"I don't buy the theory that the US is invading other countries to take oil off the market and keep prices high."

Umm...Iran? Venezuala? Do you think that they are a real threat and conventional wisdom is Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.

We can handle a 3 to 4 front war, right, with no tax increase or the draft.

This stunt by photographer Jill Greenburg.(Who is one of the more sought after portrait photographers in the business) used her assignment to shoot a portrait of McCain for the cover of Atlantic Magazine to get some pretty unflattering images of McCain (Pretty much with out his knowledge due to the fact you can light of a portrait shot with really bad lighting and since a flash and image is taken in mere 1/200 of a second you would have no idea what is looks like unless you are looking at the actual results which on the those shots she withheld from McCain and the magazine)

Here is an article on it.

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html

She now is using the outtakes that she purposely made John McCain look a certain unflattering way as to push her hatred of the Republican Party. Here is one example from her site: http://www.manipulator.com/

Unfortunately as much as I HATE McCain this is a perfect example of the unprofessional crap that will backfire on the intended purpose and draw sympathy for McCain. She is a *beep*ing idiot. Completely unprofessional as a photographer. Wait until the main stream media gets its hand on this. This will not look good for Obama. (Even knowing he had 100% nothing to do with it)

I have heard no "conventional wisdom" to that effect. I have heard speculation, but it's not backed up by anything other than speculation.

Moreover, I heard former Defense Secretary William Perry say that the military would not support such a move. And it's opposed so much that if an attack were planned, someone would leak it and the outcry from the public (and hopefully Congress) would make it impossible for the administration to carry it out.

Check back in January, and we can see which of us was right.

Exactly where are these supposedly "monstrous" portaits published? Anywhere other than on the photog's own site?

Another example of the McSame camp generating hysteria to keep the public from talking about the issues. Just more lipstick...

Sorry Mike, this isn’t some kid photoshopping an image and posting it on some blog. She was a hired professional that use that position to be deceptive.

I guess I have a little more interest in this as a photographer. But the outrage is huge in that community right now about this stunt. I could not believe (or I guess I could) seeing so many comments of people undecided on a candidate that were expressing backlash against the Democratic Party for this. Just what I fear will ultimately bring down the election of Obama.

Backlash against the Dems has happened with Palin when she was announced, now with this half ass investigation against her. Now crap like this. Can’t wait until some celebrity opens their drunk mouth at some live event on national television and makes a fool of the democrats by slandering McCain. Anyone remember Sharon Stones comment about the China earth quake being punishment for China’s government regarding civil rights?

Here more photos from Greenberg:

http://gawker.com/5049776/mag-photographers-grotesque-mccain-trick

The title of Smike's post (This is why Barack Obama will not be elected) suggests to me that one of those election bets might be initiated here. Recall that an election bet is not usually one of money or anything else of value but rather that the loser must do something publicly humiliating. Any ideas?

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend the photog here. I'm just aiming to better understand the situation. The magazine did get their cover shot, after all, and it was not a bad one. So we shouldn't elevate this to a GOP version of the infamous Time magazine cover shot that was digitally altered to make OJ Simpson appear more sinister.

I watched just enough TV last night to see that the magazine editor was really upset, but if they were offered the pics and turned them down, I don't know why they're so eager to fall on their sword over this. Fire the photog, sure, but it's all on her, not the magazine. Or am I missing something?

It is all on Jill Greenberg, way to maintain your prfessionalism. She's through as far as most publications are concerned. When someone agrees to be photographed under the auspices of your publications masthead, and your magazine has hired the photographer to take the pics, this kind of irresponsible crap makes the mag look culpable. No publication can afford to be in such an incriminating position. I hope Jill enjoys her new venue.

Greenberg was under contract with the magazine. They hired her to shoot a portrait of McCain for the cover. She did that and then during the contracted photo shoot took several images with the full intent of using those as PR against McCain in other ways without his knowledge. (One way is on her site, the other with the full in intent to sell these to other magazines, which she assumed would be possible after the embargo on the outtakes was over) She has fully admitted to all this. The Atlantic is seeking litigation against Greenberg and has formally apologized to McCain.

One statement from her was: "I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me."”

http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/2071.html

If she is any representation of Democrats ideals, count me out. Of course I know she is not, but the public comments from what I read are siding with he victim on this one – McCain. Kind of the opposite effect of what she was going for.

And once again we have flash, smoke, mirrors, and shiny keys distracting us from the important issues. Feign all the outrage you like, but the McCain campaign loves this crap. As long as we talk about this, or lipstick, or the massive distraction that is Palin, we won't be talking about his cluelessness on the economy, staying in Iraq for decades, the infinitesimal energy gains by drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, or his election being the disastrous equivalent of a 3rd Bush term.