Ironically, this kind of dirty trick will end up being a lot more helpful to the McCain campaign than it will to Obama:
When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.She delivered the image the magazine asked for--a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic. Greenberg is well known for her highly retouched images of bears and crying babies. But she didn't bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. "I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she says.
After getting that shot, Greenberg asked McCain to "please come over here" for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. "That's what he thought he was being lit by," Greenberg says. "But that wasn't firing."
What was firing was a strobe positioned below him, which cast the horror movie shadows across his face and on the wall right behind him. "He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg says. And his handlers didn't seem to notice it either. "I guess they're not very sophisticated," she adds.
The Atlantic didn't select the diabolical looking McCain for its cover. Greenberg is hoping to license that image to some other magazine (she negotiated a two-week embargo with The Atlantic so she could re-license images from the shoot before the election).
Warned that the image is just the kind of thing that will stir up the anti-media vitriol in the conservative blogosphere, Greenberg said, "Good. I want to stir stuff up, but not to the point where I get audited if he becomes president."
That said, she goes on to explain that she's thought about replacing McCain's mouth with bloody shark teeth and displaying the image on a billboard with the message that the candidate is a bloodthirsty war monger.
Consider anti-media vitriol stirred. Why shouldn't conservatives hate the media when they read something like this? What a dirty trick. But what a gift to the McCain campaign. It's going to be all over talk radio all next week. These loony leftists are going to hand him the election by playing exactly into its most useful narrative.
UPDATE: Over at the Atlantic's site, Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote the McCain cover story that Greenberg was hired to illustrate, is apoplectically angry at her for what she's done. Good. He should be.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"But what a gift to the McCain campaign. It's going to be all over talk radio all next week. These loony leftists are going to hand him the election by playing exactly into its most useful narrative."
Here's what I don't get.
This woman isn't in any way connected to the Obama campaign, right?
Okay, case closed, what does this have to do with anything?
This says nothing, nada, less than nothing, absolutely nothing at all about Mr. Obama's fitness to be president.
Are you really saying that people make up their mind, about WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT, based on this sort of stupid, IRRELEVANT trash?
Are you saying that people are too stupid to understand this?
Is that what you think???????
Wonderful.
"One hopes that Sullivan was and is an anomaly, but how does one know?"
Two of the Atlantic's other bloggers, Ross Douhat and Clive Cook, were both Palin-boosters. They've cooled to her a little, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of Rod. But are identifiably right of center.
The site consciously attempts to recruit centrists. Partisans may think of Sullivan as a lefty now. I started reading him because he supported war in Iraq and seemed to defend that position intelligently and with passion, however. Like it or not, he's a centrist. Just one with a partisan-like passion for defending his positions.
Sullivan is not a lefty in any sense of the word. He is a conservative.
I don't agree with Sullivan on a lot of issues - and I'm not a Catholic, not a Christian at all. Not a lefty either. I am not a Republican.
I think it's true that he let the Trig birth thing go on for too long.
But other than that, Andrew Sullivan has been frighteningly excellent.
I think he has integrity, and incredible fortitude - and he can write superbly.
He makes mistakes, he is sometimes reckless. But I think this is mostly because he is fearless, obsessive. Right now, no one is doing a better job of exposing the farce that is the Republican party.
He is very, very tough on Palin - and I think this is absolutely correct.
She is not remotely qualified to be president. Her interview shows that she is dangerously unqualified. She is a fundamentalist - and Sullivan considers this dangerous (as I do.)
Next, her convention speech was angry, mocking, contemptible. She did NOT need to do that. She had an unprecedented opportunity to elevate the debate, present herself as a different kind of politician, deliver an upbeat, positive vision for the country. Take the high road. She chose the low road. With a smile!
Palin isn't the pit bull - that has been shown to be absolutely false - Andrew Sullivan is.
And now we also have the hilariously dishonest McCain campaign.
This is a great democracy, and given the cowardice of the "mainstream media", writers like Andrew Sullivan are vital. Absolutely vital.
Standing by, watching another election lost to hateful "culture wars" and character assassination is not acceptable.
It is disturbing to think an election can be decided by voters pissed off because some idiot lefty NOT connected to the campaign said or did something stupid.
Wasn't the cry "Country first!"? I wish the voters would also take that advice (well, okay, it would be good, too, if the Republicans could hew to their own slogan!)
Writers like Sullivan are critical.
Another writer who is doing an absolutely excellent job on the election is Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. Really fearless stuff - less pit bull, more surgeon, but every bit as effective. Here is a link:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/
In fact, Ross Douthat, a very big early Palin supporter, after watching the interview, now says, flatly, that she is not ready.
That's honesty. Other conservatives have had similar reactions. I applaud Rod confessing to serious reservations after seeing the interview, although he has yet to make the leap to saying she is not ready to be president (this is my interpretation - is it correct?)
Likewise, the same goes towards the right's 'assassination helpers' who planned to kill Obama in Denver.
These loony rightists are going to hand him the election by playing exactly into its most useful narrative. You're literally turning him into another JFK and MLK combined.
This sort of dirty trick will end up being a lot more helpful to Obama than McCain.
anonymous
This woman isn't in any way connected to the Obama campaign, right?
Okay, case closed, what does this have to do with anything?
You've forgotten the rule of politices: Anything done by anything that can be vaguely attributed to a 'Democrat' is attributable to the entire party. Like, for example, this person, and the biggest example is Ward Churchhill.
Whereas not only does that not apply to Republicans individuals, it doesn't even apply to actual Republican personalities like Malkin and Savage and Limbaugh, who are actively included in Party events and given access to right-wing politicians.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.