Bush Women “of the Year”

Former First Lady Laura Bush, and former first daughters Jenna and Barbara have been included in Glamour magazine’s Women of the Year issue.

That’s nice. Surprising. I can’t help wondering, though, why the magazine known for its photos has chosen such a cramped, graceless and uncomfortable-looking one to illustrate their story.

I mean, these are all-three beautiful, poised women. Glamour has them looking like they need to find a loo. Ah, well, what else would we expect, I guess? The other “Women of the Year” fare much better — their pictures are uniformly excellent, spacious, graceful and complimentary — but I guess Glamour couldn’t bring themselves to praise these three women without punishing them, as well, so they served up this unflattering pic. Small potatoes? Sure. But still, how petty.

Meanwhile, here’s an excerpt:

It all starts with Mrs. Bush. “In Afghanistan she’s like Mother Teresa—a saint to women,” says political consultant Mary Matalin. Since 2001, when the then First Lady preempted her husband’s radio address to warn about the Taliban’s oppression of Afghan women, she’s been a driving force behind girls’ schools and women’s empowerment programs there. And building on her groundbreaking breast cancer work in the Middle East in 2006, Mrs. Bush just started the $75 million Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon campaign to offer cervical cancer care and breast cancer care in sub-Saharan Africa.

Gabrielle Giffords is also featured.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Elizabeth

    Of course they need breast cancer awareness in Africa now because when you shove women full of a class one carcinogen you get cancer. Way to go USA. And yes the picture is horrible.

  • Dennis Poust

    Wow, Glamour. Talk about “Bush League.”

  • Larry Brown

    Nothing new from Glamour; just like Vanity Fair, and so many others, their default way of thinking is to bash conservative Republicans. The Bush family is not conservative, but the liberal media thinks they are. The choice of pictures to print shows contempt for conservatives, and the few conservative readers these magazines have left.

  • http://william-porter.net William Porter

    As a portrait photographer myself (and a fellow Dallasite of Pres and Mrs Bush) I’m also stumped by the choice of this photo — and stumped about the pose in the first place. Sometimes it can be a problem to deal two or three subjects of different heights, but there are many better ways to handle it than to ask the taller subjects to crouch down a little.

    But I don’t see anything sinister here. I sometimes think of a pose while working that I realize later wasn’t such a good idea, so I’m inclined to let the photographer off the hook. What then was the editor at Glamour thinking? Well, maybe it’s just a mistake; maybe it was picked because, well, it’s a bit different. Or maybe the Bush ladies or their representative for some bizarre reason LIKED the photo. I’m often surprised at the photos my clients pick. I quite agree it’s a bad photo, but I’m not sure I see anything sinister here. More inclined to think that somebody just made a weird choice.

    [You are more generous than I. I can't help noticing that if someone made a weird choice, they only made it once. -admin]

  • Nara

    When some friends of mine, conservatives are paranoid freaks, I usually stand up for you but this once again proves their point. You guys are in fact nuts.

  • Roy Koczela

    Three subjects, who have very different heights only because two of them are wearing huge heels. Why? Sheesh.

    [Chairs not available? -admin]

  • beejeez

    Darn that socialist propaganda rag Glamour.

  • Dan C

    “The media”…as a faceless entity, can be forever scorned with all kinds of critiques by conservatives. We see this in organizations that have lots of funcitoning policy committees. If the committees don’t have a “face” and a front man, the scorn and critique is heaped on them.

    The “media” sells things. Not ideas, but products. Toothpaste. Beer. Etc. A good story and conflict sells well. Why is “the media” liberal? Because an underdog story with a victim pulls heartstrings and sells well. Or conflict against a Goliath sells well. The bad news for conservatives is neither is a conservative narrative usually. How does one figure this? Just look at the varied stories about economics. Conservatives are bending over backwards to defend millionaires.

    I am not offering value judgements, just descriptions and analysis.

    With the “media” as faceless, they can be ascribed all kinds of problems by everyone. The left describes the media as routinely conservative, managaing a conservative agenda. When conservatives are denouncing the media, they forget how major newspapers behaved like lapdogs to power promoting both the Afghan and Iraq Wars. Why would this be? It is a good story-the run up to war, the war, the conflict- it all is good story. No war-less conflict, less sales.

    In conclusion, it serves no business end to have a poor photo for a Glamour. Glamour needs an attractive cover to sell magazines. They have one ideology. Profit.

  • daisy

    The photo looks fine to me. It looks like Laura’s taller daughers are stooping to hug and kiss their mom. What’s wrong with that?