Time Magazine Hillary Photo

Is this an appropriate photo of Hillary Clinton for Time Magazine? Not to my mind. I think it's very offensive. Not just the depiction, but the uneven anatomy. Gross.

< Hillary and Obama on 60 Minutes | Comparing Hillary and Obama on Crime Issues >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Photo illustration, not photo. No, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    it is not appropriate.  

    Back to Butch (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by xjt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:32:01 PM EST
    The old stand-by insult for any powerful woman. Isn't that basically what this photo says? Ball- busting butch? I wonder if we'll see any doctored photos of Obama. Somehow I doubt it. The degradation this woman has had to put up with boggles my mind.

    if O gets the nom. (none / 0) (#88)
    by thereyougo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:37:07 AM EST
     the Rs will play hardball bigtime. They holding off for now,imo. You'll see the watermellon refs. and the nappy ho's theme. Nevermind that they excel in sports or  entertainment.

    Until Time puts Obama in a bikini (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:36:07 PM EST
    or even a dress, no, it's not appropriate.

    And no, I'm not at all surprised by the photo.  (But the bad grammatical errors in Time?  Those surprise me a bit more.  It has lowered a lot of standards.)

    My thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:56:57 AM EST
    first thought that came to mind and if they did it imagine the outrage!!!!!  I'm so tired of Clinton being ridiculed and her daughter being "pimped out".  Imagine if someone said that about Romney's sons......all five of them running around in their RV campaigning for their dad!

    think about this (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:36:24 PM EST
    discrimination against women has been a bigger fight than against any minority even though they are not a minority.  We passed civil rights but the equal rights amendment?  Women didn't even get the vote till the 1920's?  So are you surprised the Media feels comfortable printing something like this.  Imagine if the doctored an Obama picture to make him look offensive.

    Oh My (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM EST
    minority status (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:19:26 PM EST
    My high school history teacher, a very sharp man and a big influence on me, once argued that women *are* a minority. In politics, in business, in any position of power they certainly are. Stephen Colbert of all people recently noted, when talking to someone (sorry, can't remember her name) about Hillary Clinton, that male is neutral when it comes to politics.

    Female is absolutely a minority status in every way that matters.

    if you actually believe (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:46:31 PM EST
    that you are clueless and out of touch.

    believe what? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    this (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:56:50 PM EST
    discrimination against women has been a bigger fight than against any minority even though they are not a minority.

    Ok let's see (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:04:55 PM EST
    It took till 1920 to pass the 19th amendment, they still get less pay for equal work, we still have not ratified an ERA and for a demographic that represents at least half the population they are still way under represented in public office.  And God forbid if you are a woman and also a member of a minority.  

    Or look at it this way -- (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    Women had the vote in part of this country at its start, hundreds of years ago, but then had it taken away.

    There was no gender in our Constitution until 1868, when the word "male" went into it.  (It's still there.)  It went in for AA men to get the vote -- not AA women (who were MOST of the slaves) or white women.

    Women HAVE been voting since 1869 in part of this country, a territory . . . and then when it became a state in 1890, and then in three more states in the 1890s.  And more states after that, before 1920 -- well after many countries in other continents as well as this one had woman suffrage.

    Women have been in Congress since 1916.

    Yet only now is a woman a serious candidate for President.  And it's too soon for this country.

    If not now, when?  If not Clinton, who?  


    If not Clinton, who? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi, any female governor, or senator, or member of congress.  

    You can come up with one name. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:48:30 PM EST
    Uh huh.

    you need a history lesson (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:34:07 PM EST
    African Americans were slaves, even after they got the right to vote, thinks like poll taxes, literacy tests, and closed primary voting.  jeez just think Florida in 2000.
    Beyond voting there were lynchings and other forms of violence. Lynchings that occurred as recently as the 90's.
    Japanese Americans were put in camps.

    Hispanics who were here legally were in the past deported anyway.  And have suffered employment discrimination.  Have had land stolen from them in south Texas.

    Gay men and women continue to face employment discrimination, threats of violence, remember Matthew Sheppard.  

    So like i said the idea that women have had it worse then any other minority because people put pictures of them up with rambo bodies is crazy.


    I will not continue to argue (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:47:17 PM EST
    beyond this.  As a hispanic and part black I know all you say but even to this day there are men who will in public tell Hillary Clinton to wash his dishes.  Imagine what would happen to that man if he told Obama to go back to the cotton fields or a hispanic candidate to go back to pick tomatoes.  Secondly have you ever gone to the evangelical churches that still claim that women are subservient to men.   There are more of that kind of people in this country than you think.  Also you forget that women were part of the slaves and the immigrants of hispanic origin.  And they are discriminated in their countries not just here.  Also as a member of a minority group I can assure they get discriminated in our society too.  I will not comment any further but feel free to say what you want I know my history (Puerto Rican) and American history.  There is another attempt to pass an ERA in this congress please tell your legislators to support it.

    I know all that, hon -- and do you think (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:47:41 PM EST
    all those African Americans and Hispanic Americans and Japanese Americans you talk about were MEN?

    The majority were women.  More support for our point.


    sorry one more comment (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:53:10 PM EST
    Yes but this discrimination also include white women and black, and hispanic women are discriminated by their own male component of those minorities.

    Shirley Chisholm may have had you (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:08:39 PM EST
    in mind when she said

    Discrimination against women, solely on the basis of their sex, is so widespread that is seems to many persons normal, natural and right.

    And the great woman said that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    discrimination against her for gender was worse than for her race.

    Because Men Are Men (none / 0) (#77)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    Is what she also said (which I think is an over generalization since many men rock).  And I think that's really the intersection between race and gender oppression.  There's no question in my mind that white America has had it a lot better than black America.  But within both of those groups - women have had fewer rights and have struggled to be treated as equal with men.   It seems sexism is one of the few things that white and black men have agreed on for generations.  

    Wasn't it Stokely Carmichael who said the only position for women in the SNCC was "prone"?

    And similarly feminism was very slow to address the problems of minority women and the issues specific to them.

    But what we've seen in this election is the mainstream media work overtime to try to pit women against African Americans.  That's very destructive, IMO.  But not surprising, the establishment has lasted this long by pitting groups who have similar interests (economic, social) against each other.  

    That's what immigrant bashing is all about right now.  Can't have all that working class anger aimed at the rich and corporate America.  Go beat up Pablo, it's his fault for taking the $3.10 an hour job away from you, not the company's fault for wanting to have earnings so high it can pay its CEO hundreds of millions of dollars.


    sexism (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by delandjim on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:42:25 PM EST
    Here is the quote reworked a little:
    Sexism is so widespread that it seems to many persons normal, natural and right. (I'm thinking of media in this)

    Here is a point of interest, remember the Rutgers womens basketball incident? If you watched the press conference and following interviews. The word ho's was mentioned before any mention of nappy was. I think that actually the point about nappy headed was prompted by the interviewer. I first heard the quote before the media coverage took off on it. My reaction was to the word ho's also not nappy headed. Yet the fact they were attacked from a sexist point got no coverage on the racism was talked about. I think it speaks to the fact that sexism is ok and racism isn't.


    Excellent example, I saw that and agree (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:13:44 AM EST
    that it was very revealing of our media and our society that the women were not HEARD -- they said, themselves, as did their parents and coach that the sexism, the insinuation that they were whores, was the most upsetting aspect of what Imus said.

    But media can't face their own sexism, so they didn't report it that way.  And society can't face its sexism, so it closed its ears to what those fine young women said, too.


    I agree (none / 0) (#103)
    by thereyougo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    Imagine Muslim women who are stoned or arrested or killed in 2008 because they show parts of their anatomy, while the men in that society enjoy exploiting, oppressing and generally abusing them. They don't even protest, its so institutionalized. Sad.

    By those standards we have it good, but we can do better. Andif women were running things, the country would be thriving.

    I'm just sayin'


    No one said that (none / 0) (#68)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    but it is true that women still fight a lot of discrimination as if they were a minority even though they are actually the majority.

    Clueless and Out of Touch (none / 0) (#85)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    Please apply to yourself. Women are a legal minority, even though they don't number in the minority.

    "rejigger" is racist? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:32:44 PM EST
    That's an enormous stretch your linked blog is making. It's a silly headline, not the least because half the media seems to have forgotten the definition of rout (it can mean 'defeat' or 'to defeat', and its use in this case and many others is hopelessly ambiguous). And "rejigger" makes me think of Grampa Simpson, not take a piece of the root and find some absurdly obscure slang.

    Andrew Cuomo's word choice, on the other hand, was bizarre and questionable.

    Yes it is racist (none / 0) (#36)
    by cdalygo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:54:28 PM EST
    Maybe I'm just old (45), but it's a racial term. The more reactionary members of my Irish relatives used the term in lieu of the "n" word.

    I definitely see why Time took it down.


    Different word (none / 0) (#38)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:03:06 PM EST
    I know what word you're talking about (I'm 45 with bigoted Irish relatives too!) but Time used a word with a completely different and unrelated meaning. This is not a George Allen situation.

    True, but (none / 0) (#69)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:39:04 AM EST
    Just look at what kinds of things are being deemed racist. Calling Obama young and eloquent has now been deemed racist. Everyone is treating Obama with kid gloves, in part because of this.

    This is a very bad road for progressives to travel (none / 0) (#73)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    We should not be comparing the magnitude of discrimination against race vs. sex. It implies that the effects of the two types of discrimination are similar, and it ends up trivializing the type of discrimination that "loses" the comparison.

    Racism and sexism in society have sometimes subtle, sometimes drastically different ways of affecting people. Often those whom are women of color will comment that their identity is highly situational; in some contexts, she will be a person of color, in others she is a woman. So even these kinds of thought exercises are useless.

    What's good on this site is that people are very aware and cognizant of discrimination and sexism perpetuated against women, especially with regard to Hillary. What's troubling to me, as someone that's participated in a great deal of work on coalitions of color, is that there is very little discussion of how race subtly shapes and filters what Obama can/cannot say and do and how he has been interpreted in the press; I also find troubling the suggestions of some that the black vote shouldn't count for as much since they are only 10% of the electorate. They count just as much any any other demographic that size and are an important part of the Democrat's historical coalition.


    I Think There's No Question (none / 0) (#81)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:07:28 AM EST
    Race effects what Obama can and cannot say or at least how he says it.  He could never be as routinely angry as Edwards was.  Neither could Hillary.  Only white men have that luxury in politics.

    He also could probably never talk about poverty to the extent Edwards did.  He can mention it and give a speech here and there, but I don't think he could paint himself solely as a champion of the poor.  That would get him labeled the "black" candidate by the media in a New York minute.  Because everyone knows all poor people in this country are black.  Except, of course, those who are hispanic.  

    My grandfather grew up in the "black" neighborhood in a small city in Indiana.  I asked him if he was the only white kid on the block, and he told me no, whites outnumbered blacks but it was still called the black neighborhood because it was poor (and presumably also because the poverty prevented whites from segregating their housing).

    We are one very screwed up country.


    I'd agree to that (none / 0) (#105)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    Very thoughtful comment - I agree completely...

    And, while I'm an Obama partisan, I know that Clinton is bound in many of the same ways, just in different directions, and that saddens me too, that in some ways it seems like we haven't made up much ground since the 1970s.

    While everyone is looking out for overt signs of bias (a worthwhile goal to be sure), what would be more encouraging is to use this race to have a deeper dialog about how race and gender still greatly constrain and define the lives of everyone in our society. I thought the post by Amanda Marcotte about this was exactly right: link

    But good luck getting the media to do that...


    Unfortunately his campaign has (none / 0) (#89)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    been largely based on the color of his skin.

    how so? (none / 0) (#93)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    Do you have any, you know, actual evidence to support this assertion?

    Starting with "transcending race" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    was brilliantly bringing up race, from the beginning.  It is such an amazing slogan, conveying the hope that we're past all that but allowing him to address race -- although not allowing anyone else to do so.  Amazing.

    Really now (none / 0) (#106)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:05:02 PM EST
    He's got to bring it up sometime. Black people can't just run as a regular old candidate. They're going to get pidgeonholed as the black candidate as soon as they declare, so Obama got out ahead of it - he had no choice.

    In some ways, I'm a bit worried for racial and gender dialog in America if either of them win because it will just be used by the Republicans to "prove" that clearly their can't be any more discrimination because a minority or woman won.


    Go to his campaign website (none / 0) (#100)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    and notice how they emphasize he was the first African American to do this and the 3rd African American to do that.  Also the whole offense taking when Bill Clinton said what he said was premised on Bill attacking his race.  There are also many other examples.  But I did not bring this up as a derogatory thing I brought it up because if your black and your followers and others make it an issue that your black then unfortunately a lot of the restraints that the original post brought up come into play.

    Sorry not the Original Post (none / 0) (#101)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    It was the first reply to this comment.

    Wow, that's inappropriate (none / 0) (#78)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    But I also think it was probably done without realizing the history of the word (at least I hope so).  But that brings up another point, the extent to which words with racist and sexist connotations slowly become so ingrained into the culture that folks don't think about their ugly origins.  Another recent example, "pimped out", which to my mind has both racist and sexist elements to it.  

    Much like Jesse Jackson, Jr's (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    comment that Clinton did not cry for Katrina.  I thought, now, is that playing the gender card or the race card?  The answer: Both.  (And, of course, it was a lie that she cried -- and it seems like swiftboating, taking a candidate's strength such as compassion and trying to turn it into a liability.  But it only ticked me off even more. . . .)

    We'll (none / 0) (#84)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:13:15 AM EST
    never see anything offensive about Obama until the GE. Then the media will kill him. I hope the Old Guard in the Democratic Party who put Obama up to running will enjoy four more years under President McCain.

    I (none / 0) (#86)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    have no problem with the wording, he's pushing the fact that he's black, isn't he?

    I really have to (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:59:57 PM EST
    stop watching politics.  I'm so uh MAD right now I could scream.  SCREAM!

    Could someone please ban me or something?  Uh, on the other hand, no, please don't, this is the sanity blog!  

    This election is going to send women's rights back about 50 years.  Such a sad day in America.

    I'm really glad I never had children.

    Jeralyn, why don't you do more TV?  Your appearances are really amazing.

    Unbelievably inappropriate and disrespectful (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:00:36 PM EST
    It is an unbelievably disrespectful and inappropriate depiction of Senator Clinton.

    In light of the recent discussion on the sexism and bias displayed by the MSM, especially MSNBC, I find it even more shocking that they would use this picture.

    They know there has been a lot of discussion about this and yet this is the image they choose to use.

    I'll be writing Time about it, along with MediaMatters and others. I'll be donating more to Hillary as a result also.

    I saw a suggestion somewhere, sorry can't remember where, that we should all do a money game similar to a drinking game.

    Whenever we run into this type of disrespect to Hillary, or bias, or sexism, by a media outlet or blog donate $1, $5, $10... whatever is do-able for your financial situation... to her campaign.

    If you aren't a Hillary supporter you could still play by donating to Emily's list or NOW to promote fair treatment of women's issues and female candidates!

    Just a thought... in any case, please drop Time magazine and others them an email with your views.

    Rambo (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Grey on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    Halperin wants to make the point that we're about the see Clinton's last stand.  You know, just like Rambo, who had to blow everyone away and do it alone because no one was on his side.

    I bet that, in his mind, this is a compliment.  Jesus, I'm so tired of these people.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#26)
    by ROK on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:37:05 PM EST
    While Time could have chosen other characters that represent that "last stand" mentality, I don't think that this is all that bad. Afterall, Rambo fights for a good cause.

    If anything I think that this is positive and it shows her as a strong and fighting force. The photoshop job is awful though...

    Would Joan of Arc have pleased everyone more?


    I'm just glad it wasn't General Custer :-) (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:54:23 PM EST
    Now THAT'S funny! (none / 0) (#60)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:52:44 AM EST
    Maybe just a normal picture of Hillary herself. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:53:11 PM EST
    I don't need to see some juvenile (and yes, poorly done) photoshop product to remind me that she's tough and a fighter.

    Better yet... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ROK on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:16:57 PM EST
    Really, no image is needed. We know she is a fighter and we know she needs to stand strong now.

    Also, I live in Korea and have yet to see the new Rambo film which will be released soon. I presume I will be thinking of Hillary the whole time. ;)


    But that connotes (none / 0) (#70)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:40:54 AM EST
    she is male. Females just can't be seen as fighters and still feminine in the minds of our adolescent journalists. And Halperin is one of the better ones.

    Contrarian view... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:35:25 PM EST
    Taylor Marsh is taking a contrarian view... that Mark Halperin was one of the first calling the media out on the crappy coverage of Clinton... may be so, but I still don't like the depiction.


    The picture is awful (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by AF on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:11:32 PM EST
    This male Obama supporter is getting fed up with all the sexism.

    Bullet point 5 of the article (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:50:54 PM EST
    Even though I absolutely HATE the picture, the bullet points are straight on!  Take for instance, Bullet point 5:
    5. Keep making the case that caucuses are less democratic and more disenfranchising than primaries.

    This is fairly easy to substantiate in Washington.

    Survey USA has been remarkably accurate in predicting election results. The Washington state Survey USA poll on Febrary 8 showed:
    Obama 50
    Clinton 45
    Undecided 6
    via Link

    If the last-minute undecideds had broken in Clinton's favor as they did in California, she could have taken the state -- with a Democratic primary.

    Now the caucus data (per CNN):
    Obama 68%
    Clinton 31%
    Uncommitted 1%

    In addition, SurveyUSA showed that 85% of voters say they'll vote in the WA state primary while only 33% of voters said they'd vote in the caucuses.

    I suspect that this means that even with education programs to the contrary, people STILL BELIEVE the primary means something.

    It's hard not to see this whole scheme as disenfranchising.

    does anybody know? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by delandjim on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM EST
    How this this with Washington now having a primary on Feb 19 affects the delegates?

    See Big Tent Democrat's post here (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    yesterday.  Dem. primary, advisory only, as the delegates stem from the Sat. caucus and state convention is where the delegates are elected.  Republican primary:  half the delegates will be from the primary, half from the earlier caucus.  

    Yes, the primary means nothing (none / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:24:40 AM EST
    (on the Democratic side) in Washington, and no doubt most people don't know that.  There has been quite an education campaign going on here, but I suspect that people are confused, since the Republican primary DOES partially count.

    Ironically, the Republicans are more democratic in this case.


    Education Programs (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Sima on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:12:44 AM EST
    They weren't all that.  You wrote:
     "I suspect that this means that even with education programs to the contrary, people STILL BELIEVE the primary means something."

    I have first hand proof of this.  At a meeting for a non-profit I'm involved in, after the meeting was over, one of the officers reminded everyone to go to the caususes that weekend, or to vote in the Feb 19th ballot.  Now this guy is a Democrat.  He said that half the results will be from the caucuses, half from the ballots on Feb 19th.

    I said that wasn't so, that the Democratic party was deciding only by caucus.  He questioned me, saying he was sure we were doing half and half (which is what the Republican party is doing).  I made my point again, and then stopped arguing.  Several people who overheard us decided that he was right, because it gave them a reason to not go to the caucus.

    I know of two Democrats who deliberately did not caucus because 'they refuse to participate in that  @(*$#@ system'.  They will vote on Feb 19th though.  

    Anyway, the system has to go.  No matter who wins any caucus it's all suspect in my eye.  Any caucus.


    obscene (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:02:05 AM EST
    This woman is running for POTUS. Where is the respect? I just don't get it.

    I say to make it fair they should have Obama's face super imposed on Pamela Anderson's body.

    They can then list the 10 ways Obama unites Americans, especially men. How would that play?

    Definitely not appropriate. Very juvenile. (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Plutonium Page on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:41:59 AM EST
    And it could easily be part of a "You Suck At Photoshop" lesson.

    Does anyone know how to (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    email Mark Halperin? I tried to find an email address for him yesterday because I could swear I heard him say that no candidate had a plan to deal with the mortgage meltdown. Hillary has proposed a detailed, specific set of actions to take and I wanted to email him about it.
    Now I want to email him about this stupidity. How clueless are these guys after all the uproar over Tweety and Shuster? That just shows how deep-seated their bias is.

    A picture is worth a thousand words . . . (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    Headlines with questionable words are not equal to this ugly photoshopped picture.

    This picture is more than offensive, it is more than editorial - it is designed to incite a reaction, namely offensive behavior by specific segments of the audience.  If this were targeting a recognized woman who does not have access to a security detail, I would be fearful for her well-being.  Fortunately, Clinton is protected by the Secret Service.

    Nevertheless, this is a threatening image, and as political aggression it is dangerous to all of us.

    There is an interesting article (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    in the NY Times about how women are, in fact, better leaders but that the perception is that they are not.

    "Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership."

    I'm sure this is one study the Obama camp will not be pointing to.

    So what? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:10:58 AM EST
    "Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership."

    So what?  A scholar that found anything else would be drummed out of the academy or at least see funding dry up.


    Yes, everyone knows (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    the left has "taken over" academia and will "get" anyone who dosnt go along with the radical feminist agenda.

    Why else would Rush, Hannity, and Michael Savage mention it at least once a day? I mean, besides the fact that they're poorly educated, sexually frustrated and embittered, morons?


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
     It'll find an audience with the Gen Xers. Taylor Marsh has a good article up on the "Clinton Rules." Essentially there are none where the media is concerned, it's open season on the Clintons.

    I wish I could start a grass-roots campaign to vote Dick Durbin out of office. He could take his Manchurian Candidate with him.

    Tasteless (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Seneca on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:23:40 PM EST
    Well, this photo is simply tasteless and not very clever. The Clinton camp, in their defensive, shrill way, will probably overreact and call for somebody's head.

    image of Senator Clinton (none / 0) (#3)
    by noholib on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:32:06 PM EST
    Is this photo on their website and in print?
    The coarseness of current political "discourse" and imagery is truly unbelievable.

    it's on their website (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:34:27 PM EST
    I doubt it will make it to print. Not that it makes a difference.

    If Mark Halperin approved using this (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:33:47 PM EST
    this photo illustration, I think he must be frightened by strong women.

    Dumb article (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    even dumber picture.

    I Like it (none / 0) (#10)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM EST
     the caption

    Team Clinton wasn't just spinning - February's caucus and primary contests are all tough for her.
    With the press - as always - ready to side with Obama, how can the former frontrunner survive the month and make it to March (Texas and Ohio) and April (Pennsylvania) without losing her (presumed) advantages in those mega-states?

    Team Clinton (none / 0) (#90)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    That's exactly what Durbin and the Boys in D. C. are afraid of, afraid they'll lose their power. They could have run Al Sharpton or one of those blacks, but they wanted someone who would be a weak president they could manipulate. I just have no respect for the status quo Democrats anymore. I wondered why none of the women in the party are endorsing Clinton. They've probably been threatened by Durbin and Kennedy.

    tek - (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    "Al Sharpton or one of those blacks."  c'mon, please be aware of how offensive that sounds/is.  Also women in the Party have endorsed Clinton...Maxine Waters, Maria Cantwell, Loretta Sanchez etc.  

    Linda Hamilton (none / 0) (#22)
    by rilkefan on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST
    in Terminator II might have been an easy, better choice...

    Or Sigourney Weaver from on of The Alien movies (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:14:35 PM EST
    Lots of warrior women to choose from.

    Ooh, yeah (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:55:03 AM EST
    That scene where she offs the alien for threatening her daughter would be a good one.

    I am sure (none / 0) (#63)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:20:29 AM EST
    that these strong women in the movies never even occurred to Halpern. To depick a women as strong she has to be a man or have male characteristics. Some men can't see it any other way.

    She sports a two-tone mullet well, that's for sure (none / 0) (#28)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:46:30 PM EST

    Horribly offensive (none / 0) (#31)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    Mocking strong women by depicting them as men or otherwise mocking their bodies is a tired standby. Shame on Time Magazine.

    Time's Magazine Email Box is Full (none / 0) (#39)
    by cdalygo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:08:28 PM EST
    It's probably just as well.

    My girlfriend actually thought the picture wasn't so bad. She wishes Hillary would take that approach to some of them.

    But I still don't like it. However, my angry letter to Time is probably best left decomposing in my sent box.

    The photo used for the photoshop is ugly and (none / 0) (#42)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST
    the photoshopping is not well done. I can't imagine a photo editor for Time does not have an incredibly wide array of photos to choose from, even for a dicey choice.

    There's something about the body which seems anatomically incorrect.  Jeralyn says lumpy--I say asymmetrical and somehow doesn't look either male or female!

    Plain weird, butt ugly, stupid, and verging on sexist.

    I agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by Pete Guither on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    Mostly it's just really bad, amateur photoshopping.

    I guess (none / 0) (#45)
    by rosaleen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:16:25 PM EST
    I think the photo is funny and I think Senator Clinton will get a laugh out of it. I don't know. I sort of like her portrayed like a butt-kicker. It sure surprised me, though.

    As for women being a minority and having been discriminated against more than any other minority, that is the truth. There are something like 20 million women living today who have had their genitalia mutilated. Women are the poor in this country and their children suffer, too. Women have been raped and murdered en masse since the beginning of time.

    If you think this is not true, then you should read up on it. You can start with Genesis where we get the blame for all the troubles in the world.

    And, of course, the snake made her do it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:27:06 PM EST
    Hard, no pun intended, to get more phallic than that.  I remember reading a good book years ago called "When God was a Woman."  I'm not one for nostalgia, but going back to THAT...not such a bad idea.

    the worst part is (none / 0) (#65)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:09 AM EST
    women are not a minority.

    Ever notice (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:46:55 AM EST
    that the media obsesses about the fact that in some primaries Clinton lost the white male vote but does not do the same about Obama losing the female vote. Considering that women are the majority of the electorate and from what I read vote in larger numbers, they should be pointing to this as a big weakness for Obama. The seem to assume that male votes are more important than female.

    People, people, (none / 0) (#92)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    women are a legal minority in the U. S.

    Women are (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:29:08 AM EST
    54 Percent of the electorate, we should use that power and align with Senator Clinton.  Blacks have moved to Obama because of their pride and a desire to see someone like themselves. as President and because they know it will elevate their communities power.  But women ask well is it this women, and I answer absolutely how could it not be.

    The firearm. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:19:37 PM EST
    Hillary supports renewing the Scarylooking Weapons Ban.

    The problem with the (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:55:09 PM EST
    illustration is that it is based on a photo.  If an editorial cartoon, probably not much anyone could say.  

    Uh...no. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:01:30 AM EST
    That is 'a' problem but it is not 'the' problem.

    Talk about bad judgment.


    Links must be in html format or will be deleted (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    as they skewed the site. someone posted a link to a petition that I had to delete. Use the link button at the top of your comment box. And stay on topic, this thread is about the Time photo.

    Well, I don't find it offensive (none / 0) (#80)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    just stupid.  To me it says nothing at all about Hillary, but plenty about the zipper heads at Time.

    meeting is off and what does it mean (none / 0) (#94)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:47:02 AM EST
    Obama campaign reporting the meeting with Edwards has been called off....HMMMMMMMM....

    I've commented on that (none / 0) (#95)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:50:42 AM EST
    before. It was dismissed.

    I beleive this is a follow up to Michelle's frustration of Sen Obama being "Black Enough".

    Sutble way to connect ... "I talk like you, therefore, I'm like you".

    I wonder what history will do with this race. I believe we will have to wait until the HISTORY is written before we get an objective view of the election.

    Obama is now (none / 0) (#96)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    using his deceased white Mom to gain support among white women. Go To Bloomberg.com. I would attach the link, but it isn't working for me "Obama Drive Gets Inspiration From His White Mom Born in Kansas" By Kim Chipman I would like to think no one would fall for this, but they will, and already have.

    The body in the pic does look unusual... (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    ...any chance it's of a woman body-builder?

    The list (none / 0) (#102)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    Putting aside the pic that accompanies it, Halperin's advice to Clinton is actually quite good.  It's not exactly revolutionary, pretty basic stuff, but still a good list.

    The most important thing for Clinton in the next few weeks is that Obama doesn't become seen as the inevitable candidate.

    This I expect out of the mouth of Republicans (none / 0) (#104)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:57:22 PM EST
    This type of remark exactly proves my point. As soon as he acts at all "black" (whatever that means) he's immediately dismissible as a serious candidate. Apparently in your world-view only whites and those that act white need apply for the job.

    You really should (none / 0) (#109)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    not go the "acting like a Repub" route.

    Sen Obama's recent flyer does NOTlook like a Dem ad.

    Before you start shouting race... how do you know the race of these people? It sounds like you are assuming that they are all white.


    I have met a lot of black people in my lifetime (none / 0) (#110)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    And I have never met one that would say something like that in a serious discussion (or, frankly, even in a joking context). There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama. Going after him because he 'speaks like a black' is not.

    I have to counter that one (none / 0) (#111)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    because I have heard of this from AA. Those same AA that do not like the language of Rappers. They are promoting language skills within their community as a way to uplift the community.

    By the way ... you are still treating these people as caucasians.