Reading The Pictures: Placing Edwards And Obama In A Dark Alley

How much story management can you do with a photograph?

The shot above is the image attached to the NYT article anticipating the Democratic Las Vegas debate. The thrust of the article (drum-roll, heavy sigh) is whether Hillary can: "erase the unflattering image that her chief rivals, and her own mistakes, have helped create."

My question is, to what extent is the Times either fronting for Clinton, or otherwise serving as an amplifier for a fine-spun line-of-defense accusing the boys of picking on the girl. Two weeks ago, the Clinton campaign tried to set up the same story line just prior the debate in Philadelphia with a video intimating that the boys were piling on. Then last week, Bill Clinton did the terrific disservice of blurring the definition of swiftboating -- which I understand to mean a particularly scurrilous and extended attack on a candidate's character, not his or her politics -- by accusing the boys of trying to swiftboat his wife.

And now we have this, the perfect fodder for a caption contest: "Yeah, you hit her for flip-flopping over the drivers licenses, and I'll knock her over the head after she runs overtime in the lightening round."

___

Post debate follow-up:

Looking back at the image in the aftermath of the debate, it seems the "bully boy defense" played much better this time. Not only was Edwards openly booed for attacking Clinton (albeit in a cheap and desperate sort of way), but Clinton was able to state -- in answer to a direct question whether supporters, including her husband, had been "exploiting gender as a political issue during this campaign," that she wasn't playing "the gender card," but instead, playing "the winning card."

The beauty of her response, however, was to then tack on the Harry Truman quote: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

By reframing the woman's traditional domestic space (especially going back to Truman's era) as a political boxing ring, Clinton managed to do exactly what she claimed she wasn't, which was emphasizing her gender while simultaneously disavowing it as playing any role at all.

For more of the visual, visit BAGnewsNotes.com.

(image: Stan Honda/Agence France-Presse -- Getty Images. 2007. Via nytimes.com)

Comments

[Noelle]

After looking at this picture all I took away from it was how great Obama and Edwards look on stage together....Sure beats looking at Cheney and his pet monkey for almost seven years.

Perhaps that's why a record number of Independent and Republican voters have switched parties in Iowa to work for the Obama and Edwards campaigns.

[SeanGardner]

For all of those Obama bashers out there...just wanted to throw some cold water on your glee with these two things:

(1) This is a positive assessment of OBAMA's debate performance from The Iowa Independent: http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1471

AND...

(2) Chris Cillizza of THE WASHINGTON POST declared Obama one of the two "winners" of the debate: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/democratic_debate_winners_and_2.html?nav=rss_blog

Obama '08

[ChimpmasterDJ]

There is nothing more counter-productive and more irritating than Clinton supporters who denounce "anyone but Clinton" Democrats as "sexist".

Not everyone is as superficial as you folks seem to be. A considerable quantity of people actually look at a candidate's voting record, their deeds, and the critters hanging in and around their campaign. In Clinton's case, none of this should be palatable to a Democrat, and whether she was male or female is completely irrelevant.

[itsnotmyfault]

Edwards and Obama are expressing their narcissistic injuries in a most unflattering and infantile manner. Sort of like taking your ball home with you and thereby ending the game for the rest of the players because they are better players or you suffer appropriate insecurities. Let's face it, Edwards has already demonstrated his capacities on the national platform in 2004. There is no need to remind how ineffective he was in his debate faceoff with satans mouthpiece, Dick Cheney. While the country was recognisably crumbling under the ham fisted conduct of Bush/Cheney, Edwards was incapable of communicating the credible alternative offered by Kerry/Edwards. He is now willing to put his narcissistic self interests ahead of the country by "mudslinging" GOP style. Yes that's right.
How stupid do you have to be to overtly undermine the Democrats critical efforts to retake the whitehouse and save the nation from further irreperable harm. I would take any Democrat over any of the Republican clowns in a heartbeat.
Obama is equally as culpable as Edwards and has even gone so far as to have his wife play the race card. What could be seen as a truly important socio-cultural statement, having a highly qualified person of color evaluated exclusively on the basis of his intellect and ideas has been undermined by Michelle O. What a loss. It would be the equivalent to Hillary suggesting that all women will come to their senses and vote for her cause she's a women.

Edwards and Obama, grow up.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I don't want Queen Billary. They ALL glossed
over the issue of the debt. ALL. Billary's
already had her at-bat, how much money is
behind HER? No thanks. Gimme Kucinich instead.
Billary would just keep running the same games.

http://www.impeachbush.org

[godlessclif]

John Roberts took the point because Wolf Blitzkreig had promissed not to favor Hillary.
CNN earned the name given them by the right.
Clinton News Network. This would not have happened
if Ted Turner were still the boss.
Carville and Gergern commented, where were Begala and Stephenopolis. Why not have all the ex Clinton war room advisers commenting.

CNN has the line-up for comment on the Republican debate.
Bernie Kerik, Jeanine Pirro, Andrew Cuomo and Ted Olson will comment.

[asalifelongdem]

CNN IS NOTHING MORE THEN A TALKING POINT FOR THE CLINTONS, they give them a free pass because half the people that work there have their hands in the clinton's pockets! the debate was a joke they made it so pro hillary that no one stood a chance! far and balanced lol nothing but a fox news!

[speakeasy]

No more Bushes, no more Clintons. 26 years is enough...

Lets simplify this-
Repubs want Hillary to win the primary because they think they can rally their base against her and they know lots of Dems, including myself, will never vote for her.
Dems want Giuliani because they can rip him apart and they know a significant number of the repub base will not vote for him.
Conclusion #1- a double negative= the lowest turnout in history.
Conclusion #2- We're F**cked

[eustiscg]

My other favorite NYTimes picture/article juxtaposition was the pairing of the last debate coverage and the picture of a grinning, jubilant Clinton holding up a boxing glove (which she was given at a union endorsement). The *article* couldn't avoid covering Clinton's trips, slips, and falsifications, but the editors did their best to turn this (in my view, appalling) slipperiness into one big joke.

[eustiscg]

The NY Times editors shill for Hillary every day. Even when an article is less than flattering towards Hillary, the headline, picture, and abstract hide those aspects. I'm not sure they know they're doing it, but they are doing it.

[Larry of Corrales]

You know Hillary is playing the gender card. If you don't you're kidding yourself. At the debate last night the people in the audience booing Edwards and Obama were primarily women and the men sitting next to them. My issue with Hillary is not that she is a woman, but the fact that she voted for the Iraq war, she voted for the recent condemnation of Iran, she voted two or three times to approve the Patriot act, that she is a strong supporter of the so called free trade agreements that are enabling our corporations to take our jobs overseas in the chase for cheaper labor. Hillary doesn't support my issues. It has nothing to do with her being female.

[LeeFromVA]

Those 2 guys are being way too nice. Hillary is the worst possible scenario for the Democrats. this is a liberal website and the Hillary haters are overwhelming. Can you imagine what the rest of the country thinks about her. The Republicans only have one possible hope to win the election, they need to energize their base. That's very hard to do with all the negatives against them right now. What's the one thing that can motivate them? Of course, Hillary. What's the one thing that can make otherwise enthusiastic Dems and independents not show up on election day? Of course, Hillary. Look, this is not some story that the vast right wing conspiracy is making up. It's just a cold hard fact. Everybody has an opinion on this lady. Some love her some hate her and they will probably never change their minds. There are 7 candidates running, each with some good traits. Can we please vote for somebody, anybody, other than Hillary? I understand you like her, but PLEASE be reasonable. We can do better and we must do better. Stop the insanity.

[mcnairbo]

You guys at the Huffington Post ought to know how much management you can do with a picture. Every time you do a story about Hillary Clinton, right there is the most ghastly screenshot you could find of her accompanying your attack, so spare us the crocodile tears already. And another thing. If the media, as you portray them are protecting Hillary, then why were two of their so call moderators (Russert, Williams, and Matthews while we're at it.) so bent on drawing Clinton blood by couching fifty percent of the questions for the candidates in a negative tone toward Hillary Clinton? Boo Hoo! Don't you just hate it when the attackers try and paint themselves as the victims?

[lentinelia]

I see. Quoting Harry Truman's famous quote is OK for the boys, but if a candidate is a woman and quotes Truman - she's playing the gender card.
Profound logic, that.

[bluedogva]

Does it occur to you that Obama and Edwards were booed, not based on a gendered notion that they should not attack a woman, but rather the boos were meant to tell the two men that the Democrats care about winning in '08 and that devouring our own is bad strategy? And maybe those who booed think these personal attacks against Clinton are without merit as a matter of substance?