Time Magazine’s  cover about a potential 2016 White House bid by Hillary Clinton is generating plenty of buzz on Twitter. The pants suit.  The sensible kitten heels.  And that image of the dangling, helpless man, hanging on for dear life.

So, what does it all mean?  Is it a lazy retread of a stock image of the emasculating feminist?  (Run for your lives, it’s the attack of the 50 foot woman!) Or is it something a little less fraught with meaning.  Merely an attempt to be buzzy that is, in reality a little, well, blah — kind of like a blue pants suit.

Here’s some of the Twitter commentary on the cover:

Nancy Gibbs, Time Magazine’s first female managing editor, said on Andrea Mitchell’s show on MSNBC that the cover was meant to convey Clinton’s position relative to the rest of any potential Democratic field.

But was Clinton stepping on a male figure, Mitchell asked?

“We could have done any number of men or women who might be trying to catch up to her and slow her down, but what we looked at in the story is just how hard it will be for any Democrat looking to block her path to the nomination to stop her because of really unique advantages that she brings,” Gibbs said. “In a way she is a force that we have not seen before in terms of how much bigger and more powerful she is …it is unique in our history really, and we wanted to capture the challenge that that poses.”

What’s your take?

Related: Controversial magazine covers over the years.