New Yorker slammed over cover cartoon of Barack Obama

[August1991]

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?

AW, I'm not saying "My country, right or wrong" but many ordinary Americans take to heart their country. They expect their president to be absolutely unwaivering in his/her love of America.

There's a hint that Obama isn't like that. He's just too radical. George McGovern, a bomber pilot in WWII, got tarred with a similar brush.

I think what I'm saying AW is that 9/11 is a wedge issue and too many hard core Democrats, anti-Bush types just don't see this. They simply don't understand the kind of people who voted for Bush and in essence make up a majority of Americans.

Richard Nixon called these people the Silent Majority. The New Yorker types have never understood these people.

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

It's caricature BD, and to work, it has to have a grain of truth. This magazine cover does and it appears that neither you nor many on the left get this. As caricatures go, there is more truth to the idea that Obama doesn't like America than there is to the idea that Bush Jnr is a monkey.

The MSM portrayed Reagan as a doddering old fool and Bush Jnr as a dangerous neanderthal. Neither caricatures are true.

In the case of Obama, the few positions he has taken indicate that he is on the far left of the American political spectrum. He does not appear to like the way America is.

Of course the Republicans, Rove & McCain are going to use this against Obama. They will portray (not inaccurately) as being somehow not American or at least outside of mainstream American values. This cartoon highlights that this approach has every chance of being successful.

Obama's other weak point is that he's a political operator who pursues his own personal interests. This might offend Obama's supporters but I don't think McCain will be able to mine it for any votes.

----

This cartoon seems appropriate.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course the Republicans, Rove & McCain are going to use this against Obama. They will portray (not inaccurately) as being somehow not American or at least outside of mainstream American values. This cartoon highlights that this approach has every chance of being successful.

Exactly...WTF did people think was going to happen during this or any presidential campaign? Hell, Hillary Clinton went for his throat too!

Obama's other weak point is that he's a political operator who pursues his own personal interests. This might offend Obama's supporters but I don't think McCain will be able to mine it for any votes.

No new votes for McCain, but less enthusiasm from the old guard progressive infrastructure for Obama if he keeps this up. He should be miles ahead of McCain at this point....but he isn't.

[Guest American Woman]

AW, I'm not saying "My country, right or wrong" but many ordinary Americans take to heart their country. They expect their president to be absolutely unwaivering in his/her love of America.

Of course many ordinary Americans take their country to heart-- and that includes the people you accused of "not liking America." They love their country too, and that's why they don't want someone like Bush destroying it.

There's a hint that Obama isn't like that. He's just too radical. George McGovern, a bomber pilot in WWII, got tarred with a similar brush.

There's a hint that Obama isn't unwavering in his love of his country? Why? Because he doesn't agree with everything every politician has done? Who does? Certainly the right is critical of things the left has done, yet I don't see you stating that they "don't like America." Of course Obama loves his country. That's why he'd like to try to make it the best he thinks it can be. If he didn't unwaveringly love his country, why would he bother?

I think what I'm saying AW is that 9/11 is a wedge issue and too many hard core Democrats, anti-Bush types just don't see this. They simply don't understand the kind of people who voted for Bush and in essence make up a majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans, including a good chunk of those who voted for Bush, no longer support Bush. So, are you saying that they liked America when they voted for Bush, but they no longer do? I really don't get what you're basing your judgment/accusation on. If everyone who doesn't support Bush "didn't like America," then the majority of Americans don't like their country. And that's in no way true. We are a very patriotic nation. That was just brought home to me again at a concert the other night. This new notion that "many...Leftists" don't like America is ludicrous. Why do you only accuse the left of such an absurd notion?-- That's what I don't get.

Richard Nixon called these people the Silent Majority. The New Yorker types have never understood these people.

The Americans who voted for Bush were/are not by any means "silent."

Edited July 15, 2008 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

There's a hint that Obama isn't like that. He's just too radical.

Okay, but where's the substance? I mean, there's "hints" Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent too, but nobody in their right mind is buying that either. So where's the beef? Flag pins? Fuck.

It's caricature BD, and to work, it has to have a grain of truth.This magazine cover does and it appears that neither you nor many on the left get this.

I get it. It works because it's a caricature as plucked from the brain of someone like, say, Leafless or Shady. It works because it is such an extreme and ridiculous image. What it's saying is: "Look at this. Can you believe there are people who believe this crap?" IOW it's a caricature alright, but not of the Obamas.

As caricatures go, there is more truth to the idea that Obama doesn't like America than there is to the idea that Bush Jnr is a monkey.

Okay: prove it.

The MSM portrayed Reagan as a doddering old fool and Bush Jnr as a dangerous neanderthal. Neither caricatures are true.

It's caricature August, and to work, it has to have a grain of truth...

In the case of Obama, the few positions he has taken indicate that he is on the far left of the American political spectrum.

From my p.o.v. Obama's positions indicate he's a typical middle of the road political operator.

He does not appear to like the way America is.

Is it 'cos I is black?

Of course the Republicans, Rove & McCain are going to use this against Obama. They will portray (not inaccurately) as being somehow not American or at least outside of mainstream American values. This cartoon highlights that this approach has every chance of being successful.

Your right: by highlighting the extreme and ridiculous nature of the right's characterization of Obama, the cartoon proves that characterization correct. Or something. :eyeroll:

As for the success of that strategy: anyone dumb enough to believe some of that stuff is probably not going to vote for Obama to begin with, so no loss there.

Obama's other weak point is that he's a political operator who pursues his own personal interests.

Which Obama is it? The anti-American ideologue or cynical political operator? It's hard for him to be both.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Black Dog

[Leafless]

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.

Nothing justifies a cowardly terrorist attack, nothing.

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?

For instance, why wouldn't he not want to be president of a country he could believe, to be manipulated to the desires and ideologies of countries America currently is enemies with.

One does not have to love America to run for president, but could be completely opposite, namely loving other countries.

[Drea]

Nothing justifies a cowardly terrorist attack, nothing.

For instance, why wouldn't he not want to be president of a country he could believe, to be manipulated to the desires and ideologies of countries America currently is enemies with.

One does not have to love America to run for president, but could be completely opposite, namely loving other countries.

Booga Booga!

... this is a perfect example of the "fear" of Obama being a muslim that is floating around, like a stink, among the rightwing. They truly think that he is a "closet muslim" with an "agenda" -- the cartoon just cements it in their minds.

Bad New Yorker! Bad! Don't you know that people are gullible!!!!!

[Guest American Woman]

Nothing justifies a cowardly terrorist attack, nothing.

Who said anything about 'justifications?' If teasing, taunting, and being bullied are the reasons a teen goes on a shooting rampage, that doesn't mean the shooting was justified even though those actions were wrong. There's a reason for everything that happens; that doesn't mean everything that happens is 'justified' by the reason.

For instance, why wouldn't he not want to be president of a country he could believe, to be manipulated to the desires and ideologies of countries America currently is enemies with.

One does not have to love America to run for president, but could be completely opposite, namely loving other countries.

If the president had sole power that might make some sense. But he doesn't. Not by a long shot. So if he "lov[ed] other countries," and spent his time trying to pass legislation in favor of those countries at the expense of the U.S., he wouldn't have a chance of getting it passed. In other words, he couldn't "manipulate" the country to act in other nations' "that America is currently enemies with" interests.

[Black Dog]

For instance, why wouldn't he not want to be president of a country he could believe, to be manipulated to the desires and ideologies of countries America currently is enemies with.

It works because it's a caricature as plucked from the brain of someone like, say, Leafless or Shady.

F**k, I love it when a plan comes together.

[Leafless]

Who said anything about 'justifications?' If teasing, taunting, and being bullied are the reasons a teen goes on a shooting rampage, that doesn't mean the shooting was justified even though those actions were wrong. There's a reason for everything that happens; that doesn't mean everything that happens is 'justified' by the reason.

Maybe not by the actions of a twisted teen but countries are another matter.

But don't we know already the cause of Islamic terrorism?

If the president had sole power that might make some sense. But he doesn't. Not by a long shot. So if he "lov[ed] other countries," and spent his time trying to pass legislation in favor of those countries at the expense of the U.S., he wouldn't have a chance of getting it passed. In other words, he couldn't "manipulate" the country to act in other nations' "that America is currently enemies with" interests.

Sorry.

I was under the mistaken assumption some or many Americans are looking for CHANGE and that includes U.S. foreign policy.

No telling what smooth talking Obama could convince congress of.

Just watch his hands and you will totally forget what he is talking about and in the end probably agree with him even though you hadn't a clue what he was talking about.

[BubberMiley]

Just watch his hands and you will totally forget what he is talking about and in the end probably agree with him even though you hadn't a clue what he was talking about.

Speak for yourself.

[guyser]

Just watch his hands and you will totally forget what he is talking about and in the end probably agree with him even though you hadn't a clue what he was talking about.

Yup, 300 million dumb Yankees will get fooled.

See if your left foot fits.

[capricorn]

Just watch his hands and you will totally forget what he is talking about and in the end probably agree with him even though you hadn't a clue what he was talking about.

You mean you got "blessed" too?

[Topaz]

Yup, 300 million dumb Yankees will get fooled.

See if your left foot fits.

You mean like they did with Bush and Cheney??

[JB Globe]

I got the satire, most New Yorker readers will get the satire.

That isn't the issue, the problem is that the majority of folks probably won't get the satire. What's worse - the idiots who really do think that Obama is Muslim (and that being Muslim is a bad thing) are going to be waving around the magazine saying "lookit people! A magazine from New York says it! It must be true!" and the thing is - they'll convince people with it.

If the New Yorker was going to run this on the cover, they should've had an article that dealt with the myths about Obama in the mag, but they didn't. That's why I think it's irresponsible.

This type of humour works great when you're Borat, not so much when you're a stuffy aristocratic mag like the New Yorker.

[bush_cheney2004]

....That isn't the issue, the problem is that the majority of folks probably won't get the satire. What's worse - the idiots who really do think that Obama is Muslim (and that being Muslim is a bad thing) are going to be waving around the magazine saying "lookit people! A magazine from New York says it! It must be true!" and the thing is - they'll convince people with it.

Such voters have/had already made up their minds about Obama and Islam. A photograph of Obama in traditional garb sent that message a long time ago. No need for the New Yorker to cement that existing sentiment. Presently, any American presidential candidate with even a whiff of the Qu'ran would have a very short political half life.

Free speech aspects of this publication also trump any such concerns. I wonder if an equivalent cover could be run in Canada without the HRC wonks working overtime a la Maclean's and Steyn.

[BubberMiley]

Free speech aspects of this publication also trump any such concerns.

Nobody is questioning the New Yorker's right to free speech. They're questioning whether they should have run the cover, not whether they should have been allowed to.

[August1991]

The majority of Americans, including a good chunk of those who voted for Bush, no longer support Bush. So, are you saying that they liked America when they voted for Bush, but they no longer do? I really don't get what you're basing your judgment/accusation on. If everyone who doesn't support Bush "didn't like America," then the majority of Americans don't like their country. And that's in no way true. We are a very patriotic nation. That was just brought home to me again at a concert the other night. This new notion that "many...Leftists" don't like America is ludicrous. Why do you only accuse the left of such an absurd notion?-- That's what I don't get.

AW, perhaps I'm wrong to use the phrase "don't like America" since, of course, it depends how you define "America".

But AW, what do you make of Obama's comments about ordinary Americans in Pennsylvania?

To illustrate my point further, consider these poll findings in Canada and the US:

The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.

CBC

Since late September 2001, a growing number of Democrats (51%) and independents (45%) believe that U.S. wrongdoing in dealings with other countries might have motivated the 9/11 attacks. Republicans reject that view even more decisively than three years ago (76% now, 65% in late September 2001).

Pew

My point is that the perception of the culpability of "America" is a wedge issue and Obama (and his supporters) are on the wrong side. If Obama were running in Quebec or Ontario, it would be a different story.

The New Yorker cartoon plays to this fact.

If you haven't seen this

, here's an excerpt that illustrates the point I'm making above:

I tell a story. It's not a true story, but it helps crys­tallize my thinking that brought me to become a conservative. I say: Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and you're catching up, and suddenly he blurts out, "I hate my wife." You chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together, and you know he doesn't hate his wife; they've been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters, and they're just like her. No, he doesn't hate his wife.

So you're having dinner, and you look out the window and spot his wife, and she's being beaten up right outside the restaurant. You grab your friend and say, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help your wife," and he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it." At that moment, it dawns on you: He really does hate his wife.

That's what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I'd hear my friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd chuckle to myself and think, "Oh, they always say that; they love America." Then on 9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and I said, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help America," and they said, "Nah, she deserves it."

Link

This is the stark divide that awaits Obama and it seems to me that many leftist Americans don't quite get it. The New Yorker cartoonist apparently doesn't.

----

Which Obama is it? The anti-American ideologue or cynical political operator? It's hard for him to be both.

Another good catch, BD. I wondered about the inconsistency myself when I posted the comment.

Is Obama a left wing ideologue or a political operator? I don't know but I'd go with ideologue who, by force of circumstance, is learning how to compromise tremendously right now.

IMV, the Republicans can either run against "Obama: The guy who will throw his grandfather under the bus to get elected" or they can run against "Obama: The Ultra Liberal who blames America for the world's ills".

I think the second characterization is more likely to work.

Edited July 16, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Nobody is questioning the New Yorker's right to free speech. They're questioning whether they should have run the cover, not whether they should have been allowed to.

Another member opined that running the cover was "irresponsible" absent copy about Obama myths. This challenges the very notion of free speech, and we had similar opinions concerning Mohammad cartoons in the wake of violence in Europe and Asia. Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein settled any such notions for the USA a long time ago.

Could such a cover run in Canada without "hate speech" implications?

[Black Dog]

My point is that the perception of the culpability of "America" is a wedge issue and Obama (and his supporters) are on the wrong side. If Obama were running in Quebec or Ontario, it would be a different story.

This is pretty intellectually dishonest of you. You pluck an ill-defined position (that American foreign policy is in some way responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, which you present as the be-all and end-all) obfuscate with some irrelevant Canadiana, plunk down a statistic linking a bare majority of Democrats to that position (sans context) and then ascribe that position to Obama without any evidence that he holds that belief. As far as bullshit artists go, on this, you're van Gogh.

The New Yorker cartoon plays to this fact.

You keep stating this, but frankly, I can't see the logic. If you're saying the perception exists that Obama is an anti-American Muslim sleeper with a Black Panther for a wife, and that the New Yorker is playing off that, that much is true. But, not content to leave it at that, it seems you're going on to imply that the accusations against Obama are in fact based in reality. Yet conspicuous in its absence is our old friend "proof." Mile wide and an inch deep.

IMV, the Republicans can either run against "Obama: The guy who will throw his grandfather under the bus to get elected" or they can run against "Obama: The Ultra Liberal who blames America for the world's ills".

I think the second characterization is more likely to work.

Well, if they back it up as well as you have, then Obama will win in a walk.

[JB Globe]

Another member opined that running the cover was "irresponsible" absent copy about Obama myths.

I should've been clear that I was speaking from a journalistic perspective, hell from a publishing perspective - why would you put an image on the cover of your mag that isn't related to any article in your mag? Especially one that is intentionally provocative - kind of feels like a lame attempt at attention grabbing at the expense of anything substantive.

The New Yorker presents itself as a mag that is above this - apparently not anymore.

[Black Dog]

I should've been clear that I was speaking from a journalistic perspective, hell from a publishing perspective - why would you put an image on the cover of your mag that isn't related to any article in your mag? Especially one that is intentionally provocative - kind of feels like a lame attempt at attention grabbing at the expense of anything substantive.

They've always done this.

[bush_cheney2004]

I should've been clear that I was speaking from a journalistic perspective, hell from a publishing perspective - why would you put an image on the cover of your mag that isn't related to any article in your mag?

To sell more magazines.

Especially one that is intentionally provocative - kind of feels like a lame attempt at attention grabbing at the expense of anything substantive.

Oh, it was substantive allright....look at the reaction.

The New Yorker presents itself as a mag that is above this - apparently not anymore.

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

[August1991]

This is pretty intellectually dishonest of you. You pluck an ill-defined position (that American foreign policy is in some way responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, which you present as the be-all and end-all) obfuscate with some irrelevant Canadiana, plunk down a statistic linking a bare majority of Democrats to that position (sans context) and then ascribe that position to Obama without any evidence that he holds that belief.

For context, click on the links (CBC and Pew) and see what it's all about.

I'm saying that many on the Left (in Canada for example, and many Obama supporters) take it as given that the US ("America") is in part responsible for the 9/11 attacks. A majority of American voters don't.

This is a stark divide in the understanding of a single event and believe me, it's not intellectual or analytical. (Who cares what Obama really thinks - and at this point, we'll probably never know the truth anyway.) Obama is perceived as a flag burner. In some way or another, if I were the Republicans, I'd exploit this wedge issue or perception.

If you're saying the perception exists that Obama is an anti-American Muslim sleeper with a Black Panther for a wife, and that the New Yorker is playing off that, that much is true. But, not content to leave it at that, it seems you're going on to imply that the accusations against Obama are in fact based in reality.

BD, you still don't get it. Just like the New Yorker editor didn't get it and the (Canadian born) cartoonist didn't get it.

Voting Americans know that Obama is not a Muslim, or part of a sleeper cell. (Polls show that about 10% of Americans are confused about this but the confusion is equally shared among Democrats as Republicans - I suppose Obama can thank Jeremiah Wright for one positive.) This is not the issue.

Rather, here's the issue that the cartoon inadvertently raised: Obama thinks America is fundamentally wrong and must be changed.

Remember Willy Horton? That too was a wedge issue/perception that painted Dukakis into a corner with fewer voters. Obama is in a similar place.

----

Look BD, let me put this into Leftist Identity political terms for you: about 100 million American voters will cast ballots in November. To become president, McCain or Obama has to get at least roughly half of the voters (50 million) on his side.

Since 1960, the Democrats have never achieved that unless they run a white guy from the South with a drawl. Have you ever thought why? In the US now, at the national level, it is easier to reach the middle (median) voter from the Republican side than from the Democratic side. I think the reason is populism, the South, and patriotism.

With all that said, the Republicans are going to play the ball, not the man.

They've always done this.

Neat link.

As far as bullshit artists go, on this, you're van Gogh.

I don't know if that's an informed compliment. Even my mother discarded my kindergarten drawings. Edited July 16, 2008 by August1991

[Black Dog]

I'm saying that many on the Left (in Canada for example, and many Obama supporters) take it as given that the US ("America") is in part responsible for the 9/11 attacks. A majority of American voters don't.

You're also claiming-without a bare hint of proof-that that is a view shared by the Democrat candidate.

This is a stark divide in the understanding of a single event and believe me, it's not intellectual or analytical. In some way or another, if I were the Republicans, I'd exploit this wedge issue or perception.

Yeah, with soaring gas process, record home foreclosures, an a worsening economic situation, the best thing the Republicans should do is mount a campaign based on the differing perceptions of the roots of an event that transpired nearly a decade ago. As a nominal Democrat supporter, I heartily endorse this strategy.

Here's the issue that the cartoon inadvertently raised: Obama thinks America is fundamentally wrong and must be changed.

If you think that's the perception, fine. But to suggest that's the reality: hooboy. You got some work to do. And again, you're showing two faces here: on the one hand, I recall you discussing Obama's "Change" campaign as empty sloganeering bereft of substance. Now it seems you think it's a fully formed philosophy (and an anti-American one at that). You're a Saskatchewan weather vane sometimes.

Look BD, let me put this into Leftist Identity political terms for you: about 100 million American voters will cast ballots in November. To become president, McCain or Obama has to get at least roughly half of the voters (50 million) on his side.

Since 1960, the Democrats have never achieved that unless they run a white guy from the South with a drawl. Have you ever thought why? In the US now, at the national level, it is easier to reach the middle (median) voter from the Republican side than from the Democratic side. I think the reason is populism, the South, and patriotism.

With all that said, the Republicans are going to play the ball, not the man.

In other words: Barak Obama is out of touch with the mainstream not because of what he believes, but because of who he is and where he is from. Why didn't you just say that.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Black Dog

[August1991]

You're also claiming-without a bare hint of proof-that that is a view shared by the Democrat candidate.

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.

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.

Yeah, with soaring gas process, record home foreclosures, an a worsening economic situation, the best thing the Republicans should do is mount a campaign based on the differing perceptions of the roots of an event that transpired nearly a decade ago. As a nominal Democrat supporter, I heartily endorse this strategy.

The best defense is a good offense. (Or is it the converse?)

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

In other words: Barak Obama is out of touch with the mainstream not because of what he believes, but because of who he is and where he is from. Why didn't you just say that.

Said as a true Leftist. It's all about perception, image, context, relativity. Post-modern. Identity.

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

And again, you're showing two faces here: on the one hand, I recall you discussing Obama's "Change" campaign as empty sloganeering bereft of substance. Now it seems you think it's a fully formed philosophy (and an anti-American one at that). You're a Saskatchewan weather vane sometimes.

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

As to my reference to Obama's campaign of change as "empty sloganeering", what was I thinking? No doubt I've wondered about/regretted in the morning some of my posts here. (Please don't hold me to everything I post. It's just an Internet forum, after all.)

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

Edited July 16, 2008 by August1991