New Yorker slammed over cover cartoon of Barack Obama

[Black Dog]

I frankly don't know whether Obama is part of the "Hate America" crowd. But as a first approximation, his wife certainly seems to be. He doesn't think much of Pennsylvania voters.

Yet you've spent the last half dozen posts portraying him as such.

Then again, we don't really know what Obama thinks anymore. He seems to be wearing a flag lapel now despite stating earlier that he wouldn't.

A savvy political move that speaks more about the audience's affection for empty gestures than it does of the candidates belief one way or another.

If I were McCain, I'd go as far away from Bush Jnr as possible. No argument there.

And Obama's going to tie that can to McCain and portray the "maverick": as more of the same-old same old. And thus the change he speaks of.

As I said, I think McCain will insist on a campaign that plays the ball, not the man.

You've some real faith in the G.OP. Where does it come from?

Saskatchewan weather vane? You've really got me there. (I can handle references to Van Gogh but Saskatchewan weather vanes extend my reach.)

Changing directions every few minutes. Dig?

Yet, I think I understand in this case. Is Obama truly an ideologue or is he just some political operator on the make?

Or is he both: his appeal is his principles, which must sometimes be sacrificed on the altar of political reality.

[JB Globe]

To sell more magazines.

It's the New Yorker, they're not the Daily News, this stunt will only backfire in the long run. The entire reason they have a boatload of subscribers is their image of a high-minded intellectual mag that's above this sort of "cultural barbarism"

Besides, if some shmuck who believed the Obama myths were to pick up the mag and open it, they'd be left confused, staring at a review of a instillation artist's work at MoMA that involves a toilet with a bunch of LEDs in the bowl.

This is not true at all....the New Yorker specializes in such provocative cover art and political cartoons.

But, EMPTY provactivity? Ie - running a cartoon of Bush nailing a Saudi oil prince up the rear, with no article to accompany it?

Since when do mags create a controversy on their cover and then not address it inside?

[August1991]

It's lthe New Yorker, they're not the Daily News, this stunt will only backfire in the long run. The entire reason they have a boatload of subscribers is their image of a high-minded intellectual mag that's above this sort of "cultural barbarism"

Besides, if some shmuck who believed the Obama myths were to pick up the mag and open it, they'd be left confused, staring at a review of a instillation artist's work at MoMA that involves a toilet with a bunch of LEDs in the bowl.

jbg, you really, really miss the point of this thread and what it means for the US presidential election in November.

Or is he both: his appeal is his principles, which must sometimes be sacrificed on the altar of political reality.

Cute, and misses the point too. Edited July 17, 2008 by August1991

[DogOnPorch]

Neat link.

Indeed...thanks for that, Black Dog.

---------------------------

New York Taxi Rules:

1. Driver speaks no English.

2. Driver just got here two days ago from someplace like Senegal.

3. Driver hates you.

---Dave Barry

[CANADIEN]

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

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

Of course, it is perfectly alright for some people to see and judge others according to the colour of their skins or even claim that Whites are naturally superior, but non-White who have a problem with it are anti-White. What a pile of m*nure.

Edited July 17, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

Of course, it is perfectly alright for some people to see and judge others according to the colour of their skins or even claim that Whites are naturally superior, but non-White who have a problem with it are anti-White. What a pile of m*nure.

She is describing the characteristics of an insecure, immature person which has nothing to do with skin colour or race.

[Leafless]

Obama: New Yorker insulted US Muslims

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=63912...ctionid=3510203

So Obama says the New Yorker insulted us Muslims.

Nice to see he finally admitted that fact.

Ha-ha-ha.

[gc1765]

Obama: New Yorker insulted US Muslims

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=63912...ctionid=3510203

So Obama says the New Yorker insulted us Muslims.

Nice to see he finally admitted that fact.

Ha-ha-ha.

I assume this is a joke...but with you it's hard to tell. You do realize the difference between "us" and "U.S." right? Ok, just checking...

[Leafless]

I assume this is a joke...but with you it's hard to tell. You do realize the difference between "us" and "U.S." right? Ok, just checking...

Another smart ass.

Well, I will ask you the same question.

You do realize the difference between "us" and 'US'.

Obviously you did not write US as it appeared in the article.

You used periods to separate the U and the S.

That was the whole joke and you screwed up and tried to degrade me in the process.

United States

The two-letter abbreviation for the United States of America uses periods. The three-letter abbreviation (and, customarily, other abbreviations of more than two letters) does not use periods.

http://www.colorado.edu/Publications/styleguide/abbrev.html

[CANADIEN]

Another smart ass.

Well, I will ask you the same question.

You do realize the difference between "us" and 'US'.

Obviously you did not write US as it appeared in the article.

You used periods to separate the U and the S.

That was the whole joke and you screwed up and tried to degrade me in the process.

http://www.colorado.edu/Publications/styleguide/abbrev.html

The myth that Obama is a secret Muslim has been debunked and only idiots, racists, and blow-hard right-wing commentators believe it. The McCain campaign would not touch that drivel with a six-foot pole, knowing full well they would look like morons.

Which brings me to... you leafless. If you knew how to read, and with just one extra click, you would have seen that this particular online magazine writes the abbreviation for United States "US", which is a stylistic error, but one THEY make consistantly. But do not worry, I have learned long ago that in your case hatred blinds you to facts.

[August1991]

The myth that Obama is a secret Muslim has been debunked and only idiots, racists, and blow-hard right-wing commentators believe it. The McCain campaign would not touch that drivel with a six-foot pole, knowing full well they would look like morons.

And yet you and others miss the point.

Obama is not a Muslim but he's apparently soft on Islamism. Obama apparently wants to understand, "feel" and negotiate with the people who hijack planes, destroy big buildings and kill thousands of American.

On this issue specifically, politically, Obama has no room to manouevre. I have tried several times above in this thread to explain my point of view.

[BubberMiley]

I have tried several times above in this thread to explain my point of view.

And you kept getting shot down.

But Obama has said repeatedly he wants to focus military resources on getting the people who are responsible for 9/11, who are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In that regard, he's stronger on national security than the GOP, who only want to protect Haliburton interests.

[August1991]

And you kept getting shot down.

Shot down?

[bush_cheney2004]

....But Obama has said repeatedly he wants to focus military resources on getting the people who are responsible for 9/11, who are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In that regard, he's stronger on national security than the GOP, who only want to protect Haliburton interests.

Then clearly you and Obama haven't a clue about US national security interests. Even Jimmy Carter figured that out.

[BubberMiley]

The Seattle Post Intelligencer said Vanity Fair ripped off its own McCain parody, which ran July 15.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/07...in-cartoon.html

I, however, say they both ripped off my idea, which was posted here way back on July 14, before either of the two cartoons was published.

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.

But again, these covers don’t work as an equivalent to the Obama satire because they are based on truth, not lies. Cindy McCain really did have a prescription drug addiction, and McCain really is as old as the hills. He really does favour overriding the constitution when it comes to warrantless wiretapping, and his policies are so similar to Bush’s it would be reasonable to assume he might have his portrait hanging on the wall.

[CANADIEN]

And yet you and others miss the point.

Obama is not a Muslim but he's apparently soft on Islamism. Obama apparently wants to understand, "feel" and negotiate with the people who hijack planes, destroy big buildings and kill thousands of American.

On this issue specifically, politically, Obama has no room to manouevre. I have tried several times above in this thread to explain my point of view.

You are the one who seems to miss one thing, which is not whether or not Obama is soft an Islamism... a matter of opinion that I choose not to debate. The thing is there are people, including some on this thread (and I am not talking about), who are propagating.buying into the debunked drivel that Obama is a secret Muslim. Don't claim that I don't know about apples when I comment on rotten oranges, will you?

Edited July 25, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Moonlight Graham]

And yet you and others miss the point.

Obama is not a Muslim but he's apparently soft on Islamism. Obama apparently wants to understand, "feel" and negotiate with the people who hijack planes, destroy big buildings and kill thousands of American.

I really hope you are being sarcastic. Please say you dont believe this.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Regarding the cartoon, its funny if put into the right context. It should have had a title blurb on the cover to explain it, like "Myths about Obama" or something. Personally i would have put it inside the magazine next to an article about the myths. The New Yorker can print just about whatever they want, the Constitution garuantees that, and while it was a smart move financially for the mag it was a bit of a poor move journalistically.