-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/07/with-friends-like-these/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
With this illustration having the capacity to roil the nets for days, I'm sure you've already seen analysis as to why it's so bad.
(Some of that rationale includes: a.) Otherwise topflight, liberal-minded illustrator forgets that parody involves the employment of imagery to convey something opposite its literal meaning, b.) Otherwise mistake-averse magazine becomes caught in blind spot after big city liberals get bitter and "cling to rhetorical guns" to express feelings of being jilted by overly centrist nominee, and c). Right wing mouthpieces who have so-far avoided turning into complete bottom feeders have just been handed enough cover for at least a week. )
What you're probably not going to see much of elsewhere, on the other hand, is the actual "what" of what's wrong here. Here's my list:
1. Set in an Oval Office the revolutionaries have cleared of the desk (because revolutionaries don't do desks, so much as lairs), the self congratulations -- especially at this early, pre-convention stage of the campaign -- ascribes a massive sense of entitlement to the Obamas.
2. Minus the eye contact of the actual fist bump in St. Paul (and adding the arched eyebrows), Angela Davis Obama's expression is transformed from "I love you" to "You're SUCH an evil genius, baby ... and no one ever caught on!"
3. Besides Barack's pursed lips -- which have turned into code in the MSM for this arrogant (read: "uppity") black man -- the most damning element in this illustration, by far, is Obama's eye. The furtiveness lends the perfect Machiavellian effect, and the fact it's directed our way suggests we should really know better what this guy is up to.
4. Of course, the gun, the ammo clip, the cammo pants and the crossed legs (like crossed fingers) suggest what an angry, war-like creature Michelle is.
5. It's not just that Old Glory is on fire ("thank Allah I can finally toss that damn pin!"), the crumpled flag at floor level is reminiscent of the flag good old Bill Ayers was stepping on.
In my "ObamaPhobia" presentation at Netroots Nation next Saturday, I aim to show how various campaign images in the traditional media echo more extreme right-wing hate imagery -- conveying Obama as a man with a covert, anti-American agenda, or a deliberate and calculated mastermind, or a closet Muslim and Islamic Manchurian candidate. In hitting the trifecta here, many will argue this illustration is simply a satiric representation of the sophomoric attacks being tossed at Obama from far right field.
If that's all there was to it, though, than why do I sense Rove is chortling tonight?
The reason -- besides the fact that the New Yorker demographic is a pretty narrow one -- is that visually-based racial, religious and character-based framing does carry cognitive weight across a spectrum of higher- and lower-level reasoning, and, more than anything, it gains strength and veracity through repetition.
So, forget about "don't think of an elephant." Try not thinking about the guy's name in the turban-thing without not thinking about his brother's name in the portrait behind him.(please link to this site for original commentary --bagnewsnotes.com).
Satire is not meant to affirm a lie; rather, it ought to illuminate the truth.
Satire should create joy in it's inherent truthfulness. This is just appalling!!
I read the article on the Obamas. It is rather an interesting piece having to do with his political rise in Chicago, and how he has stepped on a few corns there...Bobby Rush and Jesse not withstanding. The article would make one think about how chameleon-like the O man (as Field would say) can be. The man cannot be pinned down, and it may just be all about him, and him alone, and his ambition.
I see the cover, though, as outrageous satire. Outrageous meaning that The New Yorker didn't just push the envelope, they tore it up. Certain people are not going to see this as comedy, they are going to see this as confirmation that Obama is what Faux Noise and everyone else of that claque are claiming, that he's a stealth Muslim about to usher Osama into the Oval Office. They're not going to read the accompanying article at all. The image these days is all. And this is coming from a national magazine that prides itself on being liberal and intellectual?
Let me tell yall something. This is not the only time The New Yorker has put out controversial covers. It won't be the last, either. But this one is unconscionable.
Oh, you "sense" it, huh? Reading these comments, I'm getting a lot more than a sense. After going through about ten of these comments, I couldn't help thinking "This looks like a pro-Obama version of the NoQuarter blog". Do you all really think that this cartoon will move anyone to NOT vote for Obama? I think it's safe to say that anyone who doesn't see the satire here is not voting for him anyway. I also think that most of those people who aren't voting for him anyway are willfully not seeing the satire.
"WHAT THE FUCK????!!!! i can barely breathe right now!!! this shit is OUTRAGEOUS!!!! this is IT...the line has been crossed!!!! they've gone TOO FUCKING FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Whew.
The cartoon didn't poke fun at Barack's big ears or skinny frame or cigarette smoking. It mocked and ridiculed Black people by employing a centuries-old stereotype; that we are unpatriotic and radically militant.
(And if I may) addendum "...mutherf$&@()@"
Sometimes you have to add mutherf$%&(@ at the end to let these bastards know you're serious.
Now see, Jay, that right there is satirical humor
Eh hee.
RonnieB,
As a white person, that is exactly what I was thinking, and you know what?
Most white people cannot understand that part, they don't take racism in a personal way, because they are not the target, it's not something white people are forced to think about or confront.
Proof is that it was published, and the cartoonist was clueless. That's the saddest commentary of all.
it will by being part of the legitimation of such lies about Obama. Clinton and her crew started it, McSame & the Republicans chimed in as necessary, and after the nomination was over, all the groups and the press raise the issues all the time about Obama. This all makes it ok to believe it, the fact that "experts" are debating the lies.
And regardless, you can bet people who have never read the New Yorker will be seeing this image, passed on as truth.
And to think it's only July!!!
As regards the racist and xenophobic cover of the New Yorker, I'm sensing that their intentions may be more than just "pushing the envelope". I'm reminded of a Danish newpaper cartoon a couple years ago depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an offensive way. It sparked widespread rioting and violence. It's believe able that this is yet another way of getting Black folks and Muslim folks to publically act up; turn off white voters; and poison the entire Democratic process so that the convention atmosphere is so toxic that only ... Hillary can save the day. Now, I know that's far fetched and likely not her doing. But I do think that it's the work of a certain type of white people who know that they still have the power of media, and are (mis)using it to the fullest extent.
Will it backfire? If we're smart about it, it sure will. Surely there were magazines in the '60s that did the same thing to MLK and other civil rights activists. Barack might be smart to have one of his surrogates point to that kind of racism as the last desparate act of people who realize that their power and influence are declining.
Make no doubt about it, this is what a "progressive" lynching looks like. This is what happens when the likes of Joan Walsh, Markos, and Arriana Huffington assume ownership of a negro. Or rather I should say this is what happens when they think that Black folks have allowed them to purchase a negro. This is the price of OUR silence over the false hysteria and feigned outrage from white Liberals over Senator Obama's FISA vote and non-existent revearsals on the death penalty, abortion and Iraq.
I'll ask the same questiion I asked last week when I saw the seeds of this being planted at Daily Kos, Salon, The Nation, HuffPost...what are WE going to do about it?
Democrats have their eyes on congressional seats in many southern states like NC as well as Senate races where our vote is crucial. It's quite true that Senator Obama needs their votes to win at the top of the ticket, but they need us, AS ALWAYS, at the base.
i can say whole-heartedly that I can spot a propagandized attack from a mile way.
I dont wear a tinfoil hat, but after seeing this Im getting my hat sized up today.
This is grotesque.
Vogue
W
style.com
Glamour
Allure
Self
Teen Vogue
GQ
Details
Men's Vogue
men.style.com
Architectural Digest
Brides
Modern Bride
Elegant Bride
Brides.com
Lucky
Domino
Cookie
Golf Digest
Golf World
Golf for Women
Vanity Fair
Gourmet
Bon Appétit
epicurious.com
Condé Nast Traveler
concierge.com
Wired
Wired.com
Condé Nast Portfolio
Portfolio.com
The New Yorker
Does anybody think he's probably dead?
I'm more suspicious of Bush being distracted from catching this supposed mastermind of 9/11. It's chilling how they've managed to conflate Iraq and 9/11, substituting Iraq for bin Laden without any national outcry. If god supposedly told Bush to invade, then surely Muslims are justified in thinking it a "Crusade".
America demonized, then invaded a nation, and Murdered the leaders two sons without any war crimes trial. It is extraordinarily chilling.
I used to think bin Laden was in East Boston with Dick Cheney. ;)
The bright side is that the public is usually brighter than the left-wing idiots give them credit for.
That is what I was trying to articulate in my other comment. I believe that it will make others feel like they went to far and that it was in sensitive.
But, in all honesty, if we never talk about these feelings, we would all continue to be held hostage by them.
To be even handed, will we see a TNYer cover with a still-married John McCain and Cindy having an assignation while she's popping her stolen drugs? Oh, wait. That stuff is actually TRUE!
crickets***** No wait, SSSSSSSNAKES gone wild!
I would like to see who sits on that editorial board and if any are Big Hillary donors.
This is sickening.
Morning Joe is already using it as an opportuninty to insult those of us who are offended. OMFG
New York is upSouth...... need I add any intials. What a satire--- absolutely shameful!!
But if my friend put those same words, without any context, on tens of thousands of billboards, in other cities, towns, next to highways and churches around the country--it would be a whole other story, and it probably would stir up and reinforce the dumb rumors and ignorant fears of a lot of people. My friend would never do such a thing; the New Yorker just did.
Surely the people at The New Yorker know there are insane people out there who believe they're receiving messages from god and magazine covers. Psychotics can think this is a signal of some sort and decide to take action.
The issue has become more salient at times - like after 9/11, but also when working in community with other people of color, especially in grad school. I had just recently come to the conclusion that I have way too many privileges of a white person to call myself a woman of color in honesty (even though all of my friends and peers are alumni of a writing workshop for people of color, and keep telling me to apply).
The Obama cover pushes me back to claiming woman of color identity. This cartoonist uses images of Arabs and Islamic dress to diminish a Black politician, ostensibly to satirize those who would diminish him. The point is, that simply dressing like a "rag head" is shameful and makes you evil. I conclude from this cartoon that as "white" as I think I am, the unconscious of white America will always think my daddy is a (word redacted - I don't use that language). I only have white privilege because I can pass. My Arab self is still shameful in the semiotics of America. My children, who are one quarter Arab and have an Anglo surname, totally pass, but if they carried my name they would still carry the stigma. This cover reminds me that it's stigma.
There's something about the sandals that really bothers me personally, more than the Osama portrait and Michelle as guerilla. Don't ever forget, people, he's the son of a barefoot African -that's what the sandals say. Don't be misled by his Harvard degree and his suits. He is fundamentally backward and not-Western.
If my Arab-American father were still alive to see this, he would just say to me "you see, I was right." We had a lifelong argument in which he claimed that American media and society just want to destroy Arab culture, deny our worth and eradicate anything we have of value. I thought he was exaggerating. Until about a year after 9/11, I thought things were improving and that he was out of touch and paranoid.
Activists in the people of color community say we Arabs must be in solidarity with Africans, Latinos, Asians, because what is done to one of us is done to all of us. I could agree with this intellectually in the past - but this picture spells it out for me emotionally, viscerally. I really, really get it.
Makes me want to start wearing a head scarf (and my Arab relatives are Christians - none of them has worn head coverings since the Catholic church stopped requiring it)
The shame, the innuendo, the deaths from racists have to be our bond --all of us-- to truly change this country. Your struggle is my struggle. I love this site--peace
My tongue is tied.
The phrases always make me want to ask, 'what color are they?'
you ain't lying.
Harriet Christian
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
James Carville
Geraldine Ferraro
Paul Begala
CNN aka Clinton News Network
Daily Kos
etc.
for their driving a wedge between us, then get back to me. Until then, fall back.
It is called racial paranoia. It is ineffective as a way to solve problems today.
Your comment was well written. I hope that we are open to the dialogue about racial paranioa.
Have you read the Jackson Johnson book or the same title?
I know the basics of the theory from college. I haven't read the book. Some day--after I move, after my health gets squared away again, and after the election--I'll check it out of the library.
I'm all for a dialog--after the election. If the election turns into a dialog, Obama is toast.I want to win more than anything else at the moment. For those who have issues they care deeply about, that can be a bit abrasive.
Finally, when I'm posting, noticed Obama made major changes in his press operation today. Good. It was long past the time to go to the bullpen. I commend that and will shut up about the new press operation for a while.
God. Its only July.
themail@newyorker.com
And, if anyone still thinks we're in the tinfoil hat crowd I suggest you cut back on your meds and wake up while there's still time.
What SSSSSSSSSSSSSNAKES!!! Didn't see this slithering onto the cover!!! WOW!!
This is assassination.
The second week of July.
Which candidate will survive it?
http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx071208
But the writer of that article certainly does.
And using hearsay to make it.
Yawn.
You can't be serious.
I am emailing the New Yorker and for what it's worth, I appologize for the white side of my family. The Native and Mexican side says "I get it."
EXACTLY! Repetition. . . that's all that matters.
However, this is really the fault of the Obama press shop. They had to know about the cover before it was printed. A good press shop would've really fought this and made it never see the light of day. The Obama press shop doesn't fight things until it is too late. This bullshit will now dominate four or five cable news cycles. This will now be the attachment in the e-mails smearing Obama.
The left thinks the election is already won. They're trying to pressure Obama to be more progressive. Unfortunately, the election is FAR from won. FAR from won. And if crap like this keeps up, it will be lost. Obama needs a new press shop ASAP. Like tomorrow. And they also need to leak negative information to show that Obama is lagging on fund-raising and behind McCain. Temporarily pulling out of a marginal state--Georgia for instance--might send a message to the left and get them back in line.
John Aravosis sometimes pisses me off, but this time he gets it.
Call me crazy -- but I thought that Clinton was a home and Obama was 1 month away from the nomination.
That you would suggest that Obama's staff is some how not as bright as the Clintons is offensive.
The Obama camp has been deliberate about not addressing this type of silliness.
It takes a wise and mature person to let ignorance be ignorance. Eventually, when you don't respond the offender actually grows from the experience. If you respond you give them just what they wanted--validation.
Drew Schutte
Vice President & Publishing Director
David Miller
Associate Publisher
For small-space advertising inquiries, please send an e-mail to smallads@newyorker.com, or call 877-843-6967.
For general advertising inquiries, please contact:
Terese Cunningham
Advertising Director
Telephone: 212-286-2105
E-mail: terese_cunningham@newyorker.com
Maria Tenaglia
Advertising Director
Telephone: 212-286-6993
E-mail: maria_tenaglia@newyorker.com
For other advertising inquiries, please contact your local sales representative:
Cookman Campbell
Chicago Manager
Telephone: 312-649-3506
E-mail: cookman_campbell@newyorker.com
Patti Chapman
Detroit Manager
Telephone: 248-458-7955
E-mail: patti_chapman@newyorker.com
Melissa Smith
Los Angeles Manager
Telephone: 323-965-3466
E-mail: melissa_smith@newyorker.com
Marii Sebahar
San Francisco Manager
Telephone: 415-955-8282
E-mail: marii_sebahar@newyorker.com
For marketing inquiries, please contact:
Daniella Wells
Marketing Services Director
Telephone: 212-286-7479
E-mail: daniella_wells@newyorker.com
FYI your cover was a bigoted piece of shit, and every single company that is affiliated with the piece of toilet paper you work for should pull their advertising. You and everyone responsible for this piece of shit should be fired and then rehired by the KKK where you mother fuckers (and those two words are actually a compliment to people like you) would fit in. Your pathetic piece of shit magazine ran a cover that implied American Muslims all worship bin Laden and burn the flag. Anyone who chooses to be affiliated with this shit is a pathetic human being.
Not to mention it visualized internet smears.
I want contact information for every single advertiser. Now. When they pull their ads from your toilet paper magazine, you mother fuckers will be in the unemployment line. Maybe you'll regret not actually covering the issues then.
I remain aghast.
they are up against. They are letting Mr. Obama - "hang"!!
Co-signing on the FISA -"issue".
Almost.
But not anymore. That his article would be in between the covers of this and I see what's going on....
This will be the best selling issue of The New Yorker. And Lizza's article will be widely read.
Yes, it's July.
As as I said recently, Barack is still fighting a nomination battle.
And what a battle it is.
I stated that if that was NOT the intent, I would be looking forward to their next cover where another presidential candidate would be subject to the SAME S[yay even RACIST] attack. crickets**** No SSSSSSSSAKES!
Mike Allen reports that Obama took a question (from NBC's Athena Jones) on the cover of the New Yorker:
“The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”
Outside of going WTF?
..Ha, maybe someone should write a book: "The proper care and feeding of the media". Then all the Obama people should read it. The media can be a positive force if you just accept their existence and use their stupidity and hunger for a story, against them.
I think Obama personally doesn't like the media, and perhaps looks down his nose at them. If I'm right, and that culture permeates his organization, then they may be too resistant to engage the media enough to control it.
Obviously I don't deny that the Obama campaign can do no wrong, since as you well know because I posted about it in our very first conversation, when they did do wrong in my estimation I complained about it.
But you only see what you want to see. If ian actual fact doesn't fit into your rigid "I Know Everything" assumptions and theory you don't bother with it.
The problem I have is with your approach.
I have pretty much come to the conclusion that this smear campaign is not only an attempt to provoke an embarrassing response from Obama but also to create so much anger and hostility in the rest of his black supporters that we begin to lash out at anyone who doesn't agree. Its sad as hell that a lot of people not only don't care about the repercussions from this they also feel that their opinion trumps anything that might come from the black community itself. I am not surprised by their response, I have seen hints of it ever since Hillary dropped the hammer on MLK in New Hampshire. Yet, we must translate our frustrations into something positive rather than let it get the best of us. If we just start clowning everyone in sight, we end up helping the right wingers build their case. Instead of taking the bait, use it as an opportunity to educate.
I also agree that this has been done to achieve fame by the cartoonists.
This cycle has been so unbelievable, I can't wait for the outcome. It has been the kind of ridiculousness that does not prevail.
i will take your comments and others under consideration. I've been trying to do a Michelle post for a few days, and damn, there's so much to say. trying to get my thoughts together.
As much as the cover pisses me off, I am much more concerned about how these controversial statements and images keep popping up at exactly the right time to take the focus away from the real issues and the candidates' true positions on each. If we spend too much time and energy on this magazine cover we help the media bury the real news. Obama penned an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today but its being swallowed up in the controversy over the cover of a magazine most of us will never bother to read. Last week it was Jesse Jackson's idiotic statements on Faux News distracting from the McCain campaign's "whiner" and "social security is a disgrace" comments. There's an obvious pattern developing here. Whether its deliberate or coincidental is left up to us to decide, but every controversy distracts from the real stories that get trampled in the stampede to cover the gossip and innuendo. I am in favor of voicing our strong opposition to the imagery by emailing the magazine and its sponsors; I am not in favor of letting it distract us one more time from what is most important in this election.
The media promotes race baiting because they knows it helps sell their product and improve their profits. If we keep letting them goad us into fighting about every non-issue they pipe into the election cycle we run the risk of letting them sell us another shitty president who'll end up making things worse than his predecessor.
I tried to offer my take on this latest flap in my diary on Daily Kos today. It attempts to delve into this pattern further, if you're interested you can go here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/14/102759/...
Ya can't make it up
The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
I think the title says it all.
No, you can't make this *#&$ up.
The things I see playing out...the psychological stuff. It's kinda embarrassing.
Try not to get arrested.
Tell me this ain't fo' real.... PLEASE, somebody tell me. Please?
This year has surely shown the sheer craveness and lust for power exhibited by those whom we thought were "friends" The betrayal and continued behaviour of the Clinton Camp is simply the most pronounced. The wailing from all corners of the establishment including Media, Washington power players tells me they are terrified of the loss of power. OMFG. We just must keep our selves together in solidarity to take this thing in the fall.
"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living" Mother Jones
barry@barryblitt.com
You drew a bigoted "cartoon." You'll say it was satire. So was Michael Richards' use the N word. His career is over, as is yours. Your cartoon was insensitive, shows that your are a complete idiot who has no fucking idea about what is funny. It spread smears. It made a Presidential candidate less safe. And worst of all, it spread bigotry about American Muslims. Sorry, but if you actually bothered to talk to them,you'd know that they all hate bin Laden. Yet you depicted them as bin Laden-loving, flag burners. Enjoy the unemployment line. And no, I don't spare change for bigots like you.
Also: Saw the first response by the Obama Campaign. Could you please cite the source? I'm soo not a techy! :>) :>)
That's unusual!
I don't have a subscription. And if I did, I would no longer. So, aside from sending e-mails, what to do?
This is yet another wake up call to remind us how revolutionary we are trying to be to elect a black man with a black wife to the 'highest office in the land." There are Dems and Repubs that just can't stand the possibility.
You know, I could handle that, IF I thought that was the truth. But, look at all the rest of if, ms. martin, it's every damn smear Obama's been fighting since he announced his run.
Nope, it's about BOTH of them. Michelle's ' A' target, but they are BOTH targets.
BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG?
BIN Laden over the mantle?
"We have been told that we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. They will only grow louder and more dissonant" - Barack Obama, January 8, 2008
And, yet, they do it anyway.
Their courage must never be underestimated.
Sooo, I'm wondering. What would be people's reactions IF Sith & Snow were the nominees??? Take a blood pressure pill B4 U respond. :>) :>)
Therein lies the main message.
not to put words in craig's mouth, but I think he's saying it relates to the HIT PIECE inside the magazine.
And yes, the hit job on the inside by a writer formerly enamored of Barack.
The leftwingnuts have turned rancid.
this is what the media is toying with.
my brother is looking to buy a house. he figures a mccain victory will offer him the consolation of a much better real estate deal. he has no faith in or respect for the american voter.
i blame the media.
I myself don't -- See my comment below about satire.
It just does not do this work you name. It doesn't "highlight the ridiculous" of anything. It doesn't have anything to it that does that work.
Doing that would require way more insight that this has. It would require actual work and analysis, not just straight out using others' trash in an image.
If you're here just to argue, though, I don't want to go any further in discussion with you than this reply. Maybe you're not but if that's your thing I don't have energy for it, just so you know.
I am going to just copy a post to me from another board...it sums up my feelings about what I see is definitely some deep-seeded hatred towards Michelle (thanks jordan):
I have a theory that as hard as it is to accept a black president, it's even harder to accept a black first lady. First Lady has always held a beloved sentimental mother/wife of the nation symbolism. Conservatives are not ready to have to look at this very BLACK woman with her degrees and her fierceness and see her as the epitome of the American mother/wife. Black people have never had an emotional connection to the First Lady to worry about losing. Laura Bush is just another white woman to us. This will be a first for white people. I hadn't thought about the separation anxiety of them not having their mother-in-chief.
Michelle is not part white. She is a black woman threatening the very feelings of superiority that have kept separate and unequal alive in the minds of some. She has done what is required in their world (without comprimising the core of who she is) to be deemed superior, yet she is black. They must find some way to demean her to retain their feelings of superority.
There is weight in your words.
http://www.rumorsdaily.com/2007/10/09/hate-musl...
Never mind that you end up scarring the very group you're trying to protect. The whole thing has the whiff of a fake hate crime.
There are so many factions that cannot understand that if we pool our talents, we all will have more. I have a black girlfriend who has helped along through all the sh*t this election has thrown out into the open. She says that her mom used to say "We have a tough row to hoe."
On that note, I am signed up to ferry people to and fro to the precincts on election day. I won't let anyone not walk if I can help it.
Keep Michelle and Barack strong.
I think not only do these people want to engage in a smear campaign, but they also wish to break down Obama's and their supporters. They want knock the uppity ni**a down a notch. I am angry, but more so sad right now.
Just this weekend I had thinking how I needed to schedule vacation time in January. I was so determined. I even engaged some Cynthia McKinney supporters this weekend in downtown Chicago in a polite and genial manner!
I am going to keep focused on the fact that come hell or highwater, I will be in DC for HIS inaguration.
Craig wrote: For the record, it actually IS satire. But it doesn't read as satire and that's the problem.
I agree so so hard with it doesn't read as satire.
I love satire. Love it heart and soul. Have actually done some myself.
And real satire by others keeps me sane some days when nothing else works.
THIS, as Craig points out, is not actually functioning as satire. It isn't funny. It isn't clever or interesting or intelligent or insightful. Unoriginal and entirely useless on that level. Satire is an art that requires actual intelligence and work and deep analysis under the surface that shows in what is visible. Satire offers something good and useful.
This on the other hand is someone picking up others' stinking trash, slapping it into an image, claiming credit for doing something while not doing any real work at all, and naming it as something it isn't. Satire my ass. This is garbage.
This image has blown a circuit for me. I can't quite feel this yet. When my weird psychic novocaine wears off this shit is going to HURT.
This on the other hand is someone picking up others' stinking trash, slapping it into an image, claiming credit for doing something while not doing any real work at all, and naming it as something it isn't. Satire my ass. This is garbage."
Perfectly said, Michelle.
Please, these are the 'liberals' posting this--as satire.
This is a does of innoculation for the smears to come. R. Wright was innoculation--Jesse J. was innoculation--now we have this.
Do you have faith that the majority of voters will see this for what it is?
I do.
Please, Obama can withstand the worst caricatures of the folks opposed ot his potential presidency--ONLY if he can survive this satire coming from his natural friends.
The New Yorker --- which has been banging the Obama drum for MONTHS (especially Hertzberg) --- is trying to bring down the candidate they've been more or less been rooting for?
So we all have heard the stupid rumors, and we've all decided they're bullshit. And It seems like you'd have to strip this cartoon from any sort of context to take offense to it. All of these smears have been made about Obama, and all of them have been ridiculous. They're not even coherent: Obama is a muslim. Obama's pastor hates white people. So is he a Muslim of does he have a Christian pastor????
It seems like that's what this is lampooning: the stupidity of the charges being leveled against the Obamas, and the sentiments motivating that stupidity.
That doesn't mean it's funny, but racist? Eh, that seems like a stretch. But you'd have to REALLY not get the New Yorker's arch tone --- especially the cartoons --- to make these claims.
Wasn't there an instance not so long ago where 'Harry Potter is an evil influence' people picked up on an article in The Onion, and, not understanding the nature of The Onion, circulated the story as fact? I just went and checked and Wikipedia has a whole list of Onion articles being re-reported as fact. That is the danger of this highly offensive cover. The picture is *not* satire in and of itself. It is an offensive, racist, xenophobic depiction of Senator and Mrs. Obama.
They are smart enough to know the power of images replicated hundreds of times and displayed on newsstands nationally. They know the picture is registered by the subconscious even of people who may never pick the mag up and look at it, or buy it. One only needs to walk by the magazine stand. They know the damage is done.
Michelle with a machine gun and a 'fro, LOL Too damned funny!
What I am laughing at are the caricatures of the racialized white supremacist paranoids that actually nurture this image. They are being ridiculed with this cartoon--and it works! LOL
But not this.
I sent a copy of the baloonjuice comment to someone so have it easily available to copy here: Best comment I have seen all night:
"One question of fashion etiquette: When Barack Obama leads his inauguration in his black beret and black shades and black leather jacket and black leather gloves with an AR-15 strapped on his shoulder, mirrored by his 1,000 member black sister security squad dressed likewise, should white people attending the inauguration dress the same or is simply holding the black power sign at appropriate times enough?"
That I thought was funny, as I also found funny a similar sort of comment I saw here at at JJP some point lately.
But not this image. Not funny to me, not intelligent -- just ugly.
I wonder ... it seems to me to actually function partly as a sort of psy ops thing at some level -- targeting the wrong people in some sort of visceral way and provoking pain and despair.
I hear you from your other comment that you have faith that a majority of voters will see through it, but some of its visceral effect is also clear here in this discussion.
This cover is not insightful, not funny, not even shocking, really, since we all already know this is exactly the kind of image that occupies the minds of racist idiots.
The problem with this cover, is there is no truth here, just a bunch of regurgitated lies and homage to the liars.
That's pretty much exactly what my girlfriend just said a few minutes ago when she saw it, Ms Martin.
I'm starting to think that Obama's run was a mistake. This is utter BULLSHIT. No one should have to take the stuff that they have been through. No one. But yet, people expect him to grin and bear it and shrug it off, because God forbid if he called them out on their foolishness, he would be another angry Black man. I wish I would have known about the cover of the New Yorker before I read the article, because I could have saved myself some time.
Need more?
If it had been an illustration deep inside the magazine, that may, emphasis, may have changed the reactions somewhat.
I hope this explains the outcry, G. D.
the line it ended with was hideous.
but nothing's worse than that cover. it's just an outrage.
"I'm a little on the fence here. It's obviously satire, made clearer by the fact that the New Yorker is a deeply friendly publication to Obama and the Democrats these days. So is the outrage -- encouraged here by the campaign -- an appropriate reaction? Or the new, pro-Obama PC? (If the latter, alls fair on the campaign trail in any case... but it could prove a worryingly powerful tool used from the White House.)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Oba...
"On the record, the McCain campaign adds: "We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it's tasteless and offensive." But privately, some McCain types admit they find the cover funny. And how bad can it be for your campaign when a national magazine, in an effort to take a shot at Fox News and talk radio, portrays your opponent like this? Some of Obama's supporters are likely to go over the top in their defensive outrage, sending subtle reinforcements to viewers who already believe that McCain is stronger than Obama on the issue of terrorism. Maybe it's funny, and maybe it's tasteless and offensive — maybe all three — but it will be noticed." http://corner.nationalreview.com/
There you go people... The DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE!
Also, I haven't read the article yet but if the point is that Obama is a shrewd politician it's hard to argue with that. Of course he's a shrewd politician! I also think that his ideals line up with mine more than any viable presidential candidate in my lifetime but, as the FISA vote shows, Barack is not perfect nor should we expect him to be. Simply my $0.02.
The National Review
or
The Weekly Standard
with that same cover.
'overreaction' wouldn't even slip your lip.
how disrespected can Black folk be before they get to stand up and someone not say they are 'overreacting'?
Is there a overt though discreet subliminal message in the cover art that deliberately kicks the 'be afraid, be very afraid' interior cranial synapses that unleashes deathly fear of perceived Uppity Negroes?
Is there an antidote for such unreasonable fear? Is it only available for those who can afford it?
here's a question..
Michelle's NEVER been post-racial...what about the racist stereotypes of her?
I'm not sure what you mean here. I am not arguing that anything said about Senator Obama can't be racist because he is presenting himself as a post-racial candidate. I am saying that I don't feel the New Yorker's latest cover is either overtly or covertly racist. The cover, in my opinion, is meant to be funny as do many of the covers of the magazine.
The idea that Senator Obama is a Muslim terrorist is absurd, which is precisely the point of the cartoon. The fact that some people will believe the cover is literally true only enhances the point the cartoon is making, which is that Barack and Michelle Obama are most emphatically not black militant Muslim terrorists.
I have some other points I would like to exchange with you about this matter but not on this site.
If you feel like it, please email me.
Thanks.
The brain donors who are going to seize on this cover as proof that Senator Obama and Michelle Obama are Muslim terrorists are already convinced of the truthfulness of this falsehood and nothing can be done to change their minds. Nothing. If the cover had depicted the senator hunting down and strangling Osama bin Laden with his bare hands their minds would still be closed on this issue. His middle name is Hussein, therefore he is a terrorist as far as they are concerned. He is also black and the fact that his mother and maternal grandparents were white means nothing to these bigots.
Folks, this is going to be a long, hard and nasty campaign. The New Yorker is not among Senator Obama's enemies.
There is a subtle type of racism that's at work when blacks and people of color get to parlay with liberals and their institutions. Even Baldwin knew of their shortcomings by the time he died. They can end up screwing you harder than the bigots, because they haven't examined how much they contribute to the vile situation as well. Their hands aren't clean.
I see up-topic that the cartoonist himself admitted that he was clueless about the uproar he would make with his piece. Like he didn't believe people would have taken it as badly as they have. Oh, come on.
All of these new jack liberals and lefties and Obama Nation types need to stop pshawing all of us oldsters about oversensitivity over race. This country hasn't changed that much. Just little, but not enough.
This fiasco (and others) says it.
The fact that the person who drew the cartoon was surprised by the uproar is a good thing because it indicates that he was not trying to be controversial as much as he was trying to draw a good cartoon with a satirical point.
so forgive me for not allowing the new yorker to piss on me and try to tell me it's raining.
You need to take a step back and take a deep breath and count to twenty. The piece by Lizza in no way supports or advances any racist view of Senator Obama. In addition, there are no "gotcha items" in the piece either. It is a profile of an ambitious politician and it seeks to explore his political roots. It is not the job of the New Yorker and its writers to pen profiles that idealize their subjects.
Obama is who he is. He is neither a saint nor the devil. He has beauty marks and he has warts. We all do. He is a human being and he is not perfect nor is he on the road to perfection. I did not read anything in the piece that would cause me not to vote for him and I am pretty picky.
anyway, i thought the whole point of life was a constant striving for perfection (whatever 'perfect' means for you). nothing "idealistic" about that. but that's a whole 'nother topic.
The fact that he's surprised by the uproar, especially with the lack of context given, shows how clueless people can become behind corporate media, instead of examining how images can portray people, particularly blacks, women and people of color. Next thing this guy will say is, f88k 'em if they can't take a joke--which is getting to be a really, really tired excuse in my view, and in the view of a lot of other people.
Word!
1. Thanks to the internet and cable news outlets, everyone has seen it.
2. Money is power. The more money one has, the more power one has. Buying the magazines will no nothing more than provide CondeNast with mo' money and mo' power AND send a message to an already flailing magazine industry that crap like this sells.
The best bet would be to go to Borders or B&N, take the issue off the shelf, write down all of the advertisers, put the magazine back on their shelf, walk out of the store, get on your computer and start emailing those advertisers.
Buying them up, and informing advertisers that you bought 30 copies and only read one just to see who to boycott would make it very clear that the hundreds of thousands of dollars they dropped on full page ads were totally wasted.
Putting money in the pockets of your enemy is not the way to punish them.
I think you're wrong about buying the magazine up. Magazines don't make money through issue sales; they make money through advertising. If one person buys 50 copies but only reads one and only to write down a list of advertisers then the advertisers are going to want their money back. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not the $200 it'd take to buy the issue off of the newsstands.
I wouldn't be suprised if he's still hoping for the convention coup that a number of delegates are trying to create.
Im no fan of Howard Wolfson's, But the Obama Camp should do a helluva alot more then release a statement. I would attack this to the point that The New Yorker is reduced to nothing more then an upscale version of the National Enquirer. I'd kick there press rep. off the plane, and refuse them any interviews
Anytime they or a person affiliated with them came within microphone or earshot i'd give them the persona non grata treatment.
It's satire people! It's not supposed to be genteel anymore than Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal. It's supposed to be over the top and absurd. Any more than Pryor, Carlin or Chappelle were. It's suppose to offend and spark conversation.
The idea was to show how absurd these rumors about Michelle and Barack are. To point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room. I'd say that's it's done their job.
The reason why you're all hot and bothered about it is because one of us is the subject. But if you and the campaign were as smart as I'd to think you are, you'd use this as to your advantage. To work with the New Yorker in showing how absurd these rumors are...instead of pouting and calling everyone and racist and whining like the Hillary folks about how the election is being stolen from them by the MSM.
There's no such thing as bad publicity. Let's stop playing checkers. The rest of the world is playing chess.
Don't like him......... always change the channel whenever he's on.
He's just sneaky looking to me. His eyes always have that glazed-over look to them like he's either stoned or in a trance. Plus it's a well-known fact he's extremely jealous of his so-called friend, Obama. Not that Obama can stand him much either. Michelle is much more poised and much of an asset than Harold's design-on-a-dime snow queen.
Gee, I thought when they marry the snowflakes they were supposed to reach a certain level of superiority, honor and prestige. That doesn't seem to be happening to the dark sith. Maybe Obama will let this house negro carry the water bucket for him when he wins!
I agree ... but ask yourself, has it done any of that? It might seem over the top and absurd to you/and a lot of other people but it has not gone BEYOND right wing racist drivel. It has definitely offended but spark conversation? really? What part of this cover is something new, original, something you havent already heard on faux news? Which part of the cartoon highlights the absurdity of right-wing racist drivel? Maybe if the cartoon showed this image as I dunno ... a part of Lou Dobb's dream or something. Even that would make it moderately satirical.
and on this whole issue of sparking controversy? Why is it that people of color/immigrants and religious minorities always the one that have to be offended and outraged so that the liberals can pat themselves on the back for being satirical? Whether the Danish cartoon controversy or this, all these kinds do images do (the unproductive ones I am talking about, not all satire) is race-bait certain populations and anger them needlessly. And for no reason. Its like a kids game ...
who believe these rumors rather than the Obamas. That would have made sense.
All this is doing is perpetuated the myths. Would it have been funny or satirical to them to have white slaves on the cover working in cotton fields and answering to a black massa? Or to have white slaves being whipped by a black massa? I think Not! After all, many whites ask if that is what Obama intends to do.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807130002?f=h_...
Called him an Oreo AND quoted Jeremiah Wright. It was one for the record books.
If the "satire" was meant as a poke at the right, then why was Rev. Wright, Ayers and Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, El-Hady, Robert Malley, Edward Said, etc. not in the picture?
Any more questions?
The core attitude of the New Yorker is: We New Yorkers are OH-SO-SOPHISTICATED and the rest of you are just rubes. This cover has the same intent as the famous cover that shows New York at the center of the world and everything else receding into irrelevancy.
Yes, the cover is, on its face, offensive. But it's also trying to say that this is the way stupid white rural people see the Obamas. Is that, itself, equally offensive to the WHITE folks?
If it's a lynching, is it merely a lynching of the Obamas, or is it a two-fer going after what the New Yorker would consider to be the idiots who populate America's flyover states?
And I got this reply:
I replied: "Dumb?" And you don't know racist."
It's sad that there are white "liberals" who don't get it; who argue that it is satire, it is art, so it is okay, and those who are offended are either overreacting or need to get a grip.
As I said on Daily Kos, art (and satire) are a matter of personal interpretation. Art, as well as satire, is subjective not objective and, as such, we should voice offense because we are offended by a work of art masquerading as satire.
Those claiming that others who see the drawing as highly offensive have no taste and don't 'get it' seek to advance the work as an artist's attempt to bridge the political gap by pointing out how asinine certain right wing assumptions are with respect to the Obamas. But it isn't working, and has failed in its intent.
I 'get it' and I reject it as a piece of well drawn art that is highly offensive. It is a work of art that has absolutely no place in our political narrative at this juncture in our history, not with what's on the line in this campaign.
Now certain whites can cast any kind of high minded, snob vs. slob, aspersions they want about lack of taste and understanding vis a vis the artist and the editor's satirical intentions, but that is a work that should never have been published.
I find it extremely distasteful and slanderous.
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/07/14/the-new-...
An excerpt:
"I define hipster racism (I’m borrowing the phrase from Carmen Van Kerckhove) as ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate another’s person race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning “ironic” nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy. This racist and sexist balderdash that’s the New Yorker cover fits squarely into that definition"
Post that over on daily-kos
So, hey New Yorker, your joke b-ombed...your satire sucked! Capice?
And btw, as a NYC resident, I should give you all a "heads up": The New York media(local print and TV) - yeah, Senator Clinton's New York - which serves New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have been not been pro-Obama for months, and the anti-Obama slant to the news has intensified in the weeks following him being named the presumptive nominee. Yes folks, it is a McCain love-fest here. No one, I mean, NO ONE is kind to Obama on NY media - not abc, not fox, not nbc, not cbs, not ny1(the politics guy dominic carter here is the worst!!!!), NOBODY! It is sickening. The New York Times. Nope....and now this from the New Yorker!
Who is behind all of this crap....Senator Clinton is it you????????
T.
ps. Yes...Good Morning America and ABC News is already a subsidiary of Fox News...Yeah!
Here's and idea for your next cover:
John McCain in a wheelchair, with spittle drooling from his mouth and a catheter up his you-know-where. He is also being pushed by his Miss Cindy in a nursemaid's get-up and a beer in hand. In the background you shall see a fighter plane explosion, a mountain of illegal pain killers...
YEAH...NEW YORKER, YOU LOST ME AS A READER....
with his first wife sitting in her wheelchair in a trash can.
Cindy, Unrepentant Narcotics Thief
I think we're all grown-ups here, and it's an acronym. Maybe YOU should be deleted or removed. ;)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-9000...
But, thank you, for seeing it for what it is.
I mean -- is there anything that they could do a cover story on before November (and any person who should write that story because they could get it right and any way to ensure that the cover is appropriate) ... anything like this that would be something we who are so disgusted with this would want to see them do?
Coming from a sort of "yes you messed-up, and here is something you can do to try to balance the damage you have done"
???thoughts???
rikyrah: Why not make this a "thread" - Alternative New Yorker covers [attacking "mcancient"].
I'm assuming there will be a McCain cover as well.
But there isn't.
So I am.
The accompanying article hardly minimizes the offense of the imagery.
They aren't saying it very well, but I don't perceive the intent as harmful, however bad the actual impact.
Above all this cover shows the inbred snobbery and elitism that reigns at the New Yorker and which holds the rest of the country in contempt. "We're so enlightened we can do this cover because we don't personally know or fear anyone who actually does think in the way we're making fun of."
It is only from a place of white privilege that one can appreciate this "satire". One can be titillated by the controversy because the racism the cover is trying to lampoon is so far removed from what they have to deal with on a daily basis.
For those of us who actually have the deal with the consequences of the stereotyping that the cover flaunts, it ain't so funny.
But, in any case, it should be tied to some story w/in the mag, such as a long piece tracking the right wing hate mob. or comprehensively dissecting and dismissing all the lies that are being spread. And it doesn't. It really has no relation to the story on Obama inside, which is an investigation of his roots in Chicago politics.
And then I remembered grew up when "All in the Family" was a hit. And thinking that Archie Bunker must really make bigots cringe. Until I heard whites around me in my small Southern town say the same things and nod in agreement to Archie Bunker's worst sayings.
And I think there's been some social science research done on that.
I find the cartoon very funny--because it caricatures the lugubrious fears of many folks on the far right in the US. As well, it points up the degree to which racialized fears still hold sway.
The question is, indeed, looming: can we have faith that a majority of the voting public can choose the best qualified and the most creative and dynamic politician to become president of the United States?
Well, we HAVE to have faith that they/we can make a healthy choice--because to not have faith in such a possibility becomes a drag and an impediment toward the possibility that we can.
AS I stated previously, this cartoon is an innoculation. It points up the absurd fears in the minds of people who are not very informed, and who are mired in fear.
I think that Barack and Michelle can withstand this cartoon, and that they will be stronger for it.
Come on--just as the folks that voted for Bush (twice) look pretty stupid to intelligent folk right about now, anyone that nurtures any of the caricatures highlighted in this cartoon looks pretty, freaking stupid.
Me, for one, don't want to hang out with anyone that would nurture any of these paranoid, delusional fears about the Obamas.
Also, I have a gut feeling that the nation has progressed to the point to where Obama will likely be elected president in November--not because he has African and/or European heritage, but because he is the more dynamic and skilled candidate, with the best ideas for the US as a nation at this juncture.
This cartoon is just one more part of the unfolding picture that will develop as Obama as president of the USA. Of this I have no doubt.
A less adroit politician would have been blown out of the water in the primaries. Obama has proven his mettle.
I think that most of the Americans who say that Obama is Muslim don't really believe he's Muslim, but they use that idea as shorthand for something else -- maybe for racism, maybe for xenophobia, maybe just plain fear of change. Getting to the root of that belief, rather than just making fun of it, seems much more productive to me.
Did you feel it?--it was the fleeting itch on the back of your head. LOL
This was on 'Fresh Air' with Terry Gross. Indeed, quite a compelling topic and an interesting show. I learned a little bit more about Obama and his rise in politics.
The more I learn about Obama the more dynamic and interesting the guy becomes. Good stuff.
When Bush does or says something stupid, they satirize Bush, they don't satirize his victims. This is completely azz backwards.
In response to grapesoda I don't think the issue is the Obama's can't be lampooned in cartoons. You are right, its the price of public service. However, political cartoons are aimed at making a funny point based on truth. Bill Clinton was lampooned as a philanderer because he was guilty of it. The Obamas in this case are being lampooned, however innocently as claimed by the New Yorker, in images that are not true.
They New Yorker brings all the worse parts of the Obama myths together and puts it out there on a National Forum, knowing full well people are gonna holla over it, but theres discussion there and generally things get resolved
This is the summertime and theres time to discuss all these things. The fact that Obama is in this position to begin can hopefully simmer some people down, but I cannot back any politician before I make sure my Constitution is intact, I dont care what color he is.
Im not gonna fight Obama's fights for him--this is the job, people, he asked for this.
These things arent true and by bringing them all up at once you can lump all of these arguments into "The Cartoon Argument" and move forward--the whole point of it being a cartoon means youll the people who are dumb enough to think its true and you can work on them.
Because I refuse to even discuss these topics in polite company and refute the facts when I see or hear them--theres no more power to this issue.
This is what we call a "head fake"/
There's no question in my mind that this cover makes fun of what it perceives to be stupid white Americans.
I also have little doubt that those Americans targeted by this cover are not so stupid as to not realize they're being caricatured and looked down upon by the cultural elite.
I don't see this primarily as a conflict between liberal white and black America (although because the artist wasn't looking in that direction, I think he f'ed up). It's an intramural battle between educated and lower-class white America, and it doesn't look too good from that angle either.
“Or it can be read as more evidence of the alliance between limousine liberals (New Yorker readers) and black America against "hard-working Americans, white Americans."
I cannot agree with that angle.
Do you not realize the number of black people especially here in more rural areas that believe those same rumors?
The average American is not so politically well informed and definitely not reading and writing on blogs. All they get is the break room version of the news, get home, and spread that to everyone they know. You would be shocked by all of the black people that really think that Obama is a Muslim. It shocked me that even more believe that was reason enough for them (the black people) not to vote for him over Hillary.
What was particularly interesting to me about the primary in S.C. was how much of the literature was devoted to demonstrating that (a) Barack is black; (b) Michelle is darker-skinned; and (c) they are both Christian. I guess I am surprised that, despite all this grassroots outreach, that at least in the black community there's still suspicions, but then again it's probably more xenophobia (Obama's time spent out of the USA) than racism...
Pull your heads out your asses. You don't know political satire, because you can't bring yourselves to criticize your sacred cows.
Remember: It's perfectly OK for any Obamacans to impute racism to all critics of their guy, just as any criticism of John McCain is an attack on his military record. And this isn't even criticism of Obama! The 2008 Presidential campaign has already managed to make 2004 look like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and we still have, what, 3+ months to go?
This cover is Andre Serrano's "Piss Christ" for thin-skinned progressives. My suggestion: grow the fuck up.
Most of yall need to toughen up and deal with it for what it is--a cartoon based on every stereotype the right has made over the past few months.
I have no problem with this or Jesse's comments: Toughen Up, Obama, youre in the big leagues where they play dirty. Man up.
The problem is most Americans do not have half a brain*, making this cartoon potentially hurtful to the Obama campaign.
*see comments of people losing their shit b/c it's "racist**"
** as I have stated I am a black women and no I do not think this cartoon is racist. It's pro-Obama by making fun of racist idiots. You will not see a cartoon of McCain b/c a) The New Yorker wouldn't defend him like they are trying to do here and b) Those McCain rumors (he's old, Cindy is a pill popper, he has anger issues, he's called his wife a cunt, he was still married when he got with Cindy, etc) are true therefore making the potential cartoon not satirical.
Feel free to attack
Bill Clinton had a penis for a nose in numerous cartoons.
Just stop it--its the price of being number one. To act like its anything else is immature and ignorant.