[caveat emptor]

In other words, what are you trying to say? I haven't a clue.

This is the first post by Mia T that I've ever gotten through. I've tried a few times, but as I am modem limited I've never had the time or patience. She seems to have changed her presentation.

I thought her take on Slick's woman-in-the-box-still-has-the-goods remark bang on, and Noonan's, well, lame. Give T a point for that one. But maybe you didn't get that far.

Esquire's view of Slick's hands did nothing to substantiate her claims, any more than Time's (or was it Newsweek) view of Anne Coulters legs and feet would validate negative remarks about Anne's appearance. Cute, maybe, but no points for that one.

I give her a point for her images of the Clintons because I don't mind personal attacks in good fight. Add two points for effort and it still doesn't add up to much. I'll continue to pass.

Speaking of the Clintons, you might enjoy the spy novel "Lucky Bastard" about about a philandering sociopathic president ....... by Charles McCarry

Nothing personal Mia. ;)

[Mia T]

Thanx for taking the time to comment.

Re the Esquire photo:

1-Analogizing to the Coulter shot has its limitations. Just because there were physical similarities, i.e., a weird angle that distorted body proportions, that doesn't mean the motivation of the photographer was the same.

In the case of Coulter, the motivation was likely relatively trivial: Someone was trying to make her look gangly and unattractive. It's hard to take a bad pic of Coulter, so they resorted to distortion to manufacture one.

2-OTOH the clinton photo, is, I believe, attempting to tell something about the person. You have to ask why a photographer would shoot a photo of a president in spread-eagle position, with the phallic area the camera focal point, with all dynamics (tie, legs) directed toward that focal point, with an arrowlike tie pointing to that focal point, with huge hands and arms like parentheses around that focal point. This was not random. Nor, I believe, was it trivial.