Opening Shots

Just another mom in tennis shoes. Patty Murray is serving her 3rd term in the Senate and is 4th ranked. You would think the MSM would figure it out that being a mom has a lot more real constructive power in it than being a fat old dude with big hair.

Presumably, this scene was choreographed with Pelosi’s consent. What is the message she wants to relay here? What is at stake is the future these children face: will they have planet to live on? Will the planet be rocked by constant war? Will they experience the inevitable conclusion of nuclear proliferation? To quote Pelosi herself, she is ”nobody’s fool.”
I agree that the MSM does a disservice to Pelosi. It is reprehensible. But I also find the idea that motherhood could be reduced to the infantile “mommy” and the admirable job of teaching to “unbaked first grade teacher” distressing. “Mommies” and ”unbaked first grade teachers” are among the most intelligent, thoughtful and competent people I know. There is now a level of professionalism attached to these roles that perhaps was not recognized 30 years ago, but has become commonplace today.
My eleven year old son gave me a lesson in this recently when he said, “I think it would be great to have a woman President.” I did a double take. “Well, yes, it would” was my automatic reply. As I thought about why I was initially surprised by his statement, I realized that I hadn’t given myself much credit (or respect) for my current role as homemaker. After all, the most important female in his life to this point doesn’t run countries, she runs errands and carpools. Obviously, he sees a level of competence that could translate itself to other leadership positions, as well. Pelosi is not only breaking new ground, she’s shattering old stereotypes.
In studying the photo, I’m amused by the boy to the Majority Leader’s right. He’s got that impish smile that says, “Bang that gavel down HARD, lady!”

While I agree that the MSM has been dredging up sexist cultural artifacts, I actually like this picture. It made me smile. The grownups are in charge, it’s nice to see kids in Congress in a context other than their being used as sex objects, and there are no rich old white guys in suits to be seen.
If anyone wants to dismiss Nany Pelosi based on her gender it will become their problem, not hers. She is neither weak nor foolish.

oops, that should have been ‘Nancy’…

Of all the photos of the day, this one repulsed me. The gavel looks too much like a weapon. Holding it over her head implies she’s gonna hit something really hard. All those children look vulnerable, distracting our view from the target.
Certainly the MSM has a vendetta against any successful woman. How dare she?

I think this picture
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/01/04/us/20060105_CONGRESS_SLIDESHOW_8.html
is the most fascinating of the entire NYT photo gallery shots from yesterday
It appears like Clinton is lecturing Cheney
Cheney’s body language gives it away as well as Hilary’s body language (she looks extemely coy)

I would have to go along the lines of Rick’s ideas. The photo may be trying to imply that Nancy is presiding over a group of children. Now if that is the case does the childishness get applied like a blanket to Congress or is it meant as a sharp jab at all the new Democratic members of Congress. Given the visual hostility has gotten blatant at times towards the Democratic Party, I would guess the such things are meant to visually malign the Dems. As mentioned it would be difficult to imagine Nancy not going along with this photo op in some way.
Maybe she demonstrates some guile herself depending on how this image is used by her and the Democratic party as time goes on. Yes, there is the more immediate mommy vibe in the picture; but this photo does offer the Democratic party use of this image to mark the time at which Congress was led by an adult and the children of the United States and their future stability was assured.
With that in mind this work is a photo op for sure, the same as the commander in chimp’s strut on the USS Abe Lincoln was in 2003. Back then the image was eaten up by the media one and all as one of leadership and triumph. Today those images are more often fodder for the likes of the Daily Show or shorthand for the careless ignorance and recklessness of his Iraqi endeavor. I really hope that Madame Speaker Pelosi can take today’s images and bring about a 180 in tone and perception for the better in the years to come.

The pics coming out are part and parcel of the routine trivialization of Democrats that we’ve been subjected to for at least the last 14 years. The message is clear:
Democrats = not serious, not powerful. Therefore not worthy of respect.
So very tired of this. The *only* bright spot, after being treated to this visual garbage, recent “news articles” about what Hillary is eating, and Yahoo’s “mistake” in captioning a picture of Obama as “Osama” is that it’s obvious WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.
There are lots of people making a lot of noise about this crap, and I for one am very glad.

i’m jus wondering which kid she gonna bop on the head.

When I look at the photo, my eyes see the children, then focus on Pelosi at the center, and then go up to the gavel she’s holding up. I saw a video clip of her after she was handed the gavel, and she did seem pretty thrilled with it.
I don’t know… I understand the point that the BAG makes, but “back-stabbing”? I think it’s too bad that being surrounded by children is perceived as being so negative. From looking at the slide show, it seemed like a family affair, with spouses and children in attendance. Would the photo have been acceptable only if there were no children? Are children not taken as seriously as men? Hasn’t she played up her role as a mother and grandmother? Maybe she wanted to share the moment with her grandchildren. (I guess I’m “rationalizing”.)
Don’t people want a Congress which will be concerned about children – whether in terms of education, health care, a possible draft, or whatever? Don’t children represent a sort of sincerity and frankness and optimism that we could only hope for in the Congress?
If it were a man with children around him, would it be considered so negative and trivial? Don’t male politicians always have wives and children tagging along?
I’m reminded that, sadly, American society is not very child-friendly…
The front page of my newspaper had a large color picture of Nancy Pelosi with other women members of Congress. (I think it was this one.) Is that also offensive, because it’s “only” women?

She undoubtedly arranged the presence of the children at the podium for her own reasons — which, I think, were to project family joyfulness and fresh air — even if she risked being seen as a soccer grandmother. She also refers to her family in her speeches. In a certain way, however, I agree with the point that the MSM underrates her: without too much press coverage until very recently, she has slipped up on the outside to become the most high-ranking woman in power in U.S. history.

Rejoice! Unto us a new millenium is finally born! No one, NOT ONE, can take that away from US. House cleaning has begun.

I think it’s a bit much that is was used as the main picture, but otherwise it’s wonderful. It was a day of celebration and acknowlegement that families and the future matter. Maybe women who view it have less trouble with this image than men do. Just a sexist thought…

I agree that the MSM, with its conservative bias, has a grudge against Nancy Pelosi and often portray her (and other liberals) with condescension or as implicit threats.
But the theme of the photo gallery, it seemed to me was youth and change, even transformation. And what a fascinating narrative! It starts with the pomp & power of men in “Old Senate.” Next, Nancy Pelosi receiving the gavel (the first female speaker!). Then a shot of the “new” Congress: the image centers on a African American and a line of female representatives. The fourth shot–which I found fascinating–is Jim Webb with his Asian wife. A mixed race marriage! Then, Ted Kennedy looking like the cryptkeeper, followed by the 3 stooges, a younger, taller, next generation representative, flanked by old men. Then Nancy Pelosi in the new Congress: count the demographic. I count 10 people (including the headlesss woman in the white jacket): two African Americans, two Asians, five women, three white haired men. Then the photo that lib4 commented on–Clinton lecturing Cheney while Hillary waits her turn. Then a child–a female child at that–plays on the stately chairs. Finally, Nancy Pelosi looking about 16 (though she is 67!)
So, in the context of this series, I have a different take on the Pelosi with children photo: Youth, generational change, transformation. Perhaps, the image is one of Lady Liberty with a new America: she lifts her lamp (er, gavel) and welcomes the tired, poor, huddled masses (er, healthy, well-fed, clean children) yearning to breathe free.
How one interprets this as condescension may depend on ones pov. People will see it both ways. Those who regard a woman surrounded by children, the image of motherhood, as implicitly weak, powerless, and/or inferior may view this as a demeaning representation. So, maybe I am rationalizing, but I regard that interpretation as dated. I see radical change: Maybe the paradigm is shifting at last. Perhaps female “liberation” no longer needs to be “child-free”, framed in terms of male standards of power?
In this context it is interesting that this very morning my daughter showed me the latest fashions in young woman’s magazine. She was complaining that the styles were all shapeless sacks like maternity clothes.

I don’t care. Quit denigrating us for being mothers and grandmothers – it’s who we are, part of our identity.
If people want to see that as weak or something, let them. Pelosi knows who she is and isn’t afraid of it. That is a message all women in this country need. And then the patriarchy does lose some of its power.
The MSM response is a patriarchy that is afraid of this new feminine power. But it’s been rising since I was a child, and now it’s taking hold. If you guys don’t like it, oh well.

…after being abused for so many years by the likes of the political “conservatives” and their “fright-wing” enablers in the media, I don’t blame BagNewsNotes for being a little sensitive, overly sensitive.

My first thought was that the gavel was being wielded over the children like a club, as others have pointed out. In that sense I found the photo negative. But she looks too happy to be perceived as bullying. The children make it a bad photo because their proximity and association with her makes her natural sense of excitement seem childish…look at me! I’ve got the big boy’s gavel! Wheeeee! The photo infantilizes her in this sense. BUT…..
Um…Bush is photographed with children a lot. Why isn’t that condescending? When he was reading MY PET GOAT it was supposed to be all touching and such (it didn’t turn out that way, it revealed him as the mental infant that he is), but if Pelosi does it, and the press comments on it, will it be therefore sexist?
Pelosi has five children, if I’m not mistaken. She IS a mother. She likes kids. That’s great. Get over it. She admires Ann Richards, who was a great woman and politician but still had lots of makeup and big white hair in the Southern lady style.
My governor is Jennifer Granholm (MI), who wears pantsuits a lot and does not cultivate a soft appearance. Financially astute, she is being very hard nosed about balancing the budget and doesn’t really care whose toes she steps on while she does so. She is outspoken and tough.
So guess what? The MSM portrays her as “butch” (you can also replace the “u” with an “i”). Let’s face it, you cannot make the MSM happy when it comes to women in high places. So we might as well forget about it. When we realize that women politicians are like male ones, all different, then the stereotypes will matter less and what will matter is what they accomplish. Granholm was easily reelcted, by the way, so I’m not the only one who thinks she’s great.
Should Pelosi have refused to be photographed with schoolchildren in order to stage manage an image that doesn’t make her look too “motherly”? Do you think that would have helped? Ask Gov. Granholm. It does not, it just gets you labeled with another set of degrading names.
And I agree, the MSM has an axe to grind with her. She is an attractive person but you rarely see a picture of her that is flattering. She usually looks at least ten years older than she is.

Why do you suppose that Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Condi get a pass, but Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are pilloried in the press?

Actually, my wife and I like this photo of the Speaker becasue it reinforces that her priorities are related to family and children, the future. Think how different this photo is from some absurd photo of Bush surrounded by a bunch of men signing legislation that affects women or children.

I agree with many of these posts, and I’m glad that the Bag readers fought back on this one. I think the Bag’s initial take on the picture as a negative attack is all about seeing something new and different from the perspective of the status quo.
In a world where old white dudes rise to power, then amass power and money for their own sake – a woman leader surrounded by children does look lame.
But..
If we consider the purpose of the body she leads – to govern a nation, be the representative of the people to our government, to make the laws we have to live by – then this becomes a triumph!!
It’s high time we had the female side of humanity empowered to this degree! We certainly need it. I’m a guy, but shit – the one sided power structure isn’t working. It’s like weight lifting 24/7 and never stretching – or eating raw meat all the time without your veggies. Anything that is out of balance will eventually produce out-of-whack results. Look at our world!! Bush is about to start a war with a huge Islamic nation – Iran – just to keep the War momentum going after choosing to start the first unnecessary and illegal war. War on top of war so he could be a war president?? That’s out of whack.
We need the balance. And if the polar opposite of male-dominated war and corruption culture looks like a woman surrounded by kids, then BRING IT ON.
The “weakness” interpretation (and the congress OF kids interpretation) will have to be proven wrong by the people who are about to kick some ass in this new congress. If they hold Bush, et al accountable and bring our country back to strength and sanity we’ll look back on this picture and smile – without the slightest thought of weakness or immaturity.

This particular photo-op was a silly mistake. I get that she’s a mother and a grandmother, and the idea she’s attempting to convey here is that she not only cares about her own, but cares about our children’s futures as well. But…..
Perhaps if the American people were not so cynical, so divided, she might have been able to pull this off. Perhaps. However, the fact that she doesn’t appear to understand the political climate of her own country shows a lack of insight, and is nearly unforgivable. She will now have to prove herself to me, as I have yet to see anything from her that I could get excited about.
I will say that it’s about time that “marble ceiling” was broken. It should have happened long, long ago.

I’m not sure about this. One of the things I read yesterday pointed out that the kids in the shot are also from Republican families, which no doubt caused them to grind their teeth as the kids were kept up on the podium for much longer than just a photo shoot.
I think it speaks volumes about two things: the actual inclusion and/or caring about children, instead of the empty and meaningless no child left behind shtick and;
that so many people see it as negative says quite a bit about our mysogynistic, yes mysogynistic, society. Which is a shame.

You mean this pic’ of the Clintons and … Dick
http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/04/us/04congress_slide7.jpg
I like the picture of Nancy Pelosi. But I keep hearing her words about history being made by her election to Speaker of the House and the “marble ceiling.”
As for the other picture…the first commenter at Huffington:
“Classic MSM.
The 110th is just being sworn in, and already they’re being attacked, second-guessed and criticized by the beltway insiders, the retard punditry, arrogant newspaper editors, and even the more wingnut leftists of the democratic party.
Illustrates again the adage that women have to work twice as hard to prove their mettle.

I think her body language is terrible here. Sure, it’s a triumphant wave of the gavel, but it even looks contrived. Very much so. Her eye contact and the tilt of her head is all wrong. The kids are insignificant to the problems with Nancy’s pose- something about her reminds me of “the Lynndie.”
So count me as +1 for agreeing that there is a visual vendetta. What do we do about it?
An afterthought: even if there is a vendetta, this is still surely a much better photo than any we’ve seen of Fat Denny. So maybe it’s just relative.

1. She staged the photo op. She should have known that it could be used against her.
2. The picture itself is not negative. She looks wonderful, and the kids are not being exploited. (Those who imagine the gavel as a weapon are reaching. Do you really think so? Are you sophomores in your first literary theory class or something?) What IS negative is the accompanying banner headline in The Times: JUBILANT DEMOCRATS ASSUME CONTROL ON CAPITOL HILL. And below that is a photo of: children. That is intellectual dishonesty. Even shameful.
3. I don’t believe there is a conservative or liberal bias. There is a bias to money, though. There is also a bias to printing interesting pictures. The Republicans were better at managing their imagery. There was another party that was really good at that, too, whose name I’m forgetting. . . Germany, 1930’s . . . National something….

The BAG says: “I believe much of the MSM, including the NYT, has a visual vendetta against Nancy Pelosi.”
Whether or not this is true, the MSM did not *prevent* Nancy Pelosi from becoming the first female Speaker in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives. And no one in the media, not even the self-important NYT, can take that immutable fact away from Pelosi, even if the visuals present a bias against her. Her victory is, therefore, even sweeter, because it actually proves the *limits* of the media’s influence.

Well, Nancy all power to you. Hope you will be working with all your might to get the occupation troops out of Iraq. Hope that you will be speaking for the universal medical coverage for all! Hope you will bring back the Constitutional rights to all citizens! Hope you will start repairing the damage done by the Patriot Act. Hope you will liquidate Guantanamo concentration camp. Hope you will put the period behind bush!
If not, there will be nothing then that will bring the faith back in the voting process that has only two political parties in elections. There has to be difference!

Bag, Pelosi is a beautiful, rich woman, smart, politically savvy, and knows what the heck she is doing……get over it: a woman is in charge and will be doing things differently, you can count on it. All your subliminal concerns about showing her for what she is (see above) doesn’t wash.
Above and beyond all this is the bigger truth: Pelosio is a human being, as are all women. Men just can’t seem to grasp that fact with any grace of acceptance.

Certainly the MSM has a vendetta against any successful woman. How dare she? I agree with Stella on this. But I also am aware that Pelosi staged it.
As one of her longtime constituents, I just want to say that Pelosi always photographs abominably, even in the adoring local media. She is tiny, but not in a way that makes her more attractive. Maybe she wanted the kid shot because she’d be look larger in contrast. I’m serious.
Her achievement in becoming Speaker is all the more amazing because she also is not a commanding speaker — she does not electrify or even hold a room.
Obviously the qualifications for her post have become 1) ability to manipulate a fractious caucus and 2) ability to raise campaign funds. That is where she excels.

After considering this picture, it occured to me that justice would be served if Pelosi used this gavel to pound Bush about the head and body for as long as it would take to make him confess that he’s a bungling idiot responsible for the failures over which he has presided, which, given her percieved physical strength (she ain’t no Barry Bonds) and Bush’s stubbornness and ego would probably take the last 2 years of Bush’s presidency.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/01/04/us/20060105_CONGRESS_SLIDESHOW_10.html

I think Pelosi looks buoyant and triumphant, as she should after twelve long years in the dungeon of republican filth. The democrats have been saying for months that our children will be paying for this neocon ‘experiment’. Pelosi may have deliberately encouraged children to be in the shot or they may have been all her grandchildren. All very serious as I’m sure they were cautioned many times before entering that building. So it’s interesting that the NYT’s attempts to demean her (if that’s what it was) may just turn out to be a campaign photo for the dems in ‘08.
In the past few days, I have watched (on BookTV) while a stuffed professor tried to tortuously identify women as not men. Then the January VanityFair has an article (sic) by that aging sot C. Hitchens, that women are not funny. I assume what he means by that is that women don’t laugh at the infantile slapstick of The Three Stooges. However, the women I know think men are very funny, indeed. Of course men don’t agree. Men love to identify women by male standards. Phooey! That’s like explaining dogs by saying, ‘how sad, they aren’t monkeys, are they?’
But I have observed from many years in business that women tend not to play the game the same as men. Or maybe it’s that they don’t play the men’s games. That makes the men very nervous.
Pelosi has put up with these doddering old farts in Congress for many years and wouldn’t have gotten to the position she has without knowing a thing or two. This, in itself angers most men. Newsmen included. From what I’ve seen, Pelosi is not particularly photogenic and has a very expressive face (which probably serves her well in person), but this is one of the better photos I’ve seen of her. I’m not sure what point NYT was trying to make about the children; on C-span children were everywhere and mostly with the men (for obvious reasons).
I think what those old men are afraid of is that women will turn out to be better at this government thing than they are and what will they do then? I read something long ago about a suffragette trying to get girls admitted to medical school. The male director of the male college replied, “But when they’re better at it than the boys, what will the boys do then?”
What will the boys do, indeed!

I disagree with BAG’s interpretation and I don’t think I’m rationalizing. What’s more, tonight at a restaurant, I overheard two couples at the next table commenting favorably on the image as indicative of a fresh and healthy approach.
Pelosi must have said thousands of times that this election was for the children, something that I believe has deep meaning to her. She also spoke about being surrounded by a group of school children on her way into the Capitol very early on the day after the election. She took this as a good omen.
So yesterday she invited children to take a place on the stage of power with her. It’s the only day of the year – as far as I know – that the floor is literally “crawling” with kids. (See that Times slideshow link above for the little girl peering around the back of her chair.)
If anything, I take the image as striking a deep-deep consciousness about the redefinition of power via women, via motherhood. via all that is feminine.
Now, that said, I expect to witness all manner of misogyny rising in reaction. But the picture on the front page is the picture Pelosi wanted to send across America, and not for empty reasons.

I saw the letter that Pelosi and Reid wrote to Bush, and I was struck by her signature. The “N” was a big, fat lower-case “n” that looked like my 5-year-old could have written it. The rest of her name was more normal. I’m curious to hear what our amateur handwriting analaysts would say about it.

I love you, Gasho.

The Bag deals with images, folks. Images. And image = perception. The headline with the picture is very inappropriate and gives a very negative view. The new Democratic Congress has been infantilized. I agree with the Bag on this one. Out of all the pictures, why’d they pick this one? Because it feeds into perceptions about women and Democrats and children. They are all weak. The MSM has been playing this line on the Dems since…forever. It’s a storyline started by the Republicans which the MSM always finds time to echo.
Am I glad Pelosi likes kids and wanted to include them? Sure. But the selection of this image as THE image by the NYT (and her very much staged photo-op for the chiiiillllllren!) are gag worthy. The medium is the message.

“And image=perception.” san antone rose
BINGO! And as I posted earlier, Pelosi should have known how this would play in our profoundly nasty political climate, and by our distinctly American press.
Politically savvy? I think not.

Politically savvy?
Absolutely.
50% of the voting public is female and this picture connects with us. We understand the strenghth, the perseverance, the wisdom, the character, the gentleness, the compassion it takes to deal with and raise kids.
Surrounded by children? the future? with a new found power?
Genius.

I saw the letter that Pelosi and Reid wrote to Bush, and I was struck by her signature. The “N” was a big, fat lower-case “n” that looked like my 5-year-old could have written it. The rest of her name was more normal. I’m curious to hear what our amateur handwriting analaysts would say about it.
Oh Jezzus H. Christ on a spinnaker! What next, huh?
Cactus had a tremendous entry: “Men love to identify women by male standards. Phooey! That’s like explaining dogs by saying, ‘how sad, they aren’t monkeys, are they?’
But I have observed from many years in business that women tend not to play the game the same as men. Or maybe it’s that they don’t play the men’s games. That makes the men very nervous.”
Who says it has to be done the way it has been done for the past 12 years OR ever? Some of the comments here are as dastardly as those in the MSM. Can’t even give the woman her due.
Also, I saw Patty Murray on CSPAN speaking about student loans, and she told how her mother was on welfare …. all seven children went to college and one became a U.S. senator. I can’t remember the gentleman who followed her, but he was touched you could tell. He never knew, he said.
As for the children there, whether they were all related to Pelosi or others who represent the people of this country, it matters little. They will have seen something great. The first woman Speaker of the House in the history of our country, some 230 years after our ‘founding’ and fairly close to a century (1920) after women everywhere in the U.S. got the right to vote (although some states were more progressive).

What the hell is an unbaked 1st grade teacher?
Pelosi will be fine, your angsty handwringing notwithstanding. She’s not going to go all Dustin Hoffman auditioning in Tootsie on us (“I can be taller! I can be shorter!”). She’s going to be herself. The one who, before this, if you’ll remember, got elected by her peers as minority leader. They thought she had the goods and so do I. “Oh, she doesn’t electrify a room,” “Oh, I don’t like how she writes the N in Nancy”—pfeh. She’ll be fine.

Sorry, but I just don’t see it.
The story of the day was the opposition party taking control of the Congress. The visual representation of that story is the new House Speaker wielding the gavel. So how is it an odd choice that the Times ran that photo on page 1?
And how is it evidence of the MSM’s “visual vendetta” against Pelosi when she herself invited those children up to the podium, for no other reason than to be photographed with her?
Really, I do believe this is a bit of a stretch.

Let me explain… I wasn’t trying to find something to pick on her about. I was at the computer this morning and heard on the TV News (Al-Jazeera English, I think) about the letter that the Democrats sent to Bush, so I was interested and glanced up at the TV. And the signature really caught my attention. After the comments about looking childish, about mommies and teachers, I was struck by the huge, childish looking “n”, which didn’t match the rest. And in previous posts, people have analyzed the handwriting on notes written by Bush – so I was curious if anyone had any comments. Unfortunately, I can’t find a picture of the letter online…

http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/pres1507.pdf
Here you go, ummabdulla – make yer case!
Yeah, it’s quite noticeable; it’s different. It’s distinctive.
My signature depends on the circumstances and how I’m feeling. It ranges between legible to chicken-scratched wavy lines. My best-behavior penmanship is nicer than Reid, although similar in style.
And, I’m pretty sick of everything having to be a certain way, a certain style, a certain this or that because of gender, nationality, religious preference (or not), et.al. I’m tired of the box. The world needs to get outside that damned box.
(Disclaimer: This is no way personal umma…just venting!)

“We understand the strenghth, the perseverance, the wisdom, the character, the gentleness, the compassion it takes to deal with and raise kids.”
Sure. I won’t disagree with any of that. But the proof is in the pudding. Day care workers and teachers are still amongst the lowest paid jobs. How much does the society really value women and children? Still not nearly enough.
If Pelosi were making some sweeping speech about subsidized day care for dual income families, then maybe the “for the chillllldren!” group shot would’ve been more meaningful. But no matter, because all alone, that image, deep down in the lizard part of our brains, portrays weakness.

Thanks, Kitt.

Do not discount the possibility, no, perhaps it was an intentional sub-text in Pelosi’s mind, that she is used to dealing with lots of children. Therefore, she will have no trouble dealing with Congress.
And do not discount the impact this event will have on the children present when they grow up. I still remember visiting Congress in session when Sam Rayburn was speaker, spittoon and all. He was a legend, in the old sense of a Speaker who knew how to corral the troops and get things done, including the New Deal and Route 66. I wonder if these young girls will be thinking that they should/could go into politics. Not a bad legacy for a grandmother.
ummabdulla, I can’t remember what the ‘penmanship lower-case’ N means, but usually the out-of-proportion caps mean a desire to assert oneself, if I remember correctly. What I did notice, however, is that the breaks in her writing (although it’s not good to judge on signature only) would indicate someone who follows hunches, an intuitive thinker. That kind of goes along with being a good politician, I think. Note the contrast signature of Reid, where there is almost no separation even between the two names.

Because I have no specific expertise in handwriting analysis, and I can’t draw upon my training in character analysis because I’m not very familiar with Nancy’s Pelosi’s background or even her political personality (yet), I’m a little tentative about the handwriting sample.
That said, I find this sample very intriguing. As opposed to the direction Cactus is going, I don’t believe there are necessarily one-to-one relationships between individual projective expressions of a symbolic nature (such as dreams or handwriting) and their meanings. I think the meaning, always hypothetical by the way, can only be derived “contextually,” based on what we come to undestand as the consistent behavioral patterns (particularly the more conflictual ones) of an individual.
I find Pelosi’s signature so interesting that it bears a few comments. (Also, as I/we get to know her psychology, I’m sure we can and will come back to this signature with more ideas.) Strictly in terms of observation, I find three elements very interesting.
1.) The overall writing style of the first name differs from that of the last. The first name appears simpler/less sophisticated than the last name.
2.) The first name is disconnected. The “N” is set off from the “an,” and the “cy” stands alone as well.
3.) The “N” is very unusual in its size, in the fact it is lower case (as opposed to the capital “P” in “Pelosi”) and for its simplicity (even childlike quality).
If you wan’t a tentative, but not very deep first thought about this, I would guess that Ms. Pelosi, when you first meet her (or, when she approaches something new) starts out in a tentative, simplistic and, perhaps, even a juvenile way.
I think you might then encounter a kind of piecemeal approach, marked by a series of “fits and starts,” that grows in its sophistication, but is still overly broad, a bit on the simplistic side, and doesn’t necessarily go together well. (Because all this comes out of the first name, these dynamics might also manifest more when the situation involves more of a social/interpersonal or “first name” kind of involvement.)
I think that you might get a completely different Pelosi, however, once she has gotten further into a situation, experience or relationship — especially when the circumstance is “all business.” At that point, I might guess that “Pelosi” becomes much more put together, smoother, (perhaps tighter, much more economical, more rapid, as well), more able to “see the whole picture,” much more sure of who she is.
In terms of the personality overall, I seems we’re looking at a person who is very approachable, quite straightforward, not particularly conflicted or overly complex, and not flashy or particularly dramatic. At the same time, however, we might be dealing with someone who can be noticeably unintegrated, particular at the onset of things, even childlike. (I wish I had a better take on the last name alone, because it seems much richer in personality than I have represented.)
By the way, it’s sort of interesting to compare Pelosi’s signature to Harry Reid’s. My guess is that their working styles might be quite different. I wondering if Reid is someone who likes to approach things all at once (see how his first and last name run together) where Pelosi’s style is to handle things much more incrementally.
Anyway, those are just some random thoughts.

Whoa, handwriting analysis! First off, I want to point out that psychologists who have measured the relationship between handwriting and performance find nothing, zero correlation, between handwriting and personality or between handwriting and performance. Handwriting is more a function of small motor skill than a window on the unconscious.
That said, interpreting the visuals is the blood sport of BagNewsNotes, so validity data be damned!
I look at Pelosi’s handwriting and what is striking that interesting capital, of course, and that she hasn’t blurred any of the details. The graphology rule of thumb, if I recall my teenaged explorations correctly, is that your signature is how you present yourself to the world with the capitals carrying most of the weight. The “N” is unconventional– a humorous “n”, a sly ideographic pun. It strikes me that her N is bridge-like (and herself from San Francisco!) So I interpret its witty simplicity and soaring arch as suggesting someone who is idealistic, open, approachable, happy, eager to find solutions to barriers or obstacles and move on.
I interpret the break in her handwriting, between the n and c, as efficiency–those cursive lower case ‘C”s were always a waste of lead. You see the same thing in her unlooped “Y” and capital “P”. Her handwriting is upright–that shows self-discipline, iirc. And the looped “o” on Pelosi indicates the ability to keep secrets–nothing will leak out. Finally, that perfectly formed “i” that ends her signature: that may be the most interesting letter of all. Does she see things through and make sure that all is right at the end?
I interpret this as the signature of a person with integrity, good-humor and independence. She wants to communicate clearly with others, and wants to be seen as open, straightforward, efficient, disciplined, thorough, conscientious. She is apt to be frugal (no wasted lead!) and orderly. She will get things done and done right.

oh, and ummabdulla, thanks for pointing out Pelosi’s signature. That was fun!

Thanks, PTate, I was hoping you’d sign in on this, especially since my memory fades from time to time. I could only add one thing, that usually slanted right writing indicates someone more emotional, however tempered by the fact that we are all originally taught to write with a right-slant. On both signatures the slants are true throughout, indicating a level emotional attitude.
I liked The Bag’s psychological approach. I hadn’t thought of handwriting that way before.

As much as I do like the idea that the initial “N” in Nancy Pelosi’s signature is a “sly ideographic pun,” I must point out that in so-called cursive writing, the capital “N” is just as she wrote it: a big lowercase n.

PS: I mean, sheesh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cursive.png

Conrad: “in so-called cursive writing, the capital “N” is just as she wrote it: a big lowercase n”…well, bummer.
So I am faced with a dilemma. Do I try to maintain my lovely argument, by finding examples of cursive capital N’s that are not just as she wrote it (eg, here, for example) or do I change the interpretation? It is all post hoc after all.
…I suppose this is why psychologists find zero statistical support for graphology.

My take on the photo (no comment on the sig) is that it signifies Congress is going to be REALLY DIFFERENT now – Buh-Bye good old boys.
It shows Pelosi is more than capable of keeping the big babies that are her collagues in line. I see it as a sly comment on Congress itself, showing her as the lone adult.

What if Nancy Pelosi came to work wearing a janitor’s outfit?
Ready to do some cleaning up.
Bring the pride back. Let a little light-of-day into the corners of this place. Clear out the bloodstained halls and kick out the dirty rats. Fix up the flooded basement, and give our neighbors and friends a welcomed change of attitude. We’ve had enough of the USA being an ill kept frat house on fire, with crazies yelling from the rafters about ’staying the course’ while pointing nuclear powered bb-guns at bystanders.
Let’s clean this house up.
I’d love to see her hit that gavel-stand with a dust-pan!! I’m serious. 99% of us have to clean our own toilets. When’s the last time a politician’s priorities spoke to US? The 1% (or is it the .01%?) that doesn’t has been delicately stroked and served of late. Not enough caviar in the world could be worth $8,000,000,000.00/month and bloodshed of innocent children. Things have gotten sick. The Earth itself is getting unhappy, and probably quickly. We need to clean house now and get our butts in gear as the planet runs out of oil, it gets hotter and the seas begin to rise, and the Easy Economy goes away for a while.
After we clean the house, it will be time to prepare our gardens, meet our neighbors and start teaching our children. Put some solar panels on the roof and learn to play the guitar — unless you want to pedal the generator-bike to watch the TV. Get efficient, get local and get frickin real about how we live.
What if that were the message?
Can you see Kucinich there with his gardening boots actually dirty?
Russ Feingold with Solar installer toolkit and overalls?
Make up your own -> politician + useful outfit = visual campaigns.

Interesting- first time visitor to this blog. I’m enjoying the comments. I was hoping someone would address this one, but no one did, so I’ll take it on.

If Pelosi were making some sweeping speech about subsidized day care for dual income families, then maybe the “for the chillllldren!” group shot would’ve been more meaningful. But no matter, because all alone, that image, deep down in the lizard part of our brains, portrays weakness.

Umm yeah. Or maybe…
But no matter, because all alone, that image, deep down in the lizard part of our brains, reminds us of the power women have to create life.
Yeah, I know, both statements are ridiculous. I’m just sayin.
(Writer’s note: The phrase “I’m just sayin” is correctly translated here as: Dude, you realize you aren’t giving us insight into “the lizard brain,” but rather into your own belief systems, right?)

is her rel name pelosio??