Thank God DU has something to do now... making sure everyone in America sees the New Yorker cover

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

By all means... make it the top story of the week! Make sure it leads the news in small markets full of "low information voters" who have never even heard of the New Yorker.

If we make enough of a fuss we can make this the top selling issue of the New Yorker EVER!

And just think of the favorable publicity for Obama when Obama supporters are compared to Muslim protesters complaining about the Danish Mohamed cartoons. (Which is an inevitable angle in the 24/7 cable news information void.)

Electoral politics is 100% about what people think of you. Assuming the objective is to be liked, respected and voted for, the right answer for Senator Obama is to say, "I saw it and thought it was hilarious. Michelle thought it was funny too."

The End.

There are persuadable voters out there, and the message that some DUers want to send to those voters is that the next four years would be a ceaseless series of protests every time a newspaper runs an unfavorable cartoon.

And independent voters don't like that shit... from either party. Hence their independence.

Even if you cannot take a joke, at least pretend you can take a joke, because voters (the people this is supposedly all about) have a long-demonstrated fondness for people who can take a joke.

__________________________

ON EDIT: I do not believe DU has the power to make this a story, or prevent it being a story. The OP accepts the argument that harrassing the New Yorker would make a difference by pointing out that whatever difference was made would be negative and harm Obama's image in the eyes of the average voter. The "stand up" thing to do is always to be the bigger man and laugh at jokes at your expense, even if your are steaming inside. That is the right POLITICAL MOVE in terms of the things that lose and win elections.

If the cover included his daughters he would be in a different position. Then the right political move would be to get upset. (Michelle is a public figure at this point.)

[thewiseguy]

1. If you think its funny then why are you worried that everyone in America will see it?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. I'm not. The argument grants the premise of others for purpose of argument.

Myself, I think it provided a great opportunity for Obama to look self-deprecating and confident by taking it as a jab at the Republicans, not at him.

The cover itself is harmless.

It is controversy over the cover that is potentially harmful. If there is a controversy worth covering (which requires somebody that's upset about it) then the weeks news will be "OBAMA...bzzzz....TERRORIST.....bzzzzz...MUSLIM....bzzzzz...PROTESTS....bzzzz..."

[KittyWampus]

15. the problem is the Reactionary Screamers on DU are now hysterical over something rather not worth

getting that riled up about.

[Divine Discontent]

20. "Reactionary Screamers" - name calling doesn't help your argument

and, the Obama campaign is angry about it. I agree with them.

[KittyWampus]

27. "name calling"? Reactionary Screamer is a very apt, descriptive epithet. That it sounds like name

calling is because it's painfully true.

[LowerManhattanite]

30. Griefers can't help themselves, dontchaknow. n/t

[liberalmuse]

2. Oh, it will be the top story of the week, but not because of DU.

The thugs are so desparate that they are going to jump on this and dry hump it to death.

[Pirate Smile]

3. It is already being pushed by the standard political websites. DU wont have any

impact.

[Bicoastal]

4. See, I don't think it was particularly funny...

...there were a lot better ways to depict this idea. As an artist, my solution would have been to divide the cover into halves--"How Dems see the Obamas," versus "How GOP'ers see the Obamas." You wouldn't even have to label them as such--simply leave it to the viewer to figure it out. But as always, the New Yorker is too hip for the room...

...and they depicted him, quite literally, as a traitor to America. (Bin Laden, burning flag, etc.) Sarcastic or not, how would you EXPECT any presidential candidate to react to such an image?

[KittyWampus]

16. you may be an artist, but you're not a cartoonist for the New Yorker, obviously.

[Divine Discontent]

21. and your sense of humor is appallingly immature eom

[KittyWampus]

26. where was I trying to be funny? The NY'er is KNOWN for one-frame cartoons. The poster's idea

was to split the frame in two.

[LowerManhattanite]

31. Roz Chast (one of the magazine's most famous cartoonists)...

...has used the split-frame many a time in her cartoons, and just this past May the mag used a two-page “continuing” cover (Main cover, a man finishing up building a scary-looking 1950's-style robot in his home, then on the under-leaf, the man sitting at a card table playing “hearts” with the robot companion—kind of a sideways take on “The Twilight Zone” episode “The Lonely”.)

Bottom line is that with fifty-one covers a year, they won't all be winners. This one ain't one. Saw an interview with Robert Mankoff—the mag's cartoon editor once where he owned up to how they routinely run several cartoons in the magazine that NO READERS SEEM TO GET, and how they get hellacious feedback on those goof-ups.

It happens. I “get” the cover. But as a means of mass communication (it's not delivered to a select few who never let the world see it beyond their homes), it's a bit of a fail.

So many other ways this could have been done and said the same thing. Depicting The Senator and his wife as 1950s-style flat paper dolls with only the clip-on outfits and accessories available to dress them with shown in the offending cover could have portrayed this just as well. With a slavering, O'Reilly-esque figure at his anchor desk waiting to dress them as a video camera sits in the background with its red light “on”.

Could have worked nicely.

And yes, I am an artist/cartoonist. (Having been lucky enough to study under EC's Bernard Krigstein and Will Eisner) :)

[emilyg]

5. Obama Campaign Calls New Yorker Magazine Cover “Tasteless and Offensive”

Campaign Calls New Yorker Cover "Tasteless and Offensive."

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/13/obama-campaign-calls-new-yorker-magazine-cover-tasteless-and-offensive/

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. OY... absolutely the wrong move.

You know how people at roasts always make a big show about laughing at even the meanest jokes about them?

That's because being unable to laugh at yourself is a universally disliked trait.

I am actually amazed the campaign would say that... it's bizarre. It's terrible politics any way you look at it.

[Garbo 2004]

8. It's already been on Drudge, HuffPo, Time mag, ABC sites....they have more media impact than DU.

Think if no one at DU talks about it no one else will notice or pick up on the story?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Of course DU is irrelevant. The point is that goes both ways.

The people trying to gin up protests against the New Yorker are obviously buying into the vanity that DU has a role to play in making the story bigger.

So, conversely, DU has the same potential role in making it smaller.


I think it's a trivial role either way, but if someone thinks protesting this cover makes a difference, then they should be aware that protesting it makes Obama look ridiculous, so whatever difference was made would be negative.

[crankychatter]

9. DUers ain't gonna make it the "story of the week" but you can bet your ass the MSM will

no text

[AZBlue]

11. I'm appalled by the cover.

And astounded that this kind of sludge would come from The New Yorker.

[BuyingThyme]

12. What's it look like?

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

13. Here it is; I'm pissed as hell.

[BuyingThyme]

17. Thanks.

I don't have a problem with it.

[Undercurrent]

14. I know a lot of people may not understand, but I felt

gut punched when I saw the cover. It really affected me, and brought back some ugly and painful memories of being assaulted by a gang of racists punks many years ago.

Some people no doubt thought I overreacted, but it really hit me.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. Sorry to implicitly minimize your sincere reaction

There is nothing more fundamental to American civilization than to be able to treat the President with disrespect. Assuming Obama is elected there will be a lot of arguably racist stuff that is okay because it has to be okay... not good, not admirable, but within bounds.

I am sure that things I've said about Bush have been shaped by my distaste for Texas. Unfair and prejudiced, surely, but people have to be able to hate the President if they want, and prejudice comes into play.

A lot of the Hillary haters on DU showed their hate very differently than they would if she were a man. And that's what it is... it isn't pretty, but it cannot be stomped down altogether without also stomping down elements of the freedom to have contempt for political leaders.

So I expect a very bumpy ride when Obama wins. Because people must be free to hate the president, and hating a black president will frequently have racial overtones.

And so much is in the eye of the beholder that there will be no consensus on what's okay.

[Undercurrent]

23. I agree with your broad premis.

In my opinion, in the current climate of fear, and hatred for both Muslims and blacks, coupled with our history of political assassination in this country choosing this cover lacks basic common sense, and decency.

[Divine Discontent]

18. I am not responsible for the New Yorker's decision to put this on hundreds of thousands of magazines

I'm discussing it on our DEMOCRATIC website, because it is in reference to OUR candidate for the presidency, AND, more than any reason, it's being done by an ally, and despite their reasoning behind it - the vast amount of arguments as to why it's offensive and dumb for them to do it clearly should show that it's, well, offensive.

[Duke Newcombe]

19. Not always

The "stand up" thing to do is always to be the bigger man and laugh at jokes at your expense, even if your are steaming inside. That is the right POLITICAL MOVE in terms of the things that lose and win elections.

.
Except when such a "laugh it off" reaction would brand the target an elitist wimp. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Duke

[JoFerret]

24. I agree. Good work DU

Everyone should see it. Everyone should make a point of looking for the great articles about bushco crimes.

[scarletwoman]

25. Yes, all across America people will admire our self-deprecating humor when we laugh at a depiction

of the American flag being burned in a fireplace underneath a portrait of Osama Bin Laden.

I'm sure that's how it will work...

Feh.

sw

[Skittles]

28. oh this is rich

now you're telling us what Obama and Michelle SHOULD be thinking and saying - and if they don't mean it to PRETEND they do. I am officially in the Twilight Zone.

[ruggerson]

29. Just sit back and watch the frenzy

something else will happen tomorrow and they'll all run over to that.