[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.

[Mia T]

Actually, I think the Esquire photo more closely resembles in political motivation the Reuters SOTU shot of hillary.

[caveat emptor]

1-Analogizing to the Coulter shot ....

I may occasionally neologize but would never admit to analogizing.

2-OTOH the clinton photo, is, I believe, attempting to tell something about the person.

Good point. But the hands have to go some where. It certainly would have been less effective to have him grabbing his crotch or stuffing them down his pants. And clasping them behind his neck would have seemed a bit rednecky, not exactly the effect they were looking for.