Love Our Arts & Culture Coverage?
You can help fund it!
The reaction around the office to the photo on the cover of the New York Times today ranges from “Why does she look like that? Is she going to kiss him?” (sexist) to “Oh my—private moment!” (voyeuristic) to “Jungle fever!” (racist). This is completely inappropriate, people. They do NOT look like they are about to make out rapturously.
Christopher Frizzelle was The Stranger's print editor, and first joined the staff in 2003. He was the editor-in-chief from 2007 to 2016, and edited the story by Eli Sanders that won a 2012 Pulitzer... More by Christopher Frizzelle
Comments are closed.
Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!
He looks mighty displeased.
Eww. Just the suggestion. Eww.
My caption for this is…
“Fuck with me, bitch, and so help me god I will fucking destroy you. Are we clear?”
It looks like two politicians shaking hands–and providing a perfect blank screen upon which for folks to project their own private sexism, racism, or giddy enjoyment at stirring the political shit-pot.
She looks short.
…political shit pot
yeah but his left hand is def grabbing dat ass!! hahaha!!
How about: “Fuck the Constitution!”
U.S. Constitution Article One, Section Six reads:
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
In other words it prohibits senators (or representatives) from taking a civil office if the legislator has voted to increase the pay for that job.
Hillary was a Senator when the legislator last voted to increase the pay of the Secretary of State.
So she is barred from holding that position by the Constitution…
Details, details… A Detail one would think a President-elect who’s a former part-time constitutional law professor would presumably be aware of…
Looks like they’re having one of those “who can squeeze the hand the hardest” contests that macho types seem to enjoy with their handshakes.
You guys are totally misreading this pic. Look at the tight grips and the balance of weight as they struggle to force each other into submission. He’s pulling her in and she’s pulling him down. This is a classic silent power play.
They are way closer than the standard American hand-shaking distance in that photo, Christopher.
Yeah, they do look like they’re about to make out rapturously. Are we looking at the same picture? Eyelids drooping (or blinking), faces less than a head’s-width apart, facial expressions like they’re both holding their breaths. I know it’s coincidence, but I’m seeing it.
And how is it sexist to say that one person looks like they’re about to kiss another?
“I don’t much like you, and you don’t much like me, but I’ll be goddamned if we don’t dislike the Republicans even more.”
There’s a slideshow of Barack and Hillary’s interaction throughout the campaign up on HuffPost, and taken as a whole, it does look like Barack’s been seducing her. 😉
I think it says, “Here’s the new day. I believe in you. Let’s do great things together.” Only young people see it as a “let’s fuck” kind of thing. Sorry, kiddies. When you get past forty there are other driving forces, other things to do and think about.
Is there a Team of Rivals fan fic site up yet?
I see a forced, fake smile on two faces. An uncomfortable moment.
It looks more like she’s squeezing his hand a wee too tight, and he’s realizing that she just power tripped…
…And is turned on by it.
@8–and there’s an easy work-around, so chill out.
From the LA Times:
“Apparently, President Nixon ran into the same problem when he wanted to appoint Ohio’s Republican Sen. William Saxbe as attorney general.
The solution back then, since dubbed the “Saxbe fix,” was for Congress to pass another law (not without some outspoken dissent from Democratic senators, by the way) reducing the AG’s pay so Saxbe wouldn’t benefit financially from the higher salary he’d previously voted on.”
Relax.
She’s grinding his knuckles together like marbles in sand. It’s all he can do to keep from crying out.
Not rapturously. Furiously. With his steaming chocolate log slamming into her cold, ivory gateway to hell.
We’re going to staighten out a few of the world’s ugly wrinkles, together. Nice to have you/ be on board.
@19
So one of his first moves is to emulate Nixon?…
Looks like the whole “out of Iraq in 16 months” thing is sliding too…
And hey… who did he select as Defense Secretary?… (That really is “Change”, isn’t it?)
Looks to me like they’re having a good old-fashioned grip-strength contest.
@19
If you read the entire LA Times article you will also see:
“So much for the actual money aspect and strict construction.
We’re not lawyers. But we do speak English. And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn’t say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said “Emoluments.”
It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee’s elected term. Period. Which it has.”
But who really cares what some old piece of paper says… right?
@23 – Fuck you. Robert Gates was Change from Rumsfeld, and you too can emulate Nixon by breathing. Oh shit! You’re emulating him right now by getting hot under the collar.
@26
Okay… So is there anyone on his national security team that isn’t either on record as supporting the war in Iraq (Hillary) or the surge (Gates & Jones)?
All I see is “Don’t f with me” coming from him and a sly smirk from her that says “whatever, I do what I want. I’m a clinton!”
Also, Scott Horton at Harper’s approves of retaining Gates. It’s hard to find a more principled left-leaning take than that.
They are merely exchanging protein feeding tubes.
@21: Wait, did you just use the phrase “steaming chocolate log” to describe a black dude’s cock? Because I’m pretty sure that “steaming chocolate log” was already spoken-for by poop. And, ew.
I laughed at this picture this morning, too, but it doesn’t look like a pre-makeout photo to me at all. I strikes me more as:
Obama: “Just TRY to run against me in four years when I’m the incumbent who gave you your job.”
Hillary: “I’m a Clinton, bitch. Did you really think you’d be able to pick anyone else for this job?”
They do NOT look like they are about to make out rapturously.
Which is too bad, really. It would serve Bill right!
(Kidding! I’m kidding… I’m sure President-Elect Obama would never do that to his wife.)
You_Gotta_Get_Laid:
The pay increase at issue is an annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) the president signs and has signed at the beginning of each applicable year since the enactment of COLA in 1990. Under the interpretation of the Constitution you prefer, no senator would be eligible for Secretary of State — or several other positions — unless the utterly innocuous COLA bill is reversed.
It’s perfectly reasonable to reduce the pay and avoid any appearance of impropriety, and also reasonable to view an inflation-indexed cost of living adjustment as a far cry from an “increase of emoluments.” Not to mention, the vote on this adjustment plan occured in 1990, long before Hillary was in the Senate.
It’s plain that the intent of this passage assumed that ineligible Senators were receiving some material benefit rather than an utterly negligible increase of emoluments, and that either they or there fellows did something deliberate to enact the pay increase in the senator’s present term. Neither here is true. Not to mention, if you want to disregard intent and stick to the exact written words without any interpretation, no matter how reasonable, then, well, Senator Clinton is a woman. No dice.
I don’t know, I think you could definitely get a Han and Leia at the start of The Empire Strikes Back type vibe from this picture.
Hillary is having very powerful multiple Obasms.
I think it looks like a shotgun wedding, with the happy bride and reluctant groom.