New Yorker slammed over cover cartoon of Barack Obama

[Leafless]

A ROW has broken out in the US over a magazine's cover depicting Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a revolutionary.

Staff at The New Yorker magazine have defended the illustration, saying it is meant to mock right-wing depictions of US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Obama and his wife.

The illustration shows the couple pumping fists in the Oval Office of the White House with the US flag burning in the fireplace. Mrs Obama has an Afro hairdo and an automatic rifle strapped across her back. A portrait of Osama bin Laden sits above the fireplace

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...100-663,00.html

I thought the cartoon was funny.

Maybe the democrats should have foreseen possible consequences of nominating someone with a past like Obama with a wife who has expressed anti-White sentiments in her thesis.

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

[August1991]

I thought the cartoon was funny.

For once, I agree with you Leafless. I too thought the cartoon was funny, and a smart way to sell magazines.

When shown the cover, Obama's first reaction was to say that he had "no comment to make" which made me think that he wanted to confer with his advisors and wife. He's walking through a minefield until November and he knows it.

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

At some point in our lives, depending on the situation or the group, we have all felt more a woman than a person, more a Christian than a person, more a man than a person, more young than a person. In short, we have all felt a particular aspect of ourselves was more pronounced.

In general, IMHO, we feel this way when we are young, immature, self-absorbed and narcissistic.

There is an expression, used commonly in Quebec, that applies here: Être bien dans sa peau. I would say offhand that Mrs. Obama is not well in her skin and that's unfortunate.

Edited July 14, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

The Obama's need to read some back issues of Mad Magazine to understand the joke.

[Black Dog]

Maybe the democrats should have foreseen possible consequences of nominating someone with a past like Obama with a wife who has expressed anti-White sentiments in her thesis.

Er...it's not the Obamas who are being satirized here.

[Leafless]

Er...it's not the Obamas who are being satirized here.

Without the Democrats nominating Obama there would be no cartoon.

Like it or not the Obama's could be seen by some, to have a somewhat un-American personal history that had inspired the New Yorker satirist for the creation of this political cartoon.

[BubberMiley]

Like it or not the Obama's could be seen by some, to have a somewhat un-American personal history that had inspired the New Yorker satirist for the creation of this political cartoon.

That's what they were making fun of. And I think the Obama campaign's concern about it is demonstrated by many of the people talking about it: many are far too thick to ever understand satire and so for them it just reinforces the misconceptions that are being satirized.

Even though I get the joke, I can sympathize with their offence. If, for example, it depicted McCain as a confused old man in a rocking chair and his wife strung out on pills stolen from poor people, Republicans would surely say that depiction is offensive.

That wouldn't really work as satire, though, because it's true.

Edited July 15, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Leafless]

Even though I get the joke, I can sympathize with their offence. If, for example, it depicted McCain as a confused old man in a rocking chair and his wife strung out on pills stolen from poor people, Republicans would surely say that depiction is offensive.

That wouldn't really work as satire, though, because it's true.

How do you know or how can anyone prove it was a joke?

Perhaps it was fully intended to portray Barrick Obama in a negative manner and claim satire as a cop out.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Leafless

[Carinthia]

How do you know or how can anyone prove it was a joke?

Perhaps it was fully intended to portray Barrick Obama in a negative manner and claim satire as a cop out.

BINGO!

[bush_cheney2004]

How do you know or how can anyone prove it was a joke?

Perhaps it was fully intended to portray Barrick Obama in a negative manner and claim satire as a cop out.

Not likely...anyone familiar with the New Yorker magazine recognizes the strong satire at once. It's just that the New Yorker has chosen the untouchable Senator Obama and his spouse. Had this been President Bush, I suspect the cheers would outweigh the groans on the flip side. (The Bush administration has already been the subject of several unflattering New Yorker covers). Example (from same artist):

http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details...;sortBy=popular

If Senator Obama truly wishes to be president, he ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Edited July 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Er...it's not the Obamas who are being satirized here.

... and it's not quite so simple, BD.

If Senator Obama truly wishes to be president, he ain't seen nuthin' yet.

I think cartoonists/comdeians are having a hard time trying to get a handle on Obama. Some politicians are like that. Trudeau started out as a playboy and then turned into arrogant lip curl.

This cartoon has struck a chord because it's the first attempt to put a caricature onto Obama. Some people really dislike that idea, reducing Obama to a caricature, but it's bound to happen. He's just a politician.

[BubberMiley]

This cartoon has struck a chord because it's the first attempt to put a caricature onto Obama. Some people really dislike that idea, reducing Obama to a caricature, but it's bound to happen. He's just a politician.

No, a caricature is when you take existing features and exagerate them. This is a parody of a misconception.

[BubberMiley]

How do you know or how can anyone prove it was a joke?

Uh, because I'm aware of the New Yorker's sense of humour and overall political position. But you make a strong case for why Obama would find it offensive. "Low-attention voters" may not be so in tune with the subtleties of their droll wit.

But as for proof, how much more proof do you need than their statement on the matter?

"In a statement, the magazine said the Obama cover combines "fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are."

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another," the statement said.

Obama, who is Christian, has long fought rumours that he is secretly a Muslim, a whisper campaign that still persists on the Internet. His wife has endured her own attacks, including ones that claimed there was a videotape of her criticizing "whitey" from a church pulpit.

The magazine said satire is part of what it does, to bring things out into the open, "to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover."

Edited July 15, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

No, a caricature is when you take existing features and exagerate them. This is a parody of a misconception.

You're right. It's not a caricature; at least not in the true sense. It's probably actually a caricature of a parody of a misconception-- and I have to agree with this view (emphasis mine):

"Richard Vatz, a professor of political rhetoric at Towson University, said the magazine's moneymaking motives were obvious and that its claim of satire falls short. Vatz, who does not support Obama, said the cover was not clever or nuanced enough to be considered satirical." link

If they wanted to poke fun at those running scared because of their ludicrous misconceptions, they should have at least included a couple of caricatures of frightened Republicans in the cartoon. As it stands, there's nothing really obvious to those only glancing at the cover that it's anything but what it is, and that's all a lot of people will do-- glance at the cover. There will be a lot of people not realizing that the cover is satire aimed not at the Obama's, but at "the scare tactics and misinformation being used to derail Obama's campaign."

Edited July 15, 2008 by American Woman

[August1991]

Uh, because I'm aware of the New Yorker's sense of humour and overall political position. But you make a strong case for why Obama would find it offensive. "Low-attention voters" may not be so in tune with the subtleties of their droll wit.

"Low attention voters"? How much more condescending can you get, Bubbler?

And that's part of the problem here.

Look, if it were just a sort of sideswipe of how some on the Right supposedly misrepresent Obama, or even if this were merely an attempt to sell magazines, we wouldn't be discussing this. Even the hamfisted reaction of Obama's campaign doesn't explain this discussion.

No, a caricature is when you take existing features and exagerate them. This is a parody of a misconception.

True, and I suspect that the New Yorker cartoonist and even you Bubbler don't quite understand how that's exactly what the cartoon does.

It takes existing perceived features and grossly exaggerates them.

In this, the caricature touches an aspect of Obama that his supporters don't want to face and yet it's there. Obama (and his wife) are not mainstream American. He's far too left and too critical of the base values that make America what it is.

I think it's the burning flag in the fireplace that kind of does it. (Remember when Obama didn't have a pin in his lapel?)

The New Yorker cartoonist may think that's funny but many mainstream Americans don't.

----

With all that said, I still think the cartoon is funny. It's OTT. As caricature goes, it's far better than most of the exaggeration heaped on Bush Jnr.

Edited July 15, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Look, if it were just a sort of sideswipe of how some on the Right supposedly misrepresent Obama, or even if this were merely an attempt to sell magazines, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Yes we would because we are. The New Yorker said it was a sideswipe of how some on the Right misrepresent Obama. That's the only interpretation that makes sense. But the issue is people who aren't consumed by politics (whether or not you consider acknowledgement of their lack of attention "condescending") likely won't get the joke and these misconceptions that you try desperately to make real only get reinforced (as evidenced by your post).

[Riverwind]

I think the New Yoker did Obama a big favour because the controversy has likely disarmed the republicans should they be inclined to use less outrageous versions of the same attack.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the New Yoker did Obama a big favour because the controversy has likely disarmed the republicans should they be inclined to use less outrageous versions of the same attack.

More important than that, the New Yorker has stripped Obama of his fragile, untouchable status, which is good in the long run. Rush Limbaugh and others have had a field day with all the protective, off-limits exclusions that surround Obama. This is in the finest tradition and spirit of American politics from cartoons and depictions since the late 19th century.

[Leafless]

Uh, because I'm aware of the New Yorker's sense of humour and overall political position. But you make a strong case for why Obama would find it offensive. "Low-attention voters" may not be so in tune with the subtleties of their droll wit.

But as for proof, how much more proof do you need than their statement on the matter?

IMO who needs proof.

Free speech and freedom of the press is what is really important.

[Drea]

No, a caricature is when you take existing features and exagerate them. This is a parody of a misconception.

Yes. It's saying "booga booga!" to the nuts who really DO think Obama is a muslim.

Perhaps to make it funnier they should have drawn Michelle in FLDS clothing and hairDOOoooo. LOL

Regardless I don't think it was a good idea. Simply because there are so very many Americans (and Canadians believe it or not) that truly think Obama IS a muslim and now nothing will change their pea-sized minds "SEE!! Even the leftwing New Yorker knows he is a muslim!" will be circulating among the ignorant.

[White Doors]

I think the New Yoker did Obama a big favour because the controversy has likely disarmed the republicans should they be inclined to use less outrageous versions of the same attack.

And I think that was the leftist's NewYorker's intent. This was more of a political play than any satire, parody or misconception. They are playing identity politics which is the left's forte.

The left are circling the wagons.

The gloves have come off in this race now.

Edited July 15, 2008 by White Doors

[Black Dog]

"Richard Vatz, a professor of political rhetoric at Towson University, said the magazine's moneymaking motives were obvious and that its claim of satire falls short. Vatz, who does not support Obama, said the cover was not clever or nuanced enough to be considered satirical." link

If they wanted to poke fun at those running scared because of their ludicrous misconceptions, they should have at least included a couple of caricatures of frightened Republicans in the cartoon. As it stands, there's nothing really obvious to those only glancing at the cover that it's anything but what it is, and that's all a lot of people will do-- glance at the cover. There will be a lot of people not realizing that the cover is satire aimed not at the Obama's, but at "the scare tactics and misinformation being used to derail Obama's campaign."

and

The New Yorker cartoonist may think that's funny but many mainstream Americans don't.

So the New Yorker probably underestimates the stupidity of the casual reader. They probably had the best of intentions, showing an exaggerated image highlighting characteristics of the Obamas that are demonstrably false, but failed to calculate the extent to which these things are believed to be true. IOW, H.L. Mencken was right.

The left are circling the wagons.

The gloves have come off in this race now.

How can circled wagons race? Holy mixed metaphors!

[August1991]

So the New Yorker probably underestimates the stupidity of the casual reader. They probably had the best of intentions, showing an exaggerated image highlighting characteristics of the Obamas that are demonstrably false, but failed to calculate the extent to which these things are believed to be true. IOW, H.L. Mencken was right.

I may be wrong but let me spell out very clearly what I think is going on here.

I fully understand that the New Yorker cartoon was intended to ridicule the opponents of Obama who falsely pretend that he is Muslim or worse. In its urbane sophistication however, the cartoon is too clever by half. Inadvertently, the cartoon has exaggerated a characteristic of Obama (and his wife) that is all too true. Obama is not in the mainstream of America. He is far to the left and many of his hardcore supporters believe that ordinary Americans (casual readers to you, BD) are "stupid".

It is this condescending attitude to ordinary Americans that galls. When it comes right down to it, Obama and his wife and many other Leftists don't like America. To them, America is a dominating menace in the world. I wonder how many of Obama's supporters (if not Obama himself) would agree with the statement: "America is partly responsible for 9/11".

It is this attitude that sets Obama apart from mainstream America and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain runs his campaign on such a theme.

How can circled wagons race? Holy mixed metaphors!

Good catch. Edited July 15, 2008 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

When it comes right down to it, Obama and his wife and many other Leftists don't like America. To them, America is a dominating menace in the world. I wonder how many of Obama's supporters (if not Obama himself) would agree with the statement: "America is partly responsible for 9/11".

One can be critical of some of America's policies and some of our elected politicians' actions, and as such, believe that some of the U.S.'s policies may have been partly the reason for terrorist acts-- and still very much love America. I doubt there are very many Americans on either the left or the right who "don't like America." I find it incredible that some people think those who don't agree with their views and/or condone all of America's actions "don't like America." You honestly think Obama would want to be president of a country he didn't like?

[gc1765]

One can be critical of some of America's policies and some of our elected politicians' actions, and as such, believe that some of the U.S.'s policies may have been partly the reason for terrorist acts-- and still very much love America. I doubt there are very many Americans on either the left or the right who "don't like America." I find it incredible that some people think those who don't agree with their views and/or condone all of America's actions "don't like America." You honestly think Obama would want to be president of a country he didn't like?

Well said.

Edited July 15, 2008 by gc1765

[Black Dog]

I fully understand that the New Yorker cartoon was intended to ridicule the opponents of Obama who falsely pretend that he is Muslim or worse. In its urbane sophistication however, the cartoon is too clever by half. Inadvertently, the cartoon has exaggerated a characteristic of Obama (and his wife) that is all too true.

IOW: "sure the claims against Obama are ridiculous. They are also essentially true." Heads, I win, tails, you lose.

Obama is not in the mainstream of America. He is far to the left and many of his hardcore supporters believe that ordinary Americans (casual readers to you, BD) are "stupid".

It is this condescending attitude to ordinary Americans that galls. When it comes right down to it, Obama and his wife and many other Leftists don't like America. To them, America is a dominating menace in the world. I wonder how many of Obama's supporters (if not Obama himself) would agree with the statement: "America is partly responsible for 9/11".

It seems to me you want it both ways: you balk at the condescension towards "mainstream American," yet ascribe to them views that would only be held by the most cleft-lipped retards in all of Christendom....

It is this attitude that sets Obama apart from mainstream America and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain runs his campaign on such a theme.

I love the smell of unsupported, fatuous conventional wisdom in the afternoon: smells like horsecrap.