Gothamist: McCain Lured Into Looking Like a Monster

hitlerbaby

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:02:44 -0500

hekko

soopaman

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:01:59 -0500

Obama should starting thinking of another office to run for. Maybe Chief of Entertainment. OH! I know NY senator. I mean we let Hilary in here so why not. I could see all the dems now so confused who would you vote for? Hmm someone who will say anything to get into office or someone who will say anything to get into office? Tough choice.

soopaman

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:57:20 -0500

So should be never allowed to shoot for them. I hope we bomb her when McCain is President. McCain Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sinchy

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:42:29 -0500

She is a good photographer but just burned some big bridges, see if she gets any conservatives on the other side of her lens after this. It really is amazing that Obama hasn't tied this thing up already. Major banks are in free fall and one of the main players in the deregulation that is part of this mess, Phil Grahm, is the guy McCain wants to appoint treasury secretary. McCain's VP pick, is just as petty and vindictive and obsessed with secrecy, as the Bush admin has been. She uses government to reward her supporters and destroy her detractors, yet somehow she is the one who is going to reform Washington. We all know McCain want's to fight and "Win" a war so we are pretty much guaranteed to be shedding more blood in his admin, yet he is on the upswing. Lsiten Obama should win it, even if it is a squeaker, but thats the problem, unless he can win by a large margin, the vote suppression and computer rigging will tilt it to McCain. Check out these links on just how little Republicans (not all but the Rove types in power) think of democracy: Paul Weyrich on why conservative don't want every American to Vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw Why do you think the republicans are trying so hard to implement restrictive voter ID laws? Think about it, if you wanted to steal an election would you do it one vote at a time, lots of people committing felonies, or would you do it with one person and the flip of a switch, or one law that knocks out 100,000 of your opponents voters? On how bad computer voting is: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spoonamore&search_type=&aq=0&oq=spoona http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4141 Why Obama should worry http://www.gregpalast.com/obama-doesn’t-sweat-he-should/#more-2056

EastRiver

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:35:44 -0500

How is Sen. Obama "Elitist"? Let me say this one more time and try to understand: I NEVER CALLED OBAMA AN ELITIST. if you can show me where I did I will buy you a beer. Since I never called him an elitist I don't understand why you asked the question of me and why I have to answer it. You're trying to change the subject. Anyway, read the definition again: practice of or belief in rule by an elite. No mention of wealth defining elite anywhere. Elite could be defined by intelligence, education, beliefs, etc. But being elite by any definition does not make one an elitist. Elitist means you believe that only those in a certain small group should be allowed to rule. You really don't think that being in the Upper 5% of the wealthiest in America makes the McCain's "Elite"? Very Interesting. Being elite does not make one an elitist. If you insist on sticking to this definition then Pelosi, Kohl, Feinstein, Clinton, Kennedy, and Kerry are all elitist. Oh yeah, Obama too. Point out that Sen. McCain seems to fit the definition while Sen. McCain does not and I'm stupid? Yes, you looked up the word. No, you did not prove that McCain fits the definition. All you proved is that his wife has a lot of money. By your definition then Franklin Roosevelt was an elitist. When you figure out why he wasn't then you will finally see my point.

S.D.

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:14:25 -0500

I asked: "So, Um, How is Sen. Obama demonstrating either one and Sen. McCain NOT?" Still waiting for an answer. Tell you what: Drop Sen. McCain out of the question. How is Sen. Obama "Elitist"? Seriously? You really don't think that being in the Upper 5% of the wealthiest in America makes the McCain's "Elite"? Very Interesting. "I'm just pointing the stupidity of your posts." Well, that just hurts my feelings. Let's see: You say look up that word, I do, Point out that Sen. McCain seems to fit the definition while Sen. McCain does not and I'm stupid? Oooooookkkkkkkk....

EastRiver

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:45:17 -0500

Applying the definition of the word "Elitist" to Sen. Obama doesn't work, despite your misunderstanding of the word. If anything, it applies to Sen. McCain. Check the posts, Einstein. I never called Obama an elitist. Nice try at putting words in my mouth. I expect nothing less of you. I said being rich doesn't make one an elitist. So the question is, did YOU read the definition. Nowhere does it make a mention of wealth or defining "select" or "favored" by wealth. Would you like to try again? Don't you think that being in the Upper 5% of the wealthiest in America makes the McCain's "Elite"?? No, I don't. And I am sure four years ago you were making the argument that John Kerry was not an elitist. People like you, pardon the phrase, flip flop on these things all the time. And before you get your panties in a bigger knot, I'm not even backing McCain. I'm just pointing the stupidity of your posts.

S.D.

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:09:02 -0500

Well, "EastRiver", Oddly, I know what the word is but I'll bite: Elitist:practice of or belief in rule by an elite.consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.So, Um, How is Sen. Obama demonstrating either one and Sen. McCain NOT? Don't you think that being in the Upper 5% of the wealthiest in America makes the McCain's "Elite"?? But Of course you don't! That would require thinking about it instead of just using the word properly (Shocking, I Guess you didn't look it up). Applying the definition of the word "Elitist" to Sen. Obama doesn't work, despite your misunderstanding of the word. If anything, it applies to Sen. McCain. But you just go on and parrot your talking points, I won't spoil the surprise. As Samuel L. Jackson once said: "English, motherf***er, do you speak it?!!"

zodak

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:01:59 -0500

i don't know what this has to do with new york, & i don't like mcsame but greenberg was totally unprofessional & should not have taken the assignment. tricking mcsame into the 2nd photo was childish & more importantly does not help her cause.

EastRiver

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:05:04 -0500

S.D., Elitist does not mean privileged or wealthy. Try looking elitist up in a dictionary. I won't spoil the surprise.

ides_of_march

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:47:26 -0500

This man fought and was tortured for these idiots' right to free speech. The photo says more about he character (or lack thereof rather) of the editors of the Atlantic than it does of McCain. No, there's no no liberal bias in the media, just move along, nothing to see here.

Dude69

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:31:08 -0500

#13 - By now you should realize that it's not yours nor my perceptions of Obama that count, but the millions of undecided voters in the swing states that make or break the election. Obama STILL has not be connecting with the working class and he's perceived as aloof and talking down to them. None of them give a shit what McCain and his wife spend on their clothes. The biggest problem for the Democrats is that Republicans are much better at winning tight elections. The Biden pick did NOTHING to energize these undecided and Hillary supporters. Right now the Obama campaign is still not getting it, and they are in real trouble now.

digibrill

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:20:37 -0500

a good man smeared by artistic trash

leekane

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:05:55 -0500

I'm an independent and haven't made up my mind whom I'm voting for yet. I'll say this: the haters on the left disgust me. I know that Obama is not one of them. On the other hand, they have gone so far off the deep end -- McCain, like Obama, is a decent guy -- that they seeth with self-righteous fury at anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest or whose party affiliation begins with R. And I bet most of the lefty haters on this board, and Greenberg herself, don't have the slightest actual grasp of history, world affairs or economics. They just listen to the cant they receive from their in-crowd buddies. Brown shirts. Really bad for the country. Mass therapy needed.

Future Taliban

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:28:25 -0500

S-P-O-O-K-Y

Spiritof76

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:38:01 -0500

His skin looks kind of waxy on that cover. I think he'd be perfect for Madame Tussauds.

west side Michael

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:32:23 -0500

Mo' digital bullshit ,tacky as a flag on a menu. Picasso was said to say to a woman who showed him a photo that photography was reality unlike his abstracted art". Picasso replied "then your Husband must be 2 inches tall". Well ,that's the way i heard the story in 1955.

Roxanne

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:28:23 -0500

Jill Greenberg rules. All his plastic surgery can't hide what a blood thirsty evil old fart he is. McCain/Palin will guaranteed a war with Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Venezuela, China). America will be more in debt (2 trillion to 5 trillion deficit) and will have no more allies except Georgia (we gave them 1 billion dollars).

JacqueMehoff

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:43:20 -0500

how bout blaming the art director? and who's Jill Greenberg and why should I care?

emilydickinson

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:28:05 -0500

I think it's pretty funny actually. They have this enormous intelligence apparatus surrounding the candidates, and a whole PR staff and no one Googled her for two minutes before letting her take his cover shot for The Atlantic Monthly right before thee election? That's just sloppy. It's a good prank,and not easy to pull off. He's the man that will keep America safe. Yo Joe!

S.D.

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:08:31 -0500

"elitist bullshit"?? (sigh) Let me get this straight: Sen. McCain spends $500 for a pair of shoes, Cindy McCain wears a $300,000 get up on stage, and you think Sen. Obama is "elitist"? ... ... ... "Dude69", Are you Out of your Mind??

thelexiphane

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:00:14 -0500

Michael Kelly's spinning in his grave. Has any mag gone from so good to so bad in such a brief period? Hats off to Greenburg's photoshopping, but seriously bitch, save that shit for Fark, where you're not getting paid and people will now unfortunately take you more seriously than in the pages of The Atlantic. Seriously, Kelly died building that magazine's rep up and you're pissing on his legacy. You suck Greenburg.

JacqueMehoff

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:50:04 -0500

who's Jill Greenberg and why should I care? thanks.

DEMOlish

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:44:21 -0500

Awesome! I love it! What a hack photographer! Keep it coming! Jill Greenberg just made the whole the democrats are digging themselves into a little deeper. Thanks!

JacqueMehoff

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:40:32 -0500

never knew republicans were such whiners.

brettsfo

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:33:40 -0500

suckers. this is an obvious ploy to generate interest in the Atlantic cover story.

Think twice

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:14:07 -0500

Karl Rove: "Dance puppets! Dance!"

nicemarmot

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:52:10 -0500

Um...the picture on the cover looks fine to me. This chick is clearly an unprofessional moron, but does it matter? I could take a photo of McCain by Fox News and make him look evil, so what? She can do what she wants with her images. Talking about it to the news media makes her a bad person, and somehow I doubt any reputable magazines will ever hire her again.

Dude69

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:50:21 -0500

Why doesn't Gothamist report that McCain/Palin is now either tied with or leading in the poll with Obama/Biden. This is truly Obama's election to loose, and he's in deep trouble if he continues with his elitist bullshit and connect with the blue collar workers in OH, PA and Michigan. Did he forget that he lost all those states to Hilary?

Kevin Walsh

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:28:26 -0500

"Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for [The Atlantic] to hire me." So, Greenberg is hired by the Atlantic to portraitize McCain, deliberately demonizes the subject and then *blames the Atlantic?* She should get sued. www.forgotten-ny.com

berniegoetz

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:22:59 -0500

Great. More fodder for conservatives to talk about a devious, liberal bias in media. Can't wait for Fox News to dig their talons into this.

moonbeam

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:54:34 -0500

"she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says." So... her deception consisted of not retouching the photo to make him look better than he does in real life? Hmmm...

aa77

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:48:50 -0500

doesn't take much to make him look like a monster.