AMERICAblog: New Yorker cover shows Oval Office with Obama as tribal African, wife as afro-70s-woman with machine gun, Osama on the wall, and flag on fire
houstonray
· 1 year ago
W T F ????
That is very offensive and will just provide the Right with more fodder....plus I can see this making the email rounds of all the right wing conservative Confederate flag waving crazies so they can say "See! I told you so!"
jharp
· 1 year ago
I am deeply offended. And I think it will backfire.
Apphouse50
· 1 year ago
I just wrote and told them off.
Apparently, however, they don't care if they offend, so it was probably an exercise in wishful thinking on my part.
But to me, it was inconceivable that I could just let it slide by without registering my disgust.
And then they wonder.
fromMaine
· 1 year ago
As Greg Levey writes in a "Matter of Trust" (the New Republic Feb 2008) this appears to be yet another attempt to build distrust & fear regarding Obama's foreign policy, particularly as it applies to the Middle East.... Altho in the New Republic article Levey writes in reference to "internet libel", I believe his premise applies as aptly to Blitt's work... "the strategy behind it is as insidious as it is effective: Fan the already existing flames of doubt. As the Obama campaign adviser told me, whoever is behind the slander wants Jewish voters to decide not to give him their support "just to be safe." ..."Recently, an internal memo from the American Jewish Committee, a mainstream Jewish advocacy organization, was leaked. It reportedly said that Obama "appears to believe the Israelis bear the burden of taking the risky steps for peace, and that the violence Israel has received in return does not shift that burden." It then listed the number of times that Obama has called for engagement with Iran, before pointing out that he "also calls for negotiating with other rogue states, notably Syria." Most of the major Jewish organizations, by contrast, have been more inclined to support a harder line stance against states like Syria, putting far more faith in the stick than the carrot.
Obama's respect for soft power and the themes of reconciliation which underlie so much of his rhetoric may hurt him in some quarters of the Jewish community. His explaining how much Palestinians have "suffered" and his sense of urgency with regards to an Iraq withdrawal do not jibe with the views of many of those most zealous about Israel. Nor does his choice of Zbigniew Brzezinski as foreign policy advisor, or his support from financier George Soros, neither of whom are generally viewed as supportive of Israel. It has been widely noted that a good-faith appraisal of his platform does not cast any doubt on his support for the Jewish state, and the AJC has since apologized and made it clear that the memo does not represent the official opinion of the organization. It seems likely, though, that the views expressed in the memo reflect those of some of the most powerful members of the Israel-first community--and that's bad news for Obama." Unfortunately, Blitt's may prove to be the most effective "libel" yet... and in the process jeopardize our best hope for a peaceful -- and fair-- solution for the Israeli and Palestinian people. (quoted from Levey, Gregory. "A Matter of Mistrust." The New Republic. 4 February 2008. 14 July 2008. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=c8121...
dad
· 1 year ago
say it out loud.
WHAT THE FUCK!
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
Is this some kind of sick fascist joke?
Mikki --SE Pennsylvania
· 1 year ago
Well whenever you have sick republicons can the sick fascists be far behind?
map
· 1 year ago
Oh good lord. Was this supposed to be sarcasm?
maggiejean
· 1 year ago
Is this a real New Yorker cover? It's beyond me to believe a magazine I generally enjoy would be so crass. Below contempt!
Aanya
· 1 year ago
My God, I just want to cry! How could they ever have done that? I think they should publish a cartoon of McCain next month, and I get to draw it! If they refuse, Obama "owns" the New Yorker!
Seriously, we need to find out the names of every single person involved with this, and their political affiliation!
stoller
· 1 year ago
I just...can't believe it. The New Yorker isn't a bunch of idiots by reputation, but...that's unreal.
The flag burning in the fireplace?
What the hell is the point of this?
I'm at a loss for words.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
The New Yorker hasn't been right in the head for several years.
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Is this out yet? I just can't believe they would do this. If this is true, then Obama is scaring the beejeezus out of the mainstream who apparently don't want someone coming in and cleaning up the corruption. Makes me even more intent on voting for him.
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
The cover is confirmed, it's real.
catty
· 1 year ago
the email is themail@newyorker.com youasked for suggestions massive email launch,drive them crazy!
caphillprof
· 1 year ago
If this is true, there must be an HRC operative embedded at the New Yorker.
WDemDem
· 1 year ago
Oh give it a fucking rest. No wonder this party can't get their shit together. Regarding the cover, it is the most offensive thing anyone could come up with.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Goddamnit!
Regardless their intentions, never again will I buy a New Yorker and today all of the dozens of saved issues are going in the garbage can.
davidkc
· 1 year ago
I'm glad I cancelled my New Yorker subscription last year. Damn this is despicable.
naschkatzehussein
· 1 year ago
If they run this, I hope they get a flood of cancellations.
Bunker75
· 1 year ago
OMG. No matter what "sarcasm" is to be drawn from this. It is beyond offensive. IMAGINE a cartoon with John McCain in drag having a candlelight dinner with a North Vietnamese soldier.... WTF
KSUwildcat
· 1 year ago
This is no sick. Just when I think I've seen everything. We will all just have to work harder to make sure Barack and Michelle make it to the oval office. This kind of thing just makes me more determined than ever to get Obama elected.
franklobo
· 1 year ago
You mean like the one that Rolling Stone did - depicting McCain in his prison cell and his captors with exagerated (i.e. racist) Asian features?
Anyone got some phone numbers and emails of people at the New Yorker we can contact??
Mum48
· 1 year ago
The main phone number for The New Yorker is 212-296-5900.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Thank you. I will post it as well.
Joneses
· 1 year ago
Besides being very racist, I get the feeling that the GOP are desperate. Look out fellow Americans, this is only the beginning.
These people are so un-American.
Verchiel
· 1 year ago
Seriously? Talk about hitting bottom and starting to dig.
I'm SURE we can expect to see the "John McCain drooling in a wheelchair while Joe Lieberman hits the "bomb Iran" button" cover, next week.
Sage24
· 1 year ago
What is the New Yorker trying to convey? That Obama is black and a militant? What sort of crap is this? This just shows that they are racist, and afraid of what they cannot seem to understand. How can this country ever unite, when idiots like this constantly try to divide the people with BS like this? It seems that some people cannot see Obama as an American first. It is also obvious that they cannot comprehend the fact that so called patriotic scumbags like Bush and Cheney have harmed this country, beyond repair, while proclaiming their love for this country. Shame on the New Yorker.
lilybart
· 1 year ago
I think it is supposed to be a commentary on how low-information neanderthal voters see him or how the right wing media is going to portray him.
Luckily, stupid people don't read the New Yorker.
houstonray
· 1 year ago
But unfortunately, this will be the kind of email picture that is captured and sent 'round the world' with some sort of untrue attachment about him being a terrorist, hates the flag, blah blah normal b.s. propaganda that clogs up email boxes.
I can SO see my boss emailing this to me...
Mum48
· 1 year ago
You are so right, houstonray. People who will take this at face value, as a depiction of the "real" Barack and Michelle Obama, and wave it in the faces of people saying, "See, I told you so!", probably wouldn't even "get" any of the cartoons that are published in The New Yorker, much less read any of the excellent investigative journalism (Hersh and many others). I don't understand why a supposed liberal publication would supply the opposition with ammunition.
soithoni
· 1 year ago
Your absolutely right on your assessment of what the cover was *supposed to be*.
Unfortunately, neither these neanderthals, nor Fox, nor the BillOh's, nor the MSM newscasts *have* to read the New Yorker. The article inside is immaterial, irrelevant. I just saw my midday news on NBC, and their *lead story* was the cover, describing what the cover had on it... Saying that Obama's campaign called it "offensive". That was it. No mention at all of the satire aspect. What we see... is all there is.
Lucky that nobody reads the New Yorker. But everybody's gonna see this cover. And as somebody in a group told me today "finally they're saying it like it really is"... the New Yorker?? Are you effin *serious*? What we see.... is all there is. Swiftboaters 2008, welcome to our victory lap meeting.
Patriot
· 1 year ago
?! Tell me this is a joke. This is free speech? This has to be libelous in some form or another doesn't it. Or, is character assasination in the form of caricature perfectly acceptable.
This is Bullshit in the strongest terms.
naschkatzehussein
· 1 year ago
What can you say other than "those sons of bitches"!
Sage24
· 1 year ago
I just noticed the partial picture of Bin Laden on the cover, and it really stinks. Are they implying that Obama is a terrorist too?
It is amazing what these rags will do to increase their readership.
Shame on the New Yorker.
WDemDem
· 1 year ago
This is acceptable in bush's amerikkka. Shame on us for allowing this asshole to create this hateful environment we live in.
Patriot
· 1 year ago
Is it worth responding to the New Yorker with a terse comentary or, is this what they are hoping for? Perhaps this is precisely what they had in mind; to put out a cover as offensive as they possibly can to grap attention and headlines.
yourhost
· 1 year ago
well, i think the cover is teh awsumness! no way is this to be taken seriously as an insult to the obamas. seriously, it's a bitch-slap to anyone who would take any of the memes depicted in the caricature as writ. imho.
mirth
· 1 year ago
And you are blind to how useful this will be to the racists and bigots in our country.
yourhost
· 1 year ago
you really need to explain to me JUST HOW this will be USEFUL to the racists & bigots of the good ol' us of a who, of course, are in full possession of all their faculties
hopelesspedant
· 1 year ago
It's PARODY folks. They are making fun of the bigots and their sick fantasies. Go over to Daily Kos - the thread there, full of Obama supports, is getting increasingly favorable to this. They understand what the New Yorker is and what they do with their covers.
Antigone
· 1 year ago
You might know it's a parody and I might know that - but this was still a really fucking stupid thing to do. Because this picture is going to be on news stands all over America and is going to be splashed all over the internet. And that moronic, psycho 30% who still support Chimperor Flaciddickus no matter what he does - they're going to be screaming - see, we told you! We were right! Obama's a closet Muslim extremist who hates America and his wife's a crazy ass feminazi! This is the last thing Obama needs to be having to deal with now. And frankly, if I was Obama, I'd want to find out who came up with this shite cover and kick their ass.
yourhost
· 1 year ago
and so " that moronic, psycho 30% who still support Chimperor Flaciddickus no matter what he does - they're going to be screaming - see, we told you! We were right! "... so what. were they ever going to vote democratic? were they ever going to stop screaming? about gays, guns & assorted fetal tissues? their opinions are not relevant.
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
Yes, you are right. It is poking fun at the idiots on the right. This is what the Democrats and liberals should have done long, long ago. If we had laughed uproariously at George Bush way back before the 2000 election, fallen on the floor at the prospect that he wanted to be the Idiot-in-Chief, we would defused him and there wouldn't have been a chance that he could have stolen that election. Nobody should ever have taken Bush seriously. Everything in that cartoon is poking fun at the lies and other crap we've been fed since then. Osama isn't our enemy, Bush is. Bush is the terrorist who is hates America and wants to destroy this nation. Bush has trampled our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the laws of this land. The New Yorker is showing the guts that the liberals, progressives, Democrats and good, decent Americans should have shown all along, but instead hid under their collective beds, quaking in fear. Good for the New Yorker! If we don't give this belly, hysterical, falling on the floor laughs, repudiate it completely and make it the joke it is supposed to be, then we deserve the results for our own cowardice.
From the beginning, Bush has been yelling, "Wolf, wolf!" That is, be afraid, be afraid. And rather than ignore him, we've been letting him terrorize us. Time we told him to go to hell. Bravo for the New Yorker! Bravo!
Mum48
· 1 year ago
Whoa, whoa, whoa there, vkobaya. I think that everyone who reads Americablog on a regular basis is probably a reasonably intelligent person. However, you are making an extraordinary logical leap from recognizing that the intention of the cartoonist was to poke fun at the memes that are spewed by the right, to some kind of medicinal and militant act of courage, that somehow retroactively drags Bush into the picture, and is intended to be a slap in the face to the right wing and a tonic for "liberals, progressives, Democrats and good, decent Americans."
I don't know if you are old enough to remember, or ever watched, a television program in the 1970s called "All in the Family." It was a great show created by that great liberal Norman Lear. The main character, Archie Bunker, was an outrageous bigot, who in interchanges with a sweet but often clueless wife, a slightly ditzy college-student daughter, and her liberal (also college-student) husband, said and did outrageous racist and bigoted things (and his bigotry knew no bounds with regard to race, religion, sex, or ethnicity) in every single weekly show for nearly 10 years. However, there was always a question as to whether the audience was laughing at Archie's stupidity and narrow-mindedness, or adopting Archie's bigtry and laughing at its targets.
I think the same phenomenon will occur with this New Yorker cover. And since it seems to be a done deal (I'll probably be getting my copy in three or four days), all we can do now is wait and see what happens.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
Wonderful point about Archie Bunker. I often wondered that myself during that era. I often thought there were idiots out there who loved him because he said what they were thinking.
nothingasitseems
· 1 year ago
Let's not forget that "All in the Family" is now regarded as one of the most groundbreaking shows to ever be put on the airwaves, and is considered so because it not only brought up race issues but got people to laugh at bigotry for the juvenile type of thinking that it is. This is a brave thing for the New Yorker to do, and I can't believe people are offended by this. I think part of the point that vkyoba may be trying to make is that we now live in a country where an obviously satiric cover like this can't win because liberals are afraid that the conservative crowd will use it to their advantage. Even though this cover should be embraced by all of us as a way of saying "Hahaha those conservative assholes! This is what they picture?!?! What a bunch of morons!" Now mostly everyone here is crying, "This is so offensive!" Yeah, offensive the same way Archie Bunker was offensive, because it's making fun of the idiots who believe Obama is really like this!
Chris From Maine
· 1 year ago
well it is obvious that we need to boycott the New Yorker.
by the way, Obama is dressed like Osama, without the beard. Notice that both Obama and Osama are wearing the same kind of headgear. It is an exact match. They are calling him a terrorist, and attacking his wife with an incorrect stereotype.
They are telling their readers (I dont know anyone who reads it, but you get the idea) that Obama is a terrorist who hates america, loves Osama, and wants to destroy this country, and his wife is a typical 70s black woman who probably hates white people and loves terrorists.
This is beyond sick, it is disgusting, and beyond me. I would like to point out I predicted that this race would get extremely nasty and racist, but I didnt think anyone would go this far.
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
Yep! Exactly! It is sick. It is disgusting. The right wing is pathetic, sick and disgusting in promoting this image as if it were true. The New Yorker is saying it isn't true. Show the intelligence the New Yorker is crediting you with. So what if the right believes this. It is one the level of cretin, the bottom level of mental retardation. Liberals are too smart to take this seriously. Liberals are going to win in November not because we depend on secrecy, lies, distortions, crooked politicals deals, but because we are intelligent, educated and capable of seeing through the ignorance, fear and lies of the right wing.
graymatter
· 1 year ago
Nuance. Not something the right gets. The image will be all over, but they don't DO "tongue-in-cheek" on that side of the fence, unless it's like Ted Haggard's propensity for closeted meth-fueled rimjobs.
Net, the cover is bad.
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
Who cares whether the 23% of the idiots on the right get it.
Another point in the favor of this cover is that it is going to force Obama to stop being a centrist and move clearly to the left to counter these idiotic images. Don't forget that it is the left, the progressives and liberals who are the true patriots and who love the Constitution, Bill of Rights and our flag.
Bravo for the New Yorker!
graymatter
· 1 year ago
Hmmmm. Trying to see it your way. But I LIVE IN THE MIDDLE of those 23%.
Adam Putnam's district.
Won't someone help us put retired Navy Master Chief Doug Tudor in office instead of Bu$h enabler (95.1% party line) Adam Putnam?
Don't you get it? If we run for cover and hide under our beds again, we say it is true. Only way to deny them their lies is to laugh and show we don't care. Who cares what that 23% think? We don't. Laugh and we take their lies, slander, dirty tricks and Swiftboating away from them. They know it is lies. Even those who promote this garbage know they are lying. Laughter is one of the best tools to defuse their lies.
Bravo to the New Yorker! Bravo! Bravo!
nothingasitseems
· 1 year ago
No they're not! They're making fun of anyone who would think the POTUS would actually portray this image because some stupid conservative pundit made them think that way!
Rujax
· 1 year ago
Sigh.....
Four more fucking months of this CRAP!
Chris From Maine
· 1 year ago
for those who say this is sarcasm or parody, there will be millions who will see this cover and not read the inside article. To them, it wont be parody, it will be a point.
Also note that the number of people who think (incorrectly) that Obama is muslim has GROWN in the past months.
hopelesspedant
· 1 year ago
New Yorker covers have nothing to do with articles.
They are stand-alone.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Blitt's title for the cartoon will be on the Table of Contents page; I am dying to know what it is.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Just learned: "The Politics of Fear". (Brilliant!)
Aanya
· 1 year ago
Don't miss the fact that Obama and Michelle are standing in the Oval Office! That makes it slander in my book! We have got to do something!
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
How about a cover illustration of McSame in his POW stripes, getting makeup on in a North Vietnamese prison while dining on some fancy chow, with a balloon that says "I'm ready for my close-up, Uncle Ho". . .
shhhh
· 1 year ago
I don't care what the New Yorker's intention is here. But, it sure has made me sick to my stomach. Just sick.
judybrowni
· 1 year ago
Yet another magazine subscription I let lapse.
After an article equally clueless about the supposed irrelevancy and idiocy of blogging -- which failed to give any examples whatsoever of political blogging, no less the efficiecy of progressive blogging.
This cover also reminds me of the Seinfeld episode which revolves around the typical unfunniness of New Yorker cartoons.
mirth
· 1 year ago
hopelesspedant,
Jesus! We're not idgits. OF COURSE it is parody!
But, considering that a good portion of the country believe these very images of the Obamas, it is the worst thing the New Yorker could do. The judgment to print this cover is beyond stupid, it is contemptible.
Don't buy this issue or any others to come and cancel your subscriptions.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Well, Mirth, I see you aren't so far beyond the "pale" that you don't see the danger. It really 'is' what most of "flyover country" thinks of Obama. What a total disconnect between metro and and country.
Mum48
· 1 year ago
Hey, Busboy, as a long time dweller in flyover country, but a traveller to all parts of this country, and even a few ventures outside, I need to inform you that there is no such thing as "most of" ANY part of the country. Those who like to set up this imaginary gulf between metro and country, and coastal and flyover, just like to build walls where none exist. As Obama was quick to understand, which makes him one of the most astute politicians I have ever seen, is that when you talk about the real issues, there is no red and there is no blue. And, hey, what do you think of the fact that Obama is a Senator from Illinois, one of those flyover states, and Russ Feingold is a very liberal senator from Wisconsin, one of those flyover states, and the great John Conyers is a very liberal representative from Michigan, also one of those flyover states, and Claire McGaskill is a liberal senator from Missouri, and Jane Schakowsky is a liberal representative from Illinois, and . . . . But enough. You can get the point.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Yes, I do get the point. Very well made. Do you think Obama will pick Russ as his veep?
existenz
· 1 year ago
This cover is freakin' ridiculous. I know the New Yorker is generally liberal (they publish Sy Hersh), but this kind of wink-wink ad is not funny and reinforces hateful stereotypes about Obama and his wife and Democrats in general. Vote for Obama and the terrorists win, is what this basically says. I'm sure the right wing blogs will love this cover and use it over and over again to push the Obama is Muslim bullshit.
Imagine a cover where George W. Bush is planning 9/11 with Osama bin Laden, or John McCain is secretly a Manchurian Candidate programmed by his communist captors. You think such covers would pass muster with the press corps?
Americablog needs to post an email or phone number where we can express our outrage. And current New Yorker subscribers should threaten to cancel subscriptions if this issue is really published.
Can't they at least put a disclaimer on the cover "The Right Wing Lies about Obama" or something to indicate that this is b.s. Even then the cover wouldn't be right
Thank you for the link..... I just sent them my outrage.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
This is clear parody and I wonder about the critical-thinking skills of those blasting it. If this was the cover of the National Review, it would be one thing. This is THE NEW YORKER. And the point of the cover is to display an extreme version of the image the right will be trying to create of Obama in the next four months. And in so doing, this cover shows just how ludicrous the right/FOX/McCain noise machine is. People, chill out. This cover is a BRILLIANT MOCKERY of the right-wing lunatic fringe and its insane fantasies.
Chris From Maine
· 1 year ago
The Obama campaign says :
"“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
mirth
· 1 year ago
Thanks, Chris. I was just looking for a response from the Obama team.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
I question the Obama campaign's critical thinking skills, too. They ought to be worrying more about their candidate's recent swing to the right. And so should we.
mirth
· 1 year ago
STFU
Edit: Apologies. I shouldn't have written STFU. It was an immediate reaction to you not grasping the harm this cover will do.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
Hey, Mirth,
Just like you, I'm entitled to my opinion. I don't see why telling me to STFU is necessary. We're on the same side, don't worry. I just don't see this cartoon hurting Obama, that's all. I hope I'm right. I'm willing to consider the possibility I'm wrong. I want as progressive a president as possible. I'm 49, and we haven't really had one of those in my lifetime.
I guess not. I was too busy writing back to people who think I'm the last holdout for Bush, when the fact is I spend most of my time plotting ways to move to Canada.
The cover will only do harm if we run from it. Embrace it. When the right wing looks at the cover and sees that it is from that hated liberal rag, the New Yorker, they will be quaking in their boots knowing that they have lost that tool in their arsenal of lies. Even more frightening to them is to know that we are laughing, laughing, laughing at them. The New Yorker had to do this. The harm would have been if the right had put this out instead. And you know this is exactly their strategy for attacking Obama. Laugh! Laugh! They can't win if we laugh. Much more effective than any denial.
TimRusso
· 1 year ago
i actually think this cover is a good thing. posted my comments at my blog....excerpt.....
when something as patently ridiculous as this image is being used to win an election with bigotry, the best way to beat it, instead of trying to hide it, is to give it a megaphone. Encourage them to be as loud about their insanity as they want.
Finally! A post + blog that is thoughtful and sensible. THANK YOU!!!!
TimRusso
· 1 year ago
thanks guys. now we get to spend a week having rightwing pundits asked if they agree with the cover!!
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
Karl Rove wet his pants when he saw this. Even he couldn't of done something like this. IT's even worse than what Lee Atwater would of done.
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
Who's the guy that did the ......( white girl saying to Harold Ford. "Hey Harold, call me sometime)
Is that guy working at the New Yorker now?
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Is the NewYorker auditioning for Republican campaign ads? Tasteless? Offensive? Hell, it's "Mad Magazine" at it's best (or worse). You gotta appreciate stuff like this. It'll live forever.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
This cover is mocking Karl Rove and the rotting remains of Lee Atwater. Why is that so hard to see?
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
The majority of people don't have the IQ or wits to appreciate your point. To many, this cover will simply confirm their basic fears.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
Yes, but those people don't vote anyway, because they're too busy frosting cakes with a paper knife.
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
Most Americans don't know 15 of the hijackers were from Saudia Arabia.....You think they would get the pariody is this cover pic? NO!
sherifffruitfly
· 1 year ago
I'm surprised they didn't put a bone thru his nose. Just think how awesomely satirical that would've been.
Leisureguy
· 1 year ago
I just cancelled my New Yorker subscription, the only language they'll understand. Separately, I sent an email to customer service explaining the reason for the cancellation: that showing the Obamas as revolutionaries and terrorist burning the American flag is not funny. If I wanted to subscribe to the Weekly Standard, I would subscribe to it. Enough is enough.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
Leisureguy - I've read all the comments, ref. to the fact that this cover is a parody, etc, and I get their point. However, the cover is beyond the limits of sensible humor - very poor taste. If I had a subscription to the New Yorker I too would cancel it as well.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
You're right ... most Americans don't know that 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. They may not know that there were no WMDs in Iraq and no ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. So is the solution that publications such as the New Yorker dumb down themselves so as not to confuse the uninformed?
Jersey
· 1 year ago
If I saw that cover on the newstand I would most certainly pass the magazine up for purchase, even knowing the magazine first published "Brokeback Mountain". I don't think they are doing themselves any favors with thier audience.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Their audience isn't the problem.
nonsanaementis
· 1 year ago
What the... I have a subscription to The New Yorker, and I just emailed them this comment:
----- Is this real? If so, it's one of the least tasteful covers I've ever seen. I'd expect this from Fox or the NRA. No, I take that back -- if Fox did this, they'd at least fire the artist or editor responsible as a token to angry liberals. Perhaps you've forgotten that a very significant percentage of Americans won't grasp your attempt at sarcasm (which I'm really hoping is what lead to the proposed cover with the Obama's in the Oval Office) and will use this to reinforce their non-factually based opinion of Barack Obama. I understand that it's not your job to get anyone elected, but it's certainly not your job to perpetuate ridiculously misinformed and sadly echoed stereotypes. If you choose to public this cover, I will choose to cancel my subscription to your otherwise fantastic magazine.
I'm very disappointed in you.
PS: I'm waiting for the cover depicting John McCain in a tastefully appointed suite in the Hanoi Hilton complaining about a lack of "happy endings" among the massage staff while divorcing his first wife via carrier pigeon.
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
I'd expect this from Fox or the NRA.
Exactly! By publishing it first, the New Yorker is disarming the right wing media saying we aren't afraid of your lies.
if Fox did this, they'd at least fire the artist or editor responsible as a token to angry liberals.
Do you seriously thing that Fox would ever cave to liberals, progressives or the pathetic Democrats. No, they'd give the guy a big promotion, bigger salary and the corner office, the one decorated with nooses, the Confederate flag and the closet with the hooded white robe.
nonsanaementis
· 1 year ago
They'd fire SOMEONE as a scapegoat so they could say "Hey, we fired the guy who gets coffee for the guy who published that. Can't you let this GO already?"
JustAnOldLady
· 1 year ago
Here's a perfect example of someone I know who continues to believe those outrageous emails circulating even after I have taken the time to send articles/links debunking them Her response follows:
"I have deep seated doubts about him which have nothing to do with minor issues like his hand over his heart or wearing a lapel pin. They do have to do with his original stances versus his current ones, and his Muslim background & affiliations. He scares the crap out of me and the fact does remain that he is wavering from his earlier orations. He is also inexperienced in diplomatic, monetary, governmental & foreign affairs. I do not want to vote Republican, God knows, so just might be forced to sit this one out, as (I feel) we do not have a suitable candidate. Many intelligent, open minded people I know do feel the same way. It is a narrow slit into which McCain may just slide & thus win the election."
LanceThruster
· 1 year ago
So many instances of supposedly liberal entities working to plant destructive memes leads me to conclude that, "it's not a 'bug' but a 'feature'"
Even Boss Tweed knew it was the derisive image that would stick in the minds of the voters.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
Seems to me a month or two ago there was a cover with Obama and Hillary in bed and one of them reaching to answer the phone at 3 a.m. So does this mean the two of them are going to have an affair in White House? What will the children think?
Mum48
· 1 year ago
If you can't see the difference between the Obama and Hillary 3 am phone call cover and this, then I'm beginning to think (and hope) that you are one of the 23%.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
I am not one of the 23 percent, just someone with a different opinion than you.
Just like you, I'm entitled to my opinion. We're on the same side, don't worry. I just don't see this cover hurting Obama, that's all. I hope I'm right. I'm willing to consider the possibility I'm wrong. I want as progressive a president as possible. I'm 49, and we haven't really had one of those in my lifetime.
So this gets a free pass with some because "it's a parody". How long before Fox or some righty magazine does the same claiming parody. We have to draw the line now!
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
The idiots watching Fox or listening to Limbaugh are lost anyway
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
Exactly! No matter what Obama won't get 23% of the vote. He should win by 77% and I find that very satisfying. No doubt the Democratic Party will sweep in November by that margin. Unfortunately, people credit this cover because they hate the idea that a Black man would be the president and due to the Bradley effect, the presidential election is in play. It liberals, progressives and Democrats stuck to their principles, then Obama would also sweep by 77%, but of course, they really aren't liberal and progressive enough to want a Black man in the Oval Office. Gods! After having a severely brain damaged chimp sitting the chair for 8 years, even Barney the First Dog would be an improvement. A man of the intelligence, ability and articulateness of Obama, who is vastly better than almost anyone who has ever run for president, is an immeasurable improvement, especially when the alternative, McCain, looks to be on the same order of pathos as the current usurper occupant.
I ask, who is more likely to burn the flag, Obama or Bush. Oh, right, right! Bush uses the flag and Constitution as toilet paper.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
It fits in with the recent moves that Hillary is making with the superdels. NewYorker is aiding and abetting. The convention will be interesting.
I just sent my email to the New Yorker. Next I'm looking for the Conde Nast email. They own them. I totally believe in free speech but this is just irresponsible journalism.
Apphouse50
· 1 year ago
I almost wish I still subscribed so I could cancel. Maybe I should renew and then cancel in horror when the issue arrives.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Knowing Barry Blitt's work as I do, he intends it as a satiric take on every stupid conspiratorial thing said by Fox News (that includes Edith Anne and her "terrorist fist jab") and every idiotic Dittohead about Obama and the Mrs. These clods and Islamophobes HATE the New Yorker (especially Sy Hersh's reporting) and won't be seeing it. I am not hyperventilating along with you, John.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Tapper can save his sanctimonious observations--he and ABC have hardly been a fair voice on Obama and the Dems.
Rab
· 1 year ago
This is the kind of shit that comes out of the East that us Midwestern people don't get, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
shhhh
· 1 year ago
I've been sitting here, sorta stunned for half an hour, wondering how this could have happened. How could an accomplished editorial board decide this was a good idea? Maybe the room was full of old Hillary supporters hell-bent to carry on the mission??
johnkerry
· 1 year ago
This is f'in PRICELESS!!! I guess the lib NYorker gets it!
Mrs Obama Carter Bush is perfectly cast as the militant angry black sistah! Obama Carter Bush looks totally at home in his Arab threads. Osama Obama( or whatever the f his name is) looks on with total pride! Oh and I LOVE the American flag being burned in the fireplace!
And you moron libs are thinking about voting for the flip flip flip flopping socialist, Marxist, lying con artist!!
WOW!!!
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Hey, troll, it's a satirical cartoon, not a photograph of Obama and the Mrs.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Troll 'johnkerry' represents about 1/4 of our population.
Now do you see the wrongheadedness of the mag cover?
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
The cover is funny. I think the irony will be lost on the Right, but then the Right isn't the New Yorker's target demo. The wingnut blogs will have fun with it and the coming controversy could benefit Obama because making fun of stereotypes is the best way to reduce the fear factor.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
I don't like conspiracy theories. However, the stench of the Clintons is all over this deal.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
KarenMrsLloydRichards and Nigel Elliott: Thanks for showing me I'm not the only one who gets it.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Nigel, you "think the irony will be lost on the right"?
You have no idea....
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
I'm wondering if the readers who just cancelled their subscriptions have actually read much in the New Yorker, especially Talk of the Town. This seems like pretty boiler-plate New Yorker satire. If the Obama campaign is worrying about inflaming the right wing, it's only because they recently abandoned the left wing in order to get their votes. if you're looking for dumb decisions, look no farther than that one.
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 1 year ago
1. Wtf said Obama had any opinion about it at all? Honestly, why is it any time someone says something in defense of Obama it turns into "if Obama has a problem with..." arguements. It's tired and a non-sequitir. The point is, the cover is pretty fucking bad, on multiple levels.
2. Obama leaving the liberals. Aside from the National Journal that labeled him the "most liberal Senator" Obama never had a record of being ultra liberal. You might do well to not drink all the MSM koolaid. Right now, they need to make Obama look vulnerable to make MCCain look like he has some chance, and the latest attempt is to paint his supposed "centrist movement" as some kind of vulnerability. Truth is, a central theme of his campaign has been bipartisanship which in my head, implies a kind of centrist lean automatically.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
wtf is your problem with civilized discourse? my comment said nothing about Obama's opinion. i'm reacting to the quote in Chris's post below: "“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
there was no link, but i assume Chris would not have made that up. the best way to argue that the cover "pretty fucking bad on multiple levels" is to concisely say what those levels are and resist the temptation to insult other readers on here because they have a different point of view.
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 1 year ago
You said:
"Ig the Obama campaign is worrying about inflaming the right wing, it's only because they recently abandoned the left wing in order to get their votes. if you're looking for dumb decisions, look no farther than that one."
sounds like you said "something" about Obamas opinion.
Also, don't confuse me thinking your opinion is dead wrong with having a problem with discourse. I don't recall calling you a name or any other of the traditionally accepted methods of showing "uncivil" discourse. I disagreed with you, strongly, get over it and stop trying to play the victim card.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
Let's face it -- and I'm not a Hillary supporter -- but Obama's health care plan is not as good as it could be, he's swung to the right lately re: the telecom immunity, to me the faith-based aspect of his campaign is yet another troubling departure from the separation of church and state. Who's pandering to the right: The New Yorker or Barack Obama?
gumdrops
· 1 year ago
I agree dogs...I just can't believe he voted for FISA. :(
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
Where is our TRUE progressive candidate. I realize we have to settle and all, but damn, I'd really like to get someone like Bernie Sanders in there.
so it doesn't bother you that McCain didn't even show up for the FISA vote? So it's more important for Obama to lose support for FISA because he made a questionable decision than for McCain who didn't bother to show up and make a decision?
Don't you get it, this is how the GOP keeps winning POTUS, as progressives we are harder on our candidates than we are on our opponents!
Mum48
· 1 year ago
Thank you, ZBK. I was momentarily stunned by the inanity of dogsmycopilot's commentary.
dogsmycopilot
· 1 year ago
What bothers me is that our candidate, who did show up for the FISA vote, voted the same way that McCain would have if he had shown up.
But I agree, we repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot over single issues. I'm just concerned Obama isn't as progressive as we'd like.
As for the cover, most of the comments against it are from people assuming the average American will be too stupid to understand it. Almost everyone posting understands that the cover is satirical. So why do some say the cover is racist? If people simultaneously think the cover is racist yet understand it's satirical, then what the cover is doing is calling Karl Rove et al racist, right?
You are making a logical leap that I cannot even comprehend, much less dispute. And not because it is brilliant and beyond my ken.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Let's pull an "opposite think" here. What would the reaction from 'liberal America' have been if this cartoon first appeared on the "Glenn Beck" show? The New Yorker knows that they are "sanitized and innoculated" They saw the way to make a couple of extra bucks and they took it....
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 1 year ago
The real issue, IMO, is that the joke will be lost on a lot of right-wingers who will see this as basically all the libs abandoning Obama. The right analogy wouldn't be this cartoon on Glenn Beck, it would be an equally offensive cartoon about McCain being pawned by some conservative mag or show. Satire is all well and good except when it basically shoorts your own ideology squarely in the foot.
Then again, this is kind of par the course for the liberal/progressive "movement" (laugher ensues).. I keep thinking about herding cats more and more and it seems like, once again, the left will do everything in our power to ensure that yet again, the very worst case can happen in this election. We still haven't learned to put up a united front and come November I'm sure we'll all be whining about how McCain got elected. The answer is that we will, over the next 5 months, turn our backs from Obama because he isn't perceived at being "left" enough and because we can't overcome our startling tendancy to air our dirty laundy and give it to the enemy as a weapon.
okojo
· 1 year ago
I see the artist's intent, but I think the cover is very racist, and tries to get laugh by reverting to very cheap stereotypes, It would had been funnier if they did the fist butt on the portico of the Capitol.
It just is stupid, but I am angry more by some of the overt racism, mainly aimed at Michelle..
mirth
· 1 year ago
hawkseye makes the perfect point:
"Their audience isn't the problem."
tas
· 1 year ago
Time to find out who the advertisers of that issue are and write them NOW. Let them know we will not tolerate their support of this crap.
Mum48
· 1 year ago
I posted the advertisers in the most recent issue in a comment above, in response to LunaStick. Hope it helps.
dommyluc
· 1 year ago
I realize that this is meant as a satire of the RW talking points about the Obamas perpetuated by Fox News and the batshit-crazy flying monkeys of conservatism, but many voters will miss the point and it will just re-enforce their misperceptions of Barack Obama, and the editors should realize this. There is a very fine line between the implied satire of the cover and the reinforcement of rumors that have been spread about Obama by the RW, and the New Yorker does nothing to dispel this. Let me ask a question to those responsible: would you be willing print a cover showing McCain in his Navy uniform groping Cindy while his crippled wife lays on the ground crying for help, and Cindy stuffing pills in her mouth that she illegally stole from a charity she ran so she could feed her addiction, and a picture of a failed S&L on the wall that John McCain was responsible for, and a picture of McCain and GWB hugging, and a picture of him and his BFF Phil Gramm, and of McCain being guarded by hundreds of US troops as he visited Baghdad while saying going there was as safe as going to the corner market? Oh, and of course we could throw in about 50 or 60 other examples of McCain's despicable behavior, both political and personal. But, of course, we can't expect The New Yorker to go after a war hero, can we - not even a lying, adulterous, flip-flopping war hero? I keep forgetting that, like all the rest of the media, The New Yorker is a part of his base. Funny, I didn't see the news report saying that Rupert Murdoch had purchased Conde Nast. You learn something new every day.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Yep, I would be willing, since everything you suggest should not be depicted is rooted in the actuality of McCain's life. None of what Blitt portrays about the Obamas is factual or true.
dommyluc
· 1 year ago
I have this feeling that obama is much angrier about this than he is letting on in his "no comment" response to CBS News. Maybe this will cause the campaign to finally go full-bore against McCain if the RW tries to use the cover as propaganda. I would absolutely LOVE to see Obama talking about Cindy popping pills and McSame fucking a 25 year old mistress while in the Navy (what is that thing called - the Military Code of Justice?) behind the back of his first wife who was recovering from a tragic car accident. If this is the way the media - even a mag as liberal as the New Yorker is supposed to be - is going to treat Obama, then Obama should constantly tell the unvarnished truth about McSame, so that the media must repeat it in order to report on Obama. You can't show McSame being "outraged" by an Obama comment without also reporting on the original comment. Just the thought of McSame blowing up on camera constantly because of attacks by the Obama campaign - attacks based on TRUE aspects of McSame's life - almost gives me that warm, cozy feeling usually only obtained by a good movie and a Hershey Bar.
gumdrops
· 1 year ago
Is the New Yorker trying to play "The Onion" here? Sure doing a piss poor job of it. Well maybe that's all they got left..."fake news".
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Does anyone have a recent issue they can look at to see who advertises at The New Yorker?
That will be the most effective counter attack. Go after the advertisers. Any controvercy this cover stirs will benefit the magazine in terms of sales so don't look for them to back down just because of some cancelled subscriptions and nasty emails. However some nasty emails and threats of boycotts to their advertisers just might prove effective as the advertisers are generally more skittish when it comes to controversy.
Mum48
· 1 year ago
I have been a loyal reader and off-and-on subscriber to "The New Yorker" for years. They have some of the best writers (like Seymour Hersh and Elizabeth Kolbert in the July 7&14 issue), excellent fiction and poetry, great reviews, and wonderful cartoons. But a lot of their advertising is by corporations and other entities that probably wouldn't be at all affected by any boycotts. At any rate, here are most of the advertisers in the above named issue: Chevron, American Express, Singapore Airlines, Citgo, Acura, A&E, Vestas, Citigroup, Rosetta Stone, One Day U, BMW, American Ballet Theatre, Verizon, ExxonMobil, Mexico Tourism, HBO, wecansolveit.org, Infiniti, Morgan Stanley, Hilton Hotel Health, Chelsea Clock, The Watermark at East Hill, www.expeditions.com, Hendrick's Gin, Chilton Furniture, The Brass Knob Architectural Antiques, Andalusia Tourism, Powell's Books, The McLean Center at Fernside, www.theatermania.com, John Christian Designers and Crafters, Asia Society and Museum, John Helmer, Ivpda, Mission Lights, U.S. Bank Bank of America Private Wealth Management, Swann, Stone Soup Magazine for Children, Yes We Can! 01.20.09 (truly ironic this - they are offering T-shirts and other items touting Obama's First Day!), Ville et Village, Arabella Caribbean and New England Cruises, Shrubsole (estate jewelers, I think), Timberlane (not the boot people, but a company that offers "hand-crafted shutters and hand-forged period hardware), Jaques London (games), Gorilla Super Glue, Maestro Classics, Hitchcock Shoes, Vantage Press, The Great Courses, Structure House, Myths and Mountains (travel), scratchlounge.com (cat scratchers - no, really), holidaygroup.com (timeshares), Aeron (the chair), www.endlesspools.com, Bettoja Hotels, Farnum&Christ (travel), tentimesfiltered.com (water), Norman Rockwell Museum, General Tours World Traveler, halfmoon.com (travel), Upton Tea Imports, Modern Memoirs, Inc., Master Card, Ketel One. I don't know about most of you, but about the only thing I would be purchasing would be Gorilla Glue, Citgo gasoline, books from Powells, and possibly some tea. Over the years I have developed the ability to completely ignore the ads in "The New Yorker," and this little exercise has made me realize that their advertising appeals to a much wealthier liberal than I happen to be. At any rate, if it is of any help to you, the above represent the bulk of their advertisers in the most recent issue I have in my hands. Although I do think that it would be interesting to contact the company offering the Obama T-shirts and other paraphernalia. They certainly wouldn't be too pleased with the proposed cover!
stoller
· 1 year ago
Satire?
That's not what satire looks like. Satire takes preconceptions and combines them, twists them, and redefines them. This simply puts a bunch of them in a single drawing.
This is a rote repetition of racist, xenophobic and ethnic stereotyping, with a mixture of Swift Boat talking points.
It doesn't offer insights or commentary. It doesn't offer one of the reasons people watch satire: a laughline.
It just throws it all into one incendiary, colorful package. Way to go, New Yorker. This is like yelling "I'm retarded" in a crowded movie theater.
OK, I'm not sure what that last line means either.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
That's Blitt's point: by portraying EVERY foul stereotype about the Obamas in one image, he is reinforcing the idea that it's ALL, all of it, vile.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Maybe the 'New Yorker' is just setting everyone up for their next "cartoon" cover which will be about John McCain in captivity. Can't critisize if they did it to Obama first?
JustAnOldLady
· 1 year ago
Anyone who has a subscription needs to CANCEL THEIR SUBSCRIPTION AND DEMAND A REFUND..................
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Whether the images portrayed in this cover are even remotely accurate or not is irrelevent (none of it is). Whether this is intended purely as satire or not is irrelevant (it is supposed to be satire). Why this is wrong is because there will be many for which this point will be lost. What's worse is that those on the right who know it is satire will still use it for their own purposes. Think of the chain reaction, not the initial reaction. First, this image spreads around. The right will then keep on pounding out the theme that Obama is unpatriotic blah blah blah. Eventually some of this bullshit will stick in peoples heads and they will turn out to vote AGAINST Obama (not for McCain). Do not over estimate the intelligence of the general puplic. That is a losing proposition. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: The other day Obama talked about how our educational system should include a push towards bilingualism. (note bilingual means speaking more than one languge....2 to be exact). Sounds perfectly reasonable no? Well I got what I guess is a rerun of Lou Dobbs on in the background and he is twisting what Obama said as Obama wanting us to all learn Spanish. This is how the right works! The New Yorker is unintentionally fueling the right's fire. Those smug fuckers have no idea just how ignorant people are.
JustAnOldLady
· 1 year ago
And (I've seen it firsthand in Paris some years back), those smug Americans are outraged when they visit a foreign country and the people don't speak English!!!!!!!
I know why the rest of the world hates us.
BorninUSA
· 1 year ago
Oh, I think they know only too well how ignorant people are. They know 23% of the population will take the cover at face value and tell everyone they know and put it on the internet to spread all over the world. They don't have to even see the magazine, the cover will be well-known as soon as it hits the newstands. The idiots will point and laugh. But the real idiots are the people at the New Yorker who OK'd this.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Really, I think it's a setup for an incredibly tasteless Johnnymack ad.
evie
· 1 year ago
I'm stunned and horrified. I've subscribed to them for years. I just sent them an email telling them how I feel and tomorrow I'll cancel my subscription. It takes a lot for me to bother to cancel a subscription, but this cleared the bar quite easily. This is going to be "news" for at least two days, if not more. And indeed, it will be attached to every wacko email Obama has been diligently working to debunk.
This cover is a betrayal to its readers and subscribers.
I want to see a picture of a wrinkled up McCain flaming out in yet another plane crash, scooping up an heiress and crashing the plane into the White House by mistake. What a hoot!
Busboy
· 1 year ago
You know it's coming; and it's going to be outrageous. This will be the best political season in decades.
moreleesafer
· 1 year ago
see shit like this here is why black folks have high blood pressure.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Laugh. Out. Loud.
I ♥ your comments, morelee.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
Oh, fer cryin' out loud; it's a joke! Anybody too dumb to figure that out, and see it for the mocking of the fear-mongering right that it is, is too dumb to vote for Obama in the first place.
Let's not get our shorts in a bunch over this, folks. It's the New Yorker, not a NASCAR program book.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
And this is why democrats manage to lose....
LeesiD
· 1 year ago
Exactly!! We always manage to our own don't we~??
stoller
· 1 year ago
People keep saying it's a joke.
How is it funny? What's the twist? What's the angle? What am I missing?
It looks like a bunch of stereotypes thrown into one image. That's not satire, that's aggregating offensive ideas and putting them on the cover of a magazine.
I've seen funny things before, thank you. This isn't one of them, and hardly even seems like a reasonable attempt at humor.
redjellydonut
· 1 year ago
"Anybody too dumb to figure that out, and see it for the mocking of the fear-mongering right that it is, is too dumb to vote for Obama in the first place."
We're gonna need some of those people to vote for Obama this Fall, so it's probably a bit imprudent to sneer at them just now. It would be a better idea to try to bring them over to your way of thinking. I grew up with a lot of those "dumb" people and they work hard, pay their taxes, love their kids, and try to do the right thing. Why not try to help them do the right thing instead of laughing at them? Sneering at them only makes you an asshole, and there are plenty enough of those around.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
Oh, okay, let's try it now. See, folks, Obama isn't really a closet Muslim, and his wife isn't a Black Panther, and they don't revere Bin Laden, and they won't heat the Oval Office with burning flags. Golly, you're right, Donut! It's a good thing we cleared up that confusion, eh? Now all those hard working, kid loving, right doing, taxpayers, can relax because they fully understand the truth.
Don't be such a shmuck. This reminds me of fishing for sunfish. You can throw in a bare hook and they'll bite it again and again. Think!
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
Oh, Diogenes. You really don't understand, do you? We are going to LOSE this election if we have your attitude. I'm with redjellydonut all the way on this one.
Same goal as you, though.
I'm guessing you have the pleasure of living in a blue state?
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
I wish I did live in a blue state. If we lose votes due to this cover, then the blame will lie with Obama, and the rest of us, for not using this as a tool to ridicule the fear-mongers with the most potent force of all, laughter. Instead, the frightened sheep of my party are getting our skirts in a twist over a brilliant and incisive joke.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
That is the best response; go right at the national media with the cover art and quotes from ridiculous idiots on right-wing messageboards, showing that they are the ones being made fun of. But good luck getting that message across with the national media. I have no faith in them, either. And wouldn't it have been better if this cover weren't out there?
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
No! It's great that it's out there. Obama and Michelle should use it as a giant backdrop for their next dozen campaign stops. That will put it all over the television, newspapers, and magazines. Rub Fox's nose in it. Otherwise, our outrage and complaints play right into their hands.
This is a golden opportunity to let the air out of those rumors. Instead, we're inflating them. That's just dumb.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Hillbots revenge.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Read some of the Politico comments about the cover:
"Obama is not a Muslim terrorist but he is a black man and therefore not presidential material. Michelle is also not a terrorist but can you really stand a black woman walking with her big black feet on the white house carpet?"
"That is exactly how many folks picture those two - (for real) Love it..!"
"It's the truth! For crying out loud, his wife is so shrill and militant: She says, "Obama will LET YOU do this and WON'T LET YOU do that!" What do you expect from 2 marxists? Quit pretending that this cover is one big surprise!"
"Finally the media is starting to get a clear picture of the Obamas."
"There is definitely a kernel of truth in this satire. Barack (middle name censored) Obama and his vile partner hate super-power America and are itching to transform it into a socialist, sharia-bound Euro-state."
"I think this "satire" says it all about the both of them."
"WOW ... this is "RIGHT ON."
"You know what they say.....the truth hurts. Michelle and barak hate white people enough to discriminate against them because of the color of their skin. Obama wants to surrender Iraq to Al Qaida. Who here is so stupid trhat they can't figure out why HAMAS has endorsed Obama? Only Dems, I guess."
"All satire is based on at least a grain of truth. In this case, it's a silo full of grains. As much as I dread the idea of an empty suit like Obama in the White House, I fear even more the presence of Michelle. Are we really going to let this happen?"
"Was this a painting or did the New Yorker just take a picture of the two at their home?"
Are you stupid or do you just play an idiot in real life. How much money are you being paid to write crap like that on this blog site?
mirth
· 1 year ago
huh?
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
You were just quoting the idiots, right? Silly liberalcheesehead!
Don't you wonder if the New Yorker editorial board had a clue that people would buy it as truth? "a silo full of grains"
Ugh!
mirth
· 1 year ago
Yes, I wrote they were quotes and thank you for pointing that out. I pasted them here to illustrate how about 1/4 of our population will interpret the cover. Even if they should see the intent of the artist, now these 25%ers will feel freer to write their ignorant, racial hatred.
Your comments on this thread have been so righton.
What does this settle? He's made some covers that sarcastically depict Bush as beholden to Cheney (at least partially true) and the Bush cabinet sinking (which at the time of Katrina, when that cover appeared was also partially true.) There is no parallelism in these covers at all.
AdmNaismith
· 1 year ago
Bullseye- you fell for it!
Complaining about this is as dumb as the reaction to those stupid Muhammed cartoons from Denmark.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned after his performance this week, a Constitution in the fireplace would have been more appropriate (wonder if there's time to change that?).
lastDem
· 1 year ago
"Okay, what do we do about this? I want suggestions." John, you seem surprised by all this. But some who did not love Hillary but did not consider Obama electable did. If thats the coverage from a genteel magazine, I can't wait to see what coming in the future. Spread the hope, baby!
BigGuy
· 1 year ago
Folks, don't cancel your subscription.
Support the Post Office. Support Free Speech. Have the New Yorker pay to do both.
Send in all the Postal Reply cards that fill up the magazine. On the reply card, write your anonymous comments about how displeased you are with the cover.
Figure five cards from each subscriber mailed in -- that's 5 times .27 = $1.35
Now if 40,000 subscribers do that, it'll cost the New Yorker $54,000. And the New Yorker will have received back 200,000 individual messages expressing displeasure with the cover. Each and every message will have to be paid for by them.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Excellent idea! I'm going to do it.
But don't buy the mag. Just take out the reply cards...and the person who does buy the mag will be thankful for your pilfering.
BigGuy
· 1 year ago
Thanks for your reply and positive feedback.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
FANTASTIC idea!
Wow, I will do this too.
400K people = $540,000
4 million people = $5.4 million!
Sage24
· 1 year ago
I wrote and asked them why they did not have a similar cover in 2004, when they could have drawn a picture of Bush and Cheney in fatigues representing war mongers, and have an oil well at the front of the WH. Perhaps they did not want to insult a couple of white patriots, who has done so much good for this country.
zadura
· 1 year ago
What so many New York intellectuals fail to appreciate is that a lot of people in the middle of the country actually believe that Obama is a Muslim. Not just a Muslim, but a terrorist beholden to both Kenyan Muslims and Arabs or WORSE... It sounds like a joke - I know - but it's not. If we ever want to help these low-information voters, we would be wise not to help foster their fears.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
And how many of those people who believe Obama is a Muslim, subscribe to the New Yorker?
The only sensible response to accurate satire is to join in the laughter. Swooning just lends credence to the fear-mongering cretins who think it's real.
zadura
· 1 year ago
You have no idea what country you live in. We have a massive number of "cretins" in this country due to a crappy educational system and amazingly elitist left wing. They don't subscribe to the New Yorker, which is precisely the problem. They won't get the joke when they receive their viral emails from folks in the RW smear industry.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
And do you think those cretins we're at all likely to vote for Obama? C'mon, gimme a break. This is a Rorschach test if ever there was one. People with more than half a brain will see it for the satire that it is, and the rest will stick with McCain, as planned.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
You have more faith in the intelligence of our fellow Americans than I do. People vote based on no information, a gut feeling.
I know an awful lot of people who are on the fence about Obama and don't know much about him and who aren't paying much attention to politics. If they get this picture it will probably stick in their heads and have an impact.
Remember GW!
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
Well, hell, if it's that easy, all we have to do is draw a picture of McCain dining on babies.
Will you listen to yourselves?
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
Can you get it on the cover of a national magazine? Go for it!
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
We don't have to, we own the internet, and more people get their info there anyway.
Besides, it doesn't f****ing work! Gawd! I give up. If my party members can't see the opportunity in this, then we don't stand a chance anyway. I think maybe it's time to get my Irish citizenship. I just hope they work things out with the EU so I can move to the Greek Isles after a few years in Dublin.
zadura
· 1 year ago
Do I think the cretins were going to vote for Obama? Yes, because he supports the economic interests of the middle and working classes better than McCain. For a bit of context, my wife is working in a swing state with the Obama Fellows program. She gets asked so often whether Obama is a Muslim that she's printed a handout debunking the myths that she hands out on their voter registrations. These people are simply misinformed. Republicanism is a genetic characteristic, and you simply don't know squat about people outside of your bubble.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
This is awful.
johnosahon
· 1 year ago
CANCEL YOUR SUBCRIPTIONS CANCEL IT ALL
i have had it with the press, they are RACIST, because i have NEVER seen them treat any other presidential candidate the way they have treated the Obama family. They have NO respect for him.
have you ever heard the press ask any presidential candidate why he/she does not wear the lapel pin?
the way they have treated the Obama family is disgusting,from calling michelle a baby mama to referring to them as terrorist, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
america is too damn RACIST,thank the lord i don't leave there.
i am waiting for the press to release a cartoon with mccain numerous wives and girfriends fighting for him while he is pushing the button to destroy iran and iraq.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
That's why I've always said this country deserves McShrub. That's what I've gotten. I can't do anything about what's needed.
kiki
· 1 year ago
How "typical Rovian." Just goes to show you what sick and perverted minds the Repukes have. The Dems should have a front cover with "old man McBush" holding a guitar and a machine gun singing "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran with his wife holding an armful of drugs. These people are really SICK and I will never buy their magazine again!
SteamingPile
· 1 year ago
Use the caption contest. Give them a real piece of your mind with their insipid weekly caption contest on the back page. Here's the URL:
Now, we can make up our own caption, or we can astroturf the shit out of them. For the latter, I suggest, "I remember when the 'fair' in 'fair and balanced' meant something."
I wouldn't wait until the offending cover comes out. I'd spam the shit out of their caption contest right now.
mirth
· 1 year ago
I just did it and for all the required fields I used phony info, such as name: Noneof Yourbusiness and address: 123 Canceling Subscription St and email: hatethecoveratgmaildotcom. And it was all accepted with a big Thank You!
LOLOLOL
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
thanks, that was worth a few chuckles
lynchie
· 1 year ago
Not only send back the subscription cards. Let's get a list of advertisers and blitz them with emails and letters for putting ads in this racist, bigoted rag.
LeesiD
· 1 year ago
This is beyond outrageous!!!
BillP
· 1 year ago
There is no obvious spoof in this graphic, it will cause the reader to look inside to see what the real story is. That will sell copy, which I guess is the root motivation of the New Yorker. The New Yorker is Ann Coulter with lipstick, it seems.
BP
johnosahon
· 1 year ago
the most annoying part is that THE COVER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY, the story has nothing to do with the smears. so i do not get it.
DAB
· 1 year ago
Uh, New Yorker covers never have anything to do with any of the stories, they're their own thing. I'm just flying a wild guess here, but you weren't a reader anyway, were you?
LeesiD
· 1 year ago
I am just wondering what the circulation of this magazine is? Is it national or regional? The magazine is now getting more coverage than it deserves via the msm...and that is regrettable. I still don't understand how this cover, passing off as satirical helps anything?
DAB
· 1 year ago
According to Wikipedia (citing a "New York Job Source" listing of the top 100 magazines), its circulation is 1,067,202. I don't quite get what you mean as "helping anything" as that isn't the magazine's function, but I certainly don't see it hurting. If people see the coverage that this is considered outrageous and offensive, they understand that this is a cartoon showcasing blatant lies about Michelle and Barack Obama. If they see the coverage (or the cover itself) and understand it is satire, they understand that this is a cartoon showcasing blatant lies about Michelle and Barack Obama. So I still can't understand how this is in any way damaging for his campaign, since it tackles those prejudiced suspicions of low-information voters and makes them look ridiculous. Same as the SNL skit that ran after Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House that skewered her critics' continual harping on "San Francisco values."
Palomino!!
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
No obvious spoof? Are you joking? Michelle as Anglea with an auto, and Barack giving her the Fox-terrorist fist bump; Osama on the wall? You don't see that this is directly spoofing Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al? Has my Democratic party really become this dumb? Good lord, I had no idea we'd slumped this badly.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
The Democratic party hasn't become "this dumb." We've just realized that the rest of America is full of dangerously vote-empowered people who ARE that dumb. Hence W's second term.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
And you think that voters who are that dumb would have voted for Obama if they hadn't seen that cover? Wow, that's a stretch.
I don't think anyone who voted for Dubya's second term is going to vote for Obama. I think Obama's votes will come from those who didn't vote for Bush, and from those who just plain didn't vote.
I think the cover is a great tool for pulling to fangs of the pundits and talkers who smear that nonsense. Unless the Dem's don't get the joke, and make a big stink about it. Oops! That's just what seems to be happening. My party is hopeless.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
Do you believe that Democrats and our response to this control its distribution? If we do, then you are right and we should ignore it and wait for it to go away. I'm just afraid that it is out of our control now. As John McCain (thankfully) hasn't seemed to learn, the Internet really does change how information flows.
We need people who voted for Bush to vote for Obama. If we don't get them, we don't win. And I do know some people in that category. New voters will help but we have to get Bush voters too.
Democrats get the joke. The Republicans don't, as evidenced by the Politico comments that were quoted on this board. Or, as one or two of them said, they think it is a joke based on truth.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
C'mon Blue, you can't really believe that this drawing will amount to a hill of beans in the election, can you? Really, if it's that easy, then we're all set. Dems just need to draw pictures of McCain doing horrible things, and the race is ours!
See, that's just nonsense. If Obama is as smart as his wife, he'll show up on The View with a turban and demand that Elisabeth Hasselbeck don a burka. I'll bet he could get Joy to go along with it. When Michelle Obama did the terrorist fist-bump on The View, it completely reversed the impact and made the Fox pundit lose her show. Hopefully Obama will listen to his wife on this one and pull the same trick to cause a backfire of all the Muslim-terrorist-flag-hater foolishness.
C'mon, man. Think it thru!
markthehandyman
· 1 year ago
It's a comment on how ridiculous things have gotten. Lighten up.
redjellydonut
· 1 year ago
There are few things The New Yorker could have done that would be more harmful to Barack Obama's candidacy than the publication of this cover. The readership of TNY is relatively small, but the viewership of this cover will be vast. The media proxies of John McCain's campaign will spread this image far and wide to reinforce the suspicions that millions of Americans have about Obama and his candidacy. The publication of that cover only serves to confirm the fact that insular Upper East Side liberal elitists have practically no understanding of the fears and mistrust that are endemic among the American electorate.
It was a loathsome and irresponsible cover and, sadly, the powers that be at The New Yorker will never, ever understand that.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
I completely agree with you. To say that this image won't sway people is to be niave. Pictures have a visceral power and things in print are believed. If our country weren't full of idiots who could be negatively influenced by this, then we would have President Kerry right now.
DAB
· 1 year ago
I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorker subscriber. There's no way in hell I'm cancelling -- it's one of the few magazines with good writing and real reporting left. This is obviously a parody of all the right-wing talking points, and the fact that it has no many people upset says as much about them as it does about the people who actually believe these ridiculous stereotypes.
For everyone who sees this and sees red, lighten the hell up. If I were the Obamas I'd think it was hilarious -- same as Michelle's "terrorist fist jab" on The View. Or most of Stephen Colbert's segments, which hit the same notes.
For everyone who sees this and says, "That's exactly the truth! How can you vote for him?" -- are you too dumb even to see that YOU'RE the cartoonist's punchline here?
This isn't going to convince anyone who already believes Obama is a terrorist Muslim that he isn't, but it sure as hell should confirm for everyone else how stupid those people are when they see their suspicions illustrated like this.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
you're mising the point behind the 'point'. True, what you say, but cancel for a while at least. Read the comments above from the politico for some insight. The cover is simply irresponsible and wrong. How would a simlar cover about mccain be percieved or if this 'irony' appeared in the national review?
Read 'the nation' for a better pub, you can read many of the new yorker writers online anyway. Call me a whining liberal if you want, you won't be in good company.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
No, Lucky; you're missing the point. The Politico is a right-wing digi-rag and a hang-out for the wingnuts. Big surprise that they're reading it as the truth, eh? What amazes me, is that so many Obama supporters fail to see the clarity of the message. It's a slap in the face of the TV/radio talk jockeys who try to paint him with this crap. And now you bozos go right along with them. Sheesh! I'm surrounded by knuckleheads!
DAB
· 1 year ago
What Diogenes said in reply here. And the Nation has been pedantic and humorless for years. No, thank you.
redjellydonut
· 1 year ago
"If I were the Obamas I'd think it was hilarious -- same as Michelle's "terrorist fist jab" on The View."
Well, the Obama's DIDN'T think it was hilarious. They were offended. They should've been offended. The danger an image like the cover represents is that it has no context once it hits the Web. If it's reproduced across the internet, as it surely will be, it will reinforce the suspicions a lot of people have about the motives of the candidate and his wife. We're going to need some of those people to vote for Obama in the fall. It was a horrible idea to publish that cover, especially in light of the fact that, surprisingly, the article has nothing to do with the cover.
The image is clever for the relative handful of people who read The New Yorker. For the vast millions who don't know The New Yorker from The Paris Review, they'll see Angela Davis and Osama bin Laden dappin' in the Oval Office and their worst fears will be confirmed.
You'd think TNY readers, not to mention the TNY editors, would be sophisticated enough to understand the complex power of images to drive the political narrative, especially this cycle.
DAB
· 1 year ago
"....especially in light of the fact that, surprisingly, the article has nothing to do with the cover."
"Surprisingly"? When was the last time a New Yorker cover had anything to do with any of the articles inside? What, maybe the post-9/11 issue? If this cartoon cover "confirms" anyone's worst fears, they were already convinced. If the Obamas were actually offended, then that's their perogative, misguided though it may be. (it won't keep me from voting for him or contributing to him again, but like others of his positions, I don't agree with it.)
Seriously -- how is this any different than Stephen Colbert, with a straight face, describing Barack Obama as a secret Muslim? This was created out of the same train of thought that led Jon Stewart to create the Daily Show's "Baracknophobia" segments.
AngelaChanning
· 1 year ago
Like many of you, I was stunned by the cartoon and its Where's Waldo type of finding a new stereotype. I think what puts a knot in my stomach about all of this is the history of African Americans being depicted in cartoons (print, animation-movies) and in other media. I think too many of us remember some of these first hand....like "Little Black Sambo", Aunt Jemimah, etc. In Baltimore, the right wing Baltimore Examiner had a cartoon in today's edition of Mayor Sheila Dixon with a story about her recent troubles. My 78 year old mother showed me the cover and said how offensive it was to portray her in this way---she remembers much worse that what I was exposed to as a child. (The Examiner is a free rag and it is difficult to stop the free delivery. Here's the cover http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/dig... ) Anyway, sometimes it is too soon to have a "satirical" piece of artwork like that. I looked at the cover to see what it had that was dispelling the rumors or stereotypes. It would have been so much better if the cartoon was a thought cloud coming out of Rush Limbaugh's head.
What saddens me most about this is that this whole matter could take on a life of its own. Thank you for listening.
Goose123
· 1 year ago
For the first time in my life I am proud of the United States of America
slowshooter
· 1 year ago
Irony has to pay off. As an ironic cartoon this is simply the set up.
Since the pay off wasn't included, folks will attach their own meaning to the illustration. To some degree it's a big "so what"?
If someone is dumb enough to believe the cover is a true representation of the Obamas, well, they are stupid enough to believe it.
Cancelling a subscription to the New Yorker? Most will go right back as soon as a preferable article is printed.
jr
· 1 year ago
this cover will be used as an avatar and sig pic on all the storm front style neo nazi message boards
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
Gosh, you're right! And otherwise all those neo-nazis, and the people who read their message boards, would have voted for Obama! Oh, the humanity!
FastAndBulbous
· 1 year ago
"It's a joke" that ties into some amazingly offensive, virulent racist stereotypes. The Militant, America-Hating Black, etc.
This is not -- as many commenters here would have it -- an over the top reference equivalent to Cleavon Little saying "where de white women at?" in Blazing Saddles. This is a bunch of white folks deciding to portray a black couple in a racially pandering amazingly derogatory manner. To the NYers saying "lighten up" -- I am a NYer, too. Imagine, just imagine, the reaction that would have ensued if a similar cover was done, but with jews rather than blacks as the subjects. We all know there's no shortage of retrograde anti-Jewish feeling out there. What better way to make fun of it then to put it on a magazine cover in the broadest, coarsest strokes, right?
I somehow think we wouldn't be hearing a lecture about free speech then. Shame on the fools who greenlighted this.
DAB
· 1 year ago
"Imagine, just imagine, the reaction that would have ensued if a similar cover was done, but with jews rather than blacks as the subjects."
No imagination even necessary. Art Spiegelman pretty much did that already after the Crown Heights riots with his New Yorker cover. And, yes, we had the same ridiculous outcry over the satire.
Sorry, I was a New Yorker reader before i was a registered Democrat so they get more of my loyalty. And if you find it offensive, move to the other side of the Hudson, where you're not supposed to be reading it anyway if you don't like it. They made that pretty clear with Saul Steinberg's iconic cover in 1976.
FastAndBulbous
· 1 year ago
You got a link to that Spiegleman cover? I admit my ire would be dampened if the artist for this one were Spike Lee, or another equally notable African-American political and social observer. Not so, however.
I crossed the Hudson 43 years ago. Steinberg's cover could also be read as "New Yorkers are myopic". Funny how that interpretation and yours are not mutually exclusive..
But there are probably better examples from the past 50 years.
Regarding Steinberg's cover: And therein lies the humor...
MadMaddie
· 1 year ago
get back to us after this cover is show 24/7 for the next week .
DAB
· 1 year ago
Okay, we'll look for an open thread this sometime next weekend But you mean they moved the election up to next week? Criminy! But that's the only inference I can draw if you think this bit of satire is going to backfire that badly here in MID-JULY.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
The New Yorker editorial board is insane. Sure, this was meant to parody the ridiculous fear-mongering from the Right, but the only people who will get the joke are precisely the people who would never have fallen for the fear-mongering. Our nation is full of fools who elected George W. Bush to a second term because they believed in fear, and they will believe this image, too. This cover is an example of the out-of-touch liberalism of New York and the northeast that ends up blowing up in our country's face. If McCain gets elected I will forever lump The New Yorker in with Ralph Nader.
shhhh
· 1 year ago
Very well put, OKBlue. There are times I'm quite embarrassed by northeast liberals (my roots) almost as much as I dispise conservatives from anywhere, USA.
DAB
· 1 year ago
"Sure, this was meant to parody the ridiculous fear-mongering from the Right, but the only people who will get the joke are precisely the people who would never have fallen for the fear-mongering."
In other words, people most likely to BUY or SUBSCRIBE to The New Yorker, i.e., their target audience. And this will influence non-New Yorker readers exactly...how? Because the cover will get e-mailed around? That's about as stupid as someone taking offense at an Onion headline because right-wingers might believe it's news. If someone isn't going to vote for a skinny black kid with big ears and a funny name in the first place, this cover isn't going to help convince them. I can't see it doing any damage whatsoever, but for people on the fence, it could actually help them see how ridiculous their tacit prejudices are.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
I really hope you are right.
How do you explain Bush's second term? It pretty much destroyed any faith I have in the ability of the American people to rationally choose a president.
I think you feel that all people opposed to Obama come into it with strong feelings of opposition. I'm just afraid that there are vast numbers of blank, fairly stupid slates out there who will add this picture to the sewage spewing forth from Fox News and vote accordingly. You KNOW this image won't stay on the cover of the New Yorker; it will be all over the place.
DAB
· 1 year ago
I lived the first half of my life in Oklahoma (assuming your screen name implies similar roots), so I know just how stupid voters in red states can be.
The only way I can explain Bush's second term is "Iraq War," which people still wanted to see succeed and wanted to support a "war-time president" to make it succeed. (That, and Kerry was a wrong choice for our candidate.)
And I have no doubt people will vote against Obama because they want to believe every stereotype this cover sends up. But I'd rather the New Yorker poke holes in those prejudices now, rather than wait for the inevitable right-wing e-mail smear campaigns to do far less comical versions with clumsy Photoshop skills. I think this tackles them head on. And the only people who will see it as other than satire are those who weren't voting for Obama anyway.
See, it's already generating press that it's a satire. Some misguided fence sitters will side with Obama over the "unfairness" of it. Others -- who are the ones most likely to convince others around them -- will see in this how silly the prejudices are and will use this as evidence.
artsbiz9
· 1 year ago
Hilarious! I can't wait until the magazine turns its artists loose on McCain. Won't it be funny to see John and Cindy in their adulterous boudoir, with Cindy popping the pills she stole from her charity, and the senator giving the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys (his favorite team - at least while he's in Dallas) to the North Vietnamese, and all the while McCain's first family is on the other side of the door? What a riot! And surely the Radical Right can’t have a problem with that kind of image - it's just satire afterall. Sheesh! Obama not only has to run against McCain, but the media as well.
Diogenes
· 1 year ago
But that wouldn't be satire, because those charges are all true.
FastAndBulbous
· 1 year ago
That sounds like a great cover. :^)
The problem isn't that this cover is unfair, inaccurate, insulting, and serving to perpetuate a false image of the Obamas as individuals.. The problem is that this cover is unfair, inaccurate, insulting, and serving to perpetuate a false image of the attitudes, outlooks, and capabilities of black people in general.
John McCain is a rich white man. Nobody would read any larger claim into showing him as a power-hungry, narcissistic, immature, shallow jackass with a pill-popping, privileged, high-maintenace sugar mama who literally rode him into the national spotlight. That the New Yorker seemingly cannot see that the foolish beliefs about the Obamas they are lampooning exist in large part due to fear of black power, not fear of a black's power, shows that they arent as fucking perceptive as they so frequently remind us to think they are.
Christ. I still can't believe they OK'ed this thing.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
I initially emailed the New Yorker to tell them I would cancel if this was real, but I feel I must support the work of Seymour Hersh who has done such a tremendous job of keeping us informed.
I like the ideas posted below (sorry, don't remember names) to spam the caption contest and to send back the postage paid subscription cards with critical comments about the cover and make the New Yorker pay the postage for my ire.
DAB
· 1 year ago
The best part about this is that it might actually confuse some right-wingers into buying this issue, or even subscribing to the New Yorker. Imagine their surprise to think they're getting Sean Hannity in print, and they wind up with Seymour Hersh and Hendrick Hertzberg. The karmic justice alone is poetic, not to mention the potential for pedagogy.
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
OMG!!! The first question that enters my mind: How many black people are employed at the New Yorker and in what positions? My guess, something near zero excluding custodial staff. This past week I cynically laughed, as did many of you, at teevee's trouble uttering Jesse Jackson's "balls" whisper, however, the nearly exclusive lily white panelists blabbing on the hot topic ,on MSNBC of all places, was no laughing matter. Pitiful, unattractive cover art on a zero-impact mag...the low comp pop media should eat it up.. Somebody get me an all white handful of punditry
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Alright all you DIMWITS who think this is just harmless satire, CONSIDER THIS (I'll make it quick like a soundbite in hopes you understand): Yes it is satire, that's not the FUCKING point! The point is that this can AND WILL be used to help perpetuate the smears on Obama. Will it turn some Obama voters into McCain voters? No it won't. But will it turn out some otherwise sit at homers to come out and vote AGAINST Obama? You bet your sweet asses it will. Do you get it now? JESUS!
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
Well said. Exactly. What the hell were they thinking?
DAB
· 1 year ago
...and Colbert videos will get sent around as insightful pundtry, Daily Show segments will be regarded as real news, and the Onion stories will taken for gospel truth.
How will this be "used to help perpetuate the smears on Obama"? Because no one was sending around these same smears already, but, boy, now they will? Everyone who sends this around as some kind of confirmation of their prejudiced suspicions will (a) only convince those who already harbor the same suspicions, or (b) look like idiots to their fence sitter friends. The idiots have already made up their minds. The fence sitters will (mostly) see this for what it is, and will listen with askance the next time talk radio tries to spew this crap.
The dimwittedness comes from people who see politics and the use of the media as solely an "if A, then B will follow" progression every time. That's one of the reasons why we lose elections as Democrats. It's why Democrats voted for the war, and it's why so many (including Obama) probably voted for the FISA bill. As a group, progressives can be very smart -- but we're not very savvy.
This is directly in line with Obama's own statement to the AIPAC crowd that, if you meet that Barack Obama characters, tell him, because he sounds like a scary guy. If he can't get that this is the same damn thing, and his own supporters can't get that, then we're in for an extremely humorless four years once he gets elected.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Colbert and the Daily Show are funny. Satire is supposed to be funny don't you know......Perhaps not. What this cover shows is not humor but just every single falsehood the right is perpetuating against Obama. Not a damn thing funny about it. Now let me try to explain it one more time: In order for us Democrats to win, we have to do two things. 1) Get out and vote in large numbers. 2) Do everything we can to keep the idiots who are prone to vote republican calm and quiet so that they WON'T go out to vote. There are a lot of things that get those bastards excited and the perpetuation of these types of images is one of them. That's all, if you can't see how this is at least possible (and therefore we shouldn't take the chance with it) there's nothing more I can say to you. You might be right that this is harmless but there is no way you or I can see what shit like this will lead to and it is just plain DUMB to take the chance.
DAB
· 1 year ago
Sorry, your simplistic view of how this will be used doesn't convince me. (And I'm talking about your view, not simplistic voters, of which I agree there are many.)
This picture isn't going to get anyone out to vote who might have stayed home; if anything, it might get someone to stay home who was starting to believe the lies. I actually think it will do neither, here in July, but if you want to be all hot and bothered about it, fine. Calls to cancel New Yorker subscriptions is just plain dumb, however. Even if this WERE to get used against Obama in any kind of effective way (and there isn't any way it can be, but be that much of a scaredy cat, fine), the New Yorker's writing and reporting on the campaign far outweighs whatever perceived damage you think this satire has or will do.
And it is funny. Slipping on banana peels isn't, and neither is...oh, wait, I just got a message handed to me that some people think slipping on a banana peel IS funny. So I guess "funny" can be very subjective. Huh.
Regardless, I've never bought a slippery slope argument in my life, and I'm not going to start now. I think far greater thought and energy should go into defeating actual Republicans and right-wingers, rather than the clever (or stupid, as you might see it) outlets whose work every week actually supports our cause in the long run.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
As you and others like you have been saying, the New Yorker magazine is mainly read by those who are already going to vote Obama and not McCain. This cover however will get played by the media (especially FOX) and don't go thinking they will take the time to explain the so called satire because if you have paid any kind of attention to how the media in this country works (and I'm not seeing any signs that you have) then you know that this will be the story du jour for days. It will give the right ample opportunity to keep these ideas in the heads of their drones. It is shooting the democrats cause in the foot. Something we are too good at as is demonstated by your arguments.
DAB
· 1 year ago
I know how the media "works" in this country. I've even had a hand in it at times -- hopefully on the side of truth and justice, but certainly not naively.
I think it would be great if this were the story du jour for days (story des jours?). No one could cover this beyond the first hour of the news cycle without getting into the issue of whether or not this is satire. I want the cartoonist interviewed at every possible chance. I ESPECIALLY want right-wing idiots on television saying how this New Yorker CARTOON really captures their "concerns" about Obama.
If anything, the National Review and other publications on the right are saying, "Crap! We were going to run that in October!" And now they won't. And even if they did a variation on it, it would lose its punch, because the New Yorker has already shown it's a risible depiction of how evil (the right wing thinks) Barack and Michelle Obama are.
I don't give voters any credit anymore, but I also think that everyone who e-mails this cover around will get at least one e-mail in response that says, "You do know this cartoon is making fun of you and your imaginary fears, don't you?" And the longer it's out there, the more THAT becomes the meme.
C'mon -- it's a 24-hour news cycle, but there's another after that, and several others after that, too, between now and November.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
You have far too much faith in the main stream media if you think they can't cover this cover without explaining the satire. They can and I bet will. Those that would send out the emails as you described will already be aware of the satire. It won't matter to them. To them the whole idea will be to say to the unsuspecting "Hey! Look at how even the liberal New Yorker views the Obamas!" It amunition for the right. You can't see it my way? Well I can't see it yours. We'll know if either of us is right real soon.
kl8n
· 1 year ago
And it's soooooo scary, because Obama is soooo bad at responding to smears and negative things said about him. Please.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Why should he have to deal with responding to this incendiary and wrongheaded cover? He has a few other things to do, y'know.
Great comment, LunaStick!
canuck55
· 1 year ago
The excuse that it's a joke has been used countless times by the Rush Limbaghs and the Ann Coulters of the world to attempt to excuse their virulent racism and hate speech. For the New Yorker to put this on thier cover for God's sake, is unbelievable. And you can bet that there will never be such a "joke" on the cover of the National Review about John and Cindy but boy, there sure as hell is a lot more material for such a McCain cover. The New Yorker should print the cover of the next issue with a full page apology to the Obama's and everyone in the world for this garbage.
slappymagoo
· 1 year ago
As far as satire goes, I "get it." What bothers me is that, as smart as the new Yorker staff seems to think it is, they should've known that this picture would resonate with low-information voters. And I don't strictly mean low-information Republican voters, I mean just low-information voters. How many of them are readers of the New Yorker? How many of them really understand their breed of humor, of satire? I fear most people will take it on face value, and think it is a comment on the Obamas, and not on the cowards in the GOP who fuel these stereotypes on them.
As someone who has tried (and failed) a number of times to be creative in a number of different disciplines, I know how obnoxious it is to hear someone tell you what would've made your play/monologue/song/production "better." Now, having said that, imagine how all the ambiguity would've cease to be a factor had the Obama-as-white-America's-nightmare image been drawn to look like a dream from a pants-wetting doughy white guy, his nightcap designed to look like a Klan robe, a double-barreled shotgun obviously under the pillow and a bedspread that looked suspiciously like the Confederate flag. I mean, they're feeding every known stereotype of the Obamas in one image, so why not add in every known stereotype of the voter who'd believe those images to make the point crystal clear. As it stands, like many of us here, I worry that the image will be used as right-wing website wallpaper, copied and pasted, out of context, to mailboxes throughout America with comments like "Even the Jew Yorker gets what the Obamas are REALLY up to, wake up America! Vote McCain!" Why they'd publish a piece of "satire" that could so easily be used as recruitment propaganda by the very group they're satirizing shows a lack of foresight I find quite troubling, as if they didn't want to be accused of self-censorship by being too chicken to publish the image (of course, had they not published the image, who'd know beyond a few members of the staff?) I just find it a tremendous misstep, and even if they mount a tremendous effort to explain away the point behind the cartoon, publish it in their next issue, on their website, offer interviews with the publisher or editor or cartoonist, have critics weighing in with opinions on various talk shows, it won't make a lick of difference. Low-info voters will remember the image, and it will resonate more than any subsequent discussion.
I can only hope that there's a followup image of McCain, and it's equally as brutal. Otherwise, come November, the GOP just might be writing a big ol' thank you to the New Yorker...before accusing them of being dangerous liberal media again.
Sometimes, there's a fine line between fearless and reckless. You can cross it without even knowing it. You can hope the people will get it, but it can awfully lonely when they don't. Ask Lenny Bruce.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
comment from Huffpo of email to Blick:
"Part of my email to Mr. Blitt himself (JedReport has the addy.)
Mr. Blitt,
The New Yorker cover picture of, well, you know what, is way over the top. You defend it by showing other covers That's not a defense at all because those other covers were based on truth.
This cover is based on rumor and smear, more specifically, right wing smear of the lowest order, replete with bigotry, racism and blatant insult, and yes, the fear mongering you were attempting to satirize.
Too bad that many won't get the 'joke' because they won't bother to read the long associated article within the magazine. They'll just see the picture, which will permeate the psyche of low information voters, and reinforce the stereotypical image that the bigots and fence sitters already have of the Obamas.
One needs to hear something 30 times, but needs only to see it 7 times before it takes hold.
I shutter to think how many times this picture will be seen. Not only will it be seen on newsstands, etc., but worse yet, the MSM will show it ad nauseam and it doesn't matter if they call it reprehensible or ingenious. The masses will get the 'thousand words' without reading a single one.
My regret is that I don't have a subscription of the New Yorker to cancel.
I believe you owe the Obamas a public apology. This picture is an outrage, regardless of what you meant or how you meant it."
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Well said. Good letter. I am speechless and horrified by this. This is not free speech. If someone did this to me personally, I would sue them for all they have. Sadly the Obama's cannot do this. Leave it up to the New Yorker to completely miss the fact that they have assumed a level of sophistication that simply does not exist in our uneducated society.
This is very disturbing indeed.
How about this for a cover Mr. Blitt: PHOTOSHOP ANYONE? LET'S MAKE OUR OWN CARTOON...READY GO:
Cyndi McCain pill popping addicted and shooting up heroin, strung out in the oval office while McCain is screwing another woman while his current wife is in the hospital. And in the background FIVE planes are crashed McCain one two three-to five in the background (all as a result of his flying incompitence). Then we see McCain's temper blow his top and he calls his wife the 'C' word.
That would make for a great cartoon.....see how long that one lasts.....hey, it's just a caricature, just irony. Except the difference between MY descrpritive cartoon and the Blitt Obama version is MINE IS TRUE.
This is most disturbing. I can only hope it garners sympathy for the Obama's.
kl8n
· 1 year ago
This is so getting deleted in about 2.2 seconds after I hit the post button, but here goes....
I hate the argument that artists are responsible for idiots who will take a piece of their work the wrong way. It is obvious to anyone with three brain cells that this is a total send-up of the ridiculous and racist right-wing caricature of the Obamas. Granted, that description of cerebral deficiency applies to a painfully large number of our fellow Americans. That, however, is not the responsibility of those of us who aren't riding Uncle Dubya's Short Bus.
It's the same as blaming Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shootings back in the 90s. Or those wingnuts that blamed their kids' suicides on Judas Priest back in the 80s. Or the people who write off rap music because some dumbass was too stupid to realize that the "guns and bitches and hos" talk is hyperbole and caricature.
It's really scary when people start saying things like, "What are we going to do about this?" Knee-jerk responses and mob mentality is frightening, whether it comes from left or right. What are you going to do? Clamor for people to get fired? Call for the shutdown of a magazine that next week you'll be verbally fellating when they write an anti-Bush/Cheney editorial? Act like the equal opposite of the very right-wingers you're afraid won't understand this? Write about something we don't like and we'll grab the torches and come a runnin'. Let's make ourselves into a bunch of little liberal James Dobsons and Fred Phelpses.
Intolerance RULES! Freedom of speech is only for people who agree with me! And sometimes not even when they agree with me, which, sadly, is the case here. Let's kill the messenger! Let's not think! Let's be reflexive about EVERYTHING! Let's be big HYPOCRITES!!! Yaaaay! We say we want a new country, but we're acting the same as we ever have!
I'm so inspired.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Oh get the fuck over yourself. This has nothing to do with artistic freedom. If the artist in question wants to paint this picture, that's his right. It is OUR right to respond to this garbage by condemning the New Yorker, cancel subscriptions and write letters of outrage. Freedom of speech is a TWO WAY FUCKING STREET! This is damaging to Obama and his campaign for reasons already stated. Those of us who support Obama and DON'T want to see four more years of McBush, have a right, nay DUTY to take a stand against this sort of shit.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Gawd how I have missed you and your killer comments, Luna!
And you too, ezpz. Great stuff from you tonight.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
Luna - exactly. The image is trash - and I suspect that though it was done under the cover of a parody there is a sinister motive behind it - like I said below - it is nothing more then a sick fascist joke - the New Yorker needs a swift kick in the ass - I hope they receive record numbers of cancellations - this image is soooo sick for soooo many reasons.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
Luna, you get right to the crux of the matter again. Well said. You should be a talking head somewhere.
kl8n
· 1 year ago
You read into my words just like you read into this magazine cover. I'm an Obama supporter, too. A fervent one. I never said you shouldn't say what you want. I just think it's sad when people go crazy.
mirth
· 1 year ago
You do get that we are in the middle of a crucial election, perhaps the most important one in our country's history?
Aanya
· 1 year ago
Is it too much to ask for some respectful common sense? If the artist doesn't possess that quality, I'd sure assume a magazine with any ethics at all, would not be a party to this. This electon is too important to have some yuppie, double meaning wonk, just hand the otherside a composite of everything Obama has ever been mistakenly accused of. This isn't humor, it's an attack on the entire Democratic Party! It's also unforgiveable!
pcvirginiabeach
· 1 year ago
The artist is free to paint or draw whatever they desire. Just like I can write whatever I want. That does not mean it should be put on the front page of the Times.
They are doing this to get attention. It is a calculated risk, and is all about money. They must have some really lagging numbers to push trash like this to get a ton of free publicity. I doubt this will play well in a city full of minorities. We shall see.
sistersister
· 1 year ago
I AM inspired Kl8n! Some common sense on this blog for a change! Years ago Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flint. There was an ad in Hustler Magazine, for an alcholic drink , that said Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse. Very offensive. Those who dispised Falwell thought the story was terribly funny and said, of course it's satire, which it was. Everyone knew that Flint would have killed Falwell if he thought he could get away with it. Falwell sued and lost. You angry people....you either believe the First Amendment belongs to all Americans or you don't. While the New Yorker cover is offensive and ridculous blaming the right wing loons, Bush and anyone else you can come up with while trying to go to sleep is just as ridculous. Of course the cover is about money, just like most things in America. Your blood pressure must be terribly high which means you might not be here in Nov. to vote at all and if you are not thinking logically, which you aren't, you won't remember who you decided to cast your vote for, that is if you can make up your minds who to vote for. Freedom is precious, voting is precious and so is the 1st Amendment! DON'T MESS WITH IT!
ezpz
· 1 year ago
I'm sure the contact info has already been posted, but here it is again:
I guess Keith Olbermann has his subject for his next special comment! I hope he pulverizes The New Yorker!
FunMe
· 1 year ago
This piece of trash magazine cover is beyond the confines of a civil society.
It is RACIST. It is unacceptable for any magazine to even consider this. I believe this will be the end the New Yorker having any credibility
This is wrong, wrong, WRONG!
ezpz
· 1 year ago
Not to be a conspiracy theorist.....BUT....is anyone else making the association with Bill and Hill? Especially the all powerful, sore loser Bill with his Harlem, NEW YORK office and his senator of NEW YORK wife who did NOT get the nomination -- this time?
This reminds me of some of the pre primary very anti Obama SNLs, especially the one with the 'cartoon' showing Michelle O throwing up, among other not so subliminal racist visuals.
pcvirginiabeach
· 1 year ago
David Remnick, NYer Editor on Huffpo: "I respect people's reactions — I'm just trying to as calmly and as clearly as possible talk about what this image means and what it was intended to mean and what I think most people will see — when they think it through — that it means. The fact is, it's not a satire about Obama - it's a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama."
I believe the editor David Remnick is what, Jewish? I do not think that is lost on anybody looking at that cartoon and thinking about it for a little while. Definitely will inspire some images. Perhaps we could do a cartoon about a Jewish man slandering the first black candidate for President of the USA... for money? Really do up the faces and such. The fact is, that would not be a satire about David - it would be a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about David. Right?
What a damn fool.
katjam
· 1 year ago
This isn't divine satire this is dangerous satire. Will we be seeing a companion cover with a spoof of McCain living the life of Riley in the Hanoi Hilton while making propaganda films?
marlowe
· 1 year ago
Let's see ... did The New Yorker do a cover illustration of George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004 snorting lines of coke, passed out behind the wheel of a car or maybe a mug-shot for a DUI, shredding his National GUard "service" records ... ? Maybe they did, I certainly don't remember. I would have found that over the line, too (even if those images were much closer to the truth than this New Yorker cover). This cover of Obama and his wife is really too much, even if it is supposed to be "satire."
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
I agree completely. That is my point too. This is defamation and libel. If it were me as a private citizen I would sue them until they were out of business.
ANYONE GOOD AT PHOTOSHOP OUT THERE?
Here are a few cartoon "satire" moments for John and Cindy McCain:
1) McCain crashing (5) US aircraft and endangering lives because he is so incompetent. ...Nutty.
2) Cindy McCain hilariously addicted to pain killers so much so, she steels from her own Charity for kids to get them. Zany!!!!
3) McCain's famous temper blows his head off just before he calls his wife a "C*not". ....and the wackiness continues with:
4) McCain dressed as the "Sith" (You never see them in the same room at the same time) pressing the red buttons and blowing up the world. Now that's comedy!
I could go on, but I can't stop laughing at all this "Satire".
If I had a subscription to the New Yorker, I would dump it. They (the New Yorker) Are assuming a level of sophistication that simply does not exist in our country.
pcvirginiabeach
· 1 year ago
Exactly- Let's do a satire of this content. Shall we? I believe the editor David Remnick is what, Jewish? I do not think that is lost on anybody looking at that cartoon and thinking about it for a little while. Definitely will inspire some images. Perhaps we could do a cartoon about a Jewish man slandering the first black candidate for President of the USA... for money? Really do up the faces and such. The fact is, that would not be a satire about David - it would be a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about David. Right?
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
It's the same crap when Coulter says...oh those liberals can't take a joke. But god forbid anyone says anything about our hero John McSame. Off limits.
I am over it. I can hardly wait for this election to be over...I am too stressed about it...I have to check out for a while.
Can you imagine explaining this to those two lovely obama kids? It's horrible.
jurassicpork
· 1 year ago
I think you're getting all lathered up over nothing, John. This is plainly whithering sarcasm, a deliberately ovearching attempt to illustrate all the despicable lies and distortions that have ever been told about Sen. Obama by the right wing establishment. This cover is not being liberal, that's being mercilessly factual.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
You are correct. However you are a smart educated person. You should read the horrible posts from other blogs like ABCnews.com from Hillary supporters and McCain supporters. They say they are Hillary supporters, but I think they are just saying that as part of Rush's "operation chaos"
I can only hope for an equally offensive McCain cover....just to see rights reaction.
lauren1959
· 1 year ago
They may believe this is satire, but it is dangerous and will hurt. This feeds into the ignorance that exists in our country.
sina1
· 1 year ago
Open letter to David Remnick:
As a longtime subscriber of the _New Yorker_, I am appalled and disappointed in the decision to run the Obama cover. Mr. Remnick, with all due respect, I do not need an 'explanation' of the so-called joke you chose to toss out into the violent marketplace of our national life at such a tenuous moment. If I am to continue as a subscriber and supporter of your publication, what I need is an apology and retraction. What your rationale fails to address is exactly how this image will have a positive effect in the overarching context of violence and ignorance that threatens this republic in our shared historical moment.
OK, so what is the cover actually satirizing? Fear and ignorance? Who is the intended audience? Are you really trying to argue that the image is targeting those who are fearful and ignorant enough to take it literally? Are you saying that satire can reach those whose limitations exclude them from getting the 'joke'? Or even having viable access to this discourse? at this level? My guess is that those who are the butt of your joke are the last people in the world who might ever buy or perhaps even read your magazine. So, who is the intended audience here? Those of us lucky enough to have educations that enable us to read and buy your magazine?
And your message? That we lucky ones can congratulate ourselves on being superior to those who are fearful and ignorant? Is it not the first requirement of effective satire that the basic premise should go without saying? That enough of the audience actually get it to make a difference? Where your cover fails is in its smug assumption that those ‘in the know’ will get the joke. What I find extremely problematic is how small a part of the population actually qualify for your implied status of insiders and knowledgeable elite.
In an election season notably marked by the first viable African-American candidate for president, in a country with a violent history and present which continues to enshrine violence against people of color, I object to this cover image in the strongest possible terms. There is nothing funny about portraying people of color as violent criminals on the cover of a respected publication. If you are serious about subverting the power of stereotyping, you would do well to enlist the expertise of those who actually have some knowledge and skill in such a complex endeavor. In the meantime, I sincerely hope that you will find it in yourself to rise to the occasion and admit the mistake in this unfortunate decision.
rduke
· 1 year ago
After FISA am I really supposed to defend Obama? Screw him. Let him defend himself. He sold us out. He sold out on the constitution.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
I'm disappointed, too, but McCain is a million times worse and if you say screw Obama, you are saying screw the US.
rduke
· 1 year ago
How is McCain a million times worse when Democrats like Obama vote with them? I don't buy it. When the two parties in power vote the same way, against the constitution, the fix is in.
I'm not selling my soul for the lesser of two evils anymore. I'm no longer a hostage of the Democratic party.
They haven't done shit with their majority since 2006. No impeachment was frustrating enough but FISA was the last straw.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
Believe me, I share your frustration and disappointment. But if McCain is elected we are totally screwed, for certain. If Obama is elected we MAY be screwed but there is at least hope that he will be different. Not voting is like voting for McCain and is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Supreme Court, war (or not) with Iran, healthcare reform, environmental protection, restoring competence and authority to regulatory agencies like EPA and OSHA. I'd rather vote for Obama and have some hope on these issues than sit it out and say there is no difference between the candidates. I remember when people said there was no difference between Gore and Bush and no difference between Kerry and Bush. That didn't work out too well.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
One more comment: I live in a state that will go for McCain and it really bothers me that my vote for Obama won't count for much, but I will vote for him anyway. If you live where your vote could make a difference, please cast it for Obama.
rduke
· 1 year ago
Sorry, but we hear this same argument every election year. Don't waste your vote on a third a party. It is a vote for _____ fill in the name.
The only way politicians are going to change is if we vote for people that stand for change. It thought Obama was such a candidate. Clearly, he is not.
The Democrats are pathetic losers who refuse to be the opposition party. They seriously make me sick. Excluding the likes of Dodd and Feingold, the party is a mess.
I have listened to people giving your argument every time and where has it got us? Nowhere.
I'm voting Green for the first time in my life. The Dems are useless.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
But don't you think votes for Ralph Nader cost Gore the election? And don't you think we would be a hell of a lot better off, though clearly not in a perfect world, if Gore had won?
rduke
· 1 year ago
No I don't. I think Gore cost Gore the election.
He and Kerry both did the same thing Obama is doing. They lost support all on their own.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
If you don't think we would have been better off with Gore as president, then there is no point discussing this with you.
My point is that our votes matter, even a few votes make a difference, and we should vote for the best candidate who has a chance to win. Nader didn't have a chance to win.
My candidate sold out and I'm disappointed, but it isn't an all or nothing proposition. Shades of gray. Life is always like that.
Either Obama or McCain will win and that's all there is to it. If you don't vote for Obama, you are voting for McCain to win.
If you don't vote for Obama and McCain wins, you are responsible for what he does. That's part of being a citizen in our democracy.
rduke
· 1 year ago
I am not repsonsible for anyone else' s actions but my own.
Obama and McCain are NOT the only candidates running. If Obama loses then he wasn't the candidate he should have been.
Hang your guilt somewhere else. I'm not about to take repsonsiblity for Obama's mistakes, nor the Dem's mistakes. They are the cowards.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
You and I and our arguments are idealism vs. pragmatism in a nutshell. We each have to cast votes we can live with and that's leading us down different paths. We want the same end, though.
rduke
· 1 year ago
I don't ever remember being so stunned and disappointed by a candidate. Mr. Change We Can Believe In sold out right after the primaries had ended. It still makes me sick to think about it.
Progressives are always going to get thrown under the bus by the Dems. They don't really represent us at all. But oh how they love to ask for money and support. Anyway, I'm closing my Dem ATM and taking my vote to a party that does represent me and the constitution.
I hope our country turns around soon. It may have to get much worse before Americans wake up.
This country is controlled by corporations. Both of the major parties are bought and paid for. I wish Obama didn't have a price but apparently he did. Was it worth it Obama?
SarainKC
· 1 year ago
Man, I hope all this line in the sand you have drawn still comforts you when our economy completely fails and we are involved in a nuclear standoff with Iran. It is sad you are incapable of looking at the big picture. If McCain wins, this country is over. Period. But, hey- you apparently can't be bothered with that. Good luck with your conscience then.
rduke
· 1 year ago
My conscience will be fine. My soul isn't for sale.
It amazes me how much people are ruled by fear.
It's pretty appalling how you guys blame the victim not the crooked politician. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
97000 people in Florida voted for Nader in 2000. If they had held their noses and voted for Gore, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would not be dead and neither would almost 5000 American military personnel.
How many Iranian lives are you willing to risk with your Green party vote?
If you are pro choice, how many victims of botched back-room abortions are you willing to risk?
How much are you willing to risk losing the Supreme Court to the right wing for decades to come?
I have a little boy and I don't want him to go to war. Are you willing to risk his life?
This may seem hyperbolic but the 2000 election shows it isn't.
rduke
· 1 year ago
You should be pointing these questions at Obama not me. It wasn't me that sold out.
It is Obama's actions that are losing supporters. It is the Dem's actions that are losing supporters.
How much of the constition are you willing to sacrifice for this party of cowards?
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
Considering that the other party has almost no one speaking to save the Constitution, I'll sacrifice a lot for the Democrats to win.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Good point. If you vote third party then you are really voting against the constitution in a major way. Our country cannot take four more years of this shit.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Since you like Fiengold so much, and I do as well. Then you should understand that he is convinced that Obama will make FISA right once he has the votes in congress and the senate and he is president. You are fooling yourself if you don't think this to be the case.
Please vote Obama, with the right people in the legislative branch he will make things right w/ FISA. Russ believes this, and I do as well.
rduke
· 1 year ago
What do you expect Feingold to say? He has to come out and support Obama.
If Obama is going to make it right once he gets in, why did he vote the opposite now? It damaged our constiution, it damaged his reputation. He has betrayed the document that our country was founded on.
Remember the other Obama that stated this in the primary: Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same
So there it is. In his own words he has undermined the constitution. Any you say so he can fix it later? What the hell kind of logic is that?
OKBlue
· 1 year ago
How much are you willing to sacrifice your country in the pursuit of perfection? I'm willing to get bad if the choices are bad vs evil. You will let evil win because you don't like less than perfect.
I'm serious when I say that Nader voters share some of the blame for the deaths of so many.
Why can't we be pragmatic here? The world isn't run on principles. The Republicans have learned how to lock step and win.
Sure I'm disappointed. But is the Green Party really a choice? Are you really ready to sell out our country to make a point?
rduke
· 1 year ago
Nice try. Your candidate is the sellout.
rduke
· 1 year ago
In addition, it was Obama who said screw the US with his FISA vote. Don't blame me for Obama selling out.
KatherineHepburnEyes
· 1 year ago
This cover is completely ludicrous. Unfortunately, there are members of the Democratic Party who also see Barack & Michelle in this light.
Bruges
· 1 year ago
Wow. Huffington Post has a picture of Bush with a bone through his nose, Ted Rall has racially savaged Condi Rice (you support his site), and this blog has pushed the completely unsubstantiated McCain "c-nt" story. Now, you take offense? Where's your appreciation of free speech and satire?
Milli
· 1 year ago
Their next cover should be an incontinent McCain lying on the floor of the Oval Office with a broken hip and a life alert pendant around his neck. And as he fell to the ground he accidently pressed the button and launched a nuclear attack on Iran. And out of the window you can see Rumsfeld and Cheney hooking up electrodes to the genitals of every Democrat in the country - right there on the White House lawn!! Ha Ha, now THAT would be HILARIOUS and completely ok for a mainstream, reputable publication to print on its cover!! Just having a good laugh at the expense of the future of our nation...........you know, the world where real journalism is being squashed and silenced. Good going New Yorker!! Put more nails in the coffin of your chosen profession.
Do they even know that what they think is a joke is taken seriously by a large amount of ignorant, closed-minded, idiots in this country? A picture is worth a thousand words and this cover is going to fuel their ignorance and stupidity.
FunWithWarCrimes
· 1 year ago
ha, ha, ha!!! Milli !!! THAT is funny!!!!!! That is exactly right!!!! stop on by for some satire I think you'll enjoy. http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
nothingasitseems
· 1 year ago
I've gotta say, I think this cover is hilarious. It's a great play on all of the conservative pundit bullshit that has been spewing out over the past six-seven months. I really don't see how anyone could use this cover to their advantage. Would anyone really believe some idiot who used this cover to say "See! I told you so, even the New Yorker is afraid!" And to think that this is offensive. To who? The Obamas? I think they are smart enough to get that this is not making fun of them, but making fun of the rhetoric that's been spewed about them. To African-Americans? I think there should be a lot of pride in the New Yorker putting a satiric painting of the first African American candidate to win the Democratic nomination on the cover of there magazine. It's a joke! It's making fun of all the assholes that we've been pissing and moaning about for the past year! Now everyone wants to cry, "This is so offensive!" No, it's not, find the humor and irony in it.
FunWithWarCrimes
· 1 year ago
Yes, believe it or not, some people are stupid and illinformed enough to believe a cover like this is a comment on something real. It is a picture and a picture paints a thousand words. It's not satirical, it's just in really, really bad taste. http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
nothingasitseems
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I agree there are definitely dumb-ass people out there that believe the rhetoric that this cover is obviously trying to make fun of. That's why we should be making fun of it and those dumb-asses that believe it. You can't reason with people that stupid, so let's keep poking fun at them to show the better informed how stupid they really are.
EmGD
· 1 year ago
I think some of the reaction here is a little overblown. Once you read about the article the cover is a clear attempt at satire not a hatchet piece. But the fact that you have to go look to see what the article the cover is representing to make sure it's not a hatchet piece means it's pretty bad satire.
The New Yorker needs a Satire 101 refresher course.
you're right! it is terribel satire. read your blog and THAT is good satire. ours is good satire, too!!! http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com omg...I just can't even believe this coer.
GrMtGirl
· 1 year ago
I find the cover in very poor taste because not all people are educated and understand satire. I believe defensive commenting only adds fuel to the fire for the Repugs who are using sheeple to propagate their hate. Let it go . . .
Nikhar86
· 1 year ago
I am not suprised by this cover at all -- why should I have any more faith that our media sources, especially those as prominent as the New Yorker, deliver us news in an objective, truthful fashion? I just recently interviewed for a field organizer position with the Obama Campaign for Change, and the individual who was interviewing me asked me how I, as a Muslim, would answer someone who was ignorant about Mr. Obama's background and religious practices questions regarding those two topics. I told him that I would truthfully answer that Barack Obama is indeed half African and his father was indeed Muslim, but he was raised in Hawaii in a very American upbringing, and is a practicing Christian. Yes, he was educated in a private, Muslim education school for a brief period in his childhood, but it was not a Madrassa as many media outlets tried to claim is was, but a private, religious-based school no different than the private Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim schools that we have here in America. Just because he did not find a reason to change his name to appease middle America, does not mean that he should be viewed as a perpetual foreigner, a terrorist, or be viewed under any more scrutiny than his caucasion, Republican counterpart.
I believe this cartoon, which should undoubtedly be viewed as satire, does nothing to refute the views of many ignorant critics of Mr. Obama, his wife, and his general background. I believe that this does much to affirm the worst beliefs of more Americans then we think, and gives many of those (members of the KKK and similiar groups, for example) more reason to stand against change and progression, and work to ensure that a lesser candidate gets into office and runs this country into the ground for another eight years.
pcvirginiabeach
· 1 year ago
A white jewish editor using his power, money, and position to attack a black family for monitary gain.
Maybe we should do a cartoon about that? We could really do up the faces and such, and throw in a few images of the old Cartoons the Nazis distributed attacking Jews.. you know, for satire. A greedy jewish man holding a bag of money while he steals some land form arabs and prostitues a black mans wife...perhaps?
That's just disgusting. Not funny. Not ironic. Not entertaining. Not informative. Nothing BUT malicious.
BNVallarta
· 1 year ago
As the Hillary separatist movement got underway with the launch of PUMA, among others, I went to some of their various websites to see what was being written. I was stunned by the number of folks posting who actually believe all that this insensitive cover conveys.
Muslim - check - radical - check - antiAmerican - check - threat to the US - check-...and so it goes. Smears beyond anything Obama's anti-smear website could imagine...until this magazine cover, of course. The ultimate!
For any sophisticates on this thread who are convinced this cover conveys satire, get over it.
By the end of this week, The New Yorker's name and cover will have had a distribution reach far beyond anything any marketer ever imagined. The cynic in my soul wonders if that's the real purpose behind this monstrosity. Marketing, marketing uber alles!
AnalyticalLiberal
· 1 year ago
If Golf Magazine fired its editor who provacatively put a hangman's noose on its cover (to highlight Kelly Tighlman's two-week suspension for an on-air comment connecting "lynching" with Tiger Woods' dominance), then The New Yorker must do likewise. Race and terrorism are too divisive to be blighthly and stupidly tossed into an already heated and explosive poitical environment. The country is already in crisis-mode, and these elections (federal, state, and local) are the most crucial of the last eighty years.
If you want to mock the right wing, weak-kneed terrorist-behind-every-Bush imbecile, then mock Bush, or McCain, or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or the Rethugs in the Congress, or Cheney, or the Compliant Complicit Corporate Press (C.C.C.P.). Liberal media my ass!! They're going to kill off Obama's electoral chances just like they have done to Al Gore, to Max Cleland, to John Kerry, to John Edwards, to Tom Daschle, to Hillary Clinton, to anyone who threatens to interrupt the largess to the elites in America and instead represent the massive middle class and the poor who actually elect them. My favorite expression for these manipulators is: Lying.Fucking.Dangerous.Bastards.
bfloxword
· 1 year ago
This satire might well play on the coasts and among most college grads, but, honestly, you can not go wrong overestimating the visceral hatred of minorities among the population of many red states. This hatred is inbred, inborn, taught at daddy's knee and reinforced by daily showing each other the latest example of 'proof' that Obama is a Muslim and a tax and spend liberal and an anti-American terrorist. They guffaw, titter, fawn and wink as they do it, not because they are being satirical, but because they want you to understand that they really do think this is true, or could be true, and they want people to think they are just being funny. I know, my neighbor is one. He knows how I feel about irrational hatred of minorities, yet he insists on sticking his latest polemic under my nose, in my house, every day.
Don't underestimate the ability of these nuts to use the New Yorker cover art to reinforce their stupidity and to influence 'really' crazy nuts out there who might try to prevent this from happening....
Hawk
· 1 year ago
Too late, said it a long long time ago and it was met with blank commects.
Voting and Media
Voting and Media
Voting and Media
Now it's too late, we did not focus enough on those two things and our Democracy is nearly done! Look at how many behind the scenes activities are ruining this country, never to have heard a peep from the Media in this country.
STILL haven;t friggin figured it out, between the two, this country will be handed another snam Election!!!!!
Wake the fuck up!
FunWithWarCrimes
· 1 year ago
OK, this is so bad, I am almost speechless, but not quite. THIS IS NOT SATIRE. This is a very, very, very bad choice by the publisher. SATIRE -- satire takes a truth, enlarges and exposes the absurdity of the truth. The only thing accurate or supportive in this cover is that Obama is in the oval office. The rest is stupid, stupid, stupid and did I mention stupid???????????? What was this artist thinking, and what in the hell was the editor thinking?????? OMG... For an example of real SATIRE see: http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
SnarkySue
· 1 year ago
Glad to see the venerable old New Yorker tart itself up for the younger generation by boiling 1,000 racist nudge-nudge-wink-wink jokes into a symbol the size of a postage stamp. At least the kiosk downstairs has sold out of the damned magazine. David Remnick et al are laughing all the way to the bank and just loooooooving all our outrage and commentary. That was the point, folks. Feel manipulated yet?
While riding in a mini-van through the Carolinas with several extended generations of my family an elderly relative remarked about the ONLY Obama sign we saw "That house will be torched by nightfall." Thank God for my nine-year-old who piped up "What are you talking about? He's winning! He's going to be our next president!"
As long as hate is so profound that it takes the form of passable social conversation, a magazine cover like this is unacceptable. Just as is John McLaughlin's "Oreo" comment, the Golf Magazine noose cover, or even Jesse Jackson's unfortunate neutering comment.
I 'get' the attempt at satire but did they not think the cover would be picked up by all the media? Where else could they get all this free publicity? I am canceling my subscription to the New Yorker which is my favorite magazine to curl up with because even if they offer an apology and a retraction the damage has been done. Personally I am inclined to call it 'media lynching' to paraphrase Justice Thomas.
Mr. David Remnick: I don't blame the artist for his satire. It's clever. But the editorial staff who put it on the cover of the magazine with no contextualizing information made an unsophisticated blunder. Jeremiah Wright made precisely the same mistake when he put his Chicago-south-side-black-church poetic language in front of a national television audience. You (as he) thought you were talking to insiders, but you were talking to everybody--including those who wouldn't get the joke. Indulging a rather provincial fetish for format, you put the satire's title (which would have saved you) where 99% of the cover's viewers would never see it: inside the magazine on the contents page. You thought you were hip, doing a John Stewart, but instead you pulled a Leni Reifenstahl. As a Chicagoan who grew up in the cornfields of Illinois, it gives me some pleasure on this rare occasion to say this of the New Yorker editorial staff: What a bunch of rubes! The magazine's analysis of this miscue should be co-written by Ken Auletta (who knows about communication) and Roger Angell (who knows about errors made by good players in clutch situations). Do NOT cancel my subscription. Go have a drink, toast your lost ignorance, chalk it up, and do better. Sincerely, James T. Edwards Chicago
minihaha
· 1 year ago
I am aghast that in 2008, The New Yorker would bring a prejudice spin on the Obamas as if this were the 30's, 40's, or 50's. Under the guise of satire, they have used the Obama's in a way I never dreamed possible. To take a refined, professional woman and put unkempt hair, and make her a gun toting Sapphora character is disgusting, and disrespectful. To take the front runner candidate of this country, and exagerate his African American features, put him in mid eastern attire, with sandals and have them burning the American flag under the guise of satire is shameful. It is an example of the worst type of prejudice. And as an intelligent, college educated African American woman, I am insulted. Since satire was the theme, why didnt they feature the McCains, oh I forgot, they are white and there is nothing shameful or to fear with them in the New Yorkers eyes. Well, forget about any future purchases of this magazine. We always expected that this magazine catered to a certain clientel; however, this time satire has gone too far. I refuse to purchase another New Yorker. Under these prejudice circumstances, I cannot in good faith buy this magazine.
All Comments
That is very offensive and will just provide the Right with more fodder....plus I can see this making the email rounds of all the right wing conservative Confederate flag waving crazies so they can say "See! I told you so!"
Apparently, however, they don't care if they offend, so it was probably an exercise in wishful thinking on my part.
But to me, it was inconceivable that I could just let it slide by without registering my disgust.
And then they wonder.
Obama's respect for soft power and the themes of reconciliation which underlie so much of his rhetoric may hurt him in some quarters of the Jewish community. His explaining how much Palestinians have "suffered" and his sense of urgency with regards to an Iraq withdrawal do not jibe with the views of many of those most zealous about Israel. Nor does his choice of Zbigniew Brzezinski as foreign policy advisor, or his support from financier George Soros, neither of whom are generally viewed as supportive of Israel. It has been widely noted that a good-faith appraisal of his platform does not cast any doubt on his support for the Jewish state, and the AJC has since apologized and made it clear that the memo does not represent the official opinion of the organization. It seems likely, though, that the views expressed in the memo reflect those of some of the most powerful members of the Israel-first community--and that's bad news for Obama."
Unfortunately, Blitt's may prove to be the most effective "libel" yet... and in the process jeopardize our best hope for a peaceful -- and fair-- solution for the Israeli and Palestinian people.
(quoted from Levey, Gregory. "A Matter of Mistrust." The New Republic. 4 February 2008. 14 July 2008. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=c8121...
WHAT THE FUCK!
Seriously, we need to find out the names of every single person involved with this, and their political affiliation!
The flag burning in the fireplace?
What the hell is the point of this?
I'm at a loss for words.
massive email launch,drive them crazy!
Regardless their intentions, never again will I buy a New Yorker and today all of the dozens of saved issues are going in the garbage can.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2112...
Go screw.
These people are so un-American.
I'm SURE we can expect to see the "John McCain drooling in a wheelchair while Joe Lieberman hits the "bomb Iran" button" cover, next week.
What sort of crap is this? This just shows that they are racist, and afraid of what they cannot seem to understand. How can this country ever unite, when idiots like this constantly try to divide the people with BS like this? It seems that some people cannot see Obama as an American first. It is also obvious that they cannot comprehend the fact that so called patriotic scumbags like Bush and Cheney have harmed this country, beyond repair, while proclaiming their love for this country. Shame on the New Yorker.
Luckily, stupid people don't read the New Yorker.
I can SO see my boss emailing this to me...
Unfortunately, neither these neanderthals, nor Fox, nor the BillOh's, nor the MSM newscasts *have* to read the New Yorker. The article inside is immaterial, irrelevant. I just saw my midday news on NBC, and their *lead story* was the cover, describing what the cover had on it... Saying that Obama's campaign called it "offensive". That was it. No mention at all of the satire aspect. What we see... is all there is.
Lucky that nobody reads the New Yorker. But everybody's gonna see this cover. And as somebody in a group told me today "finally they're saying it like it really is"... the New Yorker?? Are you effin *serious*? What we see.... is all there is. Swiftboaters 2008, welcome to our victory lap meeting.
This is Bullshit in the strongest terms.
Are they implying that Obama is a terrorist too?
It is amazing what these rags will do to increase their readership.
Shame on the New Yorker.
no way is this to be taken seriously as an insult to the obamas.
seriously, it's a bitch-slap to anyone who would take any of the memes depicted in the caricature as writ.
imho.
They are making fun of the bigots and their sick fantasies.
Go over to Daily Kos - the thread there, full of Obama supports, is getting increasingly favorable to this. They understand what the New Yorker is and what they do with their covers.
their opinions are not relevant.
From the beginning, Bush has been yelling, "Wolf, wolf!" That is, be afraid, be afraid. And rather than ignore him, we've been letting him terrorize us. Time we told him to go to hell. Bravo for the New Yorker! Bravo!
I don't know if you are old enough to remember, or ever watched, a television program in the 1970s called "All in the Family." It was a great show created by that great liberal Norman Lear. The main character, Archie Bunker, was an outrageous bigot, who in interchanges with a sweet but often clueless wife, a slightly ditzy college-student daughter, and her liberal (also college-student) husband, said and did outrageous racist and bigoted things (and his bigotry knew no bounds with regard to race, religion, sex, or ethnicity) in every single weekly show for nearly 10 years. However, there was always a question as to whether the audience was laughing at Archie's stupidity and narrow-mindedness, or adopting Archie's bigtry and laughing at its targets.
I think the same phenomenon will occur with this New Yorker cover. And since it seems to be a done deal (I'll probably be getting my copy in three or four days), all we can do now is wait and see what happens.
by the way, Obama is dressed like Osama, without the beard. Notice that both Obama and Osama are wearing the same kind of headgear. It is an exact match. They are calling him a terrorist, and attacking his wife with an incorrect stereotype.
They are telling their readers (I dont know anyone who reads it, but you get the idea) that Obama is a terrorist who hates america, loves Osama, and wants to destroy this country, and his wife is a typical 70s black woman who probably hates white people and loves terrorists.
This is beyond sick, it is disgusting, and beyond me. I would like to point out I predicted that this race would get extremely nasty and racist, but I didnt think anyone would go this far.
Net, the cover is bad.
Another point in the favor of this cover is that it is going to force Obama to stop being a centrist and move clearly to the left to counter these idiotic images. Don't forget that it is the left, the progressives and liberals who are the true patriots and who love the Constitution, Bill of Rights and our flag.
Bravo for the New Yorker!
Adam Putnam's district.
Won't someone help us put retired Navy Master Chief Doug Tudor in office instead of Bu$h enabler (95.1% party line) Adam Putnam?
http://www.teamtudor.org
Bravo to the New Yorker! Bravo! Bravo!
Four more fucking months of this CRAP!
Also note that the number of people who think (incorrectly) that Obama is muslim has GROWN in the past months.
They are stand-alone.
After an article equally clueless about the supposed irrelevancy and idiocy of blogging -- which failed to give any examples whatsoever of political blogging, no less the efficiecy of progressive blogging.
This cover also reminds me of the Seinfeld episode which revolves around the typical unfunniness of New Yorker cartoons.
Jesus! We're not idgits. OF COURSE it is parody!
But, considering that a good portion of the country believe these very images of the Obamas, it is the worst thing the New Yorker could do. The judgment to print this cover is beyond stupid, it is contemptible.
Don't buy this issue or any others to come and cancel your subscriptions.
Imagine a cover where George W. Bush is planning 9/11 with Osama bin Laden, or John McCain is secretly a Manchurian Candidate programmed by his communist captors. You think such covers would pass muster with the press corps?
Americablog needs to post an email or phone number where we can express our outrage. And current New Yorker subscribers should threaten to cancel subscriptions if this issue is really published.
Can't they at least put a disclaimer on the cover "The Right Wing Lies about Obama" or something to indicate that this is b.s. Even then the cover wouldn't be right
http://www.newyorker.com/contact/WebComments
"“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
I was just looking for a response from the Obama team.
Edit:
Apologies. I shouldn't have written STFU. It was an immediate reaction to you not grasping the harm this cover will do.
Just like you, I'm entitled to my opinion. I don't see why telling me to
STFU is necessary. We're on the same side, don't worry. I just don't see this
cartoon hurting Obama, that's all. I hope I'm right. I'm willing to consider the
possibility I'm wrong. I want as progressive a president as possible. I'm
49, and we haven't really had one of those in my lifetime.
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus000500000...)
holdout for Bush, when the fact is I spend most of my time plotting ways to move
to Canada.
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus000500000...)
when something as patently ridiculous as this image is being used to win an election with bigotry, the best way to beat it, instead of trying to hide it, is to give it a megaphone. Encourage them to be as loud about their insanity as they want.
http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2008/07/guess-wel...
IT's even worse than what Lee Atwater would of done.
Is that guy working at the New Yorker now?
Hell, it's "Mad Magazine" at it's best (or worse). You gotta appreciate stuff like this. It'll live forever.
NO!
-----
Is this real? If so, it's one of the least tasteful covers I've ever seen. I'd expect this from Fox or the NRA. No, I take that back -- if Fox did this, they'd at least fire the artist or editor responsible as a token to angry liberals. Perhaps you've forgotten that a very significant percentage of Americans won't grasp your attempt at sarcasm (which I'm really hoping is what lead to the proposed cover with the Obama's in the Oval Office) and will use this to reinforce their non-factually based opinion of Barack Obama. I understand that it's not your job to get anyone elected, but it's certainly not your job to perpetuate ridiculously misinformed and sadly echoed stereotypes. If you choose to public this cover, I will choose to cancel my subscription to your otherwise fantastic magazine.
I'm very disappointed in you.
PS: I'm waiting for the cover depicting John McCain in a tastefully appointed suite in the Hanoi Hilton complaining about a lack of "happy endings" among the massage staff while divorcing his first wife via carrier pigeon.
Exactly! By publishing it first, the New Yorker is disarming the right wing media saying we aren't afraid of your lies.
if Fox did this, they'd at least fire the artist or editor responsible as a token to angry liberals.
Do you seriously thing that Fox would ever cave to liberals, progressives or the pathetic Democrats. No, they'd give the guy a big promotion, bigger salary and the corner office, the one decorated with nooses, the Confederate flag and the closet with the hooded white robe.
"I have deep seated doubts about him which have nothing to do with minor issues like his hand over his heart or wearing a lapel pin.
They do have to do with his original stances versus his current ones, and his Muslim background & affiliations.
He scares the crap out of me and the fact does remain that he is wavering from his earlier orations.
He is also inexperienced in diplomatic, monetary, governmental & foreign affairs.
I do not want to vote Republican, God knows, so just might be forced to sit this one out, as (I feel) we do not have a suitable candidate. Many intelligent, open minded people I know do feel the same way.
It is a narrow slit into which McCain may just slide & thus win the election."
Even Boss Tweed knew it was the derisive image that would stick in the minds of the voters.
you.
Just like you, I'm entitled to my opinion. We're on the same side, don't
worry. I just don't see this cover hurting Obama, that's all. I hope I'm right.
I'm willing to consider the possibility I'm wrong. I want as progressive a
president as possible. I'm 49, and we haven't really had one of those in my
lifetime.
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus000500000...)
I ask, who is more likely to burn the flag, Obama or Bush. Oh, right, right! Bush uses the flag and Constitution as toilet paper.
Mrs Obama Carter Bush is perfectly cast as the militant angry black sistah! Obama Carter Bush looks totally at home in his Arab threads. Osama Obama( or whatever the f his name is) looks on with total pride! Oh and I LOVE the American flag being burned in the fireplace!
And you moron libs are thinking about voting for the flip flip flip flopping socialist, Marxist, lying con artist!!
WOW!!!
Now do you see the wrongheadedness of the mag cover?
You have no idea....
2. Obama leaving the liberals. Aside from the National Journal that labeled him the "most liberal Senator" Obama never had a record of being ultra liberal. You might do well to not drink all the MSM koolaid. Right now, they need to make Obama look vulnerable to make MCCain look like he has some chance, and the latest attempt is to paint his supposed "centrist movement" as some kind of vulnerability. Truth is, a central theme of his campaign has been bipartisanship which in my head, implies a kind of centrist lean automatically.
"“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
there was no link, but i assume Chris would not have made that up.
the best way to argue that the cover "pretty fucking bad on multiple levels" is to concisely say what those levels are and resist the temptation to insult other readers on here because they have a different point of view.
"Ig the Obama campaign is worrying about inflaming the right wing, it's only because they recently abandoned the left wing in order to get their votes. if you're looking for dumb decisions, look no farther than that one."
sounds like you said "something" about Obamas opinion.
Also, don't confuse me thinking your opinion is dead wrong with having a problem with discourse. I don't recall calling you a name or any other of the traditionally accepted methods of showing "uncivil" discourse. I disagreed with you, strongly, get over it and stop trying to play the victim card.
all, but damn, I'd really like to get someone like Bernie Sanders in there.
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus000500000...)
Don't you get it, this is how the GOP keeps winning POTUS, as progressives we are harder on our candidates than we are on our opponents!
voted the same way that McCain would have if he had shown up.
But I agree, we repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot over single issues.
I'm just concerned Obama isn't as progressive as we'd like.
As for the cover, most of the comments against it are from people assuming
the average American will be too stupid to understand it. Almost everyone
posting understands that the cover is satirical. So why do some say the cover is
racist? If people simultaneously think the cover is racist yet understand it's
satirical, then what the cover is doing is calling Karl Rove et al racist,
right?
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus000500000...)
The New Yorker knows that they are "sanitized and innoculated" They saw the way to make a couple of extra bucks and they took it....
Then again, this is kind of par the course for the liberal/progressive "movement" (laugher ensues).. I keep thinking about herding cats more and more and it seems like, once again, the left will do everything in our power to ensure that yet again, the very worst case can happen in this election. We still haven't learned to put up a united front and come November I'm sure we'll all be whining about how McCain got elected. The answer is that we will, over the next 5 months, turn our backs from Obama because he isn't perceived at being "left" enough and because we can't overcome our startling tendancy to air our dirty laundy and give it to the enemy as a weapon.
It just is stupid, but I am angry more by some of the overt racism, mainly aimed at Michelle..
"Their audience isn't the problem."
That will be the most effective counter attack. Go after the advertisers. Any controvercy this cover stirs will benefit the magazine in terms of sales so don't look for them to back down just because of some cancelled subscriptions and nasty emails. However some nasty emails and threats of boycotts to their advertisers just might prove effective as the advertisers are generally more skittish when it comes to controversy.
That's not what satire looks like. Satire takes preconceptions and combines them, twists them, and redefines them. This simply puts a bunch of them in a single drawing.
This is a rote repetition of racist, xenophobic and ethnic stereotyping, with a mixture of Swift Boat talking points.
It doesn't offer insights or commentary. It doesn't offer one of the reasons people watch satire: a laughline.
It just throws it all into one incendiary, colorful package. Way to go, New Yorker. This is like yelling "I'm retarded" in a crowded movie theater.
OK, I'm not sure what that last line means either.
Can't critisize if they did it to Obama first?
Why this is wrong is because there will be many for which this point will be lost. What's worse is that those on the right who know it is satire will still use it for their own purposes. Think of the chain reaction, not the initial reaction. First, this image spreads around. The right will then keep on pounding out the theme that Obama is unpatriotic blah blah blah. Eventually some of this bullshit will stick in peoples heads and they will turn out to vote AGAINST Obama (not for McCain). Do not over estimate the intelligence of the general puplic. That is a losing proposition.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about:
The other day Obama talked about how our educational system should include a push towards bilingualism. (note bilingual means speaking more than one languge....2 to be exact). Sounds perfectly reasonable no? Well I got what I guess is a rerun of Lou Dobbs on in the background and he is twisting what Obama said as Obama wanting us to all learn Spanish. This is how the right works! The New Yorker is unintentionally fueling the right's fire. Those smug fuckers have no idea just how ignorant people are.
I know why the rest of the world hates us.
This cover is a betrayal to its readers and subscribers.
I ♥ your comments, morelee.
Let's not get our shorts in a bunch over this, folks. It's the New Yorker, not a NASCAR program book.
How is it funny? What's the twist? What's the angle? What am I missing?
It looks like a bunch of stereotypes thrown into one image. That's not satire, that's aggregating offensive ideas and putting them on the cover of a magazine.
I've seen funny things before, thank you. This isn't one of them, and hardly even seems like a reasonable attempt at humor.
We're gonna need some of those people to vote for Obama this Fall, so it's probably a bit imprudent to sneer at them just now. It would be a better idea to try to bring them over to your way of thinking. I grew up with a lot of those "dumb" people and they work hard, pay their taxes, love their kids, and try to do the right thing. Why not try to help them do the right thing instead of laughing at them? Sneering at them only makes you an asshole, and there are plenty enough of those around.
Don't be such a shmuck. This reminds me of fishing for sunfish. You can throw in a bare hook and they'll bite it again and again. Think!
Same goal as you, though.
I'm guessing you have the pleasure of living in a blue state?
This is a golden opportunity to let the air out of those rumors. Instead, we're inflating them. That's just dumb.
"Obama is not a Muslim terrorist but he is a black man and therefore not presidential material. Michelle is also not a terrorist but can you really stand a black woman walking with her big black feet on the white house carpet?"
"That is exactly how many folks picture those two - (for real) Love it..!"
"It's the truth! For crying out loud, his wife is so shrill and militant: She says, "Obama will LET YOU do this and WON'T LET YOU do that!" What do you expect from 2 marxists? Quit pretending that this cover is one big surprise!"
"Finally the media is starting to get a clear picture of the Obamas."
"There is definitely a kernel of truth in this satire. Barack (middle name censored) Obama and his vile partner hate super-power America and are itching to transform it into a socialist, sharia-bound Euro-state."
"I think this "satire" says it all about the both of them."
"WOW ... this is "RIGHT ON."
"You know what they say.....the truth hurts. Michelle and barak hate white people enough to discriminate against them because of the color of their skin. Obama wants to surrender Iraq to Al Qaida. Who here is so stupid trhat they can't figure out why HAMAS has endorsed Obama? Only Dems, I guess."
"All satire is based on at least a grain of truth. In this case, it's a silo full of grains. As much as I dread the idea of an empty suit like Obama in the White House, I fear even more the presence of Michelle. Are we really going to let this happen?"
"Was this a painting or did the New Yorker just take a picture of the two at their home?"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/07...
Don't you wonder if the New Yorker editorial board had a clue that people would buy it as truth? "a silo full of grains"
Ugh!
Your comments on this thread have been so righton.
This is giving me an ulcer. I'm going to bed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-...
Complaining about this is as dumb as the reaction to those stupid Muhammed cartoons from Denmark.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned after his performance this week, a Constitution in the fireplace would have been more appropriate (wonder if there's time to change that?).
Support the Post Office.
Support Free Speech.
Have the New Yorker pay to do both.
Send in all the Postal Reply cards that fill up the magazine. On the reply card, write your anonymous comments about how displeased you are with the cover.
Figure five cards from each subscriber mailed in -- that's 5 times .27 = $1.35
Now if 40,000 subscribers do that, it'll cost the New Yorker $54,000. And the New Yorker will have received back 200,000 individual messages expressing displeasure with the cover. Each and every message will have to be paid for by them.
But don't buy the mag. Just take out the reply cards...and the person who does buy the mag will be thankful for your pilfering.
Wow, I will do this too.
400K people = $540,000
4 million people = $5.4 million!
The only sensible response to accurate satire is to join in the laughter. Swooning just lends credence to the fear-mongering cretins who think it's real.
I know an awful lot of people who are on the fence about Obama and don't know much about him and who aren't paying much attention to politics. If they get this picture it will probably stick in their heads and have an impact.
Remember GW!
Will you listen to yourselves?
Besides, it doesn't f****ing work! Gawd! I give up. If my party members can't see the opportunity in this, then we don't stand a chance anyway. I think maybe it's time to get my Irish citizenship. I just hope they work things out with the EU so I can move to the Greek Isles after a few years in Dublin.
i have had it with the press, they are RACIST, because i have NEVER seen them treat any other presidential candidate the way they have treated the Obama family. They have NO respect for him.
have you ever heard the press ask any presidential candidate why he/she does not wear the lapel pin?
the way they have treated the Obama family is disgusting,from calling michelle a baby mama to referring to them as terrorist, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
america is too damn RACIST,thank the lord i don't leave there.
i am waiting for the press to release a cartoon with mccain numerous wives and girfriends fighting for him while he is pushing the button to destroy iran and iraq.
http://www.newyorker.com/captioncontest
Now, we can make up our own caption, or we can astroturf the shit out of them. For the latter, I suggest, "I remember when the 'fair' in 'fair and balanced' meant something."
I wouldn't wait until the offending cover comes out. I'd spam the shit out of their caption contest right now.
LOLOLOL
BP
Palomino!!
I don't think anyone who voted for Dubya's second term is going to vote for Obama. I think Obama's votes will come from those who didn't vote for Bush, and from those who just plain didn't vote.
I think the cover is a great tool for pulling to fangs of the pundits and talkers who smear that nonsense. Unless the Dem's don't get the joke, and make a big stink about it. Oops! That's just what seems to be happening. My party is hopeless.
We need people who voted for Bush to vote for Obama. If we don't get them, we don't win. And I do know some people in that category. New voters will help but we have to get Bush voters too.
Democrats get the joke. The Republicans don't, as evidenced by the Politico comments that were quoted on this board. Or, as one or two of them said, they think it is a joke based on truth.
See, that's just nonsense. If Obama is as smart as his wife, he'll show up on The View with a turban and demand that Elisabeth Hasselbeck don a burka. I'll bet he could get Joy to go along with it. When Michelle Obama did the terrorist fist-bump on The View, it completely reversed the impact and made the Fox pundit lose her show. Hopefully Obama will listen to his wife on this one and pull the same trick to cause a backfire of all the Muslim-terrorist-flag-hater foolishness.
C'mon, man. Think it thru!
It was a loathsome and irresponsible cover and, sadly, the powers that be at The New Yorker will never, ever understand that.
For everyone who sees this and sees red, lighten the hell up. If I were the Obamas I'd think it was hilarious -- same as Michelle's "terrorist fist jab" on The View. Or most of Stephen Colbert's segments, which hit the same notes.
For everyone who sees this and says, "That's exactly the truth! How can you vote for him?" -- are you too dumb even to see that YOU'RE the cartoonist's punchline here?
This isn't going to convince anyone who already believes Obama is a terrorist Muslim that he isn't, but it sure as hell should confirm for everyone else how stupid those people are when they see their suspicions illustrated like this.
Read 'the nation' for a better pub, you can read many of the new yorker writers online anyway. Call me a whining liberal if you want, you won't be in good company.
Well, the Obama's DIDN'T think it was hilarious. They were offended. They should've been offended. The danger an image like the cover represents is that it has no context once it hits the Web. If it's reproduced across the internet, as it surely will be, it will reinforce the suspicions a lot of people have about the motives of the candidate and his wife. We're going to need some of those people to vote for Obama in the fall. It was a horrible idea to publish that cover, especially in light of the fact that, surprisingly, the article has nothing to do with the cover.
The image is clever for the relative handful of people who read The New Yorker. For the vast millions who don't know The New Yorker from The Paris Review, they'll see Angela Davis and Osama bin Laden dappin' in the Oval Office and their worst fears will be confirmed.
You'd think TNY readers, not to mention the TNY editors, would be sophisticated enough to understand the complex power of images to drive the political narrative, especially this cycle.
"Surprisingly"? When was the last time a New Yorker cover had anything to do with any of the articles inside? What, maybe the post-9/11 issue? If this cartoon cover "confirms" anyone's worst fears, they were already convinced. If the Obamas were actually offended, then that's their perogative, misguided though it may be. (it won't keep me from voting for him or contributing to him again, but like others of his positions, I don't agree with it.)
Seriously -- how is this any different than Stephen Colbert, with a straight face, describing Barack Obama as a secret Muslim? This was created out of the same train of thought that led Jon Stewart to create the Daily Show's "Baracknophobia" segments.
What saddens me most about this is that this whole matter could take on a life of its own. Thank you for listening.
Since the pay off wasn't included, folks will attach their own meaning to the illustration. To some degree it's a big "so what"?
If someone is dumb enough to believe the cover is a true representation of the Obamas, well, they are stupid enough to believe it.
Cancelling a subscription to the New Yorker? Most will go right back as soon as a preferable article is printed.
This is not -- as many commenters here would have it -- an over the top reference equivalent to Cleavon Little saying "where de white women at?" in Blazing Saddles. This is a bunch of white folks deciding to portray a black couple in a racially pandering amazingly derogatory manner. To the NYers saying "lighten up" -- I am a NYer, too. Imagine, just imagine, the reaction that would have ensued if a similar cover was done, but with jews rather than blacks as the subjects. We all know there's no shortage of retrograde anti-Jewish feeling out there. What better way to make fun of it then to put it on a magazine cover in the broadest, coarsest strokes, right?
I somehow think we wouldn't be hearing a lecture about free speech then. Shame on the fools who greenlighted this.
No imagination even necessary. Art Spiegelman pretty much did that already after the Crown Heights riots with his New Yorker cover. And, yes, we had the same ridiculous outcry over the satire.
Sorry, I was a New Yorker reader before i was a registered Democrat so they get more of my loyalty. And if you find it offensive, move to the other side of the Hudson, where you're not supposed to be reading it anyway if you don't like it. They made that pretty clear with Saul Steinberg's iconic cover in 1976.
I crossed the Hudson 43 years ago. Steinberg's cover could also be read as "New Yorkers are myopic". Funny how that interpretation and yours are not mutually exclusive..
But there are probably better examples from the past 50 years.
Regarding Steinberg's cover: And therein lies the humor...
In other words, people most likely to BUY or SUBSCRIBE to The New Yorker, i.e., their target audience. And this will influence non-New Yorker readers exactly...how? Because the cover will get e-mailed around? That's about as stupid as someone taking offense at an Onion headline because right-wingers might believe it's news. If someone isn't going to vote for a skinny black kid with big ears and a funny name in the first place, this cover isn't going to help convince them. I can't see it doing any damage whatsoever, but for people on the fence, it could actually help them see how ridiculous their tacit prejudices are.
How do you explain Bush's second term? It pretty much destroyed any faith I have in the ability of the American people to rationally choose a president.
I think you feel that all people opposed to Obama come into it with strong feelings of opposition. I'm just afraid that there are vast numbers of blank, fairly stupid slates out there who will add this picture to the sewage spewing forth from Fox News and vote accordingly. You KNOW this image won't stay on the cover of the New Yorker; it will be all over the place.
The only way I can explain Bush's second term is "Iraq War," which people still wanted to see succeed and wanted to support a "war-time president" to make it succeed. (That, and Kerry was a wrong choice for our candidate.)
And I have no doubt people will vote against Obama because they want to believe every stereotype this cover sends up. But I'd rather the New Yorker poke holes in those prejudices now, rather than wait for the inevitable right-wing e-mail smear campaigns to do far less comical versions with clumsy Photoshop skills. I think this tackles them head on. And the only people who will see it as other than satire are those who weren't voting for Obama anyway.
See, it's already generating press that it's a satire. Some misguided fence sitters will side with Obama over the "unfairness" of it. Others -- who are the ones most likely to convince others around them -- will see in this how silly the prejudices are and will use this as evidence.
The problem isn't that this cover is unfair, inaccurate, insulting, and serving to perpetuate a false image of the Obamas as individuals.. The problem is that this cover is unfair, inaccurate, insulting, and serving to perpetuate a false image of the attitudes, outlooks, and capabilities of black people in general.
John McCain is a rich white man. Nobody would read any larger claim into showing him as a power-hungry, narcissistic, immature, shallow jackass with a pill-popping, privileged, high-maintenace sugar mama who literally rode him into the national spotlight. That the New Yorker seemingly cannot see that the foolish beliefs about the Obamas they are lampooning exist in large part due to fear of black power, not fear of a black's power, shows that they arent as fucking perceptive as they so frequently remind us to think they are.
Christ. I still can't believe they OK'ed this thing.
I like the ideas posted below (sorry, don't remember names) to spam the caption contest and to send back the postage paid subscription cards with critical comments about the cover and make the New Yorker pay the postage for my ire.
The first question that enters my mind: How many black people are employed at the New Yorker and in what positions?
My guess, something near zero excluding custodial staff.
This past week I cynically laughed, as did many of you, at teevee's trouble uttering Jesse Jackson's "balls" whisper, however, the nearly exclusive lily white panelists blabbing on the hot topic ,on MSNBC of all places, was no laughing matter.
Pitiful, unattractive cover art on a zero-impact mag...the low comp pop media should eat it up..
Somebody get me an all white handful of punditry
Yes it is satire, that's not the FUCKING point! The point is that this can AND WILL be used to help perpetuate the smears on Obama. Will it turn some Obama voters into McCain voters? No it won't. But will it turn out some otherwise sit at homers to come out and vote AGAINST Obama? You bet your sweet asses it will.
Do you get it now? JESUS!
How will this be "used to help perpetuate the smears on Obama"? Because no one was sending around these same smears already, but, boy, now they will? Everyone who sends this around as some kind of confirmation of their prejudiced suspicions will (a) only convince those who already harbor the same suspicions, or (b) look like idiots to their fence sitter friends. The idiots have already made up their minds. The fence sitters will (mostly) see this for what it is, and will listen with askance the next time talk radio tries to spew this crap.
The dimwittedness comes from people who see politics and the use of the media as solely an "if A, then B will follow" progression every time. That's one of the reasons why we lose elections as Democrats. It's why Democrats voted for the war, and it's why so many (including Obama) probably voted for the FISA bill. As a group, progressives can be very smart -- but we're not very savvy.
This is directly in line with Obama's own statement to the AIPAC crowd that, if you meet that Barack Obama characters, tell him, because he sounds like a scary guy. If he can't get that this is the same damn thing, and his own supporters can't get that, then we're in for an extremely humorless four years once he gets elected.
Now let me try to explain it one more time:
In order for us Democrats to win, we have to do two things. 1) Get out and vote in large numbers. 2) Do everything we can to keep the idiots who are prone to vote republican calm and quiet so that they WON'T go out to vote. There are a lot of things that get those bastards excited and the perpetuation of these types of images is one of them.
That's all, if you can't see how this is at least possible (and therefore we shouldn't take the chance with it) there's nothing more I can say to you. You might be right that this is harmless but there is no way you or I can see what shit like this will lead to and it is just plain DUMB to take the chance.
This picture isn't going to get anyone out to vote who might have stayed home; if anything, it might get someone to stay home who was starting to believe the lies. I actually think it will do neither, here in July, but if you want to be all hot and bothered about it, fine. Calls to cancel New Yorker subscriptions is just plain dumb, however. Even if this WERE to get used against Obama in any kind of effective way (and there isn't any way it can be, but be that much of a scaredy cat, fine), the New Yorker's writing and reporting on the campaign far outweighs whatever perceived damage you think this satire has or will do.
And it is funny. Slipping on banana peels isn't, and neither is...oh, wait, I just got a message handed to me that some people think slipping on a banana peel IS funny. So I guess "funny" can be very subjective. Huh.
Regardless, I've never bought a slippery slope argument in my life, and I'm not going to start now. I think far greater thought and energy should go into defeating actual Republicans and right-wingers, rather than the clever (or stupid, as you might see it) outlets whose work every week actually supports our cause in the long run.
I think it would be great if this were the story du jour for days (story des jours?). No one could cover this beyond the first hour of the news cycle without getting into the issue of whether or not this is satire. I want the cartoonist interviewed at every possible chance. I ESPECIALLY want right-wing idiots on television saying how this New Yorker CARTOON really captures their "concerns" about Obama.
If anything, the National Review and other publications on the right are saying, "Crap! We were going to run that in October!" And now they won't. And even if they did a variation on it, it would lose its punch, because the New Yorker has already shown it's a risible depiction of how evil (the right wing thinks) Barack and Michelle Obama are.
I don't give voters any credit anymore, but I also think that everyone who e-mails this cover around will get at least one e-mail in response that says, "You do know this cartoon is making fun of you and your imaginary fears, don't you?" And the longer it's out there, the more THAT becomes the meme.
C'mon -- it's a 24-hour news cycle, but there's another after that, and several others after that, too, between now and November.
Great comment, LunaStick!
As someone who has tried (and failed) a number of times to be creative in a number of different disciplines, I know how obnoxious it is to hear someone tell you what would've made your play/monologue/song/production "better." Now, having said that, imagine how all the ambiguity would've cease to be a factor had the Obama-as-white-America's-nightmare image been drawn to look like a dream from a pants-wetting doughy white guy, his nightcap designed to look like a Klan robe, a double-barreled shotgun obviously under the pillow and a bedspread that looked suspiciously like the Confederate flag. I mean, they're feeding every known stereotype of the Obamas in one image, so why not add in every known stereotype of the voter who'd believe those images to make the point crystal clear. As it stands, like many of us here, I worry that the image will be used as right-wing website wallpaper, copied and pasted, out of context, to mailboxes throughout America with comments like "Even the Jew Yorker gets what the Obamas are REALLY up to, wake up America! Vote McCain!" Why they'd publish a piece of "satire" that could so easily be used as recruitment propaganda by the very group they're satirizing shows a lack of foresight I find quite troubling, as if they didn't want to be accused of self-censorship by being too chicken to publish the image (of course, had they not published the image, who'd know beyond a few members of the staff?) I just find it a tremendous misstep, and even if they mount a tremendous effort to explain away the point behind the cartoon, publish it in their next issue, on their website, offer interviews with the publisher or editor or cartoonist, have critics weighing in with opinions on various talk shows, it won't make a lick of difference. Low-info voters will remember the image, and it will resonate more than any subsequent discussion.
I can only hope that there's a followup image of McCain, and it's equally as brutal. Otherwise, come November, the GOP just might be writing a big ol' thank you to the New Yorker...before accusing them of being dangerous liberal media again.
Sometimes, there's a fine line between fearless and reckless. You can cross it without even knowing it. You can hope the people will get it, but it can awfully lonely when they don't. Ask Lenny Bruce.
"Part of my email to Mr. Blitt himself (JedReport has the addy.)
Mr. Blitt,
The New Yorker cover picture of, well, you know what, is way over the top. You defend it by showing other covers That's not a defense at all because those other covers were based on truth.
This cover is based on rumor and smear, more specifically, right wing smear of the lowest order, replete with bigotry, racism and blatant insult, and yes, the fear mongering you were attempting to satirize.
Too bad that many won't get the 'joke' because they won't bother to read the long associated article within the magazine. They'll just see the picture, which will permeate the psyche of low information voters, and reinforce the stereotypical image that the bigots and fence sitters already have of the Obamas.
One needs to hear something 30 times, but needs only to see it 7 times before it takes hold.
I shutter to think how many times this picture will be seen. Not only will it be seen on newsstands, etc., but worse yet, the MSM will show it ad nauseam and it doesn't matter if they call it reprehensible or ingenious. The masses will get the 'thousand words' without reading a single one.
My regret is that I don't have a subscription of the New Yorker to cancel.
I believe you owe the Obamas a public apology. This picture is an outrage, regardless of what you meant or how you meant it."
This is very disturbing indeed.
How about this for a cover Mr. Blitt: PHOTOSHOP ANYONE? LET'S MAKE OUR OWN CARTOON...READY GO:
Cyndi McCain pill popping addicted and shooting up heroin, strung out in the oval office while McCain is screwing another woman while his current wife is in the hospital. And in the background FIVE planes are crashed McCain one two three-to five in the background (all as a result of his flying incompitence). Then we see McCain's temper blow his top and he calls his wife the 'C' word.
That would make for a great cartoon.....see how long that one lasts.....hey, it's just a caricature, just irony. Except the difference between MY descrpritive cartoon and the Blitt Obama version is MINE IS TRUE.
This is most disturbing. I can only hope it garners sympathy for the Obama's.
I hate the argument that artists are responsible for idiots who will take a piece of their work the wrong way. It is obvious to anyone with three brain cells that this is a total send-up of the ridiculous and racist right-wing caricature of the Obamas. Granted, that description of cerebral deficiency applies to a painfully large number of our fellow Americans. That, however, is not the responsibility of those of us who aren't riding Uncle Dubya's Short Bus.
It's the same as blaming Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shootings back in the 90s. Or those wingnuts that blamed their kids' suicides on Judas Priest back in the 80s. Or the people who write off rap music because some dumbass was too stupid to realize that the "guns and bitches and hos" talk is hyperbole and caricature.
It's really scary when people start saying things like, "What are we going to do about this?" Knee-jerk responses and mob mentality is frightening, whether it comes from left or right. What are you going to do? Clamor for people to get fired? Call for the shutdown of a magazine that next week you'll be verbally fellating when they write an anti-Bush/Cheney editorial? Act like the equal opposite of the very right-wingers you're afraid won't understand this? Write about something we don't like and we'll grab the torches and come a runnin'. Let's make ourselves into a bunch of little liberal James Dobsons and Fred Phelpses.
Intolerance RULES! Freedom of speech is only for people who agree with me! And sometimes not even when they agree with me, which, sadly, is the case here. Let's kill the messenger! Let's not think! Let's be reflexive about EVERYTHING! Let's be big HYPOCRITES!!! Yaaaay! We say we want a new country, but we're acting the same as we ever have!
I'm so inspired.
This is damaging to Obama and his campaign for reasons already stated. Those of us who support Obama and DON'T want to see four more years of McBush, have a right, nay DUTY to take a stand against this sort of shit.
And you too, ezpz. Great stuff from you tonight.
They are doing this to get attention. It is a calculated risk, and is all about money. They must have some really lagging numbers to push trash like this to get a ton of free publicity. I doubt this will play well in a city full of minorities. We shall see.
http://www.newyorker.com/contact/letterToEditor
Plus, in the comments section of Jed's post is the actual email addy of Mr. Blitt:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/wtf.html
FRESH blood:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_re_as...
It is RACIST. It is unacceptable for any magazine to even consider this. I believe this will be the end the New Yorker having any credibility
This is wrong, wrong, WRONG!
Especially the all powerful, sore loser Bill with his Harlem, NEW YORK office and his senator of NEW YORK wife who did NOT get the nomination -- this time?
This reminds me of some of the pre primary very anti Obama SNLs, especially the one with the 'cartoon' showing Michelle O throwing up, among other not so subliminal racist visuals.
I believe the editor David Remnick is what, Jewish? I do not think that is lost on anybody looking at that cartoon and thinking about it for a little while. Definitely will inspire some images. Perhaps we could do a cartoon about a Jewish man slandering the first black candidate for President of the USA... for money? Really do up the faces and such. The fact is, that would not be a satire about David - it would be a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about David. Right?
What a damn fool.
ANYONE GOOD AT PHOTOSHOP OUT THERE?
Here are a few cartoon "satire" moments for John and Cindy McCain:
1) McCain crashing (5) US aircraft and endangering lives because he is so incompetent. ...Nutty.
2) Cindy McCain hilariously addicted to pain killers so much so, she steels from her own Charity for kids to get them. Zany!!!!
3) McCain's famous temper blows his head off just before he calls his wife a "C*not". ....and the wackiness continues with:
4) McCain dressed as the "Sith" (You never see them in the same room at the same time) pressing the red buttons and blowing up the world. Now that's comedy!
I could go on, but I can't stop laughing at all this "Satire".
If I had a subscription to the New Yorker, I would dump it. They (the New Yorker) Are assuming a level of sophistication that simply does not exist in our country.
I am over it. I can hardly wait for this election to be over...I am too stressed about it...I have to check out for a while.
Can you imagine explaining this to those two lovely obama kids? It's horrible.
I can only hope for an equally offensive McCain cover....just to see rights reaction.
As a longtime subscriber of the _New Yorker_, I am appalled and disappointed in the decision to run the Obama cover. Mr. Remnick, with all due respect, I do not need an 'explanation' of the so-called joke you chose to toss out into the violent marketplace of our national life at such a tenuous moment. If I am to continue as a subscriber and supporter of your publication, what I need is an apology and retraction. What your rationale fails to address is exactly how this image will have a positive effect in the overarching context of violence and ignorance that threatens this republic in our shared historical moment.
OK, so what is the cover actually satirizing? Fear and ignorance? Who is the intended audience? Are you really trying to argue that the image is targeting those who are fearful and ignorant enough to take it literally? Are you saying that satire can reach those whose limitations exclude them from getting the 'joke'? Or even having viable access to this discourse? at this level? My guess is that those who are the butt of your joke are the last people in the world who might ever buy or perhaps even read your magazine. So, who is the intended audience here? Those of us lucky enough to have educations that enable us to read and buy your magazine?
And your message? That we lucky ones can congratulate ourselves on being superior to those who are fearful and ignorant? Is it not the first requirement of effective satire that the basic premise should go without saying? That enough of the audience actually get it to make a difference? Where your cover fails is in its smug assumption that those ‘in the know’ will get the joke. What I find extremely problematic is how small a part of the population actually qualify for your implied status of insiders and knowledgeable elite.
In an election season notably marked by the first viable African-American candidate for president, in a country with a violent history and present which continues to enshrine violence against people of color, I object to this cover image in the strongest possible terms. There is nothing funny about portraying people of color as violent criminals on the cover of a respected publication. If you are serious about subverting the power of stereotyping, you would do well to enlist the expertise of those who actually have some knowledge and skill in such a complex endeavor. In the meantime, I sincerely hope that you will find it in yourself to rise to the occasion and admit the mistake in this unfortunate decision.
I'm not selling my soul for the lesser of two evils anymore. I'm no longer a hostage of the Democratic party.
They haven't done shit with their majority since 2006. No impeachment was frustrating enough but FISA was the last straw.
I live in a state that will go for McCain and it really bothers me that my vote for Obama won't count for much, but I will vote for him anyway. If you live where your vote could make a difference, please cast it for Obama.
The only way politicians are going to change is if we vote for people that stand for change. It thought Obama was such a candidate. Clearly, he is not.
The Democrats are pathetic losers who refuse to be the opposition party. They seriously make me sick. Excluding the likes of Dodd and Feingold, the party is a mess.
I have listened to people giving your argument every time and where has it got us? Nowhere.
I'm voting Green for the first time in my life. The Dems are useless.
He and Kerry both did the same thing Obama is doing. They lost support all on their own.
My point is that our votes matter, even a few votes make a difference, and we should vote for the best candidate who has a chance to win. Nader didn't have a chance to win.
My candidate sold out and I'm disappointed, but it isn't an all or nothing proposition. Shades of gray. Life is always like that.
Either Obama or McCain will win and that's all there is to it. If you don't vote for Obama, you are voting for McCain to win.
If you don't vote for Obama and McCain wins, you are responsible for what he does. That's part of being a citizen in our democracy.
Obama and McCain are NOT the only candidates running. If Obama loses then he wasn't the candidate he should have been.
Hang your guilt somewhere else. I'm not about to take repsonsiblity for Obama's mistakes, nor the Dem's mistakes. They are the cowards.
Progressives are always going to get thrown under the bus by the Dems. They don't really represent us at all. But oh how they love to ask for money and support. Anyway, I'm closing my Dem ATM and taking my vote to a party that does represent me and the constitution.
I hope our country turns around soon. It may have to get much worse before Americans wake up.
This country is controlled by corporations. Both of the major parties are bought and paid for. I wish Obama didn't have a price but apparently he did. Was it worth it Obama?
It amazes me how much people are ruled by fear.
It's pretty appalling how you guys blame the victim not the crooked politician. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
How many Iranian lives are you willing to risk with your Green party vote?
If you are pro choice, how many victims of botched back-room abortions are you willing to risk?
How much are you willing to risk losing the Supreme Court to the right wing for decades to come?
I have a little boy and I don't want him to go to war. Are you willing to risk his life?
This may seem hyperbolic but the 2000 election shows it isn't.
It is Obama's actions that are losing supporters. It is the Dem's actions that are losing supporters.
How much of the constition are you willing to sacrifice for this party of cowards?
Please vote Obama, with the right people in the legislative branch he will make things right w/ FISA. Russ believes this, and I do as well.
If Obama is going to make it right once he gets in, why did he vote the opposite now? It damaged our constiution, it damaged his reputation. He has betrayed the document that our country was founded on.
Remember the other Obama that stated this in the primary:
Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same
So there it is. In his own words he has undermined the constitution. Any you say so he can fix it later? What the hell kind of logic is that?
I'm serious when I say that Nader voters share some of the blame for the deaths of so many.
Why can't we be pragmatic here? The world isn't run on principles. The Republicans have learned how to lock step and win.
Sure I'm disappointed. But is the Green Party really a choice? Are you really ready to sell out our country to make a point?
Do they even know that what they think is a joke is taken seriously by a large amount of ignorant, closed-minded, idiots in this country? A picture is worth a thousand words and this cover is going to fuel their ignorance and stupidity.
THAT is funny!!!!!!
That is exactly right!!!!
stop on by for some satire I think you'll enjoy.
http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
The New Yorker needs a Satire 101 refresher course.
thesebastards.blogspot.com
ours is good satire, too!!!
http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
omg...I just can't even believe this coer.
I believe this cartoon, which should undoubtedly be viewed as satire, does nothing to refute the views of many ignorant critics of Mr. Obama, his wife, and his general background. I believe that this does much to affirm the worst beliefs of more Americans then we think, and gives many of those (members of the KKK and similiar groups, for example) more reason to stand against change and progression, and work to ensure that a lesser candidate gets into office and runs this country into the ground for another eight years.
Maybe we should do a cartoon about that? We could really do up the faces and such, and throw in a few images of the old Cartoons the Nazis distributed attacking Jews.. you know, for satire. A greedy jewish man holding a bag of money while he steals some land form arabs and prostitues a black mans wife...perhaps?
I don't get it... why isn't everyone laughing?
for real satire, come visit us
http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
Muslim - check - radical - check - antiAmerican - check - threat to the US - check-...and so it goes. Smears beyond anything Obama's anti-smear website could imagine...until this magazine cover, of course. The ultimate!
For any sophisticates on this thread who are convinced this cover conveys satire, get over it.
By the end of this week, The New Yorker's name and cover will have had a distribution reach far beyond anything any marketer ever imagined. The cynic in my soul wonders if that's the real purpose behind this monstrosity. Marketing, marketing uber alles!
If you want to mock the right wing, weak-kneed terrorist-behind-every-Bush imbecile, then mock Bush, or McCain, or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or the Rethugs in the Congress, or Cheney, or the Compliant Complicit Corporate Press (C.C.C.P.). Liberal media my ass!! They're going to kill off Obama's electoral chances just like they have done to Al Gore, to Max Cleland, to John Kerry, to John Edwards, to Tom Daschle, to Hillary Clinton, to anyone who threatens to interrupt the largess to the elites in America and instead represent the massive middle class and the poor who actually elect them. My favorite expression for these manipulators is: Lying.Fucking.Dangerous.Bastards.
Don't underestimate the ability of these nuts to use the New Yorker cover art to reinforce their stupidity and to influence 'really' crazy nuts out there who might try to prevent this from happening....
Voting and Media
Voting and Media
Voting and Media
Now it's too late, we did not focus enough on those two things and our Democracy is nearly done! Look at how many behind the scenes activities are ruining this country, never to have heard a peep from the Media in this country.
STILL haven;t friggin figured it out, between the two, this country will be handed another snam Election!!!!!
Wake the fuck up!
THIS IS NOT SATIRE. This is a very, very, very bad choice by the publisher.
SATIRE -- satire takes a truth, enlarges and exposes the absurdity of the truth.
The only thing accurate or supportive in this cover is that Obama is in the oval office. The rest is stupid, stupid, stupid and did I mention stupid???????????? What was this artist thinking, and what in the hell was the editor thinking?????? OMG...
For an example of real SATIRE see: http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
While riding in a mini-van through the Carolinas with several extended generations of my family an elderly relative remarked about the ONLY Obama sign we saw "That house will be torched by nightfall." Thank God for my nine-year-old who piped up "What are you talking about? He's winning! He's going to be our next president!"
As long as hate is so profound that it takes the form of passable social conversation, a magazine cover like this is unacceptable. Just as is John McLaughlin's "Oreo" comment, the Golf Magazine noose cover, or even Jesse Jackson's unfortunate neutering comment.
Shame on you, New Yorker. Shabby, shabby, shabby behavior. www.theturnerreport.com
I am canceling my subscription to the New Yorker which is my favorite magazine to curl up with because even if they offer an apology and a retraction the damage has been done. Personally I am inclined to call it 'media lynching' to paraphrase Justice Thomas.
themail@newyorker.com
You get in reply their prepared statement defending the cover...which indicates they are getting lots of negative mail.
Good!
Begin forwarded message:
From: "James T. Edwards" <jamestedwards@mac.com>
Date: July 14, 2008 6:20:19 PM CDT
To: themail@newyorker.com
Subject: Obama satire cover
Re: the Barack and Michelle Obama cover:
Mr. David Remnick:
I don't blame the artist for his satire. It's clever. But the editorial staff who put it on the cover of the magazine with no contextualizing information made an unsophisticated blunder. Jeremiah Wright made precisely the same mistake when he put his Chicago-south-side-black-church poetic language in front of a national television audience. You (as he) thought you were talking to insiders, but you were talking to everybody--including those who wouldn't get the joke. Indulging a rather provincial fetish for format, you put the satire's title (which would have saved you) where 99% of the cover's viewers would never see it: inside the magazine on the contents page. You thought you were hip, doing a John Stewart, but instead you pulled a Leni Reifenstahl. As a Chicagoan who grew up in the cornfields of Illinois, it gives me some pleasure on this rare occasion to say this of the New Yorker editorial staff: What a bunch of rubes! The magazine's analysis of this miscue should be co-written by Ken Auletta (who knows about communication) and Roger Angell (who knows about errors made by good players in clutch situations).
Do NOT cancel my subscription. Go have a drink, toast your lost ignorance, chalk it up, and do better.
Sincerely,
James T. Edwards
Chicago