The New Yorker Obama Cover

[TinyPrincess]

Agree, RedBoy.

There was no call for the cover page - now they should make one with McCain in a coffin to make the score 1-1

 

[Mem]

Agree, RedBoy.

There was no call for the cover page - now they should make one with McCain in a coffin to make the score 1-1

McCain, in the oval office, in a tiger cage with a walker, with his finger on "the button" with nuclear missiles going off in the background with his wife standing in a pile of money.

 

[Skull Mason]

A huge mistake to run this in my opinion. It's already made headlines here in the UK.

Well from The New Yorker point of view it doesn't look like a big mistake if it is making headlines around the world...

 

[TinyPrincess]

McCain, in the oval office, in a tiger cage with a walker, with his finger on "the button" with nuclear missiles going off in the background with his wife standing in a pile of money.

LMAO :biggrin1:

 

[Industrialsize]

What's true is...people don't know Obama...they believe many things that caricature depicts...and the caricature takes over the top - which is satire: the flag burning - Obama's issue with the flag pin and anti-American rhetoric w/ Wright, Michelle. Picture of Osama Bin Laden - Obama's name and connection to domestic terrorists and getting endorsements from the likes of Farrakahn and Hamas. Michelle's militantism - the Fatigues, AK47 and combat boots, 60's Afro. The now famous "Fist Bump" = the Fist Bump. Muslim debate - Obama in African garb.

Everything The New Yorker depicted has some truth to it...but they take it over into Satire to be provocative.

I don't think even the most simplistic mind is going to think Michelle Obama is an AK47 toting militant or Obama puts pictures of Osama Bin Laden in his living room while burning the American flag...what they will get is reminded of the impression of is all the things the issues the New Yorker is effectively satirizing...The simpliest mind will be asking themselves do I believe Obama was a muslim? And why was he associated with so and so...and were anti-American remarks of his Pastor reflective of Obama's nature?

That's why Obama is offended. Even though the cover is clearly a perfect satire of the things people discuss in relation to him, the satire itself doesn't clear up the questions and make the viewer feel silly about the questions...if anything it makes you ask more.

There is NOT a shred of "TRUTH" depicted in that cartoon.......and you SERIOUSLY over-estimate the sophistication of a great deal of the American electorate. Many of them are not glued to the campaign coverage and traditionally don't reaLLy begin to pay attention to the race until after labor Day.

The MCcain cover from the current issue of The National Review

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

McCain, in the oval office, in a tiger cage with a walker, with his finger on "the button" with nuclear missiles going off in the background with his wife standing in a pile of money.

Not bad at all, Mem.
Did someone help you?
(j/k, Mem, juuusst j/k)

 

[kalipygian]

I think it was a poor decision to use it as a cover. I don't really think it is harmful to his campaign, people who believe that are never going to be persuaded to vote for him anyway. I don't find it objectionable.

There is a lot of New Yorker humor some of us out in the boondocks don't get. :biggrin1:

 

[flame boy]

Well from The New Yorker point of view it doesn't look like a big mistake if it is making headlines around the world...

Very true!

 

[b.c.]

I think the New Yorkers plan at satire has backfired on them terribly. They presume that everyone will look at the cover and chuckle sadly the satire will be lost on a lot of people who will see this as further fodder.

A huge mistake to run this in my opinion. It's already made headlines here in the UK.

Regardless of whether it was indeed a "plan at satire" (I personally doubt it - they can't be THAT stupid) it has worked exactly as they had intended.

It raises questions about Obama, captures visually what a lot of misinformed people are thinking (and what certain others want to think), it stirs controversy, and most importantly it sells magazines - all at the expense of the Obama campaign (if not the presidency...only time will tell).

They're playing the "but it was supposed to be satire" card (if I may be so bold as to borrow the "card" analogy) and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[arrivaderciroma]

Most of you folks never "get" the New Yorker covers anyway, so why start now?

 

[Redsquall]

I think 'awesome' just about covers it. Very clever indeed. I thought that magazine was fairly liberal though?

 

[marleyisalegend]

I find it a bit backwards that the article (tucked within the pages) addresses bigotry and the most important piece, the cover, slams Obama. They don't give two flying fucks about him or bigots, they just wanted to sell some mags and knew they could do it with that portrayal of Obama. Sensationalism, it's disgusting, not honorable.

 

[rawbone8]

Right on target!

Obama and his wife have displayed a vapid anti-Americanism deriving in large part from the black power ideology espoused by, inter alia, Rev Wright

Highlights his African and Muslim roots, showcasing his thin American veneer

... also exemplified by his elitism, which again is based on his disdain for Americans, also
characteristic of third world classism

What's true is...people don't know Obama...they believe many things that caricature depicts...and the caricature takes over the top - which is satire: the flag burning - Obama's issue with the flag pin and anti-American rhetoric w/ Wright, Michelle. Picture of Osama Bin Laden - Obama's name and connection to domestic terrorists and getting endorsements from the likes of Farrakahn and Hamas. Michelle's militantism - the Fatigues, AK47 and combat boots, 60's Afro. The now famous "Fist Bump" = the Fist Bump. Muslim debate - Obama in African garb.

Everything The New Yorker depicted has some truth to it...but they take it over into Satire to be provocative.

I don't think even the most simplistic mind is going to think Michelle Obama is an AK47 toting militant or Obama puts pictures of Osama Bin Laden in his living room while burning the American flag...what they will get is reminded of the impression of is all the things the issues the New Yorker is effectively satirizing...The simpliest mind will be asking themselves do I believe Obama was a muslim? And why was he associated with so and so...and were anti-American remarks of his Pastor reflective of Obama's nature?

That's why Obama is offended. Even though the cover is clearly a perfect satire of the things people discuss in relation to him, the satire itself doesn't clear up the questions and make the viewer feel silly about the questions...if anything it makes you ask more.

For all the Obama haters who love the cover, you love it for the wrong reasons —
if you consider the goal of the artist who created it. Barry Blitt.
Here are his words on his intent:

I think the idea that the Obamas
are branded as unpatriotic
[let alone as terrorists] in certain
sectors is preposterous. It seemed
to me that depicting the concept
would show it as the fear-monger-
ing ridiculousness that it is.

But as demonstrated so many times here,

you're :banghead: gonna :banghead: see :banghead: what :banghead: you :banghead: want :banghead: to :banghead: see.

:biggrin1:

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I find the cover to be extremely distasteful. I find that some of the remarks about bigotry reveal bigotry in the heart of the poster. I know many bigots of all shapes, sizes, races, and political parties. Not everyone who votes democrat is free of racism. Not everyone who votes republican is a racist. The level of prejudice in some of the posters hearts is so great that they'd rant against someone who said they voted republican, and welcome a fellow dem with open arms. It's all ludicrous.

I know African-Americans who said they will not vote for Obama because of his ties to Socialism, and his wishy washy stance on issues. Plus, they aren't too fond of his connection to Oprah Winfrey.

I see both candidates as a pitiful president.

 

[marleyisalegend]

you're :banghead: gonna :banghead: see :banghead: what :banghead: you :banghead: want :banghead: to :banghead: see.

I bet Trinity and Nick have collectice multiple orgasms masturbating to the pic.:tongue: I Wonder how they feel about the article.

 

[Principessa]

The cover has MAJOR problem as political satire. usually with a Political Satire cartoon, the artist tries to exaggerate something that is based in the truth. For example, Obama has been portrayed as arrogant and elitist(things I don't believe are true), but a cartoon exaggerating these aspects of Senator obama would be totally fair game. This cartoon serves to exaggerate and play up things that are NOT TRUE about the Obamas. That he is a muslim, that he is beholden to Bin'laden, that his wife is a 60's style radical angry black woman. In my opinion this is where the cartoon goes WAY over the line.

I agree, the New Yorker went way over the line with this one. :12:

 

[B_Hung Jon]

As an elitist white guy I think it plays to all the bigots in the USA. Bigots don't usually understand satire.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Eh.
Nothing noteworthy, either in terms of humor or controversy. *yawn*

Right on target!

Obama and his wife have displayed a vapid anti-Americanism deriving in large part from the black power ideology espoused by, inter alia, Rev Wright

Highlights his African and Muslim roots, showcasing his thin American veneer

... also exemplified by his elitism, which again is based on his disdain for Americans, also
characteristic of third world classism

What exactly constitutes Anti-Americanism?

What's true is...people don't know Obama...they believe many things that caricature depicts...and the caricature takes over the top - which is satire: the flag burning - Obama's issue with the flag pin and anti-American rhetoric w/ Wright, Michelle. Picture of Osama Bin Laden - Obama's name and connection to domestic terrorists and getting endorsements from the likes of Farrakahn and Hamas. Michelle's militantism - the Fatigues, AK47 and combat boots, 60's Afro. The now famous "Fist Bump" = the Fist Bump. Muslim debate - Obama in African garb.

Everything The New Yorker depicted has some truth to it...but they take it over into Satire to be provocative.

I don't think even the most simplistic mind is going to think Michelle Obama is an AK47 toting militant or Obama puts pictures of Osama Bin Laden in his living room while burning the American flag...what they will get is reminded of the impression of is all the things the issues the New Yorker is effectively satirizing...The simpliest mind will be asking themselves do I believe Obama was a muslim? And why was he associated with so and so...and were anti-American remarks of his Pastor reflective of Obama's nature?

That's why Obama is offended. Even though the cover is clearly a perfect satire of the things people discuss in relation to him, the satire itself doesn't clear up the questions and make the viewer feel silly about the questions...if anything it makes you ask more.

"Dap" as political issue?

"people don't know Obama"?
Specifically who do people "know", and how did they come by this awareness? Familiarity and likeness? Leaving every other person who isn't familiar or similar an unknown, alien and othered?

 

[Trinity]

For all the Obama haters who love the cover, you love it for the wrong reasons —
if you consider the goal of the artist who created it. Barry Blitt.
Here are his words on his intent:
But as demonstrated so many times here,

you're gonna see what you want to see.

:biggrin1:

You referenced my comments...I don't hate Obama. I fully understood the satire in the cartoon and that is what I explained in my comments. I believe the satirization was based on truths about Obama: like Obama not wearing a flag pin, controversial comments of Michelle and Wright that caused people to question patriotism, Obama's family being connected with Islam and Obama distancing himself his early connections, Obama's associations with domestic terrorists, endorsements by Farrakahn and Hamas and those actual incidents and issues were satirized and lampooned. Despite the fact that the artist was successful in satirizing those issues perfectly, the artist's intention to show how prepostrous fear mongering is was not achieved because those issues do not seem "ridiculous" when you remove the lampoon. All together, the questions are not answered about Obama and the viewer is not made to feel silly for "fear mongering" rather they feel like they really don't know Obama.

"Dap" as political issue?

Some commentators on Fox made it into a political issue...but I think it was highly undignified for Michelle Obama to go "booyah" on national television before Obama's acceptance of the Nomination. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton going "booyah" to President Clinton the night she won Pennsylvania by "double digits?" Michelle Obama is supposed to be setting her image up for First Lady...and all she has right now is "Yeah, I've Got a big Mouth" "First time in my adult life I'm really proud of my country" and "Booyah"

"people don't know Obama"?
Specifically who do people "know", and how did they come by this awareness? Familiarity and likeness? Leaving every other person who isn't familiar or similar an unknown, alien and othered?

They know politicians who put in work, time and effort. Voters know these Politicians by their investment in improving their lives. People don't know Obama because he's been a U.S. Senator for a hot second outside of running for President and hasn't completed a term. People don't know Obama because most of his legislation from Illinois came in his final year as a State Senator when he was planning to run for higher office. People don't know Obama because most of what he does, he seems to do for political gain. People get to know you from what you do, and then trust who you are. The "breath of fresh air"...is relatively unknown.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Some commentators on Fox made it into a political issue...but I think it was highly undignified for Michelle Obama to go "booyah" on national television before Obama's acceptance of the Nomination. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton going "booyah" to President Clinton the night she won Pennsylvania by "double digits?" Michelle Obama is supposed to be setting her image up for First Lady...and all she has right now is "Yeah, I've Got a big Mouth" "First time in my adult life I'm really proud of my country" and "Booyah"

Michelle Obama lacks diginity due to giving her husband "dap" and an excited response? The fact is, Michelle Obama is an intelligent and accomplished woman who has apparently not lost touch with social practices of her youth. Dap is perfectly normal and acceptable in the Black community - if it was unknown to others until that moment - high time they learned a little something about different cultural practices within the U.S.

Regarding, the 'booyah', so what, lets examine the "dignity" and comportment of the other candidate spouses, shall we? Cindy McCain had(s) a drug problem and steals, and Bill Clinton, well there are several issues, but lets stick with whips his dick out at the slightest opportunity - I'll take the booyah.

They know politicians who put in work, time and effort. Voters know these Politicians by their investment in improving their lives. People don't know Obama because he's been a U.S. Senator for a hot second outside of running for President and hasn't completed a term. People don't know Obama because most of his legislation from Illinois came in his final year as a State Senator when he was planning to run for higher office. People don't know Obama because most of what he does, he seems to do for political gain. People get to know you from what you do, and then trust who you are. The "breath of fresh air"...is relatively unknown.

People learn to "know" their candidates through image, familiarity, an undefined public persona created by professional political communicators, and "tell me what I want to hear" sound-byte responses in media. That isn't knowing.

Obama is not, by your definition, "unknown", voters can use his state and federal senatorial experience to draw conclusions from his record and the perception his constituents have about the betterment of their lives.

Unfortunately, they won't, rather, many prefer talking points regarding "fist bumps" and misinformation about his religion, over, say, FISA, which is much more important and a reason why I won't vote for him.