McClellan’s Cover

Seems like a very amateurish cover for what I assume was a relatively large-budget enterprise. Clearly, Condi AND McClellan belong on the “Dark Side” with all the other Bush sycophant/enablers.
I’m inclined to dismiss this book as just another overstatement of what was obvious to many of us from the outset, however the condemnation by White House staff past and present has been surprisingly strong. Probably just an attempt to salvage a Bush legacy by controlling the narrative, since there is no (positive) substance to base one on.

I’m not convinced that’s Laura behind George. Maybe Harriet Miers?

I am fascinated by the posture of the two men. McCellan is clearly on the defensive and Bush has a scornful irritated expression. To put everyone else in black and white, and this particular shot the cover for the book sends me the message that Bush made McCellan do it…. However,yesterday’s Huffington’s Post picture of Bush’s pinched lips and poisonous eyes told the entire story. Perhaps, McCellan was a bit of a coward for not quitting and revealing sooner, but I suspect Bush and his hit men, do a lot of bad if you don’t come up with the ‘goods’.

I see McClellan reaching across gingerly, toward Bush’s open pocket flap. As if he wants to make contact, but is afraid to. He can’t decide whether to yank Bush toward him by the pocket flap, and plead for forgiveness ,or grab his shirt by the flap, hold him in place and thrash him upside the head. It is a come here, go away gesture. Yearning and revulsion. Respect and defiance.

Isn’t that Karen Hughes behind W?

These are two people in opposition visually. I see Bush as growling or threatening somewhat, and McClellan as deferring just the slightest bit, but still making his point. He’s got his “head down”, protecting his neck, and his finger wants to poke Bushes’ chest, but his nerve isn’t strong enough to actually get to that action. The women are a puzzle, not sure they mean much, except to me, as a woman, it’s nice that the cover shows people in power and it’s 50-50 gender-wise. Also notable, nobody’s smiling.
A fortunate shot, with the wall cleanly separating the main men. Too bad McClellan’s legacy won’t be as clear cut, as his legacy will certainly be “more on the dark side” of this photo.

This cover belongs on Photoshop Disasters
(photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com)
-Wolfgang

Interesting comments so far.
The black-and-white is background, unconscious. The two women are the animas — unconscious, shadow side — of the two men, Scottie’s is like a double, Bush’s is tucked in like an extra face. It may be significant that we cannot recognize Bush’s. (For Jung the anima is a man’s unconscious, the animus — male — a woman’s, so there’s no equation here of dark side with female in general, but just for males.) Each has one. Scottie also has an alter ego (male) behind him, ducking away, hiding his face, not facing up to Bush.

Bush: “Dammit, I told you I wanted butterscotch, not hot fudge! If I don’t get some butterscotch around here soon, I’m going to blow something up!”
McClellan: “Mr. President…”
Bush: “I mean, how hard can it be to get butterscotch? Chocolate is good, but after being a real man clearing the brush, you want butterscotch!”
McClellan: “Mr. PRESIDENT…”
Bush: “What?”
McClellan: “Mr. Presi…”
Bush: “You better have some butterscotch for me.”
[many nervous laughs]
McClellan: “Mr. President I think you’re going the wrong direction.”
Bush scowls.
McClellan: “Hot fudge is perfectly acceptable. And you have some lint on your shirt.”

Looking at the relatively small amount of stock video the cablenets have been using, you have to think that there wasn’t a huge archive of still footage to draw upon. That’s significant, given that McClellan’s role was as the Mouth of Bush, visible when the man himself was not.
I’m tempted to think that it’s ’shopped and that McClellan has been slid into a photo of Bush on the ranch, a Zelig figure that merges into the black of the title section. The composition’s interesting, though: it’s hard to maintain focus on Bush: the eye jerks away to the left, as if you don’t want to look straight at the president.

Fooled by photoshop, was I? Well, then it does belong on photoshop disasters, because if it’s ’shopped, it’s a bad job all right, especially for a cover. Thanks to commenters above for bringing out the significance of the women.

I wish everyone would stop asking why McClellan didn’t say something while he was on the job! That is what Rove et al. are using to discount him. But, he was the PRESS SECRETARY. His job was to take what they told him and sell it to the WH press corps. He was not to speak; he was their pawn. And he was chosen for the job because he appeared to be a weak yes man. I commend him for coming forward and braving the onslaught of sh#@ that will now fly his way. Had he spoken up at the time he would have been forced to “retire so he could spend more time with his family”–after they duct-taped him to the WH toilet.
Get a clue, and use this against the neocons instead of overthinking it like the DNC and party does with everything else.

Smarter than a second termer. A phrase that comes to mind. It would be interesting to see what pro-manipulators like Alan Chin (and I mean that as the most sincere complement), would make of amateur attempts at montage. Such as this.
I have a feeling that the phrase ‘diisdain’ sums up a lot of feelings at the moment. Et tu brute: Scott?

Somebody ’shopped the subtitle, too?
Both B&N and Amazon show it as “Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.
I believe there may be two different covers out there, odd as it sounds.
Also, per catfood, PublicAffairs, who published the book, gives lowish advances according to Jonathan Alter. He argued that last night on Dan Abrams’ show. The figure Jon gave was “less than $100K.” Not sure if that indicates whether the enterprise would be large- or small-budget overall.

Thank you Jan Kees for describing the anima and alter-ego readings of the shot. I’d like to add some to it..
Indeed the man behind Scotty is ducking down and shamed, but the anima of Conne is the opposite. Scottie even says of Connie that she was able to be in terrible situations and come out smelling like a rose – exactly what he wants from this confession strategy. He wants to tell it like it is and come clean – to save his very soul no less. He’s mentioned his Christian values as a motivation to spill the beans. Since Bush surrounded himself with professed Christians as part of his permanent campaign strategy, he was bound to have one or two who actually take their faith and the teachings of Jesus seriously and turn on the devil in the end.
Bush’s anima is corpse-like. The shadow of Bush’s chin even gives her a head scarf and her body appears to be wrapped in all black. He’s effectively got a skull necklace on… just like Kali, the destroyer, the goddess of death!
So, Scotty the Guilty looks into the eyes of The Devil and reaches across … across.. a cross.. A CROSS!! that’s what’s missing – Scotty should be wielding a Cross in that hand! Then the photoshopping would be complete and we could publish this photo in the new new testament!

The cover is an accurate reflection of what the book WANTS to be: McClellan, confronting Bush and winning. It’s got nothing to do with what was actually happening while McClellan was working for Bush. I don’t think the identities of the women in the background are important; Condi Rice is there simply because she looks strong and confrontational, whoever’s behind Bush is there to look blurry and weak. Again, “winning,” with a dash of “these people were there and I don’t have to pay license fees to use their photo on the book cover.”
I’m a little surprised that there isn’t a third person ’shopped in behind Condi, also looking strong. Oh, well. Maybe the cover designer hasn’t seen enough 30s-era Soviet art.

Just thought I’d repeat my update above for the discussion:
As I’ve been thinking about this image over the past 24 hours, I now have a very different take on it. I believe my original comments were overly affected by the MSM reaction. At this point, I feel it’s important to read the image in the context of McClellan’s act, not just of writing and publishing the book, but of taking his case public at a point where most everyone else (beyond the far left) continues to cowtow to the Administration. Like commenter mjfgates writes: “The cover is an accurate reflection of what the book WANTS to be: McClellan, confronting Bush and winning.”
In this light, Mclellan’s gesture, no matter how qualified in its historical context, today reads as “putting it to the cowboy.”

The gender issue I thought was most interesting was the fact that only two people from the media admitted that they had been subjected to pressures from the WH. Those two were women.
The day this broke, the Little Spitter ‘Hardball’ was almost apoplectic with denials that the media didn’t do it’s job. All the (male) talking heads joined the chipmunk chorus in full-throated denials. It wasn’t until the next morning that one woman said she had encountered pressure and was later joined by another woman with similar story. Still no men have come forth, even through we all know it happened…….a lot.
‘Tis a puzzlement!

I forgot to say that I completely agree with Isabella Clark’s assessment of Scotty’s gestures.

I don’t read that gesture as putting it to. I read it more of “point of order, sir?” But it is indistinct. However, since Bush is elevated and glowering down at him, I don’t think Scott is meant to be the aggressor here with his head tilted down. He is tentative. Also you can see Bush’s face is leaned slightly over his body, Scott’s leaned back (even after compensating for belly). To me the implication is that Scotty is about to get popped on the nose for talking back and knows it, but he is talking anyway. Which is true enough, both then and now.
I think Enoch Root has it, simply enough.

It looks to me like McClellan is reaching into Bush’s pocket for some Juicy Fruit chewing gum.

It looks like he just finished adjusting the Presidents invisible necktie, which is not a bad metaphor.