Dear Mr. Obama,
Cidu Bill on Jul 16th 2008
Tonight, in what appears to be an obsessive desire to keep the “New Yorker magazine cover” story alive, you told Larry King that you personally weren’t offended by it, but it was insulting toward Muslim-Americans.
I’d like to offer you the advice that your advisers should have offered Monday morning: Shut up. And when you’re done with that, shut up.
Seriously, Senator, you are turning a non-issue into something that makes you look more foolish every time you open your mouth. First you let your “people” release a statement kinda sorta calling the cover tasteless and offensive, and then you go on national tv to be offended on behalf of the Muslim-American community (who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, by the way).
This cartoon was published on the cover of a magazine with a circulation of maybe three people outside of New Yorkers and New York expatriates. A magazine that supports you, by the way. And surely you understand that the cartoon wasn’t intended as a criticism of you, your wife, or the Muslim-American community.
You’re going to encounter some genuine slurs over the course of this campaign, and it doesn’t bode well for you if this cartoon can, to use a technical term, put your panties in a twist.
If you really felt the need to criticize the cartoon, you could have simply said, “Eh, I guess they thought they were being funny,” and left it at that. The situation would have been diffused — this never should have been allowed to become a “situation” — and you would have (as my son would say) burned the New Yorker: They can defend their intentions, they can put you on the defensive by suggesting you should have been savvy enough to recognize satire, but there’s no defense against being told “you’re just not as funny as you think you are.”
July 14: Okay, looking at this week’s New Yorker cover… Isn’t it clear that this satirizes the various rumors circulating about Obama? Even if you’d never seen a New Yorker cover before: a few months ago they ran a cover showing Obama and Hillary Clinton in bed together, both waking up as a phone rang at 3am; everybody seemed to understand that the New Yorker wasn’t suggesting that the two candidates were having an affair.
Apparently this wasn’t obvious to either the Obama or McCain campaigns: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create … But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree,” said Obama’s people neatly sidestepping the matter of what they actually believed.
McCain’s people echoed the phrase “tasteless and offensive.”
So sue me. I thought it was pretty clever.
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, Larry King, Michelle Obama, New Yorker, satire | 55 responses so far
Derek Jul 14th 2008 at 03:58 pm 1
I’ve just this minute sent that to you. I still don’t get it. Obviously, I didn’t think the New Yorker really thought that the Obamas were Islamic terrorists, but for me it doesn’t work as satire. It’s all offense, no humour.
I’d like to get it, I have no particular attachment to Obama or his detractors, so I’d be quite happy to have a good laugh at one or other of them, whomever it’s supposed to be lampooning.
Lola Jul 14th 2008 at 04:18 pm 2
I know people, fortunately only a very few, who would look at that and think it’s a reasonable portrayal of what the White House will look like if Obama should win in November. Of course, they wouldn’t be caught dead reading the New Yorker. Yeah, I still talk to these loonies as in the adage to keep you friends close and your enemies closer. Most of the time I’m dumbfounded that anyone could hold such views, but they are quick to let me know that I and my ilk are ruining this country for “god’s people” so I know they think the same of me.
I agree that it’s clever, but I also think I’m going to be in the minority on this one.
DPWally Jul 14th 2008 at 04:25 pm 3
Like some recent movies, this cartoon misses the difference between satire and duplication.
Take the “organic cotton” strip from the July 14 entry, remove the caption and replace the quote with something about cotton picked by darkies. It would no longer be satire, it would be a straightforward depiction of something a store owner in a slave-economy might have said.
Same problem with this New Yorker cover. It duplicates the thinking of certain people so bluntly and straightforwardly that it serves only to mirror their thoughts, not satirize them. An anti-Obama cartoon created by one of them could look exactly the same as this cover. Except the New Yorker just saved them the trouble.
DPWally Jul 14th 2008 at 04:27 pm 4
I wasn’t suggesting the “organic cotton” strip has the same problem, just suggesting how that strip could be altered to create the same problem.
Cidu Bill Jul 14th 2008 at 04:55 pm 5
When the first episode of All in the Family aired (yes thank you, I am old), many people saw Archie’s comments as a vindication of their own views. Many critics said, in effect, “well, *I* get the joke, but the Unwashed Masses won’t.”
And what Wally says is correct, that lot of it is context: If this were the cover of the National Review, it would clearly be an anti-Obama cartoon.
On a related, more personal note: Some years ago, I interviewed the leader of a white supremacist organization. The man came off as a certified looney-toon, and exposed his beliefs to ridicule better than anybody else ever could have — to most people, anyway. He thought he portrayed his beliefs so brilliantly, he reprinted the text of the interview on his organization’s website.
(Yes, I could have asked him to take it down, but it just wasn’t worth it to give him a chance to start a “The Jews are trying to silence us!” rant — besides, I found this sort of amusing)
padraig Jul 14th 2008 at 05:00 pm 6
The problem with this cover was that they forgot the element known as “humor.” The previous cover with Hillary and Obama in bed was funny. This is heavy-handed and snooty towards the part of the USA that does not consider itself to be the New York City Support System, that is, everybody else.
Even worse, the people this is aimed at won’t get it. Do you know how many people really really believe Obama is Muslim?
It reminds me of Robin Williams’ comment about gun freaks and rednecks coming out of the movie “Red Dawn” saying, “Nice documentary.”
Winter Wallaby Jul 14th 2008 at 05:01 pm 7
We can argue over whether it’s good satire or not, but it’s clearly recognizable as satire, so I’m a little puzzled as to why it’s “tasteless and offensive.”
Actually, I’d think it was satire if it was on the cover of the New Republic as well.
Steve Grant Jul 14th 2008 at 05:08 pm 8
WW, no doubt *you* “clearly recogniz[e]” this as satire, but I believe that you grossly overestimate the intelligence of your fellow Americans.
Cidu Bill Jul 14th 2008 at 05:12 pm 9
Padraig, the New Yorker is aimed at a very specific audience: Mostly New Yorkers, and probably roughly divided between intellectuals and snooty pseudo-intellectuals. How somebody in Idaho will interpret one of their covers doesn’t enter into the equation.
This, after all, is the New Yorker’s (and the typical New Yorker’s) view of the world:
Kevin Andresen Jul 14th 2008 at 06:43 pm 10
I’ve read the New Yorker occasionally (which is only an exaggeration if you don’t count the table of contents).
I’ve read intensely articles about Obama smears.
I watched Mrs. Obama on “The View”.
When I saw the cover, I searched in vain for any indication that it was satire. Rather, I thought, wow, the New Yorker has come up with the goods on the Obamas.
It was the flag-burning that threw me off of the satire possibility (even though I *knew* deep inside something was wrong).
So I think even intelligent, NPR-listening, New York Times reading Obama fanatics won’t be sure what this cover is depicting. And for sure, it will seal another million or so votes against Obama (in my opinion) and has the potential to throw the election to McCain/Nader.
Then again, if the newsstand copy still has the cover flap, everything should be okay.
Kevin Andresen Jul 14th 2008 at 06:51 pm 11
And the New Yorkers’ View of the World is discernible as commentary because it contains New York in it.
Is there something about water color painting that suggests the detractors?
Charlene Jul 14th 2008 at 08:32 pm 12
Or the New York cover could be said to be discernable as commentary because what it portrays is so clearly distorted to such an extent that it can’t be seen as realistic by anyone.
There are millions upon millions of Americans who do NOT see the Obama cover as distorted as all: they think that’s EXACTLY what he is. They may even see him as more extreme than this. And that’s why it doesn’t work as satire.
Dale Hussein Skinner Jul 14th 2008 at 09:22 pm 13
People should know this is satire. The Messiah doesn’t burn the American flag and praise terrorists. It’s only those with whom Lord Obama associates or from whom he has support that do this. Even the bitter clingers know this.
LostInTarnation Jul 14th 2008 at 10:07 pm 14
The portrayal is absurd on the face of it and therefore satire. Personally I thought it was pretty amusing and am a little disappointed that the Obama campaign produced a knee-jerk “this is insensitive!” sort of response rather than using the moment to tell the folks who wouldn’t get the joke that they should think about it a little.
When I listen to Rush or Hannity (just to get my dander up), Rush invariably accuses Democrats of wanting to destroy America, and Sean Hannity calls the democratic *majority* in the House “radicals.” What amazes me, and what longs for good satire, is the idea that one party, which represents more than half of the American people, wants to destroy America, let the country be overrun with illegal immigrants, give terrorists free reign and allow homosexuals to recruit children in elementary school — no kidding, that’s the sort of slander Rush, Hannity et. al. propagate on a daily basis.
Putting such people’s portrayal of the Obamas in a picture exposes it for the nonsense it is. Yeah, it’s too bad the New Yorker is dry enough not to add some big caption telling everybody what to think and what the picture really means — I guess the American people are just gonna have to use their brains and figure out the meaning for themselves.
Frank Jul 15th 2008 at 04:49 am 15
Damn right it’s satire. It ranks right up there with the early ’60s cartoon depicting
Kruschev and his East Side Rockets cohorts followed by a wanabe Castro as the march off to rumble.
StillPond Jul 15th 2008 at 05:29 am 16
I too thought it was clever at first. I took the happy couple as Judith Miller and Michael Isikoff. Until I saw the masthead.
Brian Leahy Jul 15th 2008 at 07:00 am 17
I agree that, appearing as it does on the cover of New Yorker, it MUST be interpreted as satire.
The problem is that this interpretation entirely context-sensitive; appearing anywhere else, it’d pass for a genuine right-wing anti-Obama cartoon.
In this regard, we are a lazy nation. A lot of people have never even heard of the New Yorker before this controversy. Many more have heard of it but do not know its reputation.
Still more (including, alas, certain politicians) are simply uninterested in trying to understand ANYTHING beyond their initial gut-reaction. Anyone who bothered to flip to the article that the cover refers to would understand the magazine’s true intentions; but only a TINY fraction of people will do so.
Most depressing of all, people are more apt to be angry, rather than mortified, when (and if) they eventually realize they wholly misunderstood.
If this were anything but election-year politics, it would not be as potentially tragic; but unfortunately, elections are won or lost more on emotions than on reason.
(The “map” cover shows NY, New Jersey…. then the Pacific. i.e. The rest of the country is missing.)
Tom T. Jul 15th 2008 at 08:22 am 18
I propose that satirists should be licensed, so that their work may be properly labeled.
Powers Jul 15th 2008 at 08:25 am 19
(No, it’s not: can’t you see Kansas City and Los Angeles in there?)
Anyway, yes, it’s obvious satire — but what’s not obvious is whether it’s satirizing the anti-Obama crowd and their absurd allegations, or whether it’s satirizing a country that could accept a radical American-hating Muslim and his gun-toting wife in the White House. It’s the latter interpretation (however unlikely it is coming from the New Yorker) that causes the cover to be tasteless.
Steve K Jul 15th 2008 at 08:46 am 20
I had a friend in college who became quite upset about Jonathan Swift’s essays, especially the one on baby-eating. He called it filth, and when I responded that it was satirical, he replied that nobody ought to be able to say we should eat babies, even in jest or to make a point. Because Swift didn’t put any context or caption or anything in his essay to let the reader know just what was meant, or to guide them to a conclusion. He left it out there for you to work out.
It’s generally considered to be one of the best pieces of satire ever written; ergo, the props Bill gave it in the title.
Shall we strip satire of its teeth because those it satirizes won’t get it? Or isn’t that sort of the point?
Hunt Jul 15th 2008 at 09:03 am 21
In comment 5, I think maybe you meant the National Review, and not the New Republic?
I thought about Archie Bunker, too.
Yes, I did mean the National Review. We get both magazines and while obviously they couldn’t be more different, I always get the two titles confused and probably always will -Bill
Tweeks_Coffee Jul 15th 2008 at 09:08 am 22
If anything was learned from the Dutch Muhammad cartoons, it’s that if something can be stripped of it’s context and used in purely venomous way it will be. Of course this is satire, it’s a combination of everything that the far right wants you to believe will happen all rolled up into one. Inevitably people will use this cartoon to show the “truth” of what will happen.
Though I would say that all the controversy surrounding it now pretty much removes any possibility of it being completely removed from context. The New Yorker can go ahead and defend it now instead of trying to play catch up in a couple months when the picture has already been spread all over the internet.
Brian Leahy Jul 15th 2008 at 09:52 am 23
re: map cover
The low res stymied me, but now I see that NJ is shown as just a thin strip, next to a rectangle of desert marked with tiny specks for Chicago, Vegas, Kansas City, etc. — all of it collectively dwarfed by NYC itself.
Bryce Baker Jul 15th 2008 at 01:56 pm 24
It’s obvious it is satire, but it is not funny or even really thought provoking. It would have been much funnier to point out how ridiculous it is to call him an elitist.
Also why did they choose to feature his wife on the cover too? I reads as satire with ill intent. I’m just hoping their next cover will show McCain in a retirement home.
Dan Jul 15th 2008 at 02:12 pm 25
As with most NYorker covers, this one requires some knowledge of current events. Believe it or not, it took me until comment #24 to understand that that was his wife on the cover - the fist bump, how could I forgotten?
padraig Jul 15th 2008 at 02:31 pm 26
Dan, understandable you didn’t recognize Michelle Obama since the illustrator made her look more like Angela Davis circa 1969. (And if you’re not familiar with Angela, trust me, she makes Michelle look like a pussycat.)
I’ll admit I was guilty of judging this cover by its description before I’d actually seen it. It’s cartoonish enough that I can see some humor in it. I still have to wonder about what effect it will have, if any, on the hordes that honestly believe things like 1) Obama’s a Muslim, 2) Hillary’s a lesbian, and 3) Saddam Hussein planned 9/11.
Kevin Andresen Jul 15th 2008 at 02:39 pm 27
Oh my god! Thanks to Dan, I just realized the fist bump is the whole joke of the cover.
It’s based on the controversial comment last month by Fox News’ E.D. Hill: “A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?”
She still has an anchor job but her show was cancelled 5 days later.
And now I know why all the women (including Michelle Obama) on the “The View” were so uncomfortable when they talked about the fist bump.
Okay so the painting is more brilliant than I thought but still way too obscure for the millions who just needed one picture in their head to go to the other side. (I’m thinking Fox News didn’t do a lot of reporting on the E.D. Hill incident.)
Michael Jul 15th 2008 at 03:26 pm 28
This really comes across as propaganda, not satire. Political cartoons are usually based on a truth. They often strip away the spin and show things starkly as they really are. For example, when the New Yorker hd a cover showing Bush as Nero making music while the world burned, it’s an image that makes you say, “so true!” When you read the Obama cover the same way, it truly is taseless and offensive.
A good quote I saw stated that “an effective cover would have featured the controverial image as a polital poster sponsored by a conservative organization or have people looking at the image on a TV set with the Fox News logo on it. Right now it just looks like political propaganda.”
Winter Wallaby Jul 15th 2008 at 04:45 pm 29
Kevin (#10), how could this cartoon possibly throw millions of votes against Obama? Even granting that some fraction of Americans may be deranged enough to think that this cartoon is a correct representation of an Obama White House, I can’t imagine any of that fraction voting for him anyway. If you actually think that Obama is a flag-burning, Osama-loving, Muslim, married to a black militant, I think it’s safe to assume you were already planning to vote for someone else.
Scott Jul 15th 2008 at 05:22 pm 30
I’m a big Obama supporter, and I like the cover. I wonder if people offended by it are also incensed about Stephen Colbert calling him a secret Muslim? The satire is so over the top (a portrait of bin Laden hanging in the Oval Office?) that anyone not convinced that he is a Muslim should get it. It is propaganda, but against Fox News (remember them calling him Osama by mistake) not against Obama.
Not that I doubt people won’t get it - “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public” as Mencken almost said. During a school district crisis I wrote a satirical column for the local paper, titled “A Modest Proposal for Our Schools,” advocating that we raise test scores and reduce overcrowding by laying off students. The idiot headline writer changed my title, and friends told me that half the people they talked to thought I was serious.
Cedar Jul 15th 2008 at 06:54 pm 31
While I generally dislike the paternalistic tone I keep seeing in response to this cover (not so much here, but just about everything this is being discuss) of “I get it! But what about those morons in the midwest!? Why, they’ll never understand that this is supposed to be humor!” I think this ultimately fails as satire because it’s NOT exaggerating the rumors that are abounding about the Obamas–it’s just illustrating them. It would be as if people were actually talking about eating babies, and then Swift wrote about eating babies.
Anyway, this poll from the ultra-conservative (like, “tofu makes you gay!” headlines) website Worldnetdaily shows that a lot of people DO believe this garbage.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807140002
Granted, these people aren’t likely to vote for Obama in the first place.
Cidu Bill Jul 15th 2008 at 07:17 pm 32
Cedar, I’d call it exaggeration because it shows all the rumors manifesting in the very same scene.
Dale Hussein Skinner Jul 15th 2008 at 07:59 pm 33
…Fox News (remember them calling him Osama by mistake)
No. Maybe they were reporting on Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas) when he made the mistake.
xopher Jul 15th 2008 at 08:19 pm 34
I thought it was funny as well. (just my two cents)
Frank Jul 15th 2008 at 09:21 pm 35
I thought it was satire and funny. To quote el rushmo today and really toss some gas on the fire ” Who gets upset over cartoons ? Muslims!” . NO! I don’t really think Obama equates with Osama but I do think he would be as much of a disaster for the country as Jimmy Carter was - and I voted for the guy. (Mea culpa, mea culpa magna!)
Highjinx Jul 15th 2008 at 10:47 pm 36
People who think this cover could not possibly be interpretated as anything but satire must have a whole different circle of acquaintances and neighbors than I do. As for the “target audience” of The New Yorker… I’ve never lived in New York nor bought a copy, yet I’ve seen it in plenty of magazine racks and doctor’s offices. And, of course, the internet voids any claim of regional exclusivity anymore.
The only way I can imagine this not being unfairly negatively impacting Obama’s campaign is if they put an equally-potentially-negative charicature of McCain on the same cover. And by the way, my first thought upon seeing this cover was, “Wow, I always thought The New Yorker was liberal! What crazy-negative fear-mongering!”
Lorraine Hussein Wronski Jul 15th 2008 at 11:19 pm 37
I’m with DPWally (comment #3 above)
And to Winter Wallaby’s comment #29, I am very afraid that this “fraction” of voters is scarily larger than we might think. There is something called the “Bradley Effect” (after a California candidate for governor) where white folks will tell pollsters that they are voting for a black candidate because it seems like the “politically correct” thing to say, and then will turn around and actually not vote for that person.
Finally, to those who question whether it’s really “insulting”, ask yourself if YOU’D be insulted to be portrayed as a flag-burning killer.
Tom T. Jul 16th 2008 at 12:42 am 38
Bill, your update is absolutely right. Why in the world is Obama keeping this issue alive and blowing it up even bigger? It’s politically disastrous to be tagged as a humorless scold, yet that’s precisely what Obama is going for.
This so isn’t the way to win over Middle America. Those voters are going to think, “The same people who told us to shut up and take it when they burned our flag and dipped our Saviour in urine are now telling us it’s blasphemy to poke fun at Obama.”
Arthur Jul 16th 2008 at 12:42 am 39
According to something I heard on the radio, the title of the cartoon explains a lot. The title is “The Politics of Fear.” If that had been printed on the cover, I believe that it would have been self-explanatory as an editorial cartoon against those pushing the those views of Obama. Without that title, it’s at best ambiguous. (Googling on Obama “new yorker” “politics of fear” seems to confirm that title.)
(Have I broken the rule against allowing the artist to further explain? AFAICT, the artist did it right, but the publisher decided not to use the title.)
Cedar Jul 16th 2008 at 01:29 am 40
I was just about the say the same thing as Highjinx. I know the magazine has a reputation of being purely New York, literari stuff, but I know a number of people in the midwest, the south, and the west coast who subscribe to and read The New Yorker, including some people who certainly aren’t the elite intellectual stereotype. Even my Republican/libertarian leaning uncle gets the magazine; he loves the world news coverage, and the humor pieces. So it’s hardly like this magazine is super-obscure, and known only to an elite few in one city.
Frank Jul 16th 2008 at 02:40 am 41
Though a Bostonian with all the inherent disdain for New York that entails, I once subscribed to it until I could no longer put up with HGB’s drivel. Mediocre to poor essays but great cartoons - particularly the late Chas Addams. Some decent covers too.
Classy reception the Sox players got tonight.
Frank Jul 16th 2008 at 02:48 am 42
Oooops. Got the browns mixed up - Tina not Helen.
Nicole Jul 16th 2008 at 09:52 am 43
I think I finally figured out the problems with this cover. First it doesn’t go far enough to qualify as satire (with the possible exception of the depiction of Michelle as Angela Davis). All we have going here is a slight characterization of all the rumors innuendos and lies being told about the Obamas.
Second, after the swiftboating of John Kerry, I think that it is fair candidates sensitive about anything they feel may misrepresent them in an untrue negative light. I agree with Bill that sometimes it is best to make a quiet comment and let it go, still given the nature of the cover I do think it was appropriate to say something
This will reinforce some people’s beliefs about the Obamas. Because it is not over the top enough to qualify as satire, many people who see this will think the New Yorker is confirming what they have heard about Obama. Those people will not read the article in it they will just see what they already believe depicted on the cover of a respected magazine.
Here is another take on the issue, and I wonder if a cover like this was really published how would the McCain camp handle it.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080715/cartoon20080715.gif
arvy Jul 16th 2008 at 10:31 am 44
Bill,
I think you hit the nail on the head with your open letter. Given that he has made a more concerted effort than any previous candidate to aggressively debunk the ludicrous rumors, I think his best response would have been to say something like “I think it’s clear that The New Yorker was satirizing the silliness of the rumors that get spread during a political campaign and I’m sure that the vast majority of people who’ve seen and will see it will recognize that the target of the cartoon is not me, or Muslims, but the rumor mongers and members of the press who help fan the flames.”
DonBoy Jul 16th 2008 at 10:40 am 45
Nitpick: “Muslim Americans”, not “Muslim-Americans” (and the same for “Jewish Americans”, more commonly seen as “American Jews” anyway.) Hyphenates are for foreign nationalities, and hyphenating Muslim or Jewish suggests that those religions are essentially foreign. Nobody would write “Christian-Americans”, except as a joke.
Cidu Bill Jul 16th 2008 at 10:51 am 46
Good point, DonBoy. I’ll try to remember this one in the future. Of course, Obama might have been more accurate if he’d said the cartoon was insulting Muslims in general.
Obviously Obama has the ongoing problem of having to constantly deny he’s a Muslim, while at the same time qualifying it with “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
And Nicole, more of the same: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/columnists/x2050099253/Britt-On-a-different-New-Yorker-cover?view=pop
arvy Jul 16th 2008 at 10:52 am 47
Frank (#41/41),
I couldn’t stand the magazine under Tina Brown either. But she’s been gone for ten years and David Remnick has undone the damage she did by eliminating the celebrity/gossip focus and elevating the role of solid journalism and political/social commentary.
Nicole,
What I think the cartoonist for The S.P.I. failed to notice is that there is a major difference between the 2 covers. The fictional “National Review” cover is based on valid (albeit perhaps exaggerated) concerns about McCain (i.e. humans do deteriorate with age and McCain would be the oldest person ever elected to the office; McCain is certainly far more likely to engage Iran militarily than Obama) and so it could only be seen as being directed against McCain (and given the fact that the right does not fully consider McCain one of their own, I think this would still be true on the National Review).
In contrast, none of the depictions in that cartoon are based on reality (he is not a Muslim, his wife is not a terrorist, he does not support flag burning) so clearly the target is the inanity of the rumors themselves.
DPWally Jul 16th 2008 at 12:20 pm 48
I’m rethinking my comment (#3) after reading the other comments, especially the ones that agree with me, and thinking about the Obama campaign’s ongoing response.
Whenever one of the FoxNews talking heads makes one of these absurd accusations, Jon Stewart replays it on the Daily Show. Sometimes with commentary, sometimes without. He does this because all it takes to make the accusations look absurd is replaying them somewhere else. That’s what the New Yorker cover does. Duplicating the accusations in a format clearly not conducive to accusations makes them look ridiculous. Though it still doesn’t qualify as satire without some type of commentary or exaggeration.
As for the Obama campaign: Possibly they’re being stupid by keeping this alive. Possibly the Swiftboat experience tells them to respond firmly even at the expense of giving the story more publicity (nod to Nicole’s #43). Possibly they’ve decided exposure of this cartoon helps, rather than hurts, the campaign.
Nicole Jul 16th 2008 at 01:11 pm 49
DPWALLY said :
“Possibly they’ve decided exposure of this cartoon helps, rather than hurts, the campaign.”
I suppose it might help, since a lot of the commentary has to focus on the bogus nature of the accusations portrayed in the cover.
As far as swiftboating goes, after watching John Kerry (not that I was a huge J.K. fan) just sit around and lose the election while he was being slandered, I am glad that Obama IS responding even if it is a little overboard.
Cidu Bill Jul 16th 2008 at 01:41 pm 50
Nicole, I thought Obama’s responses to accusations up until now have been very effective, especially in comparison to those of his Democratic predecessors. This New Yorker business, though, he just sounds whiny. If I were somebody who believed any of this nonsense about him, I’d probably be thinking “Hmmm… He’s dwelling on this business a lot more than you’d think he would…”
Nicole Jul 16th 2008 at 01:57 pm 51
Bill — You could be right about Obama sounding whiny, the truth be told I haven’t followed the story THAT closely as I think it is to a large extent a distraction, much like the flag pin nonsense. Still, I do think some comment on the cover was needed.
My guess is that he should drop the whole thing now and move on, which is polite way to say he should just shut up about it, which is what you said … lol
Nicole Jul 16th 2008 at 09:27 pm 52
Because Jon Stewart was bound to have his say on this topic
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/16/jon-stewart-slams-the-media-for-perpetuating-outrageous-obama-smears/
DPWally Jul 22nd 2008 at 10:59 am 53
If anyone’s still reading this thread, Tom Toles did an excellent illustration of one of the viewpoints.
http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2008/07/16/
(2 people stand in front of a magazine stand with 2 magazines, The New Yorker and American Racist Monthly; the covers have identical cartoons. One person comments “But one’s ironic”. The mini-version of him at the bottom adds “The sophisticated can spot the difference”.)
Cidu Bill Jul 22nd 2008 at 12:01 pm 54
I’m not sure what Toles’s point is, Wally, because it’s true that “the sophisticated can spot the difference” — or at least those who are familiar with both The Racist Monthly and The New Yorker. Now granted, to somebody in Idaho who’s unfamilar with The New Yorker, there’s no difference at all and therefore the cover fails as irony in that area of the country - but the New Yorker doesn’t concern itself with that any more than Idaho’s own Potato Monthly cares about being relevant to Manhattanites.
There was no racist intent in the New Yorker cartoon, which seems to invalidate Toles’s joke.
Nicole Jul 22nd 2008 at 02:27 pm 55
I think Tom Toles cartoon is brilliant could be read as supporting either side of the argument. The main cartoon could be read as supporting the idea that the New Yorker cover IS racist. Clearly if both covers are exactly the same, excepting the magazine banner, it becomes easy to see how someone could interpret the drawing as racist
Tiny Toles however is saying that anyone who is sophisticated would recognize that the New Yorker cover IS meant as satire or irony
Wasn’t that a Paul McCartney song — Ebony and Irony ?