The Hillary Code

In the 2004 Presidential campaign, The BAG spent a good deal of time tracking and detailing the visual stereotyping of John Kerry.

In '04, it was typical to see Kerry depicted mostly alone (even in a crowded room), looking introspective or sad (again, even in a crowded room), and often reduced in scale in some way.  (For the most recent example, look how The Times went "2-for-3" yesterday in this visual and verbal thrashing of Kerry after he decided not to run again.)

Ramping up for '08, Hillary Clinton enters the contest already branded with a negatively-coded visual.  The device involves her profile.

Besides the full page portrait (above) that appears in the latest Vanity Fair, take a look at these covers from two attack books, one by Tyrell and the other by Troy.  (Also included is Michael Tomasky's cover, far right. His book, chronicling Hillary's Senate victory, is recognized as a positive portrayal, but still paints Clinton as enigmatic.)

     

Here's the danger for Mrs. Clinton.

The profile has the capacity to reinforce Hillary as two-dimensional, as more object than person.  It can convey that she's more concerned with where she's going than what she's doing.   It can cue for detachment -- that she isn't that interested in face time with others, including you and me. And it can float the suggestion that she's got a hidden side and an inside, duplicitous agenda.

Of course, a profile isn't automatically negative, just as this Vanity Fair shot is not inelegant.  Where the problem arises, however, is when the angle or view becomes stereotypical, associated with doubts or criticisms about the candidate, and then replicated over and over by the visual press.

In Kerry's case, for example, his consistent portrayal as isolated or split, formed a caricature.  Sure, Kerry may be less  gregarious or single-minded than other politicians, but after repeated visual depiction a certain way -- paired with the media's descriptive stereotypes and the opposition's verbal tags (such as "flip-flopper" or "unfit for command"), what gets built is a damaged portrait.  In contrast to a political cartoon, however, where the exaggeration is obvious, people don't tend to read political photos -- not consciously, at least -- as being overly accentuated or stereotypical.

Because there are profiles and there are profiles, I was interested in VF's last line above. It reads:

"Ever present is her reputation for being calculating and mercurial, but that might just be a sign that she's making all the right moves."

Of course, it's incredibly early, with hardly a sense there's a race on.  Let's come back in six months, however.  Then we'll check for reverberations in the increasingly common HRC side view.

(New ending added: 12:26 pm EST)

(image 1: Richard Phibbs.  New York.  Vanity Fair.  February 2007.  p.64. image 2: Mike Albans/A.P.  File photo on January 2007 newswire.  photographed: September 20, 2001. via YahooNews.com)

Comments

[Garbo]

FWIW, my immediate reaction to the image was positive; she is portrayed in the pose we often see used for Presidents on coins.

[Darryl]

I agree with the profile comments made and the older profile from the book is atrocious, but the Vanity Fair one is excellent! In fact I think it's the picture of her that I like the most. She looks healthy and strong, kind and forthright even. It has a Norman Rockwell quality - and that still remains always a good thing. Even the little flag is in the right place and I don't usually go for that stuff.

Plus the text, starting with The Force is great. I find myself not wanting to read the script and rather look again at the picture, but with a title like The Force how can I not turn my attention?

I give this one 10/10. You can of course debate all the visual styles and strategies there are but when it's done very well it goes a long way nonetheless.

[margaret]

Okay, guys, the reason for showing her in profile is (like many women her age) that she looks better in profile....you don't see that hard mouth and the jowls that are beginning to form on either side of her mouth when her face is relaxed, as it were. (It's never relaxed, as I've noticed. She always seems to have some hard thoughts going on in her head.) When she smiles, she is also pretty, but, that isn't so "presidential," is it? So, the profile works for several reasons...she can smile and not look "femininly vulnerable" and she can "look like the profile on a coin."

[catfood]

It is possibly worth noting that in all three examples she is looking to the left. Literally, in the case of the profile shot, and to her left (stage/cover left?) in the other two photos. The right-wing will always depict her as a loony liberal, despite the fact that as the queen of triangulation she straddles every issue.

[donna]

Well, to the right wing, everyone left of them is a loony liberal. That's how they've pushed us further and further to the right.

I think the entire right-wing is insane, myself.

[mugatea]

Holy Viktor Yushchenko face Bagman.

Not Hill > Kerry looks awful in that link. Is he okay?

btw ... to find Yushchenko's name I did a Google Images search for 'poisoned, face' – after several Yushchenkos ... the ninth image was of John Kerry.

[Lynn]

That first portrait is beautiful -- excellent. The absence of anything in the background, and he forward gaze, make her look visionary -- forward thinking. As though she is seeing the future. It's very flattering, and makes her look presidential.

[lowly grunt]

I like her hair in the top photo.

Okay, I'm superficial. But I really like it.

[Night Owl]

Daryll,

Plus the text, starting with The Force is great.

I actually got quite the opposite feeling, because it immediately called to mind another Force-ful character who liked to dress in all black.

[Johanna]

I don't see a visionary. I see a preening, self satisfied woman, still the class valedictorian. I don't see the depth of expression that years, and her vast experience, should have added. She's so shallow compared to Obama.

[R. Dickson]

I don't care which way they turn her head. The late August Saint-Gaudens could have done a relief on a gold coin or a panel in bronze of her profile and I still wouldn't vote for her.

[ggb]

I don't see the depth in pictures that you do, but one thing is very obvious - Hillary's hair and clothing are much more flattering when she is posing for a photo. She's a smart lady, no doubt, but is sadly lacking in chosing a wardrobe that SUITS HER (compare Hillary and Nancy Pelosi's style). I am sure Hillary's clothes cost a bundle, but they often look wrinkled and too tight and downright frumpy - and the colours - the pastel yellows in the dead of winter, ugh! And, please, the pearls may be your signature, but the big, short, choker strand just does not cut it with everything she wears. Why isn't someone honest with her?

[readytoblowagasket]

A contemporary photographic interpretation of the cameo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo

Classic. Majestic.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/jucl/ho_42.11.30.htm
http://tinyurl.com/ynqjob
http://tinyurl.com/29cb6w
http://tinyurl.com/ywlchl

Interesting.

[Unbreathless]

The first thought I had was regarding the caption and what "The Force" could imply. Being a sci-fi fan... well you know what I thought...

http://tinyurl.com/39s23r

[Maude]

She looks bad head on because she has Botox and filler in her face which makes it very uneven.
There was a pix of her during the retreat with some kind of strange white jacket with a stand up collar that looked like a cupcake wrapper.
Her suits don't fit. they are bunched and tight at the upper arms.
The problem she has is that the coldness and temper show in her face.
It doesn't matter what someone looks like, it is the heart that leads. She has none.

[readytoblowagasket]

Maude said, "It doesn't matter what someone looks like . . ." after giving us a sexist diatribe about Hillary's appearance, all of it irrelevant and baseless. Johanna's comments are sexist too. Such comments are sexist because they are criticisms that apply only to women, never to men.

You've come a long way, girls.

[margaret]

Ready to blow a gasket (I love your moniker), just to show you I'm not "sexist," being a woman and all, Al Sharpton's jackets don't fit, either, in spite of the fact that they are made of what looks like expensive material.
The point is, Ready, that when a person is "well turned out," it is an indicator of a coherent mind. For instance, Patrick Fitzgerald is a very busy man, and sometimes needs a haircut, but he always looks just right, not off the pages of GQ, but, very credible, and he has loads LESS money than Hillary.

[Keir]

Hillary Clinton is a horrid, horrid human being with blood on her hands. She must be thrilled people are scrutinizing her photos rather than her voting record.

[Doctor Jay]

The VF profile looks pretty good, but it doesn't seem to invite me to join her. That's what will put her over the top.

Oh, and Keir, why don't you save your vituperation for the people that actually perpetrated the war on Iraq? It wasn't HRC who said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." She doesn't insist on links between Al Qaeda and Saddam up to this very day, either.

[Keir]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Clinton's eloquence doesn't exonerate her. She bought the lies. She paid for the murder. And continues to do so. She's culpable. And now that she's done her little part to rid the world of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, she'll be more than willing to fund State terrorism against Iranian children.

Dr. J: I have enough vituperation for criminal politicians to go around. This post is about Mrs. Clinton.

[el ranchero]

Actually, I imagine Clinton's campaign would want pictures of her like that cover. She's way out of my age bracket, and I'm no HRC fan, but even I have to admit that her profile is surprisingly striking.

[Johanna]

Hey Gasket, dude, (gal?), have you not noticed that most of the praise lavished on Mrs. Clinton in this thread could also only in practice be given to a woman? Just this morning I was noticing Edwards' hair in a photo -- fabulous layering , really very detailed and refined, and I think his eyes are slightly lighter, perhaps the result of contact lenses. It makes a great contrast to his skin tone. This is what I actually think, but you don't hear people PRAISING him for it -- they just quietly take it in. In the real world, certain universal qualities like vanity and self importance are actually manifested differently by women and men, just as aggression might be. Okay, "preening" is more feminine, strutting more the male version.

[jtfromBC]

Kier, when one compares the record of Rosemarie Jackowski to that of Hillary Rodham Clinton I find your vituperation for criminal politicians (female or male)justified and accurate, welcome back or for dropping by.

From 2004 to the present this is one female who will sadly not be getting much photo or print attention.
Different codes for different folks I guess.
(http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/jackowski08012004/)

[ggb]

Face it, people, it's much easier for a man to "look the part" than a woman - given body shape. Men can cover up imperfections much more easily. But when a man is scruffy and his hair is a mess, it's as much of a disaster - think of Hassert. His visual image did not suit his position, one bit. What is most surprising is that these people, once they reach this level in politics and having consultants and advisors to every little thing, don't have people telling them how to look their best. Women like HRC, Pelosi, Rice, Laura Bush, etc., etc., should always look like a million bucks - it's not like they ever have to make a bed or grocery shop or do the laundry!

[Megan]

Hey folks,

I'm an occasional commenter, and certainly have no authority here. But I come here to read visual analysis of the pictures (and selection of pictures) that are presented to me. I don't know anywhere else to get that. There are lots and lots of places to get political opinions that aren't linked to images.

When people talk about how the pictures are manipulating me, this is one of the most fascinating sites around. When people give personal opinions about candidates, it becomes like every other site. So I always hope the comments will be linked closely to the image for the day.

I don't have much to offer on this picture. I'm not sure I like the dark suit blending into the dark background. Is she floating in a void? Is she just a talking head? Is there no worldly context for her? I just saw a similar shot of Speaker Pelosi*, and am starting to wonder if older women are consistently presented as disembodied (in contrast to younger women being consistently valued for their bodies).

*http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/119621.html

[PTate in FR]

The picture is a lovely shot--Hillary looks classic, calm, powerful. It reminded me of the 15th century school of portraiture of Italian women of noble birth, for example this portrait of a lady in yellow.

Margaret raises an interesting question: Why a profile? Indeed, it flatters. It does minimize the age lines that add character and authority to the male face. But when I consider this Italian tradition of painting noble women (or more modern profiles such as the classic images of Virgina Woolf or Queen Victoria) I wonder if the profile offers something special, establishing a woman as powerful in her own right, not viewed through the male lens. If Marxist art critiques are right, powerful men would commission portraits of their mistresses (for example, Charles II's mistress, Nell">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Nell_gwyn_peter_lely_c_1675.jpg/300px-Nell_gwyn_peter_lely_c_1675.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell_Gwynne&h=380&w=300&sz=61&hl=en&start=11&tbnid=qec5HNiHHJJX7M:&tbnh=123&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnell%2Bgwynn%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DG">Nell Gwynn), so other men could look on in envy. Women (for example, Empress Eugenie) would be painted to emphasize their beauty and loveliness. In both of these, the woman is a celebrity, yes, but her rank is a function of her relationship to men. Not so for those Italian duchesses and countesses. Their power derived from the power of their families. Not so for Virginia Woolf and Queen Victoria. Not so for Hillary Clinton?

The BAG is right that the profile is two dimensional: You don't really know what someone looks like from seeing their profile. It removes, perhaps, a sexual 3rd dimension? For Hillary, a profile represents that she is powerful in her own right, and it may temper the "wow, FIRST WOMAN...president" response. But it can only be used so often before it will seem shallow, insufficient, grandstanding.

[Victoria]

Thanks, Megan, for noting "When people give personal opinions about candidates, it becomes like every other site. So I always hope the comments will be linked closely to the image for the day."

Bagnews provides a great opportunity for people to check their projections at the gate and, if necessary, struggle to maintain a measure of objective discipline. A healthy exercise for us all.

Of course, noting that many find that impossible at times is also instructive. Sadly, I doubt I will live long enough to see women politicians have anything approximating a fair deal in terms of either appearance or projections. I assume this has to do with our tortured relationship with our collective inner feminine?

[ThatBozGuy]

It is interesting to me and I expect other will find it also to discuss my experience with this image and ultimately it was this image that lead me to find this site.

I was reading a blog I regularly check called tpm (talkinpointsmemo.com) and as I was reading an article I took notice of something literally out of the corner of my eye not even actually looking at the image I noted to myself a pointed something (triangle nose) and continued to read the article again as I read I observed almost a subconscious pull to the image, still not looking at it directly, but found my distraction was trying to pattern match what I was not looking at while I was busy reading the article I was looking at.

Some of the patterns that came in free form recognition were Pinocchio, ostrich, pyramids, tree as well as others until finally the concious decision to identify what was causing the distraction caused me to actually look at the picture and stop reading the article.

It was an ad running on the right side of the site with a heading a progressive blog dedicated to the political analysis of images. So I began a very brief pattern recognition phase again and my very first flash went back to the Pinocchio reference and then in context of politics leaped to an image of the caricatures of the late 19th early 20 century newsprint political cartoons of crooked bosses and politicos.

I then looked at the picture and in a conscious decision decided that its composition and the image was very flattering and very nice image of Hillary Clinton.

It was at that moment in context of reading the header (political analysis of images) that I realized my subconscious automatic pattern recognizing brain was at odds with my conscious thought provoked rationalizing brain.

And it was my subconscious patterning that really ruled what I "FELT" from the image, in review of the connotations of my pattern recognition.

Pinocchio=liar Ostrich=gangly awkward(represented by fleshtones against stark black shrinking her neck to non human form)I think the pyramids was a leap to the dollar bill pyramid and evoked george washington in the leap of conciousness which is even more interesting.

So I mostly FELT negative responses while when I looked at it I SAW a positive image.

Interesting indeed and am now glad that this site can have me think about what I am looking at rather than just feel what Im looking at.

Sorry for the length, comments and observations welcome.

[Rokusan]

I'm no fan of Hillary, but I have to agree with comments here that the majority of the profile shots come across very positively. If this is a plan to marginalize Hillary, it's a bad one. It makes her look stately and important.

[Patrick]

Just Say No To Hilary In 2008!

Ms. Clinton (D-NY) voted 'Yea' in favor of the Iraq War along with 77 other gutless Senators. She is not one of the Fearless 23 who voted 'Nay'. No true American Patriot in, good conscience, could ever vote for any candidate who so recklessly approved the slaughter of our poor children in the deserts of Iraq.

Do not vote for anyone who has sent our brave children off to die in Bush's failed war for the establishment of the 'New Texas' colony in the former Iraq. 3,121 dead children sacrificed at the alter of his OIL WAR that Hilary willingly championed as, is clearly documented on record and that she now is backing away from because it is politically expedient. This woman is a user and she has the blood of our beloved children on her hands.