New Yorker Cover of Obama & Michelle

[NIOSA]

Wow!
Is this over the top, or fair game? It does hit on fears that some Americans have of Obama & his wife.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/14/obama-camp-slams-satirical-new-yorker-magazine-cover/

[Six]

It's satire by a liberal mag. Fortunately it's going to back fire on Obama. Seems that a majority of his base won't have the intelligence to understand subtle irony. Not to mention all the non-English speaking " residents " using false social security #'s to vote this year are not going understand what the hell their looking at.

[preservanation]

Good job, NIOSA

I was waiting for some one to post this.
I hope it sparks good discussion, and not the usual absurd finger pointing...like "Rove made the NYer do it through a republican mind meld."
Here's the pic
http://elections.foxnews.com/files/2008/07/obama_newyorkercover_320.jpg

This was obviously a spoof on those who criticize Obama...the problem is that is is tasteless (not surprising), and the point ambiguous enough to influence some to believe that he is a radical Muslim, with a radical violent wife who hates America.
This is going to hurt everyone, except McCain...not their intention to be sure.

The double standard is also on display...watch how the MSM will defend this as satire would eviscerate the "American Standard" if they published it.

[apdst]

The New Yorker isn't exactly a Right Wing rag, either. I think it's hallarious!

[NIOSA]

It's satire by a liberal mag. Fortunately it's going to back fire on Obama. Seems that a majority of his base won't have the intelligence to understand subtle irony. Not to mention all the non-English speaking " residents " using false social security #'s to vote this year are not going understand what the hell their looking at.

What gets me is it is satire & the Obama camp is taking it seriously, gotta wonder about the intelligence in that camp. :D.
Another example of not being able to say anything the least bit derogative about Obama, not even his ears.

[NIOSA]

Good job, NIOSA

I was waiting for some one to post this.
I hope it sparks good discussion, and not the usual absurd finger pointing...like "Rove made the NYer do it through a republican mind meld."
Here's the pic
http://elections.foxnews.com/files/2008/07/obama_newyorkercover_320.jpg

This was obviously a spoof on those who criticize Obama...the problem is that is is tasteless (not surprising), and the point ambiguous enough to influence some to believe that he is a radical Muslim, with a radical violent wife who hates America.
This is going to hurt everyone, except McCain...not their intention to be sure.

The double standard is also on display...watch how the MSM will defend this as satire would eviscerate the "American Standard" if they published it.

Thanks. :)
I believe that Obama & his wife are radicals, not necessairly muslim radicals, but still....

[NIOSA]

The New Yorker isn't exactly a Right Wing rag, either. I think it's hallarious!

Me too. :D

[BoogyMan]

One has to admit that while humorous, this certainly won't elevate the level of debate about Senator Obama and his readiness to take on the job of POTUS.

[preservanation]

What the hell were they thinking?..is the pertinent question.

Again, I think it betrays their elitist, out of touch mind-set not to realize how this cover would be perceived by some Americans.
Duh....

[micfranklin]

Satire, and nothing more.

[NortheastCynic]

Clearly satire, it's the New Yorker for Christ's sake.

-NC

[AlanC]

I do find it odd that something meant to ridicule Obama's detractors is finding so much opposition from Obama's own camp.

Its the negative reaction to something that has been a liberal mainstay for the last 8 years that is utterly amusing.

There has been no depiction of Bush that has been considered too low, too offensive, too over the top to not be embraced totally by the radical elements within the Democratic Party. And yet they find this offensive.

Sometimes its hard when (to quote Pastor Wright) your chickens come home to roost.

[DamnYankee]

The leftist kook fringe will crap kittens over this.

[apdst]

When The New Yorker does it, it's satire. If The National Review did it, it would be racism.

[preservanation]

Clearly satire, it's the New Yorker for Christ's sake.

-NCOf course it is...
But still...they have to realize that it might make it outside their Manhattan bubble and be misunderstood, or used to paint Obama as what they display him.
I'm sure this was meant to help Obama and discredit his opponents...but it obviously having the opposite effect.
Look at all the 'splainin' the New Yorker now have to do, not only to the media, but to the Obama campaign as well.
Not good.

[preservanation]

When The New Yorker does it, it's satire. If The National Review did it, it would be racism.Can you imagine the firestorm?
I can't...it would be unimaginable.
If the NR did it, probably guarantee that Obama would get elected...now it's having opposite effect.

[NortheastCynic]

Well, because I can't stand Obama, I couldn't care less about what 'splaining the New Yorker [or anyone else] has to do to him. With that said, I'm sure they weren't thinking about what John Q. Public would make of the cover, I don't know that I'd call it elitism more than I would pure economic self-interest. John Q. Public doesn't read the New Yorker and I'd be willing to believe that John Q. Public didn't see the cover for himself, he saw it on TV or the internet. The New Yorker's target market was supposed to understand the satire, and I'd also be willing to bet that most of it did.

-NC

[preservanation]

Well, because I can't stand Obama, I couldn't care less about what 'splaining the New Yorker [or anyone else] has to do to him. With that said, I'm sure they weren't thinking about what John Q. Public would make of the cover, I don't know that I'd call it elitism more than I would pure economic self-interest. John Q. Public doesn't read the New Yorker and I'd be willing to believe that John Q. Public didn't see the cover for himself, he saw it on TV or the internet. The New Yorker's target market was supposed to understand the satire, and I'd also be willing to bet that most of it did.

-NCYup...that was the intention.
But it didn't work.

[NortheastCynic]

Evidently not.

Great sig. line, by the way.

-NC

[preservanation]

Evidently not.

Great sig. line, by the way.

-NC
Thanx, bro.

I can't wait to see how the MSM treats this cover...should make Olga Korbut look arthritic in comparison as they practice intellectual gymnastics to explain this.

I think it will be something like "Doesn't anybody have a sense of humor any more?"

The Hypocritical Double Standard Flag will fly proudly over the airwaves.

[NortheastCynic]

Although it will be hysterical to see the liberal media blast the...liberal media.

Oh the irony.

-NC

[Deadshot]

More the liberal media blasting the RICH liberal mag, aka the New Yorker.

[AnnEsthesia]

Funny that even McCain says it is offensive.

[NortheastCynic]

He would. That, politically would be the smart move and John McCain wouldn't have gotten this far if he didn't know what the politically smart move to make would be.

-NC

[apdst]

Of course McCain is going to say it's offensive. The next time the New Yorker goes after him, he can say, "Look what they did to Obama".

[preservanation]

An upshot to this is that the NYer will now be discredited in anything they publish about Obama in the future.
Not an economically enviable position to be in during such a hotly contested and media-driven Presidential election.
Whoooops.

[GhostintheMachine]

A very poor satirical image, I'd say it is just plain offensive and ignorant.

[AlanC]

A very poor satirical image, I'd say it is just plain offensive and ignorant.

Have you ever seen any satire that was not offensive? If you did, it wasn't as effective as intended.

[GhostintheMachine]

Have you ever seen any satire that was not offensive? If you did, it wasn't as effective as intended.

Yes, I have, and they were effective. I didn't find this funny at all.

[Deadshot]

An upshot to this is that the NYer will now be discredited in anything they publish about Obama in the future.
Not an economically enviable position to be in during such a hotly contested and media-driven Presidential election.
Whoooops.

Pres hit's the nail on the head I think. The New Yorker has not done itself any favors, satire or political witch hunt, it doesn't matter. The New Yorker has proven that it's willing to shit where it eats and will probably pay the price.

Conservatives who buy it because of the cover will hate the articles, and Liberals will simply shun it because of the cover. Not exactly a wise sales strategy.

[brien]

Way too esoteric for most people in the US. The elitist New Yorkers are probably snickering over the firestorm saying stuff like: "See, see how ignorant John Q Public is, they can't even understand simple satire."

The circulation of this rag outside of the metropolitan NYC area is limited, but the publicity over the characitures has now gained national attention, and will probably play just the opposite in Peoria from the intention of the New Yorker for their psuedo sophisticated subscribers. It does give and excellent insight into who the magazine aims their intentions toward in their subscriptions.

This will surely be a collectible cover.

[Deadshot]

Way too esoteric for most people in the US. The elitist New Yorkers are probably snickering over the firestorm saying stuff like: "See, see how ignorant John Q Public is, they can't even understand simple satire."

The circulation of this rag outside of the metropolitan NYC area is limited, but the publicity over the characitures has now gained national attention, and will probably play just the opposite in Peoria from the intention of the New Yorker for their psuedo sophisticated subscribers. It does give and excellent insight into who the magazine aims their intentions toward in their subscriptions.

This will surely be a collectible cover.

Agreed. Most of the nation, left and right, will not be of the same mind as the people at the New Yorker.

[NIOSA]

I don't believe that of all the "satirical" pictures that have been published of Bush that he has ever acknowledged any of them, & there have been some pretty nasty ones. It seems to me that if Obama didn't have such thin skin, or maybe some class, that he too would have not succumbed to his fears....whatever those, & the reasons for them, are. Just sayin....

[preservanation]

Way too esoteric for most people in the US. The elitist New Yorkers are probably snickering over the firestorm saying stuff like: "See, see how ignorant John Q Public is, they can't even understand simple satire."

The circulation of this rag outside of the metropolitan NYC area is limited, but the publicity over the characitures has now gained national attention, and will probably play just the opposite in Peoria from the intention of the New Yorker for their psuedo sophisticated subscribers. It does give and excellent insight into who the magazine aims their intentions toward in their subscriptions.

This will surely be a collectible cover.Right.
The audience who this cover was directed at were already on the Obama bandwagon to begin with...they're no problem for Obama.
It's the middle-America demographic which his campaign has been feverishly trying to win over, and this will play very different there (here).
If I were in the Obama campaign or a supporter...I'd be furious.

[Deadshot]

Right.
The audience who this cover was directed at were already on the Obama bandwagon to begin with...they're no problem for Obama.
It's the middle-America demographic which his campaign has been feverishly trying to win over, and this will play very different there (here).
If I were in the Obama campaign or a supporter...I'd be furious.

:mad: or :sick: This was just stupid and Pres has, again, hit the nail on the head here. The New Yorker was trying to "preach to the choir" but instead alienated the Congregation.

[Drocket]

The problem with this cover is that its not really very good satire. Satire is supposed to take an argument to ridiculous lengths to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position. I can quite easily imagine that picture on freerepublic.com being used in a completely non-ironic sense. Hell, I can see a picture like that being used on Fox News in a completely non-ironic sense.

While the intention may have been satire, it simply fails on that level and winds up being little more than an extremely racist drawing.

[brien]

Hell, I can see a picture like that being used on Fox News in a completely non-ironic sense.

While the intention may have been satire, it simply fails on that level and winds up being little more than an extremely racist drawing.

Your indictment of FNC is about as ludicrous as the cover itself. At the end of the day, the Liberal Left owns this characiture and all of its implications. Get over it, FNC channel has nothing to do with this shameless idiocy and the Liberal Left is finally caught within its own web of political deceptions. They made this cup of wine and now they have to drink it. LOL

[NIOSA]

The problem with this cover is that its not really very good satire. Satire is supposed to take an argument to ridiculous lengths to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position. I can quite easily imagine that picture on freerepublic.com being used in a completely non-ironic sense. Hell, I can see a picture like that being used on Fox News in a completely non-ironic sense.

While the intention may have been satire, it simply fails on that level and winds up being little more than an extremely racist drawing.

So you believe there's some truth to the picture? It didn't take it to the length of rediculousness to make it satire?
How is it racist? Oh wait, anything said about Obama is racist.

Mod Message: Rule #11. All proper names of political figures should be spelled correctly. Nicknames like Hitlary or Chimpy are unacceptable.
Fixed.
Thank you.
~p

[preservanation]

Okay...here's the next step the MSM will take to try and cover up (pun intended) The NYers' faux pas.
They will spend every waking hour of the next three days attempting to dispel the rumor that Obama is a Muslim.
I have a feeling that this hole is just going to be dug deeper by those who want it most to be filled...the media.
From this misguided effort, watch the percentage of people who think that Obama was raised a Muslim jump from 13% to 20% in the next three days!
Hilarious!

[potter]

Agreed. Most of the nation, left and right, will not be of the same mind as the people at the New Yorker.



:worship:

Exactly....this is why Madison avenue advertisement fall flat so often.

[NIOSA]

Okay...here's the next step the MSM will take to try and cover up (pun intended) The NYers' faux pas.
They will spend every waking hour of the next three days attempting to dispel the rumor that Obama is a Muslim.
I have a feeling that this hole is just going to be dug deeper by those who want it most to be filled...the media.
From this misguided effort, watch the percentage of people who think that Obama was raised a Muslim jump from 13% to 20% in the next three days!
Hilarious!

You're probably right. I believe that the more people look at Obama & not just his lofty speeches, the more they'll question him, & not just necessairly on his religion.

[preservanation]

You're probably right. I believe that the more people look at Obama & not just his lofty speeches, the more they'll question him, & not just necessairly on his religion.That's kinda what the left wants...for us to focus on his person and not his radical, naive and senseless policies, so they can scream racism and, jingoism, bigotry and hate, they never figured on a liberal publication bringing it to the forefront like the New Yorker did.
They don't know what the hell to do.
This is incredibly unpredicted, stupid and could really be the start of Obama's free-fall.
There are are some very stunned people and flailing dems out there right now.
Interesting to see where this actually goes and how much legs it has.
I have a feeling it's bigger than we know right now.

[NIOSA]

That's kinda what the left wants...for us to focus on his person and not his radical, naive and senseless policies, so they can scream racism and, jingoism, bigotry and hate, they never figured on a liberal publication bringing it to the forefront like the New Yorker did.
They don't know what the hell to do.
This is incredibly unpredicted, stupid and could really be the start of Obama's free-fall.
There are are some very stunned people and flailing dems out there right now.
Interesting to see where this actually goes and how much legs it has.
I have a feeling it's bigger than we know right now.

I agree.
I also wonder if maybe there's an element in the Dem party that really doesn't want Obama to win. They know that if McCain wins that the chances are he'll only serve 4 years.

[preservanation]

I agree.
I also wonder if maybe there's an element in the Dem party that really doesn't want Obama to win. They know that if McCain wins that the chances are he'll only serve 4 years.Welll,
some think so, especially in the light that if Obama wins, Hillary will most likely NEVER be the first woman president.
For a lot of her supporters this will be the only time for the chance to see a woman president in their life time.
Kinda like wanting to see the Grand Canyon before one dies.

[Drocket]

So you believe there's some truth to the picture?

No, but there's most definitely a not-insignificant number of people who believe there's truth in the picture (including quite a few right here on these forums.) The purpose of this picture was to satirize those idiots, but really it winds up being little more than an illustration.


It didn't take it to the length of rediculousness to make it satire?
No, it didn't. It would have been far better had it taken it further. Maybe a large picture of Bin Laden in the background labels "BFF", or perhaps a jar labeled "picked embryos" on the desk with a fork in it would have pushed it far enough to be satire. As I said, as it is, its really less satire than illustration.

How is it racist? Oh wait, anything said about Obama is racist.
Um, no, I'm saying its a racist illustration based on the heavy emphasis placed on stereotypical racial features in Barak and Michelle's features. Quite deliberate, but again not quite going far enough to really qualify as satire.

[NIOSA]

Welll,
some think so, especially in the light that if Obama wins, Hillary will most likely NEVER be the first woman president.
For a lot of her supporters this will be the only time for the chance to see a woman president in their life time.
Kinda like wanting to see the Grand Canyon before one dies.

I don't know why anybody cares if the POTUS is a woman, or a black man, or a eunich, for that matter. That really sets my hair on fire. Shouldn't it be "the best person" for the job, not somebody that just makes a statement about "how far we've come"? Gawd, that's infuriating.
You're right though, some are hoping he doesn't win just so they can 'see a woman in the WH". I think she's already been POTUS.

[NIOSA]

No, but there's most definitely a not-insignificant number of people who believe there's truth in the picture (including quite a few right here on these forums.) The purpose of this picture was to satirize those idiots, but really it winds up being little more than an illustration.



No, it didn't. It would have been far better had it taken it further. Maybe a large picture of Bin Laden in the background labels "BFF", or perhaps a jar labeled "picked embryos" on the desk with a fork in it would have pushed it far enough to be satire. As I said, as it is, its really less satire than illustration.


Um, no, I'm saying its a racist illustration based on the heavy emphasis placed on stereotypical racial features in Barak and Michelle's features. Quite deliberate, but again not quite going far enough to really qualify as satire.

I think the whole thing is silly & if Obama didn't have such thin skin, he would've said nothing about it. That's what all the fuss is about, the fact that Obamas people pitched a hissy about it. Had nothing been said, it would go away in hours, now it's in the news & may stay for awhile.
Obama & his minions need to get over themselves.

[Buck Laser]

I think the whole thing is silly & if Obama didn't have such thin skin, he would've said nothing about it. That's what all the fuss is about, the fact that Obamas people pitched a hissy about it. Had nothing been said, it would go away in hours, now it's in the news & may stay for awhile.
Obama & his minions need to get over themselves.

NIOSA, Obama learned his lesson from the Kerry campaign. Kerry thought the palpable lies from the Swift Boaters would just die on their own, and he was late in squashing them. Obama isn't gonna make Kerry's mistake.

[AlanC]

NIOSA, Obama learned his lesson from the Kerry campaign. Kerry thought the palpable lies from the Swift Boaters would just die on their own, and he was late in squashing them. Obama isn't gonna make Kerry's mistake.

Kerry was late and ineffective both. Its hard to quash things when its obvious who is telling the truth.

But that said, this is not some attack ad. It was made to support his positions on those that criticize him. Overreaction or just plain wrong reaction is another thing that makes candidates and their campaigns look foolish.

[NIOSA]

NIOSA, Obama learned his lesson from the Kerry campaign. Kerry thought the palpable lies from the Swift Boaters would just die on their own, and he was late in squashing them. Obama isn't gonna make Kerry's mistake.

I understand that, (even thoigh nobody has ever collected the big bucks offered if anyone could prove the SBs were lying) However, even if Obamas ears are made fun of, he gets up on his butt. I can't think of one thing that can be said, or has been said of Obama, including legitimate questions/observations, that he doesn't brush off & the media, for the most part, allows him to get by with it. Have you ever seen a candidate that is treated so "hands off" as is Obama?

[preservanation]

This is fascinating to me...I can't get enough.
It's so convoluted and ironic that it's hard to process.
The liberal media's hair is on fire (to borrow a phrase from NIOSA), and seems if they don't know whether to wind their butt, or scratch their watch.

Most of the MSM are trying to poo poo it and get it gone by addressing it "swiftly" (haha),
but the author of the NYer's main article was on and he said that he doesn't care what people who aren't sophisticated enough to get it think...typical.
Unfortunately, those unsophisticates are exactly the ones who'll most likely tip the election.

I also saw Obama when he was asked about it at a news conference...That was the closest thing I've seen to panic on the face of a politician in a long time.
If you see it...look at his face.
Wow.

This could very well could be what we point to as a defining incident when discussing this election in the future...or not.
Whatever...this is great!

[Blueneck]

The problem with this cover is that its not really very good satire. Satire is supposed to take an argument to ridiculous lengths to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position. I can quite easily imagine that picture on freerepublic.com being used in a completely non-ironic sense. Hell, I can see a picture like that being used on Fox News in a completely non-ironic sense.

While the intention may have been satire, it simply fails on that level and winds up being little more than an extremely racist drawing.Its also inaccurate. Michele Obama has a gun. Everyone knows the democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

In case anyone was wondering, that ^ was sarcasm. :)

[NIOSA]

Its also inaccurate. Michele Obama has a gun. Everyone knows the democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

In case anyone was wondering, that ^ was sarcasm. :)

LOL
Just one little thing here BN. "Democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment, except for them. remember Diane feinstein?

[potter]

Its also inaccurate. Michele Obama has a gun. Everyone knows the democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

In case anyone was wondering, that ^ was sarcasm. :)


"Everyone" must be pretty damn stupid then..... Democrats buy as many guns as republicans. :dork:

[Blueneck]

LOL
Just one little thing here BN. "Democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment, except for them. remember Diane feinstein?Queen of AIPAC suck ups? What about her?

I think she wound up in congress because whoever preceded her got shot. You know, the Twinkie guy.

[tony mitra]

I used to subscribe to the magazine in the past. These days I often pick up a copy depending on the content.

This cover cured me of it, and I shall be ignoring the magazine henceforth.

If this is American satire, I can do without it. If it was not satire, I still can do without it.

Cheers.

[Elrathin]

This could very well could be what we point to as a defining incident when discussing this election in the future...or not.
Whatever...this is great!

So would you say the same thing if you were part of the picture industry when directors were being arrested for communism Pres?

This is seeming more and more like the witchunt for communism, much like it is now for every Muslim when they ae compared to the radicals.

Tell me pres, do you fee EVERY Muslim is an enemy of America?

[NIOSA]

Queen of AIPAC suck ups? What about her?

I think she wound up in congress because whoever preceded her got shot. You know, the Twinkie guy.

Who are you talking about?

[Buck Laser]

This is fascinating to me...I can't get enough.
It's so convoluted and ironic that it's hard to process.
The liberal media's hair is on fire (to borrow a phrase from NIOSA), and seems if they don't know whether to wind their butt, or scratch their watch.

Most of the MSM are trying to poo poo it and get it gone by addressing it "swiftly" (haha),
but the author of the NYer's main article was on and he said that he doesn't care what people who aren't sophisticated enough to get it think...typical.
Unfortunately, those unsophisticates are exactly the ones who'll most likely tip the election.

I also saw Obama when he was asked about it at a news conference...That was the closest thing I've seen to panic on the face of a politician in a long time.
If you see it...look at his face.
Wow.

This could very well could be what we point to as a defining incident when discussing this election in the future...or not.
Whatever...this is great!

I hope no one is surprised that preserv likes it.

[preservanation]

So would you say the same thing if you were part of the picture industry when directors were being arrested for communism Pres?

This is seeming more and more like the witchunt for communism, much like it is now for every Muslim when they ae compared to the radicals.

Tell me pres, do you fee EVERY Muslim is an enemy of America?What?
What?
Whahhhhht?

OMG, this takes the cake...I guess you've decided to wind your ass instead off scratch your watch.

This whole thing is nothing more than a liberal publication taking a cheap-shot at trying to embarrass people on the right who don't trust or know Obama and capitalizing on their supposed ignorance...nothing new, right?
Elitist North East Kingdom publications do it all the time, so they can snicker through their brie-filled pie holes at all the ignorant hicks who don't live on the west-side.
Unfortunately these wizards of smart failed to realize that in the process they depicted their candidate and his wife on the cover of their mag as radical flag burning members of militant Islam...with bad hair.

Now, you have the gaul to compare this somehow to Mccarthyism...on my part?
Then on top of it, make a not so veiled accusation of racism...on my part?
Hooooo, boy

If I didn't have such a sunny personality, I'd be offended.
Instead I'll just chalk it up to flailing wildly in the air by the left.
They are as obviously as confused as much as I am about this NYer cover.

Take a deep breath, guys.
It'll sort itself out eventually and in the morning you'll feel a little more like yourselves again.
Jeeeeeeeeeze!

[Elrathin]

Why not Pres, your ilk supported accusing the movie industry of being Communist. Why not now with Muslims. That is what we constantly hear from conservatives. We shouldn't screen everybody, we should only screen the Muslim looking ones at airports. This is what Conservatives haves said and other conservatives have agreed to.

Muslims to conservatives in the U.S. are the Enemy or at least the only ones that should be looked at.

[preservanation]

Why not Pres, your ilk supported accusing the movie industry of being Communist. Why not now with Muslims. That is what we constantly hear from conservatives. We shouldn't screen everybody, we should only screen the Muslim looking ones at airports. This is what Conservatives haves said and other conservatives have agreed to.

Muslims to conservatives in the U.S. are the Enemy or at least the only ones that should be looked at.I have to admit that I didn't expect this level of convoluted spin from you in order to explain away the New Yorker's boneheaded magazine cover.
I don't know how it's my fault that the NY print intelligentsia thought that this was a good idea.
I had nothing to do with it,
but in retrospect...I wish I had.

[lily]

No, it didn't. It would have been far better had it taken it further. Maybe a large picture of Bin Laden in the background labels "BFF", ...........



His picture is above the mantel.

[lily]

I think the whole thing is silly & if Obama didn't have such thin skin, he would've said nothing about it.

I haven't seen Obama say anything about it.........do you have a link?

[lily]

Most of the MSM are trying to poo poo it and get it gone by addressing it "swiftly" (haha),
but the author of the NYer's main article was on and he said that he doesn't care what people who aren't sophisticated enough to get it think...typical.
Unfortunately, those unsophisticates are exactly the ones who'll most likely tip the election.

I've had MSN on almost all day........and I didn't see them having the fit you are describing.

I also saw Obama when he was asked about it at a news conference...That was the closest thing I've seen to panic on the face of a politician in a long time.
If you see it...look at his face.
Wow.

You thought that was panic??? Looked more to me like disgust.

This could very well could be what we point to as a defining incident when discussing this election in the future...or not.
Whatever...this is great!

It seems the right is the one that's crapping their pants over this cover.....mission accomplished.

[Buck Laser]

I understand that, (even thoigh nobody has ever collected the big bucks offered if anyone could prove the SBs were lying) However, even if Obamas ears are made fun of, he gets up on his butt. I can't think of one thing that can be said, or has been said of Obama, including legitimate questions/observations, that he doesn't brush off & the media, for the most part, allows him to get by with it. Have you ever seen a candidate that is treated so "hands off" as is Obama?
Yes. John McCain is getting an absolutely free ride from the press. No one wants to embarrass him by asking hard questions. It may be that temper of his.

[NIOSA]

I haven't seen Obama say anything about it.........do you have a link?

His "camp" has responded, McCain did too.

[Drocket]

Yes. John McCain is getting an absolutely free ride from the press. No one wants to embarrass him by asking hard questions. It may be that temper of his.

Plus they'll be cut off from the delicious BBQ.

[NIOSA]

Yes. John McCain is getting an absolutely free ride from the press. No one wants to embarrass him by asking hard questions. It may be that temper of his.

Possibly....

[Drocket]

His picture is above the mantel.

Hmm, I suppose that might be supposed to be him, but frankly it doesn't really strike me as him offhand. Bad art, I guess. Anyway, I still don't think it goes over-the-top enough. Maybe a newspaper laying on the floor with the headline "Bin Laden Confirmed as New Secretary of State" would work.

[preservanation]

New Yorker Editor David Remnick Talks to ABC News About Cover Controversy
July 14, 2008 4:11 PM

I just interviewed New Yorker editor in chief David Remnick for World News with Charles Gibson about the controversial cover of this week's New Yorker.

"The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas that have been floating around in the blogosphere and are reflected in public opinion polls," Remnick says. "What we set out to do was to throw all these images together, which are all over the top and to shine a kind of harsh light on them, to satirize them. That’s part of what we do."

But what about the fact that some folks see the images not as a satirical caricature but as an accurate portrait?

About one out of 10 Americans continue to believe that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is a Muslim, after all.

"Satire always comes with some risk and the chance of people misunderstanding it, but if you’re going to satirize things only that there’s a 100% census on, there’s no satire," he said. "There’s maybe a certain percentage of the public that thinks there was no moon landing, should we not satirize that?"

What about the fact that Sen. Obama and his campaign seem legitimately upset? "A journalistic enterprise, whether it’s ABC or the New Yorker or the New York Times does not publish or broadcast for the sake of a political campaign," Remnick said. "I wish they understood it for what it was, but I can’t sit here and adjust what I do with an editor any more than ABC should adjust what it does as a network to please a political campaign." Remnick added that when he heard senior Obama adviser David Axelrod this morning "talking about it, he said, 'Did I like the cover? No. Am I very upset about it? No. I’m much more upset about real issues in the country.' That to me, that to me seemed like a sensible disagreement."

Remnick also took issue with one part of my blog post on the subject yesterday. I wrote that "the sophisticates at The New Yorker have come up with a cover that is sure to get the magazine a lot of attention... no Upper East Side liberal -- no matter how superior they feel their intellect is -- should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing. .. I would assume over at the Conde Nast building, they think it's droll. "

Mr. Remnick took some umbrage with that. Not with the criticism per se, but my working-class tone.

"Playing the elitism card, when you, too, are from New York, and went to Dartmouth, I mean, that really doesn’t wash," Remnick told me. "I think it’s an easy card to play. Especially with the New Yorker, and, you know, I shouldn’t let you get away with it. You’re not exactly coming from a poor background or from an underfunded media outlet, and I don’t think that’s fair. I think it’s just not the level of thought and discourse that normally I see on your blog, and lot of other ones....I get the back and forth, I can live with that, but I thought that was kind of a cheap shot." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/new-yorker-edit.html

You thought that was panic??? Looked more to me like disgust.Maybe a bad falafel.

I haven't seen Obama say anything about it.........do you have a link?
Well his cmpaign did...
Obama campaign outraged by New Yorker cover

Jul 14 11:24 AM US/Eastern


Obama Campaign Blasts ‘Terrorist’ Caricature Cover on ‘The New Yorker’

New Yorker Cover Considered Controversial, Offensive


Barack Obama's campaign decried Monday a satirical cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker magazine showing the Democratic presidential hopeful wearing Islamic dress while his wife holds a Kalashnikov.
The influential weekly defended its cover, titled "The Politics of Fear," as a critique of unfounded allegations during the campaign that have attempted to paint Obama, who is Christian, as a closet radical Muslim.

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," he said in a statement.

The campaign of Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, took his side.

"We completely agree with the Obama campaign that it is tasteless and offensive," spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

The cartoon drawn by Barry Blitt shows the couple standing in the White House's Oval Office with an American flag burning in the fireplace under a portrait of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Obama, who aims to become the first African-American US president, wears a robe and turban while his wife Michelle is in military fatigues with an Kalashnikov strapped to her back.

The couple also give each other a fist bump -- a common greeting they have given each other in public and which a Fox News television presenter once called a "terrorist fist jab."

"Our cover 'The Politics of Fear' combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are," said New Yorker editor David Remnick.

"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," he said.

"Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant 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."

The editor noted that the magazine includes two "very serious" articles about Obama -- a commentary and a 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080714152414.ywhxksb5&show_article=1

[Easy90]

"The double standard is also on display...watch how the MSM will defend this as satire would eviscerate the "American Standard" if they published it." Preservation

Yep!

[preservanation]

Media Armageddon, Easy.
Yep...

[NIOSA]

Hmm, I suppose that might be supposed to be him, but frankly it doesn't really strike me as him offhand. Bad art, I guess. Anyway, I still don't think it goes over-the-top enough. Maybe a newspaper laying on the floor with the headline "Bin Laden Confirmed as New Secretary of State" would work.

Charicture, you know, "sorta looks like him".

[Drocket]

Charicture, you know, "sorta looks like him".

Um, yeah, I get that. What I'm saying is that its not a very good caricature. Frankly, I think it only "sorta looks like him" in that its obviously a Muslim, and I guess it really doesn't make any sense for it to be anyone else.

[lily]

His "camp" has responded, McCain did too.

.........but that's not what you've claimed:

Originally Posted by NIOSA
I think the whole thing is silly & if Obama didn't have such thin skin, he would've said nothing about it.

[lily]

Maybe a bad falafel.

Ha, ha.....a Muslim joke.


Well his cmpaign did...

Not what was claimed.

[NIOSA]

.........but that's not what you've claimed:

When we say, "Obama gives a good speech", are we giving him credit, or his speech writers? When his "camp" speaks, are they speaking for themselves or Obama?

[lily]

When we say, "Obama gives a good speech", are we giving him credit, or his speech writers?


If that's your reasoning, then the only time Bush makes sense is when he has a written speech in front of him.......it's the person that is giving the speech that counts........he sure did give a good speech at the Democratic Convention........all on his own.
When his "camp" speaks, are they speaking for themselves or Obama
Um......in a word no.........I thought we learned that from McCain when he said Gramm didn't speak for him.........so I'll wait for that Obama quote, if you don't mind.

[NIOSA]

If that's your reasoning, then the only time Bush makes sense is when he has a written speech in front of him.......it's the person that is giving the speech that counts........he sure did give a good speech at the Democratic Convention........all on his own.

Um......in a word no.........I thought we learned that from McCain when he said Gramm didn't speak for him.........so I'll wait for that Obama quote, if you don't mind.


Did I say the only time Obama makes sense is when he has a written speech in front of him? To be honest, I do believe that's the only time he makes sense, he doesn't know anything, which he has proven a few times when he's speaking off the cuff.
I didn't hear his speech at the convention, I'm sure it was, um, riveting..
Maybe you believe that Obama agrees with the NY mag cover?

[preservanation]

This cover was intended to insult conservatives...ended up insulting Obama, and I'm supposed to feel guilty by enjoying the hell out of it?
Give me a break

[potter]

Does Preserva feel guilty? :innocent:

[preservanation]

Not a bit, thank you.
Your concern is touching though!

[potter]

Not a bit, thank you.
Your concern is touching though!


Fabulous...neither do I........I'll cancel the therapy session..... :peace:

[GHJ]

Thanks. :)
I believe that Obama & his wife are radicals, not necessairly muslim radicals, but still....

That magazine cover may be accidentally closer to the truth than anyone, right or left, could every imagine.

[lily]

That magazine cover may be accidentally closer to the truth than anyone, right or left, could every imagine.


It's the terrorist bump that gave it away.......right?

[lily]

Maybe you believe that Obama agrees with the NY mag cover?

I don't know, since he hasn't commented on it.........could be he could care less.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I thought the cover was hilarious....

I also think anyone getting upset better not have been defending the cartoonist over the cartoons he made making fun of Allah, Christ, or Santa Claus or whatever else.....

I like how John Stewart said it tonight actually.....was gonna post the link, but its not up yet.

[PatrickHenry]

I like the articles Seymour Hersh writes for the New Yorker. Mainly because they are critical of Uncle Sam's military aggression. Otherwise, I don't read it much. Too effete.

But to use a cover drawing of a candidate already pilloried by the fascist press as a satire is misguided and has evidently backfired. John Stewart's comments may be damage control and I wouldn't discount the possibility of compensation from the New Yorker's publisher for his spin.

I am no fan of Obama or his policies, but Drocket is correct that this cover just choruses the Swiftboating, doesn't parody it. Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people begin to believe it.

[preservanation]

But the Obama campaign is denouncing the cover, saying The New Yorker's editors might believe the picture is "a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," but it is fact "tasteless and offensive."
I don't know, since he hasn't commented on it.........could be he could care less. Will Obama now distance himself from his campaign now?
Will he now say "this is not the campaign I knew?"
Of course this is Obama's response to it, and said as much on Larry King last night.

[preservanation]

BTW, What the Hell is a terrorist fist bop?
Did this all start from one dumbass comment made by ED Hill on FNC?
Has any one ever seen the scruffy barbarians dancing around over a burning western effigy bopping fists?
Not me.

This has been a congratulatory gesture for decades in America.

"I've seen and heard worse," he [Obama] added. "I do think that in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But that was their editorial judgment."

The cover, which also depicts a U.S. flag burning in the fireplace and a picture of bin Laden on the wall, drew heavy criticism from both political parties after it circulated on the Internet over the weekend. Both presidential campaigns immediately condemned the magazine, calling the illustration "tasteless and offensive." http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/16/content_8555023.htm

Obama never seen and heard worse?
Really...
What could be worse than a presidential candidate being shown as an America hater, violent extremist, terrorist sympathiser and Bin Laden supporter, pray tell?
What has he been called and shown to be, which is worse than this in Obama's opinion?
The fact that this doesn't seem to bother him all that much is worrisome in itself.

[preservanation]

I apologize for the multiple posts on this, but I'm still trying to understand this, what it says abut the left-wing media and their candidate.

For Obama to say..."It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment," Obama said is exactly right and what he should say.
For him to get all worked up into a lather about this would not look good. (We all know who does that over cartoons, don't we?)

But for him to then continue with this is puzzling..."I've seen and heard worse,"What is he refering to?
I hope someone will ask him...yeah, right.

I thought that maybe he was talking about pics of Bush sporting the Hitler doo and stash in a Nazi uniform, because those were done in malice and the New Yorker cover was not, just the opposite.
But I don't think that's it.
After reading his response again I'm convinced he was refering to himself...so, I ask again...what the hell have you heard and seen about him that's worse than this?

[heyjude]

The first rule of the Obama supporters is: "Don't mess with the messiah."

[Osborn F. Enready]

HeyJude said:
The first rule of the Obama supporters is: "Don't mess with the messiah."

Agreed, while in the meantime, they look past the corruption of their own candidate to attack the "other" parties candidate, trying to make it a pissing contest of "whos candidate is the least corrupt"....

Newsflash, their both corrupt, as are both major parent parties......

Trying to elect Dems and Reps to fix the problems created by Dems and Reps is like hiring a wolf to protect the henhouse, an arsonist to be fire chief.

[Truth_and_Power]

What the hell were they thinking?..is the pertinent question.

Again, I think it betrays their elitist, out of touch mind-set not to realize how this cover would be perceived by some Americans.
Duh....

All of you righties posting in this thread are hillarious. Do you realize you're like buzzword copy machines spitting out the same thing over and over that the networks have programmed you to think?

[NIOSA]

Anybody see Obama on Larry King last night? Obama said the cartoon hurt Muslims.

[Buck Laser]

Anybody see Obama on Larry King last night? Obama said the cartoon hurt Muslims.

Didn't see it, but it makes perfect sense.

[4Reaganomics]

Christ why would muslims want to be associated with Obama? He has racist and terrorist friends.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Muslims got upset over a cartoon about Allah recently also, didn't they?

I thought adults were supposed to recognize parody and satire, when it doesn't reflect the character of the person in question? Does it reflect the person in question?

[preservanation]

I could see people getting mad if this was done in malace to Obama by a right wing rag...that I could understand.
But this was a satire in SUPPORT of Obama by a left wing rag.
The smear target was the right wing Republicans by the New Yorker's own admission...
And look at the reaction by the left.
This is facinating to me.
One hand clapping...indeed.

The wizards of smart blew it and they know it...but instead of saying sorry, they just claim everybody is just too stupid to understand.
Scuse me...I undersand perfectly.

[Buck Laser]

I could see people getting mad if this was done in malace to Obama by a right wing rag...that I could understand.
But this was a satire in SUPPORT of Obama by a left wing rag.
The smear target was the right wing Republicans by the New Yorker's own admission...
And look at the reaction by the left.
This is facinating to me.
One hand clapping...indeed.

The wizards of smart blew it and they know it...but instead of saying sorry, they just claim everybody is just too stupid to understand.
Scuse me...I undersand perfectly.
Yes, if Newsmax did something like this, they'd be forced out of business. That may yet happen to the New Yorker, though I hope not. But it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, and it does demonstrate the insularity of the staff there.

What I take issue with is the description of the [b]New Yorker[/b} as a left wing rag. Intellectual yes, pretentious yes, in this case stupid, but certainly not "left wing." However, I can understand that coming from you, because you've been relentlessly working to spread the impression that anyone who stops to think must be a liberal. One of the reasons that we don't see a very strong conservative presence on this board is that thoughtful conservatives take one look at the kind of mindless repetitive drivel that the typical winger posts here and give up in despair. I didn't want to have to tell you this, but most of them become liberals.:evil:

[NIOSA]

Christ why would muslims want to be associated with Obama? He has racist and terrorist friends.

& tried to hide two muslim women at one of his rallys.

[preservanation]

The key to satire is that there has to be some truth to it.
On this level it worked beautifully...It served to bolster some American's perception of Obama.
The stupidity displayed by publishing this cover just goes to show that the self-proclaimed elite geniuses are usually the most dense.
These are the people who shape opinions and tell us "what is".
They live in a liberal echo chamber and a vacuum that never allows their myopic misconceptions and biases to escape while buffering them from truth and any other point of view.
Their claim of tolerance and listening to divergent points of view is all empty rhetoric.
If it fails to fit their limited template...they impugn, ridicule and dismiss it.
No wonder the press is in deep trouble concerning their credibility and circulation.

In the last 6 mos, the NYT fell off 4.51%, Dallas Morning News off 7.68%, Boston Globe down 6.66%, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution off 9.08%.
This shouldn't bother them at all though, because as we all know profit is evil and should be confiscated by the Govt...so they're pretty happy about this...Right?
No wonder a lot of people are so misinformed and ignorant of the facts.

My point to all this is that the New Yorker is full of a bunch of dunderheads who don't know their ass from their elbow and continuously demean and insult potential readers/subscribers.
These journalists should be required to take a marketing class at least once in their lives.
You'd think that at least the editors would have a passing familiarity with this subject, but the New Yorker's sure doesn't.
His ideology and bubble think trumped all else.

[Blueneck]

& tried to hide two muslim women at one of his rallys.
To be Obama in a a political climate where all that matters is sound bites is to be damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[IndieVisible]

Wow!
Is this over the top, or fair game? It does hit on fears that some Americans have of Obama & his wife.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/14/obama-camp-slams-satirical-new-yorker-magazine-cover/

I think every thing is fair game as long as it is not a LIE.

I support Obama, and have since day one, but he is starting to get on my nerves. to wishy washy and wimpy some times. I would never have dissed my church or pastor! If I was Obama I would have told people to kiss my black ass if you don't like it! Notice who wears the pants in the cover? Sadly he is the best we have right now. I simply can not stomach McCain.

But hell yes, I support every one's right to free speech.

[IndieVisible]

BTW, I do see the humor in the cover, it projects some of the publics views of Obama and Michelle and shows it's absurdity.

[NIOSA]

To be Obama in a a political climate where all that matters is sound bites is to be damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I agree, but that's true of McCain as well. But they're grown men & should be able to handle it, if not, they have noi business in politics.

[preservanation]

BTW, I do see the humor in the cover, it projects some of the publics views of Obama and Michelle and shows it's absurdity.Well IndieVisible, you got it and so did I...I knew it was a satire making fun of some (if not all) on the right.
That's fine.

The reason Obama and his campaign calls it offensive, is not because they don't get the satire...they do, but because this will alienate the white southern and middle America voters (who are too "stupid" to get it)...these are the voters on which this election hinges.
Obama has been fighting tooth and nail to assure that demographic that he's not a crazy leftist who will go easy on terrorists and has disdain for America.
He has had to wage this battle ever since the "bitter-religion-clinging, bigot" reference.
This cover has set his effort back immeasurably.
No wonder he's pissed.

[Truth_and_Power]

Good job, NIOSA
http://elections.foxnews.com/files/2008/07/obama_newyorkercover_320.jpg



I personally think this is a great cover, and I think all of you are ridiculous PC-ists for criticising it. What the new yorker is doing is unabashedly putting the truth in front of its readers. I cannot even count the number of times I have heard the lies about obama being a terrorist, muslim, etc, etc, etc, etc. They are omnipresent. There's probably 30% of the american population that actually believes that obama is a terrorist or muslim mole or something like that. And you people think it's classless of the new yorker to put it in the spotlight?

Wow, I mean, no problem with the constant parroting of it (emails, this board, conversation, talk shows, etc, etc, etc) but OH GOD now a major published magazine does a parody of it on the cover and it's tasteless? When did bringing up important issues like the prominence of unsubstantiated lies and character assasination in american politics become more tastleless than the actual use of these techniques?????

This is "gotcha" politics at its best.

"If you refuse to admit your faults, you might be the last to know"

[Blueneck]

I agree, but that's true of McCain as well. But they're grown men & should be able to handle it, if not, they have noi business in politics.
I find it sad that either of them are subjected to the ridiculous characterizations the media insists on reporting because "it's out there". (Although McCain deserves it) jk :)

At this rate the only candidates who will survive this assinine process are oatmeal cookie types, with no controversy, and probably no brains or balls.

[Deadshot]

Pres is right, but this is just another example of this campaign and it's "Beware your friends" image. McCain has to beat back one of his economic advisors for calling someone who just lost their job a "whiner" and Obama has to deal with an idiotic comment from a has been Black leader.

The New Yorker ought to know better, plain and simple. With friends like these, who needs enemies.

[preservanation]

This is "gotcha" politics at its bestGotcha politics?
How so?

Pointing out that the NYer's cover was politically stupid and ends up hurting their preferred candidate is not "gotcha" IMO.

[IndieVisible]

Well IndieVisible, you got it and so did I...I knew it was a satire making fun of some (if not all) on the right.
That's fine.

The reason Obama and his campaign calls it offensive, is not because they don't get the satire...they do, but because this will alienate the white southern and middle America voters (who are too "stupid" to get it)...these are the voters on which this election hinges.
Obama has been fighting tooth and nail to assure that demographic that he's not a crazy leftist who will go easy on terrorists and has disdain for America.
He has had to wage this battle ever since the "bitter-religion-clinging, bigot" reference.
This cover has set his effort back immeasurably.
No wonder he's pissed.

Yes I understand why the Obama camp has to object, and it was right for them to, it's politics. But this can actually help Obama, may be if such a thing is possible.

It will spark discussion like it has here. I'm hoping even in the rural south too.

Billy Bob- Hey did ya all see that funny cover on that New Yanker Issue? Show Obama really is a Muslim and his wife she is really a terrorist after all, see I told ya!

Billy John- No Billy Bob you retard, it's called a satire you idiot!

Billy Bob- Whats a satire?

Billy John- it means it's a joke you bone head! They was just makin fun of people who thinks that sort of stuff bout him, get it?

Billy Bob- No

ok, Obama may still have a problem :sadly:

[Truth_and_Power]

Gotcha politics?
How so?

Pointing out that the NYer's cover was politically stupid and ends up hurting their preferred candidate is not "gotcha" IMO.

I wasn't aware the NYer's primary mission was to elect a democrat. I thought they were promoting political discourse. IMO they are succeeding in this mission, and everyone is pointing fingers at them for bringing up a sensitive topic. Many people, yourself included I believe, endorse these accusations and yet somehow manage to blame the NYer for bringing up the topic.

[Deadshot]

My friend I think you give some of our southern citizens to much credit.

[Blueneck]

Yes I understand why the Obama camp has to object, and it was right for them to, it's politics. But this can actually help Obama, may be if such a thing is possible.

It will spark discussion like it has here. I'm hoping even in the rural south too.

Billy Bob- Hey did ya all see that funny cover on that New Yanker Issue? Show Obama really is a Muslim and his wife she is really a terrorist after all, see I told ya!

Billy John- No Billy Bob you retard, it's called a satire you idiot!

Billy Bob- Whats a satire?

Billy John- it means it's a joke you bone head! They was just makin fun of people who thinks that sort of stuff bout him, get it?

Billy Bob- No

ok, Obama may still have a problem :sadly:


Billy John: You changing your vote now?

Billy Bob: Naw, Ima still voting fer Huckabee even if I have to write 'im in. God Bless Jeazuz, and Glod Bless Amurca. :worship:

[Deadshot]

Billy John: You changing your vote now?

Billy Bob: Naw, Ima still voting fer Huckabee even if I have to write 'im in. God Bless Jeazuz, and Glod Bless Amurca. :worship:


For many in the South, this is the correct view of the end of that conversation..spelling and all! :madlaugh:

[hungarianflower]

Wow!
Is this over the top, or fair game? It does hit on fears that some Americans have of Obama & his wife.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/14/obama-camp-slams-satirical-new-yorker-magazine-cover/

Since when is anything in politics "over the top"?

By the way, the article accompanying the illustration of Obama and his wife was very flattering (or so I've heard, I haven't read it yet). So really, the cover was making fun of Republican fears rather than the reality of the situation.

[NortheastCynic]

I just can't understand how anyone can be offended by something that isn't supposed to be taken seriously.

The cover was a joke, so as I see it, the options are:
You get the joke OR You don't get the joke.

If you get the joke, your options are:
You like the joke OR You don't like the joke

If you don't like the joke your options are:
Ask for clarification OR Forget about it

No where, in my mind, is there room for offense.

It's a joke, get over it.

Stop taking everything [including yourself, Barrack] so goddamn seriously.

-NC

[hungarianflower]

I don't believe that of all the "satirical" pictures that have been published of Bush that he has ever acknowledged any of them, & there have been some pretty nasty ones. It seems to me that if Obama didn't have such thin skin, or maybe some class, that he too would have not succumbed to his fears....whatever those, & the reasons for them, are. Just sayin....

Clearly Barack Obama's defensiveness is either evidence of him trying to camaflouge some of his not-so-mainstream beliefs or a very smart political tactic in which he will manipulate his percieved underdog status to effectively bar anyone from making any critical depictions of him.

I must say that it's very dislikable of him to make such a big issue out of a magazine cover intended to insult his opponents. Who the hell does he think he is, Mohammed?

George Bush dealt with incredibly unintelligent and insulting comments/caricatures of him by not acknowledging them.

Double standard anyone?

[preservanation]

Yes I understand why the Obama camp has to object, and it was right for them to, it's politics. But this can actually help Obama, may be if such a thing is possible.

It will spark discussion like it has here. I'm hoping even in the rural south too.

Billy Bob- Hey did ya all see that funny cover on that New Yanker Issue? Show Obama really is a Muslim and his wife she is really a terrorist after all, see I told ya!

Billy John- No Billy Bob you retard, it's called a satire you idiot!

Billy Bob- Whats a satire?

Billy John- it means it's a joke you bone head! They was just makin fun of people who thinks that sort of stuff bout him, get it?

Billy Bob- No

ok, Obama may still have a problem :sadly:LOL..precisely!!!
You get it...this highly sought after (yet less highly regarded) demographic is who Obama needs to win.

BTW...
For those who think that the NYer is rooting for anyone else but Obama is not in tune with reality and probably is not familiar with the publication or it's subscribers.

Billy Bob- Whats a satire?
http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m1/2025933011

[Buck Laser]

You know what's funny to me? We have 121 posts on this topic, and well over 50 of them are from preserv or NIOSA. I've said my piece, and I couldn't give a shit more. But I am enjoying the way the conservatives are in a frenzy about this. Poor preserv is so rattled ever since I ate his lunch on the flag-burning thing.:nana:

[AlanC]

A frenzy? I just think it is funny as hell when a lib magazine trips all over its own self rightousness and then has to spend days explaining itself.

The only one making apologies for these idiots are the left.

[Deadshot]

A frenzy? I just think it is funny as hell when a lib magazine trips all over its own self rightousness and then has to spend days explaining itself.

The only one making apologies for these idiots are the left.

You are absolutely correct here. The New Yorker fucked over it's own people. It simply wasn't funny and the satirical element of it was lost on nearly everyone.

They shot us in the foot.

[AlanC]

You are absolutely correct here. The New Yorker fucked over it's own people. It simply wasn't funny and the satirical element of it was lost on nearly everyone.

They shot us in the foot.

Agreed. In fact, as you say, even most of those that get it, don't think it should have been done.

But I don't honestly think it will have any significant impact one way or the other as to who votes for Obama. It may have damaged the New Yorker's image among those that don't buy the thing in the first place though.

It does look like it improved their sales for one issue. That may be more to the point than anything else.

[Deadshot]

Agreed. In fact, as you say, even most of those that get it, don't think it should have been done.

But I don't honestly think it will have any significant impact one way or the other as to who votes for Obama. It may have damaged the New Yorker's image among those that don't buy the thing in the first place though.

It does look like it improved their sales for one issue. That may be more to the point than anything else.

As Pres pointed out earlier, your last sentence says it all. They screwed themselves more then anyone else.

[AlanC]

As Pres pointed out earlier, your last sentence says it all. They screwed themselves more then anyone else.

And if that proves to be the case, I can't say I will be particularly bothered by the fact one way or the other.

But it has been a mild diversion for a day or two.

[preservanation]

And if that proves to be the case, I can't say I will be particularly bothered by the fact one way or the other.

But it has been a mild diversion for a day or two.Thank God...I needed a diversion, and this one fit the bill nicely.

It'll be a while before I tire of it too.
(just a friendly factoid for those who might want to find their own diversions elsewhere)

[Truth_and_Power]

Clearly Barack Obama's defensiveness is either evidence of him trying to camaflouge some of his not-so-mainstream beliefs or a very smart political tactic in which he will manipulate his percieved underdog status to effectively bar anyone from making any critical depictions of him.

I must say that it's very dislikable of him to make such a big issue out of a magazine cover intended to insult his opponents. Who the hell does he think he is, Mohammed?

George Bush dealt with incredibly unintelligent and insulting comments/caricatures of him by not acknowledging them.

Double standard anyone?


This post solves the question of how many steps between parodying an idea and re-endorsing it. Two.

[Truth_and_Power]

For many in the South, this is the correct view of the end of that conversation..spelling and all! :madlaugh:

Some in the north too.. where bush is from.

[NIOSA]

You know what's funny to me? We have 121 posts on this topic, and well over 50 of them are from preserv or NIOSA. I've said my piece, and I couldn't give a shit more. But I am enjoying the way the conservatives are in a frenzy about this. Poor preserv is so rattled ever since I ate his lunch on the flag-burning thing.:nana:

Jeez, do you get paid for counting posts by members? Can I get a job like that? Sounds like fun. :dork:

[NIOSA]

A frenzy? I just think it is funny as hell when a lib magazine trips all over its own self rightousness and then has to spend days explaining itself.

The only one making apologies for these idiots are the left.

:lmao: