I’m not sure what they were smoking, but the cover is ridiculous – and plays right into people’s worst attitudes about Senator and Mrs. Obama. As for calling it satire, maybe in conservative circles. It’s just as bad as internet rumors making all sorts of claims about the Obama’s – all false of course. You’d think Roger Ailes of FOX News was working as editor of the New Yorker this month.

You know what? If there is anyone left out there that looks at that picture on The New Yorker and goes " SEE? This is what Obama REALLY is! I saw it on a magazine cover in the form of a cartoon! " then there is nothing that can help them. I say float it out there and watch the idiots not get it and show themselves.

Talpdx, your point is not lost on me. But I'll take someone actually TRYING to make a point and hope that the article actually gets read by those who believe it to be an accurate depiction of Obama any day. But even if it doesn't get read by them, I don't care.

I do not feel it contributes to the problem of people being too stupid to get it. I mean, come on, it's actual art. The people that see it and think it's real will never get art. But it has a better chance of flushing out the idiots than it does giving them a leg to stand on. I say let someone try to use it as proof of something false. They'll just feel dumb when shown how idiotic they are. Shame used to be an effective tool.

*Give me a beat!*

I'm bringing shaming back!

YEAH!

Those toothless wonders don't know how to act.

YEAH!

I think they're special, thinking white is black.

YEAH!

Just sit at home, enjoy your rough payback.

YEAH!

Take 'em to the bridge!

I thought it was a great cover!

Of course the morons are gonna talk about it, but they are morons! There will always be some shallow, ignorant thing for them to talk about.

Made me want to go and read the publication more often.

It reinforces negative stereotypes about a candidate that are simply not true – whether it was intended to be funny or not. And to sell it in some sort of erudite pose that speaks to an affluent, liberal and largely Caucasian audience misses the mark completely. This cover doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s out there for the whole electorate to see and it reinforces the false perception that Senator Obama is sympathetic to terrorists. If I were Senator Obama, I would be livid.

I'm sure he is. And I don't think he's off the mark for it, but I still really like the cover.

It's great political art.

Sorry guys.

He’s running for President of the United States, not mayor of Portland. I’m sure in little Beirut it’ll play well, but there is the rest of the country to consider.

Even McCain's camp is saying it's in bad taste.

If a magazine cover is enough to make you either vote or not vote for a candidate, then you are to stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote!

And that's exactly what makes it great art.

Your point taken for sure. Appreciating that cover while understanding it's implications on the election isn't exclusive.

Just fired off a quick note to the magazine. It says essentially, great cover, but just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done.

http://i37.tinypic.com/5bwoky.jpg

The problem with images like this is that they have no context. It's only satire because we know it was published by the New Yorker. Sadly, some voters out there have never even heard of the New Yorker - the type, I fear, who are most susceptible to these stereotypes - and for them these images only re-enforce the stereotypes.

Ironically, had some right-wing magazine published this, they'd be hammered - but the criticism is muted here just because of the source, probably not anti-Obama. But if the New Yorker was trying to help John McCain, they probably succeeded.

Andrew

I'm trying. I'm really trying to keep it simple. But I'm having a hard time.

Let's say you know, knew or encountered anyone who looked at that picture and didn't know the context or the statement or anything other than what they already knew.

What kind of conversation would you expect to have with someone like that? I'm not asking rhetorically. Can you envision anyone going into it one way and coming out another on this picture? If they do, then that's good, right? If they don't, then they are EXACTLY the kind of person this statement is being made about; They believe lies. And they will contnue to believe lies no matter what proof is shown to them. Deep down, they may have questions about their leg to stand on. But they'll never admit it. Because those people are stubborn. Not out of feeling right. But out of habit.

The closest I can come to an offensive message to anyone involved with this picture is that the very people who still believe it don't like to be laughed at or made fun of. We all went to school with some overgrown ox of a kid who was bullied until he got strong. Then people stopped picking on him - to his face. These are the people being addressed in this cartoon. Stubborn mules who do only what they are told and eat only what they are fed and think only what they are shown to think. Never questioning why. THESE are the people that should be offended. But by showing that insight, they become IN on the joke and therefore their participation is dissolved and they are absolved.

Besides, the very topics depicted are ones that get spoken about on message boards and such all the time. Now, they may get a kick out of seeing it in burnt sienna and cobalt blue and shiny - but it's already out there. Republicans play this game ALL the time. And they get called on it ALL the time. They never get the Democrats to fall for the sinister whisper campaigns. But it's never FOR Democrats. It's FOR Republicans. The Republican leadership knows exactly what they are doing. All Democrats see the lies too. It's the Republican SHEEP that never get it.

So I say, again, let them feed off themselves with political tactics like the ones being referenced in the cartoon. Many of them don't even believe that stuff about Obama anymore - but they DID for a while. And you know who showed them the truth? It certainly wasn't Republican leadership. It was EVERYONE else.

Democrats get saddled with this moniker of being " elite." I think that stems from, in part, from Democrats being much more creative and savvy - and cool and effective and clever too - in the way they present their message. The election is only a few months away. If people are still wondering for whom to vote based on Obama being a muslim, then they need to get teased about it. Because nothing else seems to have worked on those asses.

I think it's great.

Fuck 'em if they still believe that shit. Seriously. I'm not scared of that fear mongering bullshit any longer. Go for it. get nasty.

You'll still all lose. And when it comes time to try and work together, I'm going to remember tactics like the ones on the cover. You won't get any cookies. Cookies are for closers.

That's an interesting angle.

The New Yorker is sophisticated enough to consider forcing the conversation too.

Interesting. There it is, right there. The lies.

Question is are you really fool enough to buy any of it, or are you just one of those people that will spread it because you want to?

This is gonna force those conversations.

Elitism = cool and savvy. That’s a new one. I hate to break it to you, but elitism looses elections. It doesn’t translate well when you’re trying to posture yourself for the broadest possibly constituency. This is an election, not a debutante ball. Look as far back as Adali E. Stevenson – he was tagged with the elitism label. Didn’t do him well in two general elections. If you run as an insufferable snide intellectual liberal, you deserve to lose. And I say that as a liberal. Elections are about promise, not piety. Senator Obama’s message is about opportunity and change. And that applies to everyone in America. Not just to affluent, white, well educated liberals in Portland, Oregon. If Senator Obama were to engage voters in elitist tones, he’ll lose hands down. He’s already got Marin County, what he needs is Allegheny County.

I'm torn on whether this is good or bad for Obama. I can see where it will reinforce the negative sterotype for the Deane's of the world. Yet, the Deane's of the world wouldn't vote for him anyway, so no real loss. However, the ridiculousness of the cartoon certainly makes it apparant that those that think he is a muslim are true idiots. 50/50 at this point, but overall, I think they pushed the envelope a tad too far...

It's not Deane's world I'm worried about -- but rather those voters who might lean Obama but have a "feeling" about his so-called ties to terrorists. Polls indicate that a sizable percentage of the American electorate have issues with Senator Obama and these mythical links to terrorists. Call them stupid or moronic, but these people vote. And at the end of the day, Senator Obama will need their votes, period.

Morons and uneducated white trash who buy into the whole Obama is this and Obama is that don't shop at places where they can purchase this magazine. Afterall when was the last time you saw the New Yorker magazine at the checkout stand? Its not exactly the National Enquirer!

But the problem is, this image is now all over the web and people who would never encounter the New Yorker are seeing it. It's viral; the magazine cover is all over the media. Surely it's been all over the TV news (which I don't watch). Some viewers glance at TVs in public places (e.g. my gym has them all over the place) with no sound; you see the image but have no idea what is being said about it. Images communicate messages instantly.

Andrew

It takes a nanosecond to leave an indelible impression, whether it true or not.

The first time that I saw this cartoon was on the KATU 11:00 news yesterday. To me, it seemed pretty obvious that the statement that the cartoonist was trying to make was the utter stupidity of the rumors and innuendo that have been floating around. I'm glad that this cartoon was published; I see it almost as a cry for help (or truth) in a society and a world where garbage information is passed around freely. I am not worried about the few knuckleheads who will take it literally.

Alfredo_t: I am not worried about the few knuckleheads who will take it literally.

I am. Recent polls show that 13% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim(!). A cover like that now being seen all over the media isn't going to lower that number - may even raise it among the "few knuckleheads" who will actually vote.

Andrew

" Elitism = cool and savvy. That’s a new one. I hate to break it to you, but elitism looses elections."

Talpdx, I agree. They can. I hope you can tell that I think and believe that your position is perfectly valid. It is something to be taken into consideration when trying to bridge gaps and heal wounds. I'm not dismissing it as being poilitcally correct or antyhing like that.

When I referred to savvy and cool - I was referring more to the method of delivery than the actual content. This whole thing touches on a few of my beliefs about how I view Conservatives and Liberals and Democrats and Republicans and what it is that they respond to and why. It's a complex issue to and for me. It just is.

And occasionally, I get a little tired of having to constantly spend my time and efforts in correcting the record for Republicans who insist that Obama is a Muslim, America Hating, Anti-Christ. We spend a LOT of time on that shit. And you know what we get in return, more often than not? We get people like Deane who enjoy watching us get all worked up by being so frustrated with the sheer amount of ignorance being used to make decisions that they claim to be important. That becomes tiresome. I don't like to feel like I am getting mindfucked. That's why I ask ALL the time around here " Do you believe that to be the truth? " because so many Republicans say shit that they don't even believe and they just say it to either get a rise from Democrats or they say it to actually perpetuate their " win at all costs " mentality.

So I do not really care what it says about me; But fuck that shit. I am sick of it. and if the cover of a magazine rubs a little bit of that shit back, and gives me a little bit of a outlet ( or at the VERY least, acknowledges that I am not crazy for feeling this way about the lies ) then I will take it and be glad for it.

Yes, I am pissed. Yes, I have things that I am bitter about. Yes, I am not perfect and it's possible that I am very wrong about all of this. But dammit, are you not tired of the absolute LIES that people believe or CLAIM to believe and then have them use that information to vote? I take a small bit of pleasure in someone else taking the time to hit back against this mindset. And in teh grand scheme of things, it's SO small. Yet I cannot help but be proud of the WAY it was done. With art. With humor. And in a way that MAKES you look beyond what you think you see or know. It MAKES you acknowledge the truth. Fucking fools. I hate that shit so much. They deserve to be made fun of. And this is coming from a guy who hates bullies and could tell you stories about why that would make you cry. But this is an acceptable retort, to me. I do not care if they get it or not. I just like knowing it's out there and it's been said, out loud, in this way, at least once. It was well timed too. I like it. I do not care if they are offended. Fuck that. They are ruining the entire planet.

I'm hoping they get realy pissed and vocal about being idiots who believe what is depicted. Just so I know where they are and to stay away from them.

Fuck them.

Feeling better now?

I tend to see it in more pragmatic terms. I so desperately want Obama to win this fall. Some much depends on this victory. But I'm very mindful of the fact that the GOP is masterful at truth distortion. And providing them any degree of ammunition undercuts the credibility of the Obama candidacy. He'll spend copious amounts of time reminding people why he isn't a terrorist sympathizer. What a waste of time. Especially as a result of a publication whose readers would be sympathetic to his candidacy. With friends like that, who needs enemies.

What about the argument that The New Yorker has actually opened up the issue enough to lighten the load for Obama? I'm living proof that it had a positive effect somewhere; On me. I mean, is it the fact that it is picture form and the fear is that people who can't find the baseball glove in Highlights magazine will see it and vote for McCain? Seriously. Not rhetorical. Spell it out. How would it go? What about words that actually say and speak and spell out those lies? The article itself? ( Which I have not read - has anyone yet? ) Are those to be treated with kid gloves too?

Again. Those are not rhetorical questions.

And Magic eye - I know that I deserved to be called out for ranting. But to answer your question; No.

Hey, maybe, just maybe the pain is not great enough to overcome this willful ignorance, baiting and distortion.

Sometimes we've just got to hit rock bottom before enough of us reach acceptance to matter.

We might find out we are just not there yet.

Let me put it this way.

"The power to destroy a thing is absolute power over that thing." -- Frank Herbert , "Dune".

You are right CJ. They are fucking up the planet.

If we live in fear of this, what will absolutely happen is that they will just dole out the fucking, getting their perks in while they are at it, knowing we don't share that same power.

Nobody decent wants to fuck others over, and that's the rub. They will, we won't and

THEY KNOW IT.

So, at some point then, the greater slice of the population is going to have to grow a pair and be willing to go to the mat, hard, in order to stop that crap from going on.

This is EXACTLY the bully situation. As kids we all faced the bully, and nothing changed until that bully knew:

a. they were getting absolutely nothing they wanted

b. the cost of trying exceeded the return.

I suspect we might not be there yet, and I worry about this.

If we were there, FISA and other similar things would not have gotten through this particular congress, slim majority or no.

Chickenjuggler: What about the argument that The New Yorker has actually opened up the issue enough to lighten the load for Obama?

You're talking about the New Yorker cover opening up a discussion? Unfortunately, the type of people who would engage in such discussions are surely already intelligent enough to realize that the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor is crap or would have realized it long before the election in November.

The people who I'm talking about aren't the ones who would engage in meaningful discussion about these issues. And this isn't the only place they're seeing/hearing these "Obama is a Muslim" smear. One more image helps confirm what they were already coming to believe.

Here's an example: I have a close relative who voted for Kerry in 2004. My relative hates Obama and refuses even to consider voting for him. Why? Not even because of his religion. It's because...of his name. Yep, my relative thinks "Barack Obama" is a funny name. Can't vote for someone like that. Period. End of discussion. Because you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who is apt to reach that type of conclusion. Images like the New Yorker cover push the subliminal buttons of people like this.

Andrew

Well, you are right Andrew. I overstated it. I was not implying that opening a discussion was the New Yorker's intent. But I think it has a more likely chance of doing that, however unintentionally, than it does making solidifying someone's ideas that was already on that path. And certainly less likely to change a person's mind from " He's not a Muslim " to " Well, now that I see that picture - maybe he IS a Muslim." ( And I'm just using the Muslim reference as a catch-all for all the other lies we've heard from people since he's been running ).

" Images like the New Yorker cover push the subliminal buttons of people like this."

I agree. But I just do not believe that this will change anyone's mind on the matter. Perhaps the actual article will. But even in the absence of that happening, I have to say, it feels good to be reminded, in a public way, in a clever manner, that there are people out there who care what the truth is. And if they have some power to tell the truth, it's hard for me to see any maliccious intent in that. The closest I can honestly call this is that it's a tad clutzy.

Again though, I haven't read the article. It would be such a waste to have all this attention focused on their platform, only to have a crappy article be written about it.

But given the intended message, what do you think woudl have been an artful, clever way to portray the situation at hand here?

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and he brought up a swell idea that would have been good; Have that same picture, but include a characature of Rush himself painting the portrait. As to imply that there are specific people that perpetuate. But then it would have become all about Rush. And that wasn't the point. ( Again, I don't THINK it was the point as I haven't read the article...but I did subscribe today. )

" When I referred to savvy and cool - I was referring more to the method of delivery than the actual content. This whole thing touches on a few of my beliefs about how I view Conservatives and Liberals and Democrats and Republicans and what it is that they respond to and why. It's a complex issue to and for me. It just is."

Exhibit A -

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/911.billboard/index.html

Exhibit B -

http://therepublicansong.com/watch.html