Well, the cover design for Meghan McCain’s forthcoming campaign memoir Dirty Sexy Politics is out. And guess what? It’s kind of phallic, what with the author cuddling an elephant’s snout and all. In fact, the silly design got us thinking about the differences between the way conservative women’s books and their liberal counterparts’ look. So, we rounded up five sets of tomes by comparable authors and set them side by side to see what we could glean. The results are after the jump.
The political daughter campaign memoir: Meghan McCain vs. Alexandra Kerry
The pundits: Ann Coulter vs. Arianna Huffington
The pundits, round two: S.E. Cupp vs. Maureen Dowd
The politicians: Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton
The radio personalities: Laura Ingraham vs. Amy Goodman
Conclusions: The formula for a Republican lady book cover is pretty simple and consistent. Put the nice-looking author (preferably a blonde, long hair and lots of makeup a must) on there, in a medium or full-body shot. Display chest prominently when possible. (What is Coulter even wearing on that cover? A ’50s-style swimsuit? Ingraham, as far as we can tell, is supposed to resemble a leather-clad spy in stiletto heels with a sort of “ooh, naughty me” look on her face, for all the sense that makes.) The liberal covers are more varied. There are the medium shots, but also some close-ups. Short hair and sparse makeup are allowed. And some don’t even picture their authors — Dowd’s is a pulp-style illustration, while Kerry’s appears to be a candid shot from the campaign trail. Huffington’s is an illustration rather than a photo and shows the author strategizing. Do with that information what you will…
Comments (9)
Holy crap! S.E. Cupp? I went to college with that girl. She’s a “conservative pundit” now? She was the arts reviewer for my college paper.
Crazy.
I heard she’d gotten really into shooting guns at the firing range. My mind is blown.
Since when is she a pundit tho?
Or could the conclusion be this — Republican women are infinitely more attractive than Democrats. No one wants to buy a book with an ugly person on the front cover. I’m still unsure why Hilary did it.
@Jules – Or perhaps Republicans are shallow enough to value better-looking women with mediocre ideas over mediocre-looking women with better ideas?
Just kidding. More likely, publishers simply think (right or wrong) that using sex to sell books is more effective for the right than the left.
I find Ms. Berman’s conclusion rather asinine. When did the elephant become a phallic symbol? I thought it was just the GOP symbol. Or did she not know that?
Thank you Ms. Berman for this great article! I have to agree with Matt on this: its all about marketing, not politics.
@Jules: of course an elephant trunk is phallic, especially when draped across a young woman’s crotch with her hand wrapped around it. Look again.
[...] Lerner introduces the nomenclature “Massengill Covers” into book lingo. Then there is this: Conservative vs.: Liberal Women’s Book Covers. Bonus: Publisher’s Weekly covers book cover [...]
I dunno…I think Hillary looks good and, except for the ultra white teeth, Sarah Palin looks a little sloppy.
@ Jules – the elephant’s trunk has always been considered a phallic symbol. heck, even dreaming of a trunk is sexual in nature
I have to say Ann Coulter wins for the most absurd cover. Hillary’s looks polished and simple. Hey, she’s a very smart woman. In Ann’s own words, she described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot” and, unlike “broadcasters,” does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced.” Yep, just what I want to read. A one-sided, unbalanced view of politics.
It’s the same with the right pushing Sarah Palin on women. Do they think we’re all stupid? Do they think because she’s a woman she has an immediate “bond” with all women? Ann and Sarah say nothing that even resembles the way I think. I find them nothing more than opinionated dribble.
Post a new comment