Books | Dick Cheney | News | Osama bin Laden | Rachel Maddow

Watch: Rachel Maddow on Why Dick Cheney's Book Cover is Creepy


The book cover of Dick Cheney's memoir looks familiar. Rachel Maddow explains why.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Maddow is off her rocker on this one....

    Posted by: Eric | May 20, 2011 8:14:16 AM

  2. Hmm. I love Rachel but this might be a stretch. I don't know that many people would make that association - plus, only Cheney "fans" will read his book, so you know...

    Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2011 8:16:45 AM

  3. I like Rachel and I hate Dick Cheney, but that was the stupidest thing she has ever presented on her program.

    Posted by: Cybearsage | May 20, 2011 8:31:18 AM

  4. She nailed it. Cheney obviously feels he deserves to be photographed that way because HE (not Dubbya) was the real President of the United States.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 20, 2011 8:39:40 AM

  5. @CYBEARSAGE, ERIC and JOE: then you don't understand the operations, trappings and vanity of power and narcissism the way they're used by people of Cheney's ilk.

    Posted by: Danny | May 20, 2011 8:42:40 AM

  6. I read online: "You knew bin Laden was really dead when Cheney took credit for it."

    Posted by: kodiak | May 20, 2011 8:49:56 AM

  7. This is why such shows are often rightly compared to the loony-tune right shows -- Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly. Problem is they all have so much air to fill, and hot air will do the job. The background is an oft-photographed hall in the WH from which both W. and Obama have made speeches and held press conferences. Cheney was veep for eight years. Maddow and co. have proof that 1) the book cover wasn't a wrap months before OBL died, and 2) Cheney wasn't photographed in that room, wearing that tie, with that lapel, once in eight years? And, yes, males of the D.C. breed (and even outside the Beltway) wear red ties; in D.C., a lot. Only the conspiratorial left crowd or Rachel culties would give this a thumbs up.

    Posted by: Morning Tundra | May 20, 2011 8:57:29 AM

  8. I agree with Rachel and with David Ehrenstein. It seems like deliberate subliminal advertising to me. Cheney was known for being secretive and always acting behind the scenes, not out front, bigger than life at the site of Presidential press announcements.

    To David's point, the very same imagery of Obama making his bin Laden announcement is also the imagery of GW Bush making his farewell address.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | May 20, 2011 9:11:48 AM

  9. [Cheney was known for being secretive and always acting behind the scenes, not out front, bigger than life at the site of Presidential press announcements.]

    It doesn't have to have been a "press announcement." The president and vice president are photographed all day long, every day, and then coffee table books of the photos come out. It could have been tea and cookies with the girl scouts. Or Bud Light with Mary.

    Posted by: Morning Tundra | May 20, 2011 9:18:54 AM

  10. It was once explained on the BBC news that the "official" dress code of senior elected american politicians (i.e. the one who need/want to be taken very seriously - not tea party types...) is a dark blue suit, white shirt and medium dark red tie, after the sept 2001 attacks this is finished off with a stars and stripes lapel pin badge.

    it is hardly surprising therefore that both the current president and former vice president chose to wear this outfit for both a very historic broadcast and an important (at least to him and his publishers) important book cover photo.

    The same is now true of euro politicians, next time you see Cameron, Sarkozy or Berlusconi on tv look out for the very sober navy blue (almost black with Cameron) suit combined with white shirt (occasionally blue on holidays...) and very dark, either navy or black tie. This euro statesman rig is now also worn by Tony Blair as well.

    So there you go an easy way to tell whether senior politocs are from the US or EU - check the colour of the tie (US : red, Europe : navy blue/ black) and the colour of the suit, (US: mid to dark navy, Europe: midnight blue or black).


    oh and Rachel, no more late nights for a while you are loosing it a bit...

    have a good weekend everyone and regards from London.

    Posted by: arch | May 20, 2011 9:41:39 AM

  11. I'm inclined to think that the photograph was shot well before the Osama announcement. I can hardly imagine that the White House would have let Cheney come in and take photos in that location after the announcement, so I would say the suit, angle, flag pin, etc are just a coincidence from a photographic standpoint - it is a uniform of sorts for politicians. So maybe Rachel is making too much of the similarity.

    However, Cheney himself would have approved the use of the photo for the book and I would certainly agree that he did it to show himself in a powerful position and location which would be appropriate for selling lots of books. Most everyone on the planet knows that he was the real president and that W was a puppet, so it makes sense that he would want to show his real power and using a famous location is appropriate for that. I think he had many reasons for using that photo, but I doubt that copying Obama was one of them.

    Yes, Cheney is an ass and responsible for a great many evils foisted on the country, but I think Rachel is stretching a bit on this one.

    Posted by: Chadd | May 20, 2011 9:52:57 AM

  12. I don't think it is an actual photo, Chadd. Cheney was probably photoshopped into the East Room hallway. The perspective looks off.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | May 20, 2011 10:09:18 AM

  13. I'm embarrassed for her. How pathetic.

    Like him or loathe him, Dick Cheney was wearing navy suits while Obama was doing cocaine. Cheney was wearing a flag pin when Obama refused to until Hillary goaded him into it. Cheney has spent more time at the White House during numerous Administrations than pracctically anyone else. The odds of him having his photo taken walking down the same hall are pretty good.

    For someone who preaches against hate, Rachel's fangs are plain to see on this one.

    Posted by: LincolnLounger | May 20, 2011 10:15:58 AM

  14. Seriously? I think Rachel has hurt her credibility on this one.

    Posted by: GAYLY | May 20, 2011 10:46:22 AM

  15. Yes, now Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, et al, ad nauseum, now have much more credibility than Rachel Maddow.

    Because she pointed out what, at the very least, is a creepy coincidence?

    I'm hoping this thread is being flooded with Republican shills today and that real people are not actually thinking that, because thinking that is really stupid.

    Posted by: ohplease | May 20, 2011 11:21:47 AM

  16. I love posts like this, because it makes it easy to pick out the "newfangled media" trolls being coached by the conservatives.

    Those who dismiss Rachel's point forget how very closely the ego-tripping of Bravo Real Housewives relates to the ego-tripping of politicians. Image is everything. This was not an accident.

    Posted by: Sean Mac | May 20, 2011 12:24:57 PM

  17. Always nice to see a former VP posing in the WH as if he ran the place. Oh wait... I guess for 8 years he did. Nevermind.

    Posted by: jexer | May 20, 2011 1:29:51 PM

  18. Rachel nails it.

    The Cheney/Bush years were full of subliminal and not-so-subliminal attempts to saturate our brains with "patriotic" images...

    Klieg-lighting the Statue of Liberty from barges and New Orleans come to mind, at great expense run by highly paid news production crews, the constant use of "worded" background (Bush giving speeches in front of one word repeated repeated 1,000 times) come to mind. I hated them for it then, and I hate them for it now.

    Of course there is the infamous and expensive staged Bush "landing" a jet wearing a codpiece on an aircraft carrier with the mission accomplished banner... I could go on and on and on.

    How about the photo of Bush looking all serious on his jet after 9/11? You could buy this POS photo at a certain time to help support his campaign. Remember that?

    I hope they arrest these men for the war criminals they are.

    Posted by: bendskier | May 20, 2011 2:04:20 PM

  19. It's never pretty watching an expose on media manipulation, especially when it's being done in the media. The suspension of belief just isn't there, and the viewer is left with the vague impression that they were being just as manipulated by the speaker as they are by the book cover.
    Of course the cover is deeply engineered. Publishers recognize the fact that most book buyers do indeed believe you can judge a book by it's cover. Dust jackets are iconic (a tangible representation of an abstract idea) in that they evoke other media in the same genre. Photoshopping is de rigueur, so a realistic appraisal of the "photo" is impossible. Also, the publisher has manufacturing concerns to address. If, say, blue ink is especially expensive, they may choose to darken a suit or make the red 'pop out'. It may well be company policy to throw a 15% indigo filter on all their products.
    With that said, I do think I'll have something to complain about with this book cover until his eyes glow with red LEDs and they embed a sound device (ala greeting cards) that screams and wails like Cheney's tortured and murdered victims.

    Posted by: Go Galt. Please. | May 20, 2011 2:13:29 PM

  20. Wait a many Republican operatives are making comments here? Lots. Cheney, Rove, Bush and Company must do everything possible to deflect the lies and failures of that administration and yes, re-write history. Certainly they have the capacity and need to do so. I think Rachel is right on point and has exposed one of many revisionist attempts that are sure to follow.

    Posted by: Modern Meet | May 20, 2011 2:38:49 PM

  21. Why is it that everyone I know loves Rachel Maddow and only I seem to be the one who, while agreeing with her most of the time, find listening to her excruciating? Her smug manner of speaking just grates on me.

    Yes, Cheney wants to be seen as powerful and this photo was used for that purpose. But is he trying to replace Obama and take credit for bin Laden's death? I find that hard to believe.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 20, 2011 2:52:26 PM

  22. In the UK, the Prime Minister usually wears a tie that is his party's colour.

    Posted by: unruly | May 20, 2011 3:42:51 PM

  23. Rachel was spot on with this. The cover is nothing more than subliminal right-wing propaganda.

    Posted by: NY2.0 | May 20, 2011 4:58:53 PM

  24. What's really striking, and what I believe rachael failed to notice, is that if you compare the door in the book cover with the door behind Obama as he is walking down the hallway, dick's door is different. It has small panels on top while obama's panels are uniform. It's a very, very creepy mock up on dick's part.

    Posted by: Stolidog | May 20, 2011 6:07:43 PM

  25. At this point, does anyone think that Ms. Maddow will say anything nice about anyone from the Bush admin.?

    At this point does anyone think that the Fox gang will say anything nice about the Obama admin.?

    Don't gut duped by or buy into the hysteria of either side. Think for yourself, even if means disagreeing with the "in crowd" you're trying to be part of.

    Posted by: dvdinorl | May 20, 2011 7:14:42 PM

Post a comment


« «Gallup Poll Sees 'Radical Shift' in Support for Marriage Equality« «