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)

Follow Michael Shaw on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagnewsnotes

Comments

[lovethesinner]

I've got an alley story for ya" It's how the Republicans hang on to the White House in '08.

No it won't be race baiting. Regan's southern strategy was mild compared to what will happen when Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

In the mind of a voter who percieves that we are a nation in need of a change of leadership, but who also feels threatened by unseen forces, the choice goes something like this.

"I'm in a dark and threatening alley. On one side is Rudy Giulani, the candidate of the party that got us in this mess, and on the other, stands... a young black man, the guy who said we shouldn't go down this alley, Barack Obama."

But with Hillary, the choice is "On the one side I have Rudy Giulani, the guy who saved us from 9/11, and on the other is the bitch that got us into this mess because she was so busy playing President last time, her husband started fooling around, and because he got caught, Gore lost, and we got stuck with "Stupid" and all his nutty shit.

Unlike the southern strategy, nothing will ever have to be spoken. There will be no need. It was all played out in everyone's mind back in the '90's.

There won't be any "he voted for the war, before..." or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth... none of that is required.

All the Republicans have to do to sow the seeds of doubt is simply say "Hillary" and the propaganda plays itself in the subconscious of everyone who was alive during the last twenty years.

Especially the women.

Yes, they tell the pollster that they're for Hillary, but when it comes time to push the button, it's...

Is America really ready to elect a woman?

Dr. Freud said it best:

"Five thousand years of medical history and there's only one mystery that endures: What is it that women truly want?"

Sexism trumps racism every time.

Not all men are racist. But all men, and most women are sexist.

[laurenc]

I think it's an interesting picture if we're searching for photogenic candidates whom Americans will enjoy watching on television and want to listen to. Hillary is neither one. An Edwards/Obama ticket is not only feasible, it actually would stand for an alliance of the white working class and people of color. Wow!!

[SandyDoc]

Wow...I wondered where the paranoid conspiracy theorists had gone. Found 'em!

I see a picture of two people trying to have a conversation. Big deal.

[Jjc2006]

I am so sick of the notion that Senator Clinton implied anything of the sort. The TIMES isn't fronting for her...give me a break. All you are doing is repeating that jerk Chris Matthews, renowned Clinton hater's narrative.

It's bs and I am sickened that anyone on the left plays that game.

[Walterba]

No "swiftboating" is trying to create your own reality. The reality for Kerry was that he actually was in Vietnam and won medals. The "created reality" was that for instance Kerry got medals from self inflicted wounds. In the Hillary "swift boat", the reality was indeed that she sat down for an interview with a NH paper editorial board where she said she "supported" Spitzer's licensing plan. The swiftboating was that she was speaking from both sides of her mouth. John McGlaughlin of the program of the same name on PBS read the entire transcript. The issue they were discussing was immigration. She said that federal comprensive immigration legislation was urgently needed because there were serious problems the states have to confront. One serious one in New York were uninsured drivers causing accidents costing the state plenty of money. The solution was to put a temporary plug in for the problem by issuing thse licenses. Hillary said she would prefer federal legislation to take care of the problem but would support Spitzer on this very serious dilema. So , yes it was a gothcha question quoting out of context. You can't reduce a complex issue to a 30 second sound bite. No you twist it around ala Rush Limbaugh to create your own strawman reality and knock it down by a derisive observation " speaking from both sides of one's mouth. You neo-pundits decry the lack of substance in our political discussions but you are the greatest purveyors of this nonsense. Bill is right. Swiftboatung is spot on

[XCITIZEN]

"Sssshhhhhhh - this is 'entre-nous, n'est ce pas?'"

[barrycourage]

Your place or mine?

[SiskoKid]

"Why are we ganging up on her again?"
"For the last time, it's because we have to get people focusing on her flaws while we get a free ride on our flaws!"
"Right...a­nd then we'll go get our hair done together?"
"sigh...su­re..."
"Yay!"

[mudfiles]

Politico.com does the same sort of thing. I read an article recently that was all about how well Obama did at the Jefferson dinner...

But the picture for the article was of Hillary.

[RobertArend]

"Tell you what, Barak, let's hit a diner after the debate and each leave a $100 tip. The press will feed off on that all week. Hillary will be soooo pissed!"

[Mrrar]

"So did you see Lost last night?"

[mommadona]

"Here, let me get that flea on your ear, Senator"
"And, I'll just get that little mike mite on your shoulder there, Mr. Edwards"

"OK...here­'s the plan - you grab the right podium, I'll grab the left, we'll put Dennis in the middle and that'll force Hill alllllll the way over by Dodd...yep­. Sounds good. Let's git 'er done"