Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
June 11, 2011

Obama – GOP “Handicapped”

1. Bad news for Romney but even worse for Hunstman (shrunken before he started).

2. Mormon-on-Mormon violence.

3. If I was Herman Cain, would I be pissed or flattered?

4. Letting the women off with a wave, puts the men in the middle.

5. God bless Iowa. Bachmann the closest challenger!

6. Actually sets up Obama as the biggest loser. Title sees him vulnerable to midgets. Also plays “uppity” stereotype in looking down on people.

  • quax

    Don’t think the “uppity” stereotype is that prevalent in the UK. 

    The gender grouping makes sense as Palin and Bachmann go to great length to not attack each other.

    Read the size difference mostly as it’s his to lose and he has no one to blame but himself for it.

    • quincyscott

      I agree with all of this.  Obama is cast as the only grownup in the room, who could nevertheless lose to one of a bunch of puny clowns.  I read his demeanor as taking this threat seriously.  The economy sucks, and he knows it.  It’s a look of concern about both of these factors, the economics and the politics.  I don’t see a swipe here, but an acknowledgement of the thoughtful way he approaches things.  (Of course some would see this thoughtful demeanor itself as a shortcoming.  I don’t think that is what’s happening here, but I’m a bit of a biased viewer.)

  • Weldon Berger

    Reminds me of the 2006 Newsweek “Father Knows Best” cover with the elder (larger) and younger (dwarfed) Bushes. I think there’s a dismissive, beauty pageant flavor to the disengaged Bachmann and Palin images. Also, Bachmann pointing the weapon at Gingrich’s foot has to be a pun, doesn’t it? I feel like I’m suffocating on metaphors.

  • black dog barking

    BHO’s deep-in-thought pose is incongruous. There’s nothing to ponder in the cavorting Lilliputians, beyond perhaps the irony of the esteemed Economist offering *this* tableau as attention-worthy. Really? OBL, check. Nobel Peace Prize, check. Health Care reform, check. Averting total meltdown of financial system, check. Newt, Mitt, the former half-term Gov of AK, et al? Really?

    • Weldon Berger

      The incongruity is exactly the point. Possibly so is the tendency among supporters to vastly overstate Obama’s accomplishments. He did nothing to earn the Nobel prize and he used the occasion of accepting it to deliver a stirring endorsement of war as a deterrent to war. He ranks right up there with Henry Kissinger as one of the Institute’s most comical selections.

  • Anonymous

    Ulysses Grant won the Civil War by refusing to give away a lead.  His contemporaries questioned his competence, accusing him of being disengaged and a drunkard.  Lincoln commented, “Find out what Grant is drinking and send cases to all the other generals.”

    Obama’s patience in holding a lead forces the Republicans to play low-percentage politics.  The president dislikes being drawn into controversies and only does so when the probabilities favor him.  Republicans are expecting he’ll make a mistake, but they underestimate his ability to observe their struggles with a bemused detachment.  It’s tough to beat a guy like that.

    2012 is shaping up as a complete disaster for the Grand Old Party, so much so that it will force them into a redefinition of what it means to be a Republican.  Holding out for “entitlement reform” at a time when so many people are out of work?  “Social conservatism” – a coded expression for looking backward to the repression (and racism) of the 1950’s?  “Strong defense” – meaning waging wars with such abstract goals nobody can formulate their purposes into a sentence?  And this is the reasonable debate among Republicans!

Refresh Archives

Random Notes