DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Jack and Jill Politics is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Jack and Jill Politics

A black bourgeois perspective on U.S. politics
Jump to original thread »
Author

With Friends Like These……

Started by baratunde aka jack turner · 11 months ago

Obama doesn’t need any enemies.

Sigh

Sigh

Sigh

Thanks to rdxtion in the Sunday Open Thread who dropped this hat tip.

It’s unreal to me that nearly all the BS coming against Obama during this campaign season….HAS COME FROM SO-CALLED FRIENDLY SOURCES.

This isn’t the NATIONAL REVIEW.<br ... Continue reading »

336 comments

  • delfinajones

    11 months ago

    The contribution Errol Morris made to visual politics earlier this summer, in explaining his Abu Ghraib film, was to emphasize how much the elements of a highly controversial image tend to get missed or "looked past" in the strong emotional and ideological reactions to the overall image.

    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).
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    DELFINAJONES: you are so right on point that it brings tears to my eyes. i'm so glad i found this site.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    Thank you for this.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Excellent comment. Also, Michelle is central....she's in the oval office with Obama, she's the focal point. She's got an ASSAULT rifle and combat boots. She's depicted as a guerilla. That could play into images of the FARC and the recent release of hostages. The idea of America as hostage to the "un-American" black couple. All of these images we've been seeing on telly and in the paper and on the web- divergent news stories - coalesce to affirm bigotry.

    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!!
    reply
  • blksista

    11 months ago

    Okay, I am new to the cover.

    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.
    reply
  • bigassbelle

    11 months ago

    You are absolutely right. The image is probably very quickly going to become separated from the cover, so that in a few months (oh, about election time), the image will be all there is and the fools who fall for that shit will never know it had anything to do with a magazine. The image will survive forever because it plays into those ugly, under-the-rock won't-even-admit-to-myself beliefs that those who "don't know who he is" and "don't think he stands for anything" are operating from.
    reply
  • B1bomber82

    11 months ago

    Some of you all kill me. You run around trying to act like this was just satire but ask your selves, has the New Yorker ever ran satire like that about McCain and his wife?? Or how about when Lieberman was running, did they show him with a yarmulke and someone from Israel shooting at Palestinians?? NOPE. Or maybe show Giuliani in some mobster garb.. NOPE.. but of course show the Obamas like that.. it just satire!!!
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    B1: I second that motion!
    reply
  • Plantsmantx

    11 months ago

    "While it may not be a popular line in this room, I sense an overreaction."

    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.
    reply
  • RonnieB

    11 months ago

    Whether such a tastelessly racist depiction doesn't change the mind of anti-Obama voters, is way beside the point.

    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.
    reply
  • Jay

    11 months ago

    I think this should be posted again – RonnieB said… “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.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    LOL. reminds me of that line from a lauryn hill song! :-)
    reply
  • 99 Percent Sure

    11 months ago

    And if I may) addendum "...mutherf$&@()@"

    Sometimes you have to add mutherf$%&(@ at the end to let these bastards know you're serious.
    ROFLOL.

    Now see, Jay, that right there is satirical humor

    Eh hee.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    yes, RonnieB, THAT is the point.
    reply
  • kate03

    11 months ago

    "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."

    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.
    reply
  • loomisnews

    11 months ago

    If it's interpreted in its worst light, then, yes, it will --
    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.
    reply
  • RonnieB

    11 months ago

    I co-sign with and share the anger of all of JJP kin. And to quote the Rev. Jackson: "brothas and sistas ... I don't know what this world is coming to. (1973)"

    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.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    agreed. i certainly won't be rioting in the streets, but i will be working my ass off to get him elected...reading everybody within and without earshot the RIOT ACT if they are even considering sitting this election out!!! a registration riot. has a nice ring to it.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    It will backfire. Big time.
    reply
  • NMP

    11 months ago

    It's oh so...PROGRESSIVE.

    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.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    NMP: AGREED!
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    on point, NMP. as always.
    reply
  • smoothie

    11 months ago

    As someone who has worked and currently consults in the intelligence community,
    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.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    I agree. I spot something. The Obama campaign better be prepared for a very unwanted endorsement in October. That's what shit like this is trying to prompt.
    reply
  • Town

    11 months ago

    Like say, from Rev. Wright?
    reply
  • blksista

    11 months ago

    No, like say Osama.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    No. Like say a doctored video endorsement from the man over the mantle.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    I was relieved that Osama didn't mention the election in his last video.
    reply
  • gracie taylor

    11 months ago

    Be pro active. Here are all the Conde nast publications you can cancel your subscription to and send the money to Obama to fight this hate, Hate, HATE!!!
    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
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    I don't expect that until October, just like in 2004.

    Does anybody think he's probably dead?
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Maybe....I think the last thing he put out was an audio, not a video as I said. Anyway, I'm suspicious o audio only.

    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.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    Indeed. I remain amazed that Bush at some point said he wasn't worried about catching bin Laden.

    I used to think bin Laden was in East Boston with Dick Cheney. ;)
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    I called up my Mom who is 59, working class, and white. Her crowd, though not her, are the people who supported Hillary. Her reaction, "Who is that supposed to be, Michelle Obama? Oh my God, that is pathetic and racist."

    The bright side is that the public is usually brighter than the left-wing idiots give them credit for.
    reply
  • kenyaw

    11 months ago

    Bag,
    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.
    reply
  • BlackAmericanPrincess

    11 months ago

    I wish my response to that picture could be brilliant and articulate but as it is, it just moves me to say how completely and utterly fucked up is The New Yorker??? This is the most racist thing I've seen of the Obama's yet. Why are Black people expected to laugh this off as "satire?" Are they going to "satirize" McCain's centegenarian ass similarly??? Are they going to depict Cindy McCain as the pill popping, charity fund stealing, adulteress that she is???? If not, then that's just further proof of their bullshit.

    And to think it's only July!!!
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    That's one of the reasons this is so galling. I cannot imagine them portraying Cindy with pills falling from every orifice; I cannot envision it! And, Cindy really did steal pills! The New Yorker would not have crossed the line of good taste and consideration.
    reply
  • bison1

    11 months ago

    It is the smearing of the political character of a candidate’s wife, not just the candidate. The caricature of Michelle Obama on the cover of The New Yorker makes her his running mate rather than his wife. Both are to be equally feared. Even if Obama’s campaign is not saying it– you are getting two for one. It pictures Michelle Obama as the reincarnation Angela Davis. She is to be feared just as much as Obama, she holds the firepower, the balls, the phallic symbol and wears the combat boots. She is the driving force behind black revolutionary activism. She is the angry black woman. For her, the revolution goes on. She is portrayed as a life member of the Black Panther Party.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Indeed. :) It affirms prejudice...no matter what angle you look from.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    BAP: Co-Signing! Please see one of my former posts. I e-mailed the NYKer with a similar CHALLENGE {"Are they going to 'satirize' (mc ancient), cindy, etc."
    reply
  • shawkenawe

    11 months ago

    I'm not sure it's about Sen. Obama being able to "take a joke." I agree with those who have said that this is going to play into the hands of the galloping bigots--what great ammo for them--"Look! Even the 'librul' New Yorker Mag is on to the Obamas!"

    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!
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    shawk: I stated to th NYKer, that if this is NOT a racist insult, then I expect to see a cover of EQUAL INTENSITY directed against other presidential candidates.
    crickets***** No wait, SSSSSSSNAKES gone wild!
    reply
  • Pearl

    11 months ago

    The New Yorker should change its name to "Friends of Hillary"
    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
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    The New Yorker is owned by Conde Nast Publications. Its board is not involved in selecting covers for the numerous magazines the company controls.
    reply
  • blksista

    11 months ago

    She meant The New Yorker board, not the Conde Nast board as a whole. There is a list of contributors in each NYer issue, but no editorial staff is usually listed, unlike its sister publication, Vanity Fair.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Pearl: Co-signing - BIG TIME! I will NOT be BULLIED! THAT COVER WAS AN INSULT! Additionally, I have posed the question as to whether billary's " blue collar[RED NECKS], hard-working Americans, white Americans [with 3rd grade reading levels]" understand SATIRE! I think NOT! So they will "get" the blatant racism and ENJOY it!
    reply
  • Tavis

    11 months ago

    I am simply appalled! Cannot believe what I have seen.... not to mention coming from a so-called liberal magazine.

    New York is upSouth...... need I add any intials. What a satire--- absolutely shameful!!
    reply
  • Sonja

    11 months ago

    Context is everything. A few weeks ago, a (white, liberal, New Yorker) friend of mine wrote in the course of our email chat, "hey, aren't you worried about Obama being a radical Muslim terrorist?"--knowing that she and I both think the people who DO think that are infuriating idiots. In that context, a snarky remark in a private discussion where she knew the audience, it was clear to me her remark was sarcastic and her target was NOT Obama but right-wing fear-mongers. I wasn't offended or bothered (though it didn't strike me as hilarious either).

    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.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    That's it right there.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Great comment,

    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.
    reply
  • jed

    11 months ago

    Taking shots at the artist is fine, but he is not the one who decided to run the cartoon on the cover.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    I agree.
    reply
  • Leila Abu-Saba

    11 months ago

    About fourteen years ago I started wrestling with the identity of "woman of color"; I am an Arab-American, my mother is a white Southern WASP, and while I am very identified with my Arab heritage, I have always pretty much felt like a white person. My mother's white middle class influence is quite strong, and I can see how others in the world generally react to me as if I am a white woman of privilege (unless they know me by my Arabic name first, and then they have to do all this work to get past it). Friends in Berkeley began trying to raise my consciousness and "out" me as a woman of color in the closet. I wasn't sure.

    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)
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    yes, leila, yes!!! this is xenophobia, hatred and racism at its worst.
    reply
  • Lily

    11 months ago

    Yes, yes yes. I so understand your post Leila. I look white to whites, Latina to Latinos and Native to Natives, it is very strange and I have different experiences for it. My older brother was dark and had black eyes. He was once pulled over for a traffic vioation in Texas and didn't get a phone call or see a lawyer for over a week. He didn't pass. We do need to join together.

    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
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    Thank you for sharing this comment.

    My tongue is tied.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    Some of what you said was too deep for words, and ideas that hadn't crossed my mind. thank you.
    reply
  • 99 Percent Sure

    11 months ago

    I detest the 'women of color' and 'people of color' labels. May as well go ahead and call us colored women and colored people, like back in the day, like on my Alabama issued birth certificate on which my parents' race is listed as 'colored.'

    The phrases always make me want to ask, 'what color are they?'
    reply
  • B-Serious

    11 months ago

    It ain't cute. It's passive aggressive behavior.
    reply
  • Sepia

    11 months ago

    The white liberal/progressives and Democratic Party have shown their true colors during this campaign process. Black people should now know that all we have is each other.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    sepia,

    you ain't lying.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Rikyrah: I just sent an e-mail to the New Yorker with a copy to you. You know that I can't make these techy connections! :>) :>) If you want to re-print it [without my name, please], please do so. One of these days-I might learn! :>) :>)
    reply
  • Town

    11 months ago

    Ya know what? I'm not even going to say "white liberals/Democrats" are the ones showing their asses b/c plenty of black people who are puportedly "friendly" are showing the insides of their anuses, too. The "idea" of Obama is scaring these people out of their minds and letting them know, as Geradline Ferraro said, their time is up. The light is being turned all and we're seeing all the little roaches scurrying every which a way.
    reply
  • Norm in Alabama

    11 months ago

    Bu8llshit! I''m as angry as you are about this and I will NOT be condemned just because I'm White. This cover tries to be funny and falls on its face, but don't let it drive another wedge between all of us who are tryiong to make a difference.
    reply
  • Town

    11 months ago

    What's "bullshit" about it? Who condemned you because you're white? The majority of the people losing their minds about Obama this election cycle have been white "liberals/progressives." That's not an assumption, that's a fact. And when you start condemning

    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.
    reply
  • Norm in Alabama

    11 months ago

    My response was to the comment "white liberal progressives have shown their true colors during this campaign". We need to learn to be just "Liberal Progressive Democrats" and work together, not as white or black in separate camps. We are united today in outrage, just as we have been united for months in hope and enthusiasm. Just as we have been united for years in struggle for a better America, and in my case for many decades for justice and equality. All I'm saying here is "There aren't so many of us that we can afford to split ourselves apart".
    reply
  • Sepia

    11 months ago

    If you want us all to be just "Liberal Progressive Democrats", then folks like you need to call out the bad white apples of the Liberal/progressive party. So far, we haven't heard a peep from you all!
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Not fair, I've been blasting away at the front pagers over at DailyKos. While I understand where some would see race. I think this has little to do with race, and much to do with the assumption that Obama's win is a foregone conclusion so he should be pressured into pursuing their agenda(s). I think that's a huge mistake, and I've told them that pretty bluntly. But it's also a mistake for Obama's African American supporters to be seeing race in everything; that just diminishes the effectiveness of responses when there actually is race involved (see the New Yorker Cover). I think too many people here think the sole goal is to elect an African American candidate. Look that is a goal, and a goal that I share. But we have to win the election to achieve that goal. Winning a general election means working with people you don't like...
    reply
  • kenyaw

    11 months ago

    The Bag,
    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?
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Thanks for the compliment.

    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.
    reply
  • 99 Percent Sure

    11 months ago

    Yeah but, unfortunately, we're not voter strong enough to elect a president. Ergo, we still need so-called progressive/democratic whites. Personally, I never use liberal, as I don't believe there's any such thing. Obama ain't even liberal.
    reply
  • B-Serious

    11 months ago

    This is outrageous!
    reply
  • Kat

    11 months ago

    This looks like a cover you would find at National Review. I know that the New Yorker thinks that they are being "satirical", but without context, this is going to be posted on the wall of every McCain supporter and PUMA member in the country.

    God. Its only July.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    July is when shit like this is pulled. It's far enough away from the election so they don't have to worry about backlash.
    reply
  • Kat

    11 months ago

    By the way, here is the email address for The New Yorker.

    themail@newyorker.com
    reply
  • roadkill refugee

    11 months ago

    The cartoonist has his own website with his email address. Feel free to send him a love note. This is unbelievably disgusting, hateful and irresponsible. It's the kind of thing that will incite some unstable crazies out there who might take it literally. I'm disappointed to see Andrew Sullivan post that he thinks it's funny. Maybe he thinks that's how you defuse it - not take it seriously. But I wouldn't blame the "Democratic Party" for this -- the New Yorker is accountable. The inside article is a hatchet job, too. I never liked the New Yorker -- it's what the GOP's talking about when they say effete, elitist liberalism.
    reply
  • ultramagnetic

    11 months ago

    Jeez................... I got a migrain now............. WTF were they thinking?
    reply
  • Webb

    11 months ago

    If I were a New Yorker subscriber, my subscription would have been cancelled yester-fucking-day.
    reply
  • eclecticbrotha

    11 months ago

    I'm trying to figure out why people think this is OK because its a so-called liberal magazine but had it been a right wing rag those same people would be screaming in mock horror.

    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.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    To ALL: This is SLANDEROUS!! OUTRAGEOUS! Dare I say RACIST? INSULTING!
    What SSSSSSSSSSSSSNAKES!!! Didn't see this slithering onto the cover!!! WOW!!
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    As the minutes pass, the bile in my gut rises.

    This is assassination.

    The second week of July.

    Which candidate will survive it?
    reply
  • booboola

    11 months ago

    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    Maybe Jesse doesn't have a point.

    But the writer of that article certainly does.

    And using hearsay to make it.

    Yawn.
    reply
  • kenyaw

    11 months ago

    booboola,
    You can't be serious.
    reply
  • Lily

    11 months ago

    I am not black so I just want to say I was shocked when I saw the post in the Sunday thread and clicked. I could not f--ing believe this is not some KKK kid's idiotic drawing being passed around the Klan fire. I was immediately hit with the image of thousands of newstands in airports, on street corners, at Barnes and Nobles with this image multiplied into the millions. It doesn't matter if they say it is satire, that is not what the reality of it is in that setting.

    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."
    reply
  • B-Serious

    11 months ago

    Lily said, "I was immediately hit with the image of thousands of newstands in airports, on street corners, at Barnes and Nobles with this image multiplied into the millions. It doesn't matter if they say it is satire, that is not what the reality of it is in that setting. "

    EXACTLY! Repetition. . . that's all that matters.
    reply
  • AnthonyMason

    11 months ago

    Bingo!
    reply
  • djchefron

    11 months ago

    WTF!!!!! I am shaking my head.I say it again WTF!!!!!!
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Totally over the line. Yet the morons from the DailyKos frontpage--specifically DHinMI--are defending this bullshit. Every single advertiser to the New Yorker Magazine must be contacted and persuaded to pull its advertising.

    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.
    reply
  • blksista

    11 months ago

    No morons at AmericaBlog.

    John Aravosis sometimes pisses me off, but this time he gets it.

    Okay, what do we do about this? I want suggestions. This is what we have to deal with in America, as Democrats. A liberal media that bends over so far backwards to be "fair" that it becomes just as bad as FOX News. A liberal publication like the New Yorker thinks it's funny to make Mrs. Obama some radical black panther, Barack Obama basically a terrorist (you'll note that he looks just like Osama bin Laden on the wall), and they're even burning the American flag in the Oval Office (that's supposed to be the White House, get it?). They put Osama bin Laden on the wall of the Oval Office. And this is funny? Is the New Yorker so out of touch that they don't realize that much of America, or at least too much of America, harbors these very concerns about Obama and his wife? I'm sure the New Yorker thinks they're actually poking holes in the myth by making light of the stereotypes. Yeah, and tell us how this pokes fun at the stereotype? It reinforces it. And yet again, you'd never see them try anything like this with John McCain. God forbid you even ask a question about John McCain's experience, the media will destroy you. But paint Obama and his wife as America-hating flag-burning violent terrorists, and it's funny. I can't wait to hear what Mrs. Greenspan and Bob Schieffer over at NBC have to say about this. Somehow I'm betting their outrage won't be as great as when anyone questions Saint McCain.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    They're all trying to get into the Very Inept Press Section of St. John the McMaverick's plane. Good to see somebody from the left-wing blogs actually defend Obama.
    reply
  • AnthonyMason

    11 months ago

    Do you remember that GQ magazine story the Clinton folks were able to kill? I think I see your point.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    And that was a more difficult story than this to kill. If they had simply said, "This will endanger the Senator and lead to more threats from hate groups," the cover NEVER would've seen the light of day. It's pretty basic press management there. Apparently, the people Obama has in his press shop aren't bright enough to get that.
    reply
  • kenyaw

    11 months ago

    Why would you say that Obama's press management staff is not bright?
    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.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Who are the people in his press shop?
    reply
  • glaukopis

    11 months ago

    ADVERTISING CONTACTS

    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
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    glaukopis: Thanks for this info. It WILL be used!
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    People need not be nice to these people in my view. They can't do anything worse than they already did...
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    And here is my letter:
    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.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I just noticed that the room was oval. Is that supposed to be a room in the Whitehouse?
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Yep...and there's a picture of bin Laden on the wall. Satire is supposed to be moving, informative and amusing. This is just appalling.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    The New Yorker.

    I remain aghast.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    They have Michelle with an afro, camouflage and a freakin' assault rifle for chrissakes! In a country without a bigoted history, this might pass as lazy satire. But, in America where there are people who believe Obama is Muslim, and want to enslave the white race?? I hope the netroots get their head out of their asses over FISA soon, and realize what the Obama's/Democrats are up against.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Truth: Actually, by their silence, some Dems don't really care what
    they are up against. They are letting Mr. Obama - "hang"!!
    Co-signing on the FISA -"issue".
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    You know, I should have seen this coming. I really should have. Frank Lizza almost had me convinced he was fair.

    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.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    Is that why I hadn't the uneasy feeling when we really didn't get to have our celebration?
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Truth: Just sent an e-mail to the PERPS pointing out that that drawing doesn't fit the definition of cartoon [as presented in any dictionary], sooo its INTENT had to be to denigrate, slander, SMEAR, Mr. & Mrs. Obama and to offer SUPPORT for another candidate, etc.
    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!
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    OOPs SSSSSSSSSNAKES!
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    I just emailed everyone on that list posted. Everybody's trying to use the Obama's for fame or notoriety...it's disgusting. That's why O should never answer for anybody who does something stupid and invokes his name.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    From Ben Smith:

    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?
    reply
  • Kat

    11 months ago

    I saw an account of him being shown the cover where it said he "shrugged incredulously", so basically he politely said "WTF"?
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Kat: Yep! No need for quick responses. Well- constructed, delayed ones will have more impact.
    reply
  • eclecticbrotha

    11 months ago

    Sounds like she was doing her best to provoke a gotcha moment.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    eclectc: YEP!!
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    There will be a three day media crapfest on this issue. It could play either way. But it doesn't matter--now Barack Obama's message about energy and the economy isn't going to get out. Obama desperately needs to go to the bullpen and bring in some new press staffers--starting with Howard Wolfson.
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    One Note Evangelism
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    Damn.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Keep denying that Obama's people can do wrong, and watch as he's trounced in November.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Well, I don't think it's a bad as that. But I agree that the communications dept is like molasses when it comes to dealing with this kind of stuff. During the primaries, I thought it seemed that way only because Hillary's team was so aggressive in comparison. But, even with John McCain's ineptitude, they still can't seem to take the lead with the media. They don't quite know how to feed the beast...consistently.

    ..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.
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    Bag -- It's YOU I am having a problem with here, your persistent rigid Know It All evangelism in comment after comment after comment.

    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.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    i apologise for my language in the above post. i saw the cover and exploded. typing my e-mail of protest now. again, i'm sorry. i'm usually much more articulate.
    reply
  • Kat

    11 months ago

    I would bet your initial response is mirrored by most of us here. And the anger just gets worse. Its just such ugliness.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Kat: 2nd co-sign.
    reply
  • eclecticbrotha

    11 months ago

    This is race baiting. Your angered response is exactly what they were hoping for.

    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.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I don't think blacks are the only people to be offended by this. this is more an affront to the Muslim community, and well.... anyone who is not white "patriotic" (sarcasm) American.

    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.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    I understand what you're saying, but do we stay mute? when it's THIS OBVIOUS?
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    It is so obvious rikyrah, that this is about Michelle. Michelle is the focal point of the picture. No, we shouldn't let them continue to demonize Michelle for no good reason other than they do not want this black woman in the Whitehouse.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    It's her face we see while we only see Barack from the back. Did you notice the US flag in the fireplace?
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    Yes, the flag in the fireplace. It is too much. If it were satirical, they least they could have done was to follow up with something that shows the ignorance of the folks that believe this. As it is, all this is, is confirmation of what has already been done.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    ms. martin,

    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.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    Take your time and make it good we need to support her as strongly as the women who support the woman/women they belive in. We will make it easier for Sasha and Malia .
    reply
  • eclecticbrotha

    11 months ago

    Of course we don't stay silent. That would be absurd. I see it as an opportunity to explain WHY we are so outraged. I hauled off on a few of the snooty responses over at Daily Kos myself until I finally had to step away from the keyboard for a while to think of a better way to approach this. Upon reflection I realized this is just another example of the media trying to use Obama to make a profit. The New Yorker was well aware of the controversy the image would generate, but like so many others they allowed the lust for financial gain to overrule their common sense. The longer the issue stays on the front page of every blog the more money we generate for the New Yorker and every site that links to the illustration.

    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/...
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    You're right, Barack can't be enraged about this, but his supporters can and should. Now people shouldn't go on the air. But e-mails chewing these people out are fine. There's no way for somebody to tell the color of your skin in an e-mail...Though I'm white so I do have different perspectives on when to be aggressive and when not to be, sadly. This country still doesn't have equality.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    From Jonathan Martin:

    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.
    reply
  • roadkill refugee

    11 months ago

    I'd love to see some of the angry Hillary supporters transfer some of their anger on behalf of Michelle here, because this thing is all hate for Michelle. I'm so angry I could buy 20 copies just to burn them. (I know, that'd be stupid).
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Those fairweather feminists don't like all women, just Hillary. Then again, HRC's so mannish in her attire and politics, they're being sexist by supporting her!
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I've said before that these women follow Hillary like she's a man.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    MsMartin,

    The things I see playing out...the psychological stuff. It's kinda embarrassing.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    Very, IMO, they are the very "weak" followers that were supposed to be strengthened by the independence that their feminism was supposed to afford them. It seems that all they need is to have the word "sexism" waved before them and they follow.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    this is war. we have got to push back on behalf of the obamas and PUSH BACK HARD AS HELL!!!!
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Every single advertiser to the New Yorker needs to be told flatly that they should pull their ads. People need to lose jobs over this shit. Strike that, people need to lose careers over this shit.
    reply
  • glaukopis

    11 months ago

    When this issue comes out, look through it and write down every advertiser in it - then write your complaints to them. Don't be nasty, just say you will no longer buy any products of theirs and why. Enlist all your friends. Money speaks to these people.. Don't buy the issue, of course.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Another thing to do, buy up all issues on your local newsstands so nobody else sees this garbage. Then burn the piece of shit, or wipe your ass with it.
    reply
  • glaukopis

    11 months ago

    I think they'd like you to do that - better for their bottom line. Tell the newsstand owner why you're not buying the magazine or anything else there until the magazine's gone. Promise that you will come back and support them if they get rid of it. If they are not responsive, well, if the magazine gets a little frayed from your reading it at the stand, maybe others won't want it.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Er..buy them? No, throw them off the newstand onto the ground and stamp on them. They'll have to return the damaged ones to the publisher for a refund.

    Try not to get arrested.
    reply
  • isonprize

    11 months ago

    Ya'll SURE this ain't a hoax? A scam? Somebody somewhere sitting back laffin' their asses off?

    Tell me this ain't fo' real.... PLEASE, somebody tell me. Please?
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Isonprize: If it was--look what kind of COALITION has been formed!!! YES WE CAN!
    reply
  • Pearl

    11 months ago

    Dear Friends at JJ&P, As a "White liberal" I am repulsed and disgusted by this crap.
    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
    reply
  • ultramagnetic

    11 months ago

    Here's the cartoonist's email

    barry@barryblitt.com
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Thanks, this is what I sent him:
    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.
    reply
  • heartsandflowers

    11 months ago

    I emailed the fool. He had the nerve to reply and of course he sees nothing wrong with anything he did. I told him there would be a lot more scrutiny of his work in the future with calls and letters to any future employers of his with the threat of boycott. I also told him his work should be utilized in the forum it best serves like the Nat'l Review or the KKK Monthly. This country really deserves to go to hell...except that there's too many good people stuck here.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    My e-mail left him speechless. Damn idiot's career is over. Not that I care. couldn't happen to a bigger asshole.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Maybe someone will bargain with god to spare the good people....
    reply
  • icebergslim

    11 months ago

    This Week With Barack Obama is now up. The slideshow will lift your spirits. We must fight the New Yorker Magazine in numbers.
    reply
  • rdxtion

    11 months ago

    Thank you as always for that. The pictures of Michelle were powerful. She deserves to be loved and adored for her strength and wisdom. It hurts me to see the way people treat her.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Ice: OMG!! the pics were PRICELESS! BIG UPS!!!! THANKS!!
    Also: Saw the first response by the Obama Campaign. Could you please cite the source? I'm soo not a techy! :>) :>)
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    New Press Shop now. This cover never should've happened. The Bradenburg Gate flap never should've happened. The Jesse Jackson thing never should've happened. The Press Shop needs to be replaced ASAP. If they had fought this before hand, the cover never would've been printed. And yes, they had to know about this. And if they didn't know about this, they're incompetent. Hire Howard Wolfson. He's an ass, but he's an ass made for that job.
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    Wow. A white person who un-self-critically Knows Exactly What Should Be Done and loudly proclaims it over and over and over and over again and again and again in a one-note fashion for multiple days in every discussion it can possibly be inserted into.

    That's unusual!
    reply
  • heartsandflowers

    11 months ago

    Haha. Michelle I tried to reach you but your email bounced back. I can be reached at fldow@yahoo.com
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    :) yes thanks for the reminder -- I am emailing you now.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    FYI, the press shop is generally white (though not exclusively white). I want Obama to win. If people keep living in denial and assuming that his campaign can do no wrong because they won the primary, we're in for a rude surprise in November. I know competent press work when I see it. Obama's current press team is not competent. You can deny that all you want. You can pretend that they can do no wrong. But to WIN, people need to be honest about the campaign's short comings. If this is fixed now, it'll be alright. If it's fixed in October, not so much.
    reply
  • 99 Percent Sure

    11 months ago

    Except hasn't Wanker Wolfson signed on with Fox?
    reply
  • isonprize

    11 months ago

    i-slim,

    I don't have a subscription. And if I did, I would no longer. So, aside from sending e-mails, what to do?
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    register as many people to vote as possible. donate whenever and whatever you can afford. do whatever is humanly possible to ensure an obama landslide in november. turn your rage into action. join others in your area who are as angry and fed up as you are. i know you didn't ask me, but...
    reply
  • isonprize

    11 months ago

    Oh, hell yes, I've been doing that... registering voters, and donating $$. I meant re: the magazine. They just want to move product.

    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.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Ison/cali: 1. Just registered 2 people in my church today.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    cali: Just registered 2 people in my church TODAY!
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Registering voters isn't going to win the election if shit like this is framing the narrative.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    To All: What do we call the people who drew/supported and agreed [aloud or silently] with this obscenity? I compiled all of your descriptors. We call them: RACISTS, OUTRAGEOUS, SLANDEROUS, INSULTING, ASSASSINATION[thinking], KKKlanish, OVER THE LINE, BULLSH**TING, SMEARING, APPALLING, DISGUSTING, XENOPHOBIC-HATING, ROACH-like scurred, [did I report RACISTS?], SSSSSSNAKES!!! Do you think that anyone of them can be SHAMED by this??
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I've just come to the conclusion that this is about Michelle. They do not want this black woman in the Whitehouse as their first lady. This cartoon is about Michelle - she is the focal point of the cartoon.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    ms.martin,
    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?
    reply
  • isonprize

    11 months ago

    The OVAL office... the hand-on-the-hip necksnap... And the afro! (hell, even Angela Davis has locks these days...)

    "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
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    They always know what they will face, don't they?

    And, yet, they do it anyway.

    Their courage must never be underestimated.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    rikyrah: ABSOLUTELY - BOF o' dem!
    Sooo, I'm wondering. What would be people's reactions IF Sith & Snow were the nominees??? Take a blood pressure pill B4 U respond. :>) :>)
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    Of course it's about Obama's presidency, but I think the cartoon is about Michelle. Look closely rikyrah, the look on her face and his agreeing eyes lead me to believe that she is the leader, the one starting the "revolution" they want you to imagine.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    True. But he's the one looking at you, not her. And he's looking at you out the side of his face.

    Therein lies the main message.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    What is the message?
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    ms. martin,

    not to put words in craig's mouth, but I think he's saying it relates to the HIT PIECE inside the magazine.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    The main message is that Barack talks out of the side of his mouth.

    And yes, the hit job on the inside by a writer formerly enamored of Barack.

    The leftwingnuts have turned rancid.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I see that in his look now. What do you think it's saying about Michelle though. I still think she's the focal point.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    I guess I see them both as focal points.
    reply
  • Tish

    11 months ago

    Dang it all I can say. It's just going to get worse. I hate to see where this is all headed.
    reply
  • andyfrombrooklyn

    11 months ago

    if mccain wins this election the national mood will dive to the lowest depths. the iraq war will heat up again. the economy will tank further and longer. the negative world opinion of the us will sour beyond repair.
    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.
    reply
  • G.D.

    11 months ago

    You don't think this cartoon is highlighting the ridiculous of the cryptomuslim/anti-American assertions, but actually rubber stamping and propagating the assertions?
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    You don't think this cartoon is highlighting the ridiculous of the cryptomuslim/anti-American assertions

    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.
    reply
  • Miranda

    11 months ago

    msmartin,
    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.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I agree wholeheartedly. If you read the comments on pages of Obama supporters, during the toughest times of the primary season, you would see folks speaking on behalf his whiteness (it makes him more tolerable to some). Trust, there are many who if they could, would love to have him without her.

    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.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    And now, of course, I recall the words of a friend who said in the midddle of the primary that most first ladies are descendants of Daughters of the Revolution. I researched the issue and found that she's right. She thought that "none of them" would want Michelle as First Lady.

    There is weight in your words.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    All of this reminds me of the Lynch letter wherein the black woman is supposed to beaten to be made tough - tough enough to teach her men children and her man to be leary of those with power and smart enough to know not to challenge those in power and then strong enough to carry the weight that all of that puts on her family.
    reply
  • Manju

    11 months ago

    The annoying liberal tendency to introduce bigotry into the conversation under the guise of parodying conservatives:

    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.
    reply
  • Lily

    11 months ago

    I believe you are right, msmartin. I have stumbled upon sites, looking for progressive women's voices and have found puma sites. I have posted questions about the abuse Michelle was taking and they pretty much said that "tough, she didn't decry sexism when it was aimed at Hillary so "f" her. " But even rougher. They don't want a black woman or a black man in the white house. It reminds me of a line from Missippi Burning where Gene Hackman is describing the sentiment of a black man having more than a white man. Loosely a black man get a donkey and is able to work faster and easier than Gene's dad, so he kills the donkey. He kills it because he cannot have less than a black man.

    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.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Well, that's the stupidity of racism. If you paint blacks as intrinsically inferior, then what happens when you meet a black person more educated and accomplished than you? What I think they just can't stomach is that Michelle is so accomplished in her own right...they can't cope with giving her due respect.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Truth: CO-SIGNING LOUDLY!!!
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    Accomplished with her whole black in tact and non-apologetic for it. Raising beautiful bright children who no doubt will also be accomplished strong black women who won't need to apologize for who they are.
    reply
  • Carl BrownsDaughter

    11 months ago

    someone mentioned that the ADVERTISERS need to hear from us and this is so true. They need to know that we will not stand for this. Also the people in charge at the New Yorker should know that we will not tolerate any of this.
    reply
  • roadkill refugee

    11 months ago

    Absolutely. Magazine industry is hurting right now - ad sales are down. They knew what they were doing. They wanted the controversy. If you want to hold them accountable, complain to the advertisers. That what folks did to MSNBC and it worked. Ad sales pay the rent. They'll hear ya.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Road: YEP!!!
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Yep, they couldn't get anybody to buy their toilet paper, so they thought this would be a commercial. They'll all be in the unemployment line next week.
    reply
  • Honey01

    11 months ago

    I feel like have just been gut checked. Tryin' to keep my eyes on the prize.

    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.
    reply
  • Karmi

    11 months ago

    No surprise here, the LEFT is always so busy ‘pointing-the-finger-of-guilt’ that they don’t see their own natural bigotry and hatred…
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    I posted this in the other discussion thinking it was this one.

    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.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Michelle: CO-SIGNING!! I sent an e-mail to "them", arguing that it didn't fit the definition of a cartoon either - it lacked HUMOR! I stated that IF this was not SLANDEROUS [and all the other negative descriptors that I compiled in a previous post], I couldn't wait to see their next COVER where another presidential candidate was SATIRIZED!!????? CRICKETS***** SSSSSNAKES!!
    reply
  • scruncher

    11 months ago

    "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."

    Perfectly said, Michelle.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    When idiots like the cartoonists try satire, the results are disastrous.
    reply
  • Slave Revolt

    11 months ago

    People, wake tfu, now, I mean it!

    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.
    reply
  • khal02

    11 months ago

    I'm supposed to have faith in the majority of voters, 13% of whom still believe Obama is a Muslim? I'm supposed to have faith in the American voters who reelected Bush in 2004? I think the American voters have proven how little faith I should have in them and cartoons like this are surpisingly effective in swaying a lot of people especially low information voters.
    reply
  • G.D.

    11 months ago

    Can someone please explain the 'bigotry and hatred' here?

    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.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    It visually depicts the smears, which means that cable news can cover it and they can get into a wider audience. The New Yorker, like the rest of the left, is assuming a victory, so they can try to boost their anemic circulation by creating controversy.
    reply
  • Atalanta

    11 months ago

    But isn't that the problem? That most people in the country do *not* get The New Yorker's arch tone. If you take off the words "The New Yorker" from the picture you are left with something so far from satire as to be racist and disgusting. In other words, the 'satire' in this picture depends entirely upon understanding the nature of the publisher. I'm originally from Colorado - the majority of people out there do not read The New Yorker - they aren't going to know its editorial bent, and without that context, you have no satire whatsoever.
    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.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Good comment.

    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.
    reply
  • Slave Revolt

    11 months ago

    Michelle, please, their 'stinking trash' is hilarious in its sheer delusion.

    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
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    Slave Revolt, what's weird is that I've seen a couple of word-descriptions -- one here from one of the regular commenters and one (I think) from a comment thread at balloonjuice -- of Senator Obama playing out white racist delusions at the inauguration, and THOSE were laugh out loud funny to me.

    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.
    reply
  • scruncher

    11 months ago

    I thought it was hilarious when Jon Stewart asked Obama id is he was going to enslave white people if he becomes president. Now *that's* funny satire -- insightful, shocking, funny.

    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.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Yeah, the Jon Stewart question, that was brilliant satire...in one sentence! It crystallized what everyone was thinking and surprised us by it's truthfulness.

    The problem with this cover, is there is no truth here, just a bunch of regurgitated lies and homage to the liars.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I don't know that they are being ridiculed as much as the Obamas are.
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    I don't know that they are being ridiculed as much as the Obamas are.

    That's pretty much exactly what my girlfriend just said a few minutes ago when she saw it, Ms Martin.
    reply
  • TRW

    11 months ago

    Looking at that cover makes me SICK to my stomach. SICK!!!! I get it. They were trying to point out all the crazy stereotypes that the Obamas have had to, and will continue to, face in this election season, but some things just need to be left the hell alone. They made this cover extra controversial so that they could increase their readership. They exploited the Obamas for money, plain and simple. This is ridiculous.

    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.
    reply
  • Karmi

    11 months ago

    The LEFT has being doing this kind of crap to 'W for EIGHT Years!
    reply
  • delfinajones

    11 months ago

    Examples please...
    reply
  • Karmi

    11 months ago

    Open your search engine...click on images, and type in bush. Try another really racist one...type in condi.
    reply
  • Karmi

    11 months ago

    Here's a couple: found this montage which combines a bunch of them. Malkin lists more - http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pai...

    Need more?
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    TRW: Co-signing on your first paragraph. Hang in there on your second!
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Slave Revolt: Do you believe that "blue-collar, hard working Americans, white americans" get this (satire????)?
    reply
  • Lily

    11 months ago

    As a cover it stands alone. That image stands alone. It doesn't matter which magazine, what article accompanies it or the intent. It is a cover that will be seen by people who will not remember whose cover it was or where the magazine stand s on the question of a black family living in the white house.

    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.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    To All: See www.blacks4barack.blogspot.com for some follow-up.
    reply
  • bigassbelle

    11 months ago

    this is inexcusable. they should recall every magazine with this image on it. fucking idiots.
    reply
  • bigassbelle

    11 months ago

    the 18 page article, too, is pretty awful. it paints him as a purely political, manipulative politician ~ it directly contradicts the message he's running on.

    the line it ended with was hideous.
    reply
  • bigassbelle

    11 months ago

    unfortunately, as one who has opposed obama's fisa vote, the article made all of that mess make sense.

    but nothing's worse than that cover. it's just an outrage.
    reply
  • roadkill refugee

    11 months ago

    I've been exchanging emails with Barry Blitt about his cartoon. Pretty impressed that he's replying. I think he's very naive and genuinely thought his audience was just the sophisticated New Yorker audience who would recognize his outrageous cartoon as lampooning right wing attacks. I don't think he fully appreciated how fucking naive that is -- this is a huge election that the whole world is watching, and nobody should take Barack's election for granted. To my surprise, he agreed. I wrote about the cover here. http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/07/14...
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    I was going to email him too, but it somehow didn't feel right. He can produce whatever art he wants but The New Yorker should have known better. They have the responsibility of their national circulation. Sen. Obama has been getting threats, surely they know this?!
    reply
  • Donna_L

    11 months ago

    My head is spinning at the implications trying to see where the right wing is going to take this. MORE FEAR MONGERING? Here is Ben Smith reacting to the reacting:

    "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...
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    Ben Smith used to work for the New Yorker I believe. No surprise he'd defend his old bosses.
    reply
  • MK

    11 months ago

    Let me say this... The debate about this cover is going to expose the thing that Barack has been trying to avoid this whole election season. White people and Black people do not view things from the same vantage point in this country. I have already received calls from "white liberal" friends suggesting that they felt that the cover was "satire" and that they "hope people will have a sense of humor about it." I can guarantee you one thing... they would be singing a different tune if this was published by the Weekly Standard. This is B.S. This cover is RACIST, pure and simple. It is race baiting. Barack and Michelle are being dehumanized in this depiction and those of us who have seen the caricatures of Sambo of the past recognize this. Additionally this potentially incites violence against the Obamas. I am telling you this is AWFUL.
    reply
  • MK

    11 months ago

    Byron York at National Review apparently has different sources in the McCain camp than you do:

    "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!
    reply
  • Thomas

    11 months ago

    While it may not be a popular line in this room, I sense an overreaction. Obviously everyone here knows the cover lampoons racist right-wing attacks on the Obamas.The New Yorker readers will know that as well though I agree that the image will undoubtedly be used by the right to further slander them. But comparing the illustrations to Sambo strikes me as disingenuous. The most thoughtful response I've seen yet is by LYM over at DailyKos. His take is that the New Yorker fucked up by not providing any context (therefore allowing the image to be used against Obama) but there is no malintent or racism here. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/14/017...

    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.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    If the title of this Magazine was
    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'?
    reply
  • MK

    11 months ago

    So true. I am sick of being told to just "chill out" by the white "progressives" in this country. You watch... they are going to start using the PC police tomorrow to squelch any outrage. You watch... the term "race card" will be used by the white progressives to innoculate themselves against charges of race baiting. I can predict this reaction now.
    reply
  • dowl

    11 months ago

    Does this mean that those voters who are 'Deer Hunting with Jesus' are made even more afraid? Joe Bageant aptly described a 'bitter class' of poor whites who continue to vote against their own best interests. I'm certain that this magazine cover, should they ever see it (after food, housing, gas, maybe at the doctor's office?) that it would confirm why they should be sore afraid of black people period. POTUS? H-to-the-L NO!

    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?
    reply
  • ibeching

    11 months ago

    SMH
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    I have subscribed to and read the New Yorker for years. The only time I became dismayed with the magazine was when it was under Tina Brown's leadership because there was too much emphasis on celebrities and other nonsense, but I have to confess that I fell out laughing when I saw this cover. I still think that it's funny because it pokes fun at all the racist drivel that is being spewed about the Obamas. And, anyway, my understanding is that Obama is not running as the black candidate is he? The senator can take a joke and if he can't then he shouldn't be running for president. He should ask for an autographed copy of the cover and keep moving forward.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    I don't agree with your line of reasoning, pt, but ok..

    here's a question..

    Michelle's NEVER been post-racial...what about the racist stereotypes of her?
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    Rik,

    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.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I viewed some of the other covers over at Huffpo and noticed that the satire surrounding those covers are based on actual public opinion. So if this cover is meant to poke fun at those who believe Barack is a Muslim and Michelle is a terrorist, then is one to belive that it crazy to think that Cheney was actually running the show or that the Bush administration is not wading deep shit behind Iraq?
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    Sorry to insert myself in this exchange, but I'd love to hear them. Because I can't get to where you are, even though I want to.

    If you feel like it, please email me.

    Thanks.
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    I know that I am swimming against the tide here but the New Yorker Magazine has a long and honorable pedigree despite some longstanding shortcomings. James Baldwin's magnificent work The Fire Next Time was first published in its entirety in the New Yorker. So was John Hersey's masterpiece Hiroshima. Check out, for example, the piece that Calvin Trillin recently did on John White, the black homeowner on Long Island who was charged with firing a gun and killing a young white man who was part of a gang that came to Mr. White's home late one night threatening to harm his son.

    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.
    reply
  • blksista

    11 months ago

    I hear you about Baldwin and all, but that was then. This is now.

    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.
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    I don't share your opinion about the cover of the magazine. James Baldwin was quite aware of the shortcomings of liberals long, long before he died. He was also reminded in very painful ways of the shortcomings of his own people who he loved so dearly.

    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.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    that's IF you take him at his sorry ass word. i don't. further, the "reporting piece" by lizza does nothing but support the racist spirit of the cartoon. the "context" they decided to provide only serves to further alienate and raise eyebrows about barack's "true nature", which de facto legitimises the claims or suspicions that he and michelle just might be under-the-radar radical muslim/america-haters. this information has been known about obama since he started running, yet they report it now, accompanied by this cartoon choice. he comes from the school of hardknocks politics...so what?! thank god he DOES, else he wouldn't be the nominee today.

    so forgive me for not allowing the new yorker to piss on me and try to tell me it's raining.
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    Sister,

    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.
    reply
  • caligirl

    11 months ago

    we read the piece differently. and you are probably not representative of the typical new yorker reader.

    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.
    reply
  • blksista

    11 months ago

    He knew about the shortcomings of his own folks, especially their homophobia, but he didn't try to escape from them, just as the cartoonist is trying to escape censure for his actions.

    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.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    He knows exactly what he's doing. He knows it would be controversial....maybe ignite his career.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    blksista: CO-SIGNing as "old school". YEP on your "Just (a) little, but not enough."
    reply
  • KatEyez

    11 months ago

    "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."

    Word!
    reply
  • Sepia

    11 months ago

    I've read the suggestion that we should all buy up every magazine so that no one will see it. That's an erroneous strategy on two fronts:

    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.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    You're wrong about cable news. There's an assumption that everybody watches it. In truth only about 4% of the country and 8% of eligible voters watch it. Cable new has a daily audience of around 8-12 million. Grocery stores where this thing might be sold--90+% of the country frequents them.

    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.
    reply
  • Sepia

    11 months ago

    I disagree with you on all fronts. Cable news can do damage to a campaign as proven with the Rev. Wright drama. And there's also nightly news programs (like ABC News, Nightline, NBC....etc.), morning show programs like The Today Show, as well as local news outlets.

    Putting money in the pockets of your enemy is not the way to punish them.
    reply
  • The Bag of Health and Politics

    11 months ago

    You're right, Cable news does drive the media story line. The problem with this isn't that it'll be seen on cable news; is that it'll make its way to the networks, which have about 5 times the audience of cable news. That's a big problem. Networks also have shorter amounts of time to cover the story, so there's likely to be less debunking going on there. That's why fighting for the cable news story lines is important. You're absolutely right about the power of the morning shows. Most important of all.

    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.
    reply
  • Vonnie

    11 months ago

    anyone catch harold ford on the Today show this morning discussing this controversial picture (above)
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    If you all are waiting for Dark Sith Ford to vigorously defend Obama, you will be waiting until hell freezes over.
    reply
  • blksista

    11 months ago

    There is some jealousy in that child. In fact, a lot of jealousy.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    He was probably on HIllary's short list of VP picks.

    I wouldn't be suprised if he's still hoping for the convention coup that a number of delegates are trying to create.
    reply
  • msmartin

    11 months ago

    I hadn't thought of that Craig, he probably was on the list. That would explain his feigned attempt at support.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    After the campaign she ran, putting him on the ticket would have been a way to "ensure" the Black vote around the nation and try to win Tennessee.
    reply
  • 99 Percent Sure

    11 months ago

    Yeah and envy too.
    reply
  • Sepia

    11 months ago

    Yep. Maybe I was being paranoid, but his saying, "Obama has raised his children in a Christian church" as an example of Obama not being a Muslim didn't sit well with me.
    reply
  • rdxtion

    11 months ago

    You are not paranoid. It's right up there with Hillary's "He's not Muslim, as far as I know" comment.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Yeah, the un-surrogate surrogate. Obama is prey to every idiot with a mouth and a platform.
    reply
  • smoothie

    11 months ago

    Something BGOHAP said a couple of hours ago is worth noting.

    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.
    reply
  • bigsmitty72

    11 months ago

    Personally, I would love to see one of our own to get elected but if his campaign is that weak that it would be undermined by a cartoon...then he doesn't deserve to be president.

    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.
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    Amen, bigsmitty72, amen.
    reply
  • Mrs. K

    11 months ago

    If you want to call those bastards at CondeNast and show them just how outraged we are call Patti at 248-4587955
    reply
  • Daisy mae

    11 months ago

    I saw that DLC hack, Ford, on The Today show this morning making the usual arse out of himself.

    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!
    reply
  • goc

    11 months ago

    "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."

    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 ...
    reply
  • jelana

    11 months ago

    I understand what you are saying and I agree. They should have satirized the people
    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.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Exactly!
    reply
  • Daisy mae

    11 months ago

    We should all bombard their email (the New Yorker) voicing our opposition to such a distasteful portrayal of our future president. Besides, they're just jealous......when will we get to hear the sordid details about the extramarital affair that Cindy McCain carried on with John while his crippled wife sat by helpless to do anything. Nobody ever brings that up. Is it because she's a pretty blonde. Does that make her off limits.
    reply
  • bigsmitty72

    11 months ago

    Look at the New Yorker covers over the past few months...They have poked fun at his ears. They also had a cover where Obama and Clinton were in bed at 3AM. The New Yorker has been poking fun at pols for 100 years. This is nothing new.
    reply
  • RonnieB

    11 months ago

    Not to be out-done, Jim McLaughlin says that Obama fits the stereotpype of an Oreo.
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200807130002?f=h_...
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    RonnieB,

    Called him an Oreo AND quoted Jeremiah Wright. It was one for the record books.
    reply
  • Karmi

    11 months ago

    "A picture is worth a thousand denials. How quaint that the left tarred the Messiah with a brush full of pitch meant for the right." That commenter - at PL - sums it up the best.

    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?
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Because even the skill-less, would-be satirist knows, that those people you listed are so far removed from Obama, to depict them would be ACTUAL, skillful satire.

    Any more questions?
    reply
  • Karmi

    11 months ago

    "far removed"? Not true...well, other than Frank Marshall Davis. Skillful or not, the obvious double-standards of the Dems have been brought out with this pic…
    reply
  • Anderkoo

    11 months ago

    To me, this cover is offensive on two levels. There's the obvious level that everyone here has discussed. But at the level of artistic intent, it's even more offensive -- you need to realize that the New Yorker is really trying to make fun of what it perceives to be stupid, ignorant WHITE PEOPLE in this cover. Ergo, "Satire."

    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?
    reply
  • robj

    11 months ago

    This is another sad moment in this country, some people insist on holding fear over our heads with their racist attitudes and views. It's obvious this distasteful nonsense with Republicans will continue through November and most likely after the election regardless who wins. Shame on them, there's a greater price to pay for this kind of stupidity!
    reply
  • 99 Percent Sure

    11 months ago

    Over on Daily Kos, many of us are in a heated argument about the NY'er cover. I posted this:

    It is tasteless, incendiary, and sends an unfavorable message to voters that Obama may have had a chance to reach, thus most probably accomplishing what the artist, and the editor who greenlighted it, intended.

    It is not satirical in the least; I know satire and that's not satire - it is offensive, it is slanderous, and it is racist.

    And I'm looking cock-eyed at all the "progressive" folk who think there's nothing wrong with it, who are posting that we who are offended are "overreacting" and need to "get a grip." I don't know whether any of you thinking that way even have a moral compass, and I don't know what eye you're looking out of, but everything is wrong with that cover that should never have seen the light of day.

    There's nothing even remotely humorous about it. All it does is successfully send the message that the Obamas are a throwback to supposed black American radicals of the 60s and 70s, that they are radical Islamist flag-burning terrorists who are probably in cahoots with Osama Bin Ladin.
    And I got this reply:

    Oh boy.

    "I know satire and that's not satire"

    Clearly it isn't that good of satire, because people are too dumb to get it. But it is satire. If you think it is not satire, and the cartoonist is trying to imply that the Obamas really will burn a flag, carry an AK-47 and do their sooooper-secret terrorist fist-jab in the oval office with a picture of Bin Ladin on the wall, you actually don't know satire.

    Hate to break it to you.
    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.
    reply
  • goc

    11 months ago

    Excellent post on Racialicious on The New Yorker and Hipster Racism:
    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
    reply
  • T.

    11 months ago

    OK...here's the thing...For fear of being told that I should "just lighten up because it's supposed to be funny", I have been staring at this picture intensely for the last couple of hours. Why? Trying to find the humor within. Guess what? It's not fucking funny. And this coming from a chick who laughs at the most inappropriate shit.

    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!
    reply
  • T.

    11 months ago

    Hey New Yorker,

    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....
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    ...cool, and Cindy's detached his IV and injected it into her own arm to steal his meds. There's a trail of pills behind her ...like breadcrumbs so she can find her way back to her 7 homes. Then, there's the acronym C.U.N.T. spelled out on the back of her nurse's uniform.
    reply
  • kate03

    11 months ago

    "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..."


    with his first wife sitting in her wheelchair in a trash can.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    C.U.N.T?:

    Cindy, Unrepentant Narcotics Thief
    reply
  • Karmi

    11 months ago

    "C.U.N.T?" - TruthSeeker...SHAME on you! That should be removed or deleted!
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    11 months ago

    Yeah? Start a petition.

    I think we're all grown-ups here, and it's an acronym. Maybe YOU should be deleted or removed. ;)
    reply
  • purplehawk

    11 months ago

    I'm hot to trot about that cover. Harper's Magazine has posted a response to the effect that liberals "have no sense of humor."

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-9000...
    reply
  • T.

    11 months ago

    I HAVE A THEORY...John McCain is NOT so close in the polls with Obama...I smell a conspiracy hear to make this a horserace, so to speak....
    reply
  • rikyrah

    11 months ago

    You're JUST coming to this conclusion? You're JUST seeing the forest for the trees, after watching the complete and utter complicitness of the MSM in pushing the bullshit ' it's still close for Hillary Clinton' memo, after WISCONSIN (when it was all over).

    But, thank you, for seeing it for what it is.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    rikyrah: Please see my recommendation for a "thread": "Suggested Alternative New Yorker Covers" [especially concentrating on "mcancient/cindy". Just a thought. :>) Thank you.
    reply
  • Michelle

    11 months ago

    I am now wondering if there is any request that can be made of the New Yorker. And I mean I really do wonder.

    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???
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    Michelle: [Nice name :>)] I'm thinking of a billary/bill cover: With billary standing at a podium "endorsing" Mr. Obama & bill in the background -"MOONING"! Remember, he said that Mr. Obama would have to "kiss his A&&" befor he campaigns for him.

    rikyrah: Why not make this a "thread" - Alternative New Yorker covers [attacking "mcancient"].
    reply
  • Orville

    11 months ago

    There is a SERIOUS fear in white Liberal and Conservative America about the Obamas. Make no MISTAKE this cartoon was NOT satire it is the attitude of racists plain and simple. The fear is this that America won't be controlled by whites anymore that a black man will be president and his wife a beautiful, intelligent, and yes opinionated black woman will be first lady. The Muslim garb Obama is wearing and the Angela Davis style hairdo of Michelle just points once again to this fear in white liberal and conservative America about blacks in the political process. For so long blacks have been in the backrow but FINALLY blacks are advancing in American politics and some whites just don't like this at all. The cartoon once again is to remind people to be AFRAID of BLACKS IN POWER.
    reply
  • WhatsYoursIsMine

    11 months ago

    I believe this is satire, it's just not hitting the mark as it should. It could have been done differently, I just believe the staff at the New Yorker thought they would push the envelope, but not cause so much rage.

    I'm assuming there will be a McCain cover as well.
    reply
  • RonnieB

    11 months ago

    Satire and racial stereotyping aren't mutually exclusive. So of course this bit of satire didn't hit its mark.
    reply
  • GreenLadyHere

    11 months ago

    To All: Soooo, bill "Mr. Obama can 'kiss my A$$ before I campaign for him' " clinton, said that Americans are DIVIDED!! Here's how I see it: Bill's EXPERIENCE in divisiveness is clear. He cannot separate himself FROM himself long enough to say even one nice word about Mr. Obama. Soo, doesn't this show that he is the MODEL of DIVISIVENESS [and adultery and impeachment and racism and egocentrism and narcissism and - did I say womanizing??- and mean-spiritedness and explosive personality behavior and . . .]?????????? Thought I'd bring up his other good points while I was at it. SSSSSSSSSNAKE!!
    reply
  • DarkStar

    11 months ago

    When I first saw it, I thought it was good satire. If there is an article accompanying it, the satire should be obvious at that point. If not, then they just didn't pull it off.
    reply
  • CraigHickman

    11 months ago

    The title of the cover art is Politics of Fear. If there were an article in this issue about the politics of fear, I wouldn't be so aghast.

    But there isn't.

    So I am.
    reply
  • RonnieB

    11 months ago

    I've seen cartoons on white supremacy websites that were equally as "satirical".

    The accompanying article hardly minimizes the offense of the imagery.
    reply
  • Anderkoo

    11 months ago

    Not to defend the New Yorker, because I definitely think they screwed up this one, but I think the point of this cover is to make fun of those white supremacists by mimicking them. It's trying to say, "Look how stupid some Americans are; they believe this image is true."

    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."
    reply
  • KatEyez

    11 months ago

    You hit the nail on the head.

    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.
    reply
  • PTCruiser

    11 months ago

    In the entire output of the New Yorker magazines that I have read for over three decades there has never been an accompanying article to "explain" a cover. There may have been but i have never seen one. I thought the cover was funny and I got the cartoonist's point immediately.
    reply
  • loomisnews

    11 months ago

    At first I thought "it's satire". But it'd be better satire if it had been done after Obama got elected, putting the lie to those myths after they'd been proven ineffectual.

    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.
    reply