New Yorker Obama Cover Sparks Uproar
Politico: Campaign Calls Magazine Cover Art “Tasteless And Offensive”
Barack Obama’s campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife. An American flag burns in their fireplace.
The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”
Here is the full article.
What do you think? Do you find the cover offensive or it is just another satirical lampoon?
I think it’s funny and I’m a supporter of Obama.
Satire or not, such images seem to resonate with those inclined to accept such stereotypes and may have some influence.
The cover picture is a satirical jab at conservatives and how the New Yorker believes we look at Barack Obama and his campaign. It’s actually a very clever way to support Senator Obama by exaggerating conservative stereotypes. The magazine itself is very liberal in slant, and would no more lampoon Obama than a Catholic would spit at the Pope. Get a grip, people.
It’s the same people who cheer such lampooning of Conservatives, but lose their sense of humor when it lampoons one of their own. These people having a come-apart over this need to develop a sense of humor & balance, and develop a thicker skin. Does anyone think this sarire will change how a single person votes or how they view Obama?
I think its about as funny as the Obama Sock Monkey Puppet.
Really! No Bull crap!
It is real!
Go here or click on my name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hecc8fP98&feature=related
That’s how I actually see the guy…..so what’s the problem?
For 8 years, George Bush has been a great sport and have not complaint even once about all the jokes (not really sure they are jokes though) about how stupid he is. There is even a cartoon about him: Little Bush, where they make fun of him and all his staffed.
Now, Mr Elilist Barack Obama gets ONE parody in one magazine cover and he is crying foul everywhere. Wow, great presidential candidate we have there? What is he going to do if he wins and SNL makes a skid about him….send them to Iraq??
Terribly offensive. Caricatures and all other satire should be directed only at Republican’s…
But seriously, until Obama actually outlines his policies instead of criticizing his opponents and claiming to ‘holier than thou’ there’s good reason to be highly suspicious of what he’ll actually do should he become elected.
brother bear has left a new comment on your post “Satirical lampoon or offensive?”:
“Mikey said…
Terribly offensive. Caricatures and all other satire should be directed only at Republican’s…”
OK Laugherty!
What? Your crap don’t stink?
Hah!
I think the depiction of Obama says more about the New Yorker’s subscribers than it does about Obama. Those same supporters of the radial right— the wealthy elite who started the slander machine with Kerry— are just continuing to keep the tradition of yellow journalism alive. Good satire exagerates the truth. Where is the truth in this depiction?
“Where is the truth in this depiction?”
It is totally fictitious. Michelle Obama should be wearing a Burkha and Barak should be hitting with a stick no thicker than his thumb.
The Koran says so.
Chapter 4, Verse 34:
“Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband’s absence, because God has of them been careful. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great.”
Yay for Islam and women’s rights!
Obama 2008! He’s “one us!”
Perhaps in their next issue The New Yorker can depict a decrepit McCain standing alongside his trophy wife.
(Hey Cheney…do the world a favor and go have yourself a fatal heart-attack.)
One element I find indelibly offensive is the depiction of normal Muslim dress as binLadenesque. Obama’s garb should have been more clearly identified as mujahedi—say by adding grenades or dynamite or a bullet band—much as the toted gun completes his wife’s caricature.
As for my classmate David Remnick ’81’s defense to the Huffington Post blog, I think he underestimates its usefulness to right-wingnuts who can now simply point to the cover to “code” what they mean, rather than put bigoted words in their own mouth. This supplements the theme McCain already actively started back in March: “An American President for the American Presidency” and the like. Well-circulated images, however avowedly discredited, tend to persist.
[By coincidence, the New Republic page of my second link has/had in their upper-left corner a nod to the Time chess-boxing story Susan’s already noted, sobriqueted Chess, Not Just for Skinny Asthmatics Anymore.]
(Hey Cheney…do the world a favor and go have yourself a fatal heart-attack.)
He has! He has, but the devil wants him to do his bidding on Earth!
Cheney is an evil robot sent back in time by a deranged chess computer from the year 2015: the Kasparov 9000.
“[By coincidence, the New Republic page of my second link has/had in their upper-left corner a nod to the Time chess-boxing story Susan’s already noted, sobriqueted Chess, Not Just for Skinny Asthmatics Anymore.]”
Hey, I’m not skinny! I am fat difficient.
I do not read any publication with the word New York in it.
It is a waste of my time to learn about what is happening in that dirty city.
What would really be funny:
A picture of Jesse Jackson holding a knife chasing a terrifed Obama.
its right on the money he would be a obamanation the only change will be in your pocket. socialism never has worked anywhere its been tried. good luck USA.
Rumor has it that Comedy Central’s Dave Chapelle suddenly ended his show contract when he realized his critics had a valid point — that his comedy skits too often reinforced stereotypes when the intention had been to satirize them.
Perhaps 10 years ago someone used a dump truck to deposit a large pile of cigarette butts onto his enemy’s front lawn. The lawn owner’s efforts to have the dump truck person punished (police, DA; civil suit) all failed simply because the dump truck person characterized his actions as merely a “practical joke”.
People seemed to be mezmerised by that label, instead of seeing the simple destructiveness of the act.
Any cartoon image the New Yorker prints is fully okay, as long as they label it “satire”, right?
“brother bear has left a new comment on your post “Satirical lampoon or offensive?””
On YOUR post?….hm….very interesting…
I don’t find the cartoon funny at all. Obama is the unity candidate that will bridge the gap between all Americans, I don’t think the cartoon shows that at all. Obama is a candidate all Americans can support and take pride in. This cartoon shows the opposite, so it is untrue. for once we have the opportunity to elect a unity candidate and cartoons like this will destroy that dream.
Obama is not a unity candidate. He is the most liberal member of Congress. Use your head please.
Obama is the Unity Candidate??? Says who??? The Obama campaign?? And you are here like a parrott repeating whatever his campaign says as if it was written in stone somewhere??? Oh man, no wonder there is so much Obama fever….he has the mindless drones supporting him.
I consider myself an Obama supporter, and I think the cartoon is pretty funny. It is clearly intended as a satire of some of the anti-Obama memes that are being circulated (mostly by e-mail). The best element is the knowing look “Obama” is giving us readers- as if to say, in Dr. Evil fashion, “at last I control the world.”
To me, the biggest disappointment in this whole affair is the Obama campaign’s reaction to the cartoon, which comes across as thin skinned and needlessly defensive. Similarly, the reaction of other SOME (but not all) supporters of Obama has been disappointing. (C’mon, enough of the righteous indignation- to my mind, the least productive emotional state in existence.)
Happily, a good many understand the joke as a joke- one made in a light hearted way and very much in line with the typical New Yorker cover. Not laugh out loud funny, alas, but quiet, knowing funny…
Brad Hoehne
I personally find the cartoon funny, but the problem is that there are too many ignorant people who actually believe all the crap about Obama being a terrorist-friendly Muslim. For them, the cartoon will only reinforce the lies.
Heck, how many Americans STILL believe that Iraq had WMDs?
“Heck, how many Americans STILL believe that Iraq had WMDs?”
They were moved into Lebanon just before the first war.
The kicker is, the US Government created those WMDs. Iraq was storing them for us to use on Iran in the event of a future war.
WMD’s were the official party line, however we all know that is not true. It’s about war profiteering by Haliburton, Raytheon, Boeing, General Electric, and the US Oil industry.
The US oil industry wanted to make as much money as their Socialistic European partners in crime. This has now happened and the whole world markets are going into the crapper just to make the US oil barons richer.
Follow the money and learn the truth!
Speaking of the Gullible…sigh.
Osama Bin Laden picture poster on the wall. It is just the joke mixing up Obama with Osama (not to mention his other names Barack~Iraq, Saddam~Saddam Hussein), this name thing is the main connection.
Gullible? You are a fxxing moron!
You turn your head from the real issues and spout out judgement, eh chess-boy?
Read about McCain admitting we are at war over oil:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/02/john-mccain-admits-iraq-war-was-over-oil/
Flabby:
Since you can’t figure it out for yourself, I’ll do it for you. That dimwitted conspiracy rant said, among others things, that Saddam was storing the wmds for the US to use later on Iran. The US can’t transport its own weapons now? So it’s going to depend on the undependable dictator to provide what the idiots would say are crucial weapons for use against Iran? Etc etc.
That foolish rant didn’t even pass the preliminary smell test and you couldn’t figure it out!? Fool.
“Anonymous said…
Flabby: …”
No conspiracy. The weapons were put there during the Reagan administration during the cold war. You were probably not alive or aware of the situation during the cold war. we were close to WW3. The Soviet Russians and the Iranians were on the same side. If Soviet Russia was going to invade American interests, then some ugly WMD were waiting for them. It is history my friend. The sad part of story is that Bill CLinton didn’t get those weapons back after the fall of evil Soviet Empire. I think you need to calm down and concentrate on chess. e4.
Historian
Nonsense.
Any and all of what the US would need in the way of chemical weapons would be on the wing from carriers, and if the US decided there was a need to use such weapons they would be as advanced as what the Soviets had, not the relatively primitive ones Saddam had. And no, the US wouldn’t be placing stockpiles of such weapons unsecured anywhere, just as the Soviets wouldn’t and didn’t.
Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.
“Anonymous said…
Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
Oh, Rhett, take me you hot bastard!
Claiming something as “historical fact” doesn’t make it so. No cite of disinterested research. Less than honest people like to repeat as fact what they would like to be fact.
“I know it’s true because”:
a) All my friends say it’s so
b) Zinn and Chomsky say it’s so
c) I want it to be so
d) Stop asking pointed questions that challenge my life-view