BAGnewsNotes

Harry Reid, I Can't Even Look At You Anymore

So here's Reid, close up like he's the big man in town, hitching his arms and comin' at ya.

Says last night's caption: Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, controls the next steps on the economic stimulus bill.  Control?  What stands out more is the sense of aversion, the lack of eye contact with you and me, and the body language of the guy just behind.  (Likely a typical downward glance, but I can't help reading "hang dog.")

Maybe that's because the parliamentary victory Reid won yesterday over the Pugs was mostly evidence of futility.  If Reid and Pelosi had hung tough and together, they could have channeled the glare of the stock market hysteria two weeks ago to leverage Bush into a joint House/Senate deal.  As it played out instead, Pelosi went her own way, and got left in the hallway by Paulson and Boehner.  So now, we see Reid looming large ... over a slow-motion train wreck.

With the economy supposedly tanking and that supposedly urgent, bipartisan slam-dunk of a stimulus package going the same way, we're looking for leadership.  Harry looks like he couldn't find his suspenders.

image from: Senate G.O.P. Blocks Additions to Stimulus Bill (NYT)
Still Not Making Trouble (Digby)
----
Update 8:04 pm: Okay, Harry got it done ... but by taking the deal worked out unilaterally by Pelosi, and largely driven by the White House.

(image:  Brendan Smialowski/NYT.  Washington. February 6, 2008.  nytimes.com)

Thanks For Stopping By

(click for full size)

Krugman says the Dems -- and the little guy -- got punked in the stimulus deal.  And another bad sign: Reid is only referring to it as "a first step," suggesting he wasn't much involved.  As he told The Times:

“The secretary of the Treasury has understood, the president has understood, the speaker has understood that when it comes over here (to the Senate), we are going to take another look at it.”

Harry, you left the barn door open!

Anyway, I was studying newswire pics of the deal announcement (featuring Pelosi, sandwiched between the House Republican leader and the Republican Treasury Secretary), already thinking they looked overly one-sided, when the story of the deal hit the NYT on-line, led by the pic above.

And Veep Makes Three (or: Who's Whispering Behind My Back?)

This image accompanying Vanity Fair's dish on the Clinton-Gore-Clinton WH triangle, appearing as it does now, conveys relevance beyond mere historical (or Page Six) fascination.

Illustrating the excerpt from Sally Bedell Smith's new book on the Clintons, the pic offers a number of significations in the current campaign.

First, the visual is just one more boulder in the current media avalanche affirming presuming Hillary's front-runner status as a shoo-in for the nomination.  Second, the Bill + Hill alignment here -- merging a couples meme (see: embrace) with a campaign team meme (given Hillary sporting the team button and the fact Al bears absolutely no visual concordance with Bubba) -- reinforces a growing, if tacit recognition that Hillary's is inevitably a "buy one, get one free" campaign.  (Notice, by the way, how the cover of the latest Economist also reinforces point #1 and #2.  ... And if you have trouble with this thesis, consider how much the body language mirrors the stereotypical running mate pose.)

Third, now that Hillary has won the media primary, let the Veepstakes begin!

Fourth, you think Gore had it rough?  Pity the poor shmoe who agrees -- should Team Hillary actually get to nod -- to sign on as third wheel.

Fifth, check out the whisper.  In the book excerpt, Tipper is described as someone who reached out to Hillary from the early days of the Clinton-Gore administration, but is then steamrollered as Hillary battled Gore for influence.  Funny that Tipper, seen as the least political of the foursome, is responsible, in the photo, for she and Al withholding attention from whatever shining thing has the first couple's attention.  Given the protocol to "follow the leader" (in combination with the dynamism and aggressiveness of the Clintons), is the suggestion here that you don't go behind a Clinton's back?

Lastly (although the placement might be purely random), it's interesting to see Hillary in that not unfamiliar spot -- splitting the middle.

(Mark Peterson/Corbis.  Vanity Fair.  November 2007.  caption: Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al and Tipper Gore on the campaign trail in New Jersey, July 1992 )

Overcoming My Blue DNA

(click for most painful size)

This photo couldn't be more instructive.

It went down my throat last night simultaneously with the news that the "bipartisan" Senate vote to balance (i.e. limit) troop deployments had gone down to defeat.  In the "fool-me-for-the-seventh, or-is-it-the-tenth-time?" hope that Reid and Company had finally conceived a workable approach for reigning in the President and the war hawks, the result -- as is obvious here in Senator Webb's case -- was a real blow.

That's where this gets interesting, however.

If this photo almost neurochemically induces a Democrat to feel for Jim Webb, isn't it that same instinct that set up Jim and his bill in the first place?  In other words, what this photo seems to psychologically expose is the vulnerability, on the front end, and the emotional thrashing to the Dems on the back, of perpetually feeling they can reach out and touch someone.

I, for one, never again want to read, see or hear the phrase: "But we don't have the votes."  Like it is our job to override Cheney/Bush (and their uniformed finger puppets) rather than show them the boot(s), and then stonewall them with our simple majority?

So, while availing myself of this emotional image, I'm rallying my will to override my overly blue DNA.  Although I can feel the reflex rolling around in there, I'm decidedly not going to feel Jim's pain.  Instead, I'm going to appreciate ... no, relish the fact that Jimmy learned something yesterday -- a hard lesson about what it's like to seek compromise with people who feel nothing.

(image: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.  Washington.  September 10, 2007.  nytimes.com)

The Hillary Code - An Update

I was planning to revisit this angle after six months, but the publishing calendar, its seems, has interceded.

Exactly three months ago, I did a post called "The Hillary Code."  My take was that, as the campaign grew more adversarial, a negative visual stereotype would begin to emerge involving Hillary Clinton's profile.  I saw this pose as "coding" for a rather robust set of negative associations.

"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."

The previous photo I posted was a profile from the February 2007 issue of Vanity Fair.  At the time,  BAGreaders were right to point out that the portrait was elegant and flattering toward Mrs. Clinton.  In elaborating on the portrait, however, one reader caught an element I missed, which, on reflection, cuts two ways.

Writes PTate in FR:

"[W]hen I consider this Italian tradition of painting noble women (or more modern profiles such as the classic images of Virginia 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."

As much as the first set of associations above have their resonance, the allusion to power seems a significant "loading factor" in the Hillary profile.

On a pragmatic level, having been a partner in the Presidency, and possessing such strong character, one might ask:  What's the big deal about depicting Hillary as powerful?  With the coding in mind, the problem (if you're part of Team Clinton) is the tendency to see power as a much faster springboard to "power trip" or "power hungry" than to something like "stately."

(credit note:  Neither the bookseller nor publisher sites, as far as I could tell, offered photo credits on either of these cover images.  Shame!  If these are your images or you can identify them for me, please be in touch. )

The NYT's Edwards Clip Job

Adam Nagourney took two separate cuts with basically the same material. 

Last Friday, there was "In the Beverly Hills Style: Candidate’s $400 Coiffure" and this Monday, it came repackaged as "The Birth of the ‘Breck Girl.’  Maureen Dowd took her shot on Sunday.  ("Running With Scissors" is posted on the Edwards blog -- preceded by a campaign rebuttal.)  And not be left out, Howard Kurtz added his own lather yesterday with "Bad Hair Day?"

So, after a brief sympathy break, the NYT John Edwards vendetta is back -- and it's more virulent than ever.  What I thought was especially cheap, however, was how the Times worked this photo of Chris Dodd into Monday's hit piece, affixing a deceptive caption that seems to actually enlist Dodd in the hate-mongering.

The NYT caption reads:

Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democratic presidential hopeful, joked with barber Francis "Spike" Smith on Friday at Dude’s Barber Shop in Manchester, N.H. The haircut cost Mr. Dodd $12.

Lacking other context -- except the slanderous article -- the suggestion is that Chris and Spike are having a good laugh over what (or who) else?  Must be Edwards, right?

Well, the caption, accompanying the shot on YahooNews, explains that Dodd and barber Francis 'Spike' Smith of Dude's Barber Shop in Manchester, N.H. are mixing it up about baseball.  Spike is a Yankees fan and Dodd likes the Red Sox.
---
On Looking Further (12:05 pm EST):

The initial comments, such as Johanna's at the top of the thread, reveal a much deeper assault here.

In juxtaposing the Edwards haircut story with this picture (at "Dude's," no less!)  -- one loaded with "cut and dry" 1950-ish stereotypes about what a manly man's barber shop experience is like -- I wonder what makes this editorial comparison by The Times any different -- in visual terms --from Ann Coulter calling Edwards a faggot?

(image: Jim Cole/AP. Manchester, N.H. April 20, 2007. via YahooNews)

White House and Associates: A Two Headed Monster?

(click for full size)

With the exception of a little incident involving Karl Rove, the painfully-muted 2007 White House Correspondent's Dinner has now come and gone.  How much, however, was the event bottled up for the fact that Damaged PR Prez can no longer take a joke, and the Beltway media, in its neighborliness, is taking pity on him?  (Or go ahead, blame it on Stephen Colbert.)

WAPO's Reliable Source passed along this over-rationalization from Association President Steve Scully in the evening's opening remarks:

"An adversary is not the same thing as an enemy ... and an evening of civility does not mean we are selling out."

Sounds great, Steve -- if you swap out "civility" with "co-dependence," and insert "wounded" in front of "adversary."  ... From everything I saw, that wasn't a exercise in civility, so much as a scene from the "Emperors New Clothes."

Since November (#3): Liberal Pricks

THESE are balmy days on the American left — genuine, uncharacteristic sunniness unpolluted by some fluky political climate change. There is even talk of a — stutter, clear-throat, perish-thought — liberal resurgence.

Above is the first paragraph of a cheeky, thoroughly-stereotyped article from a February NYT Week In Review article ("Leftward Ho?") proclaiming America as undergoing "a liberal moment.”  Thesis and tone aside, what I couldn't figure out was the accompanying graphic.  Particularly, why is the U.S. divided in half, especially from (more than) mid-west to east?  Is it some kind of play on the title?

On the other hand, maybe the map is just a distraction device for the multiple pin holes -- as if the stock of (cardboard and slightly bent) liberals must inevitably rise and even take hold of things -- but only momentarily.

This eight day series, titled "Since November," looks at images that have caught The BAG's attention over the past four months. Many are inspired by the change in political landscape following the Democratic Congressional victory in November. In this stretch, I am taking some time off, leaving the site -- and the conversation -- in your hands.

(illustration: Micelle Monish.  February 18, 2007.  NYT WIR. nytimes.com)

Opening Shots

(click for full size)

I believe much of the MSM, including the NYT, has a visual vendetta against Nancy Pelosi.

If others casually and regularly make such accusatory statements, I don't.  Having studied The Times' visual coverage carefully, every day, for years now, there's something about Pelosi and the Democratic ascension that engenders intense condescension.

If you've been looking at today's visual coverage of the Congressional change-over, the pictures have been joyful.  Ms. Pelosi, as you can see above, has been jubilant.  The New York Times has now had two chances to give the Majority Leader her due.  Their first opportunity came yesterday, in a "new Congress" preview I blogged about at Huffington.

(Because I don't want to ruin the visual twist, I simply offer you the link.)

If yesterday's pic was slap down number one, the shot this morning fronting The Times was simply back-stabbing.  Sure, sure, apologists can say its endearing, or even promotional, indicative of a new Congressional focus on Americans, their families and the future.  And to that, I say: you're rationalizing.

As the political creatures that we are, the first connection here involves Nancy Pelosi associated with little children and babies and the sense of a Congressional delegation made up of the same.  As to how the gavel and Pelosi's body language fits in, I don't have that clear an impression.  Is she being pigeon-holed into the gender-bent role of mommy or unbaked 1st grade teacher?  On the latter element, I defer to The BAG community to focus the resonance.

This shot might be fine for page 8, or the middle of the photo gallery, but this is the paper's defining image on the defining day of the new Congress.  These two shots are not just ludicrous, they are fighting pictures.

(Stephen Crowley/The New York Times. Washington. January 5, 2007. nyt.com)

Having A Senator's Head

“If you accept somebody’s invitation, you’re expected to respond in socially acceptable ways. Why go to be rude? Is it so awful to be polite?

-- Stephen Hess, “The Little Book of Campaign Etiquette”

"[D]iplomacy is what’s supposed to stave off wars and other violence.”

--Miss Manners

I thought the media was done fronting for Bush, but apparently not.

If you missed the story, the President asked Senator-elect Webb the other day how his son, a serviceman in Iraq, was faring.  Instead of answering "Just dandy," however, Webb took the opportunity to express his desire to "get them out of there."  Not taking kindly to the response, Bush crisply informed the Senator he had answered a question he hadn't been asked.

This late in a presidency that has almost completely derailed (not to mention, racked up stratospheric debt, poisoned international relations, and forsaken thousands of innocent American lives), apparently anything less than complete deference toward the President constitutes a gross breach of etiquette.  Or, so says the NYT.

A matter of etiquette?

Given Bush's physical bubble and profound state of denial, Webb's action wasn't about manners so much as it was about reality, and responsibility.  Webb has been taken to task for confronting Bush in a social situation.  But if Bush can't be gotten through to, especially in formal political situations and interactions (which we know are constrained to the point of asphyxiation), then what's the recourse?

As much as The Times wishes to attribute Webb's response to rudeness, given current circumstances, who is to say it wasn't primarily a patriotic reflex -- as well as a profoundly paternal one.  (The war being as abstracted as it, perhaps its hard to appreciate Webb's kid is not off screwing around in South America, but fighting for Bush's folly in Iraq.)

Look, however, how The Times visually pushed its point in the Week In Review.  First of all, the composition places Webb's head a couple of pixels higher so the Senator appears to be talking down to his "superior."  (The fact the Webb image looks off in the distance when the actual situation, in context, would call for looking someone in the eye, also conveys a cheap shot.)

The sleaziest move, however, is the made-up reaction they cut-out for Bush.  I never imagined the political discourse could become so slanted and juvenile.  I mean, what else could be said here on behalf of an otherwise venomous Junior, but:  "I hate you, Jimmy.  You hurt my feelings!"

(photo illustration: unattributed. December 3, 2006.  nyt.com)