Interesting comparison:

[sarahmichelef]

Results of Google Image search for "Hillary Clinton"
Results of Google Image search for "Barack Obama"

Compare them... what do you notice?

Comments

[splagxna.livejournal.com]

...? well, 1. there's a lot more couple photos for hillary, 2. a lot more negative stuff.

is that what you were seeing?

[cranky-dragon.livejournal.com]

I actually thought there would be a bigger disparity (in terms of negative Clinton pictures). The more striking difference is how much longer she's been in the public eye.

[peregrinning.livejournal.com]

What I've been noticing for a while now.
- People love to promote bad, insulting pictures of presidential candidates.
- People have a hard time promoting bad, insulting pictures of Barack Obama.

Google results are primarily based on popularity, so the most popular pictures rise to the top.

The bad and insulting pictures of Hillary Clinton are very popular. It seems there are a lot of people out there who want her to look bad. The flavor of bad varies: crazy, angry, stiff, prissy, you name it.

There just isn't that level of long-term hatred with Barack Obama. There is also quite a bit of adoration of Obama, which means the flattering pictures are more popular.

Also, in my opinion, it is difficult to get a bad or insulting picture of Obama without crossing the line into insulting based on racial characteristics. You can publish a picture of George Bush that implies he looks like a monkey, and people laugh. Do the same with Barack Obama (not that he looks like a monkey), and you might get labeled for racism.

So, in short, you get ugly pics of Hillary, and pretty pics of Barack.

That's my opinion.

[brewergnome.livejournal.com]

Hillary looks cranky more and Barack is better at taking photos.

And Hillary's been around in the public eye longer to have bad photos taken.