[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.

[Mia T]

;)

The hands are too dominating to have been a default position. But I think you have to look at the Gestalt here. This is a very bizarre presidential portrait... unless you plug in the fact of the president's serial predation of women.

This picture was taken at the end of his presidency. Perhaps, this was the photographer's comment on that, as well.

As historian Douglas Brinkley said of the clinton presidency when refuting clinton's Hofstra-apologia lie that he, Brinkley thought clinton would have been a great president but for impeachment--(Brinkley actually RUSHED to HNN to set the record straight): [It] will be "hard to get people queuing up a hundred years from now excited to see the "NAFTA Pen Under Glass."

But perhaps Brinkley is missing what apparently did not elude the Esquire photographer: clinton will be saved from oblivion by the magnitude and consequences of his evil.

 

THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH)part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie


AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS--BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT