Your Turn: ‘08 Uncoverage

well, “run-run-run, just as fast as you can…you can’t catch me…i’m the gingerbred man.” (?)

But—why? Why are naked bodies ‘characterological commentary’? If we’re supposed to think Wow, naked ambition, I get it…well, that’s pretty corny.
Politicians ARE concerned with packaging, surface, etc, as you say, but it is not their bodies they’re selling. This cover isn’t saying anything. It’s sophomoric. And, considering that everybody and their uncle can use photoshop these days, really trite.

The non-white man and the woman are stripped. The white guy gets to keep his clothes on, and is not pornified. How typical. Eh.

I like it. It demystifies these icons.
The more the press “strips” them with coarse indignities, the less chance there is for a fatal blow to arrive out of left field at an inopportune point in the election. Kind of the Brittany Spears of Paris Hilton theory of humanization. They have been knocked off their pedestal long ago. It is much easier to regain your height if you are already at ground level than if you are soaring above the clouds. The Icaraus Complex. Ask John Kerry about this one, with his Swift Boat humiliation.

Comparing them to movie actors is apt, the roles they play are equally contrived.
In terms of execution, there might be a slight problem with scaling. They all (particularly Hillary) look like pinheads. I suppose that might also have been intentional.

yuck. Interesting that they didn’t match the size of Clinton’s head with the body they pasted her onto.

Even though the Guiliani body has his clothes on, he seems even more sleazy to me. I bet the photoshopper didn’t have to look far to find a picture of him looking so naturally secretive and sleazy at the same time. Hillary’s expression seems more telling than the body she’s pasted on–she looks like the cat that just ate the mouse. And Obama’s far-off expression and contrived posture make him look stoicly uncomfortable–pensively brooding. Interresting how the actors on the original cover don’t look uncomfortable in their postures.

Kris T, the actors on the original cover don’t look uncomfortable in their postures because they are wearing their own natural heads.
I can’t believe the ascribing of intent and/or feelings of the principals whose heads—no, the PICTURES of whose heads—are pasted onto the PICTURES of other peoples’ bodies. We might as well start discussing again Murphy Brown’s out-of-wedlock baby, or how Jack Bauer is a hero and HE believes in torture. It’s the same level of reality.

Obama as “black man” and Hillary as “woman” — aren’t these the primary qualities of these presidential candidates at this point in American history? This strips them down (and dumbs things down) to the most basic element.
Rudy keeps his clothes on because we’ve had white men in the office since day 1. He comes off as the “pimp” for these two which is seriously odd, though.

demit – I agree in principle that confusing the actors with their roles is idiotic, but if Keefer Sutherland doesn’t know he’s promoting the right wingers by portraying “ok torture” then he’s an idiot who’s being used…

Well, Gahso, here we are conflating politicians with not even actors, but with the BODIES of those actors. I recognize that the argument is supposed to center on the satire the artist has created, the parodying of a (supposedly) familiar image. In advertising we call that ‘borrowed interest’, and it is used to get easy, fast attention. In editorial commentary, however, there has to be some substance behind the choice. Whatever meaning the original image had is now divorced from the actors depicted; the original people are literally disembodied, context is lost, no parallel can now be drawn. It is an empty image. This is why people are coming up with what can be read into it. There’s nothing there—save for the trite device of heads-on-different-bodies montage.

As I mention in the update I just added, I did a disservice to the readership in my original post. In trying to lighten my load heading into Friday, I was trying to leave any and all reaction to you. In setting it up, however, I ended up directing the focus toward character at the expense of politics. In reading through the initial comments, I realized this was ridiculous and that the merit here — to the extent you agree with me this public artifact bears merit — is in the political dynamics, the sexual/gender stereotyping and the bald (if unintended, more Brittney-and-Paris genre) truth-telling.
The energy and insight you bring to The BAG is too thoughtful for me not to “set a proper table.” Sorry about that.

Another right-wing trope this image promotes is a basic anti-intellectualism in politics. By objectifying these political candidates in sexually suggestive image hacks, it reinforces the message that people should choose the President of the United States the same way they choose who to approach for casual sex, which— let’s be honest— is not generally an intellectual activity.

The image suggests to me a metaphor; for all the showboating and rhetoric about right/left, black/white, male/female in politics – behind closed doors, they are all in bed together, playing the same games.

Frankly, I’m relieved that they didn’t put Edwards on the cover, too. That would have really changed the meaning. I think Neil, above, is on target. These three are “in bed” together with the guys who “brung ‘em.”

…ungh!
a foretaste of the tastelessness all women will have to bear for our first female President
caricature : “comes from the Italian caricare, “to load”, i.e., the caricaturist’s aim is to invest his image with as much meaning as possible… experienced its first successes in the closed aristocratic circles of France and Italy, where such portraits could be passed about for mutual enjoyment… This aura of privilege (for both those depicted and those viewing the caricature) passed on to England during the middle of the 18th century, when caricature enjoyed its first wave of popularity… the art form gained further popularity in the early 19th century, when satirical drawings of politicians and local celebrities would be printed in newspapers… Politicians, media stars and sporting celebrities remained the main targets…”
Monsieur says : “only in a [American] culture where abstinence is rationalized, would nakedness be seen as revealing.”

I find it most interesting that Rudi is the only one with clothes on and seems to be soliciting the Hillary figure.
I guess the very thought of him bare would not have sold many magazines, but I think the real message is Rudi is suffering from a big case of vagina envy.

Mrs. D: I might still write these up at a later date, but you are familiar with this and this, no?

The more the press “strips” them with coarse indignities, the less chance there is for a fatal blow to arrive out of left field at an inopportune point in the election.
Posted by: gabriela | Oct 12, 2007 at 07:05 AM
Indeed. As minorities, they are vulnerable (naked) and the press will strip them in a way that Guiliani will not be. His clothing is his privelege. Any stripping will be limited to an open shirt- which isn’t really stripping at all, but merely emphasizes his sexual aggression.
If this portends Rudy’s strategery, to play off the infidelity, etc. as manly aggression, which necessitates emphasizing Hillary’s femininity (what better way to do that then whisper suggestively in her ear), then Hillary’s response here is priceless.
Her bemusement suggests “Why on earth would I be into this piggish old prick when I’ve got this lying next to me/on my side?”
Or perhaps it suggests that she is listening to the sleazebag? Maybe not to Rudy exactly, but to the wing he represents, a reflection of her image as a triangulator?
Obama, meanwhile, is not paying any attention to the chatter/flirtation/whateveritis that’s going on behind his back and over his head. He doesn’t care about it. He’s focused outward on the viewer, on us, the people. His position beneath Hillary is a reflection of her status as frontrunner.

I’m sorry, but my most overwhelming emotion on viewing this image was relief that Guiliani was not portrayed naked.

The person whose portrayed nude body differs the most from what we can suppose the real one to be, is Hillary. There is no body ascribed to Rudy, and Obama’s is an idealized version of what his might actually be. But there is absolutely no connection between the youthful body on Hillary’s head, and the real body she must own. To me , this stands as the image of how much the press beautifies and flatters her.

Hillary Clinton is the only one meeting the viewer’s gaze. The expression on her face seems to be saying, “Can you believe these guys?”

He nailed Rudy for the sleaze-bag he is…..looks slimy and conspiratorial. And let’s face it, Hillary is a flirt and a tease. She promises more than she is willing to give up. It’s poor Obama that comes off looking like a baby on a bearskin rug wondering what the hell he’s doing there.
That the only one dressed is the white male is exactly in keeping with the male art tradition throughout history. Think of all the ‘picnics’ and ‘frolics’ you’ve seen in any museum of any art well into the 20th century. ALL males are dressed. ALL males were the artists. It’s the power position and the male mind just assumes that’s the way things are. I know someone is going to come up with an example, but it will be the rare exception. Even in today’s porno flicks one never sees full frontal male nudity unless in gay porn. I don’t know who the editor is and I don’t know anything about RADAR magazine. But I’ll bet the editor is male and it would never occur in a million years to make the dressed whisperer Hillary. And it’s no accident that the black male is in a slavishly submissive position. Racism is rearing it’s ugly head in this election because B43 has given it free reign.
This cover is also showing that males sexualize women in order to take away any power they may have. And the black slave is not even worthy of notice, groveling on the floor. So, c’mon, guys, admit it: This is the way the world is for white male chauvinists and any other view is anathema. Yes, it’s ugly, but Limbaugh and his dittoheads see it that way and want it that way.
Incidentally, I don’t think Rove is off spending time with his family. I think he is up to even more and dirtier tricks which, out of the WH, he hopes, has ensured, will ride under the radar (no pun). No emails to be checked, etc.
Now, I’m going to read all the other comments.

I think I’m pretty much w/ Cactus on this.
Clothes = power.
Crap, think about the language even: power suit v. birthday suit.