a 2"x2" screen surrounded by advertising, snarky comments, and even b00bies.

The trick is to look good when people are looking/listening to you while commuting, walking, exercising, and cheating their employers.

Posted by: jerry on September 14, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

I have to call "bullshit" on Teresa's post. If the Dems had a lick of sense (ahhh...to live in such a world), they'd drop Harry and elect Jack as their majority leader. He's a hard working, hard-hitting guy with just the creds necessary to take on the Republicans. Add to that, this fairly impressive biography:
After graduating from West Point and receiving an active duty commission in the United States Army, Reed attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University where he received a Masters of Public Policy. Reed, an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon leader, a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He returned to West Point in 1978 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences.

Reed resigned from the Army as a Captain in 1979 and enrolled at Harvard Law School. In 1982, he graduated from Harvard.

I caan almost guarantee that if Jack were heading the Democratic effort in the Senate instead of Harry, we'd see better results than have been apparent of late.

Posted by: Ex-Pat on September 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Ex-Pat,

Teresa was refering to Jack's superficialities: voice, delivery, etc. As unfair as it may be, it's more in play than ever these days.

Many people considered Gore's southern drawl to be condescending (maddeningly so). Far too many votes get decided by voter reactions to such superficial characteristics.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on September 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Just as Richard Nixon "lost" the 1960 debate because, although he sounded fine on radio, he looked bad on TV

Supposely, about the time he was considering running again in '68, Tricky Dick asked an up and coming TV producer named Roger Ailes what he could do to prevent a repetition of the '60 debacle. Ailes supposedly told him to get a good suntan. Nixon bought his house in Key Biscayne shortly thereafter, and Ailes went on to a rewarding, if evil, career as a GOP media operative.

Don't know what the magic cosmetics bullet will be for hidef. Plastic surgery? If so, McCain's gonna have some BIG doctor's bills.

Posted by: Peter Principle on September 14, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Might want to give the Playboy Channel and the porn thing a rest, Swan--if no one's laughed by the third or fourth try, they're probably not going to.

I'm laughing, which is what I'm going for, mostly.

It's conspicuous that you write something like this when it's not a custom of these comments for us all to waste space by virtually 'laughing' at each others jokes. It seems the exception rather than the rule that someone writes to say that what someone else wrote was funny.

Anyway, I'm just waging psywar against the trolls by making it uncomfortable for them to post here- referring to the well-known fact that Republicans are hypocritical wankers.

What's the problem, bud?

Posted by: Swan on September 14, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, how about, once a day from now on, one new handle will post a comment with an unreasonable objection to my comments that will stand out as really odd to all the Washington Monthly readers.

Posted by: Swan on September 14, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

This way you can all take turns showing people who you are.

Posted by: Swan on September 14, 2007 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Bush could start by trimming those sloppy, up-sloping eyebrows - they make him look really bewildered, even more than he probably is.

Posted by: Neil B. on September 14, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Really what's changed, pretty obviously, is the expectation about how a politician should speak nowadays.

More obviously, the great majority of the audience wouldn't know who they were referencing, unless they quoted some sitcom character.

Posted by: Vicente Fox on September 14, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

On the modern politician eloquence issue: Actually, compare to ANYTHING Lincoln ever said, not just the Gettysburg address. Or any speech of ole Winston Churchill. Or check out Eisenhower's farewell speech (the one about the "military industrial complex", which by the way was originally gonna be the "military industrial Congressional complex.") Which reminds me: "Why We Fight", centered on that speech, out on DVD and very much worth watching.

Posted by: emjayay on September 14, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

I've thought these things about Bush for years. People always talk about Bush's youth and beauty and miraculous vitality, blah, blah, blah, and then you see close-up photographs of Bush showing his fat, aging neck, puffy face, and a face covered in hugely enlarged pores, thanks to that Texas sun.

It's disgusting. And you know he's going to have skin-cancer lesions on his face surgically removed. He may not be George Hamilton, but his skin does look precancerous. It probably stinks, too, in that precancerous way.

Posted by: Anon on September 14, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

high definition won't improve the content, bs is still bs.

Ah, but now it's hi-def bs!

Posted by: Sasha on September 14, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Swan: Usually when people repeat something over and over, they're looking for a reaction or a response. But now that you've explained that your posts here are basically you talking to yourself, I see I've misjudged you.

Anon: People always talk about Bush's youth and beauty and miraculous vitality, blah, blah, blah

I don't doubt that these people exist, but I feel fortunate never to have had to listen to anyone talk about Smirky's "beauty." That, on top of everything else, would be Too Much.

Posted by: shortstop on September 14, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

We talk about our leader's youth, beauty and miraculous vitality at all of our Bund, er camp meetings.

Next year, he has promised to buy us all uniforms, 10 Speeds and take us camping in al-Anbar.

Posted by: Bush Youth Group Brigade on September 14, 2007 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Has that great Defensive Player of the infield, begun someone's Swan Song?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 14, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

We talk about our leader's youth, beauty and miraculous vitality at all of our Bund, er camp meetings.

Next year, he has promised to buy us all uniforms, 10 Speeds and take us camping in al-Anbar.
Posted by: Bush Youth Group Brigade

"10 Speeds," how quaint.

Posted by: JeffII on September 14, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Mountain bikes are getting too expensive.

Posted by: stupid git on September 14, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Oh gosh, if you can catch PBS Newshour as Jim Lehrer a s he interviews of Defense Robert Gates and actual puts a little (and very little compared how these same press guys put the screws to Bill Clinton) so that it was somewhat interesting.

Newshour is usually so polite too - it sickening, watching the press and media any more.

I miss Sam Donaldson - hard hitting journalist have either been fired or they are died now. Bush has been the most kid-glove handled super nasty, super stupid Preznet ever in US history. It's a surreal joke.

Most of today's journalist just make me sick with their committed ass-kiss to Bush no matter how ridicules this administration gets- they act like the stupid comments are simply common tactics for Bush to be completely nuts.


Posted by: Me_again on September 14, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Bush, the unelected criminal, was probably tired from staying up late, making all those plans to bomb Iran.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 14, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

In 2001, a few days after 9/11, Bush gave that big speech to congress. I was at work, and I watched a realvideo feed from cnn.com (online video was a lot more novel then). I was surprised at how excellent the speech was--I loathed him, but I had to hand it to him, he'd done a nice job on it.

Then I went home and turned on the TV. Not high-def or anything, just your basic 19-inch color set. It happened the network was rerunning the speech... and Bush looked like complete buffoon, like he always had before.

So I figured, whatever quality it is in Bush that makes him seem like an idiot to me, it requires fairly high bandwidth to deliver.

Apparently the same phenomenon is at work today.

Posted by: Evan on September 14, 2007 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Another must see is tonight's Bill Moyers Journal.

And Charlie Rose interviews General Betray Us tonight.

Bushie has found a general that was every bit as dense, vain and stupid as Bush himself is - and Charlie ask about the late Sheik Abu Risha and about his protection (or lack thereof).

General Betray Us was quick to point out that the Sheik simply "wasn't paying attention" ( that imbecil Sheik Risha) so obviously Bush couldn't spare any money for Blackwater guards to provide for even the slightest bit of protection to a his only supporter in Iraq, so that not a even a slight amount of leverage in Iraq is important to Bush (hell, his kids are dying in war).

Bushie and Cheney just keep blowing it over and over and over again. the Bushie are the BIGGEST advertisement against doing business with Western Oil contractors that big oil money could buy. The message is clear "Bush does not provide for people what would help him."

Bush just keeps letting al Qaeda win.

Posted by: Me_again on September 14, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Scripted speeches and orange-colored make up for television are one thing. But that smug mug, that smirk, the beady, insincere eyes, the mangled language, the vision of him giving the middle finger to us all as he succeeds in destroying this country, the horror and disgrace of what he did to Iraq--and there he is, as described by historians, in serious contention for the title of worst ever, a failure,a most calamitous president. Best political article ever may have been the one by historian Sean Wilentz, who noted
"Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance..."

Posted by: consider wisely always on September 15, 2007 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

By the 2012 presidential election, we'll be, what, six years into the HD-TV era. And some talking head will belittle some candidate for spending "only" $400 for hairstyling.

Posted by: allbetsareoff on September 15, 2007 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

When I replaced my old 19" with a 27" a few years back, I noticed how much uglier everyone was. Makes me fear 1080P...

Posted by: doug r on September 15, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

The CNN website video clips make everyone look like Charles Bukowski.

Posted by: Caslon on September 15, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

rbumzln oncdqbmf lduxwepz uokyncqb xemnlubdr txhjpmgna ylejdgw cemzvg uxlzvm

Posted by: mxbcp fzwru on January 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly