I think the Obama cover is hilarious.

[Occam Bandage]

And I say this is a dyed-in-the-wool Obamapologist. It's a brilliant send-up of the most inane, insane Republican attacks. It presents the most common and vile Republican attacks not in the back alleys of shadowy innuendo where they thrive, but in daylight, exposing them as the absurd farces that they are. I'm not offended in the slightest.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Seen the light]

1. Most of us aren't offended

This controversy is stupid on the level of Senator Obama's "snubgate" scandal with Senator Clinton.

But hey, we have to always have SOME sort of horrible controversy here at DU, don't we?

[gateley]

4. Or of Obama

REALLY flipping the bird when mentioning Hillary. THAT was beyond funny.

[Seen the light]

5. If I had a dime for every faux-controversy on DU this election cycle....

I *might* have enough money to buy half a gallon of gas. :P

[Divine Discontent]

32. the most responded to poll on DU has half offended, and 10% angry

It is a bad distraction from the message Obama is trying to put out. Putting THAT crap on the cover of the magazine takes away from time that could have been spent on real stories in the news, radio and print about him - that is what a lot of the fuss is over - and the rest is b/c it furthers the perception through visuals of the Obamas as being big afro turbin-wearing anti-American flag burners who are trying to pull one over on Americans, much like the black face 'comedy' of the early 20th century, and the Germans used in the propaganda against the Jewish people.

It was poorly executed. It should have been in the cartoon section of the magazine, or in the story, and a different photo or text put on the cover.

It is immature at best. I understand it's intent, but it will trip over itself repeatedly if that's the walk it was aiming for.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Not according to a poll right in here in this forum

it seems a big majority of Duers have lost all sense of humor, all sense of perspective, all sense of proportion.

The top 12 threads on this page are about the New Yorker. The response here is just ridiculous, over-the-top, insanity. In other words, typical GDP.

[thewiseguy]

42. Take a look at DU polls before you run off with the "Most of us" claims

[npincus]

78. speak for yourself.

this cover personifies the fears and doubts of many more Americans than the number that "get it". Readers of The New Yorker are a sophisticated, urbane bunch; the national exposure of this cover will not be understood by the vast majority not familiar with the sardonic wit of the magazine, nor it's history of such artwork... true, many probably would not vote for Obama anyway. But, there are enough disaffected RWers, not enamored with McCain, who might have stayed home on election day, who may be repelled by the portrait of the Obamas on the cover.

Think it's funny? Good for you. If even one vote is thrown to McCain because of this, was it worth it? Obama is on the cusp on flipping some red states-- the MSM ruminates endlessly on Obama's patriotism, his fricking flag pin, and relationship to his former minister. This is not helpful. Dumb and/or ignorant people vote, too.

[gateley]

2. I just looked it up -- missed the brouhaha.

I agree -- pretty funny.

The people who think it's an expose are the people who believed this shit all along anyway.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Yup.

[jefferson_dem]

6. Word.

:thumbsup:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. I don't think it's a big deal and I hope it drives up the New Yorker's readership.

God knows Americans could use the exposure to something a little more highbrow than Us and People.

[bigwillq]

8. I think it's an impressive cover.

It certainly makes its point, and mocks the right-wing loonies in the process.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Just read the OP, then the name.

:wow: :thumbsup:

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

10. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the average American

isn't going to take the time to realize the cartoon is supposed to be satire. This is despicable.

[Common Sense Party]

16. The average American is not as stupid as you assume. n/t

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

19. They (of course we didn't) elected *. (I won't say re-elected because

he was "selected" in 2000.).

[JoFerret]

27. The "average" American is way smarter than

the "average" DUer gives credit for.

I doubt they will all rush out and buy the NYer. Too bad.
The average DUer would be improved by regular reading.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

Let's just say Obama was not well-served by this, and even if

they won't all rush out to buy the New Yorker, you bet your ass the MSM will be talking about this non-stop.

It doesn't help our candidate.

Oh, and I do read regularly. Do not insult me.

[JoFerret]

33. They will now that everone is all atwitter.

I take back any insult to your intelligence or whatever. Calling people "average" is never a good idea.

And as to whether it helps or hurts our candidate...hard to tell but I think their is an excellent chance that sunlight will serve as disinfectant.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

35. I hope you're right, Jo. Time will tell.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

45. atwitter :)

just have to tell you I've enjoyed your replies all through this series :thumbsup:

and oh, never read it but might just now on your recommendation if I can scrounge together the money (unemployment is a real drag sometimes)

[JoFerret]

55. Most libraries get the NYer

and some articles are available on line. (Harder to read of course but...)
Cheers matey!

[Eyes_wide_ open]

70. Thanks

it's linked in a post below and it is an excellent article ... with absolutely no bearing to the cover at all :shrug:

Still I learned a bit more tonight so it's all good.

[JoFerret]

77. Here's a link to a good article

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

[AlinPA]

74. Yes. 'Murcans can't read. They look at pictures and TV a lot. This is bad stuff for us.

[EstimatedProphet]

85. The average American doesn't vote, so what difference does it make?

[liberalmuse]

11. Amen, but that being said, I understand why people are pissed.

That was my first reaction. When you think of it, the ones who are going to jump on this are the very ones the cover is poking fun of, and that is as it should be. Their job is to inspire satire, not understand it. And we can have another elitist, liberal giggle at their expense.

[scarletwoman]

14. Yes, because having "elitist, liberal giggles at their expense" is exactly the way to win over the

low information voters.

GAWD, I HATE liberals!

sw

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. You are lower than Hitler

Kidding! Good Post. K&R

[Runcible Spoon]

13. I don't think it's hilarious, but the outrage is. the cover itself is not funny as much as it's

sobering and spot on.

I can't believe I'm even remotely agreeing with you on something! :nuke:

[cliffordu]

15. I'm.......

concerned......


.......

[JohnnyLib2]

23. Say whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

:wow: Has hell frozen or are you being.....satirical?

[cliffordu]

36. Very very satirical......ain't skeered

I am actually more concerned with the honey bee hive deaths out west here. I like apples.

(I DID write the New Yorker a hate letter, though. Oh, yes. Yes I did.)

[JoFerret]

46. Now get a subscription

.

[cliffordu]

56. They wrote back and are sending me a free copy.

[JoFerret]

60. That's very nice of them. Smart too.

.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

50. uh oh

[BlooInBloo]

17. Sigh. There's 2 pieces to this - the intent and the consequences....

The "it's just a joke" defenders like to pretend that only the former matters. I and the rest of the critics (he says presumptuously) agree that intent matters, but that's not ALL that matters. The bottom line is that no matter what the intent was, we end up with another piece of media depicting Obama as a clownish brown muslim terrorist and Michelle as a black panther radical.

The intent matters, but so does the end result. Just because the former is fine, doesn't mean it's fine overall.


EDIT: Found a typo.

[Blondiegrrl]

24. I agree with you.

I'm not offended by the cover, but I think it's a bad idea that will backfire on us.

[Youphemism]

18. I find that comment horribly disturbing...

I have no trouble with the political satire issue -- but the idea that "humor" in The New Yorker is actually funny -- that really makes me worry about the direction of our country.

We don't even know "funny" anymore. Good God, what has George W. Bush done to us?

A cover of McCain betting North Dakota in a poker game with his Vietnamese captors, hollering "Beer me, c**t" over his shoulder to his wife, as Phil Gramm whispers in his ear and Charles Keating peeks at the other players cards... That, at least, starts to get closer to funny.

The New Yorker has a stick up its butt the size and shape of Rhode Island.

I can handle poking fun at Obama. But don't try to tell me The New Yorker is funny. Those stodgy codgers wouldn't know funny if it dressed up as a hobo and used a French Tickler to remove their spleen during a dental exam.

[JoFerret]

49. Funny or not. At least the NYer is well written

Your post is neither.

[Youphemism]

65. Well, I'm not blessed with pearls like "sunlight will serve as disinfectant"...

...I just try to make do.

Of course, I'm not trying to stake a claim as a literary cultural icon. I'm not taking your money for the privilege of reading these words.

There is no "funny or not" about it. There's only "not."

[JoFerret]

76. I agree - that was a cliche

Sometimes they are useful if making a simple point.

One of the secondary pleasures of the New Yorker is that the writing often has clarity and originality.

[Youphemism]

80. I wouldn't argue that. They just need help being funny. /nt

[JoFerret]

81. I think the intention would be to make readers think.

They appear to have been successful.

[Youphemism]

83. Uh, no. That's sort of the point, isn't it?...

Even going along with your suggestion that this is thought provocative, rather than just provocative, it's failed. Look at how many people you have to claim "don't get it." And these are the folks on Obama's side.

The New Yorker's poor attempts at satire are really just attempts to make cultural references so their readers can feel clever about understanding them. That's fine, if you like that sort of drek. But it's a poor excuse for humor and only amusing to those who have a need to feel better about themselves.

[JoFerret]

91. As I said - not humor - but it is par for the course

with the New Yorker. I do think we all have to be a little less "sensitive".

[Catchawave]

20. Has anyone read the ARTICLE ?

:shrug:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?printable=true

[Eyes_wide_ open]

69. wow

GREAT article! Thanks so much for linking it :thumbsup:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. The problem is that a good number of people who see this won't understand that it's

satirical...not to mention, very racist and offensive. It *is* offensive!! x( :puke:

[jenmito]

25. I disagree. I think people will be so intrigued by the cover that they'll read the article

just to see what the heck they MEAN by the depiction and they just may realize that their suspicions were ignorant and the Obamas are nothing LIKE they were depicted.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. I think we underestimate the average American. I can't even get my students to read news articles

...and they are political science majors!

I don't trust the M$M to treat this as satire. I expect the corporate punditry to spin, spin, spin and reinforce through subtle imagery and code worded language.

[jenmito]

34. You mean "OVERestimate"? I don't think so in this case. The cover is SO controversial

that I really think those who may buy into the rumors will see the cover and their curiosity will get the best of them-ESPECIALLY if they're aware this is a liberal magazine. Then they'll finally see who the Obamas REALLY are.

[Buck Rabbit]

43. Many people exposed to the cover, thru the news and video media won't

have access to the actual story or care to read it.

Take me. I have seen the cover, I already know what the article is about so I wouldn't bother to read it. I have read the New Yorker before, damn carpet bagger dentist, and I'm afraid my opinion of it is the same as Seth MacFarlane's.

My mother-in-law who is on the fence and MIGHT vote democrat for the first time in the 30 years I have known her will see the cover, if not on the news than in an email from my freeper uncle, but would never read the article unless it was in Reader's Digest.

[JoFerret]

51. To clarify....your view of New Yorker

articles on political issues is what?
Can you be specific please.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. I'm not convinced but I hope you're right and I'm dead wrong. n/t

[cliffordu]

41. DING ding ding, we have a winner!

But I think we OVER estimate the average 'Merkan.

[JoFerret]

52. I give them about the same credit as I would the

average DUer - if there were to be such a thing.
Are you an average DUer?

[cliffordu]

53. Not me. Subnormal.

[EstimatedProphet]

86. No, it's the emails that it mocks which are racist

[jenmito]

22. Happy to give the 5th R...

I agree.

[JoFerret]

26. Makes me wonder if its an Obama campaign move

Brilliant if it is.

[mtnsnake]

28. The Obama campaign finds the cover of The New Yorker to be "tasteless and offensive"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11718.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. worst possible reaction. Hopefuly Obama will fix that tomorrow

[Youphemism]

37. I'd disagree...

I think there's a lot of overreacting being done on these boards. But Obama being troubled by an image of his wife toting a machine gun and him burning a flag?

Totally appropriate reaction. I'm sure he won't go livid over it, but it's appropriate to be bothered by it, even in jest.

[BlooInBloo]

30. Obviously they're oversensitive and can't take a joke. Like most black folks....

to hear white folks tell the story, at least.

[yardwork]

48. That's exactly the way they should react. Everyone is playing their role to the hilt.

[mopinko]

39. i'm not in a snit, but

as someone who does a little bit of the same type of parody, i think it is just missing a little something. there is a joke in there somewhere, but i don't really get it.

[Buck Rabbit]

40. While I am not offended, I don't think it's good satire.

I think this is the first post of yours I can ever remember disagreeing with. So YAY, Wahoo. I was worried I might be becoming an Occam-bot so this is very reassuring. Anyway,

Irony, lacking.

Mocking the offending party, nope they don't appear in the artwork, offending the victims of the supposed target of his scorn, yep. Obama was not amused even though he is fully capable of understanding the artists feable attempt.

Humor, nope not even a chuckle, though maybe I'm not feeling funny today, as my wife thought I would laugh at Pickles today, but I didn't find it as funny as usual.

[JoFerret]

54. Not supposed to be funny

.

[Buck Rabbit]

57. The OP stated it was hilarious.

You and I agree it wasn't.

[JoFerret]

59. Satire is a wry form of wit that appeals

to the intellect not the funny bone. It is designed to make you think. This cartoon does that very effectively.

[Buck Rabbit]

62. I understand that. I was responding to the OP's claim that it was Hillarious.

I have seen almost identical depictions as this cartoon that were pure attacks. Those attacks were also supposed to make us think too. Yet unlike say a Stephen Colbert who mocks himself the deliverer of hogwash all this cartoonist does is copy the attack without adding any subtle distinction between his satirical attack and the real thing. He does not mock or diminish the messengers or their message but leaves that to an accompanying article that may or may not do that either.

Like I said, I am not highly offended by this, I don't think this is an earth shattering event, I love satire, but my opinion is it is not Hilarious as the OP stated, in fact I think it's just mediocre.

[JoFerret]

63. What did Brian Griffin do at the NYer? n/t

.

[Youphemism]

67. The trouble starts when it's all wry and no wit. /nt

[JoFerret]

75. Did it make you think? n/t

.

[Youphemism]

79. Yes. It made me think the guy who drew it needs socialization skills and funnier material. /nt

[JoFerret]

82. Cognitive diversity is a wonderful thing n/t

.

[Abacus]

90. But the funny bone is connected to the intellect...bone.

The cartoon does not offer new and unique insight or perspective, it simply puts in graphical form what we've been hearing and reading for months. It didn't cause me to think in about the issue in a novel or clever way, nor do I get the impression it did the same for others. It's a one dimensional issue seller and subscription reducer.

[Youphemism]

66. If it was not supposed to be funny, then it achieved its goal smashingly. /nt

[dolo amber]

44. EXACTLY

:terroristfistjab: :thumbsup:

[yardwork]

47. I agree.

I also find it hilarious that the right-wing won't know what to do with this, because while they would love to publicize the cover, they have an allergy to the New Yorker.

It puts them in a terrible dilemma. I'm sitting here laughing at the thought.

[EstimatedProphet]

87. See, that's it exactly

On the one hand, they can't point to it as another stupid liberal comment like they do with everything else. On the other hand, they can't take the position that the New Yorker has come to their senses, because it is pretty obvious satire, and satire of them at that.

[yardwork]

93. It's a bit like Stephen Colbert's talk at the press association meeting.

[EstimatedProphet]

96. GMTA and all that

I think I made that point this morning on another thread...

[swishyfeet]

58. Another Obamapologist who thinks it's fine n/t

[galledgoblin]

61. I laughed, I just worry that others won't

satire is lost on many, especially the lunatics on the right.

[nsd]

64. It's not a send-up at all.

There's nothing in the image to indicate that Republican tactics are its target. There's nothing in the image about the media, about e-mail smears, about Hannity and Limbaugh, about any of that.

I don't doubt the cartoonist meant well. I don't doubt he *meant* to satirize these things, but I think he failed completely. All he ended up doing was taking the worst smears against Barack and Michelle Obama and collecting them in one place. His cartoon isn't imaginative or insightful.

The worst part is that Obama is now going to have to waste the next few days talking about this -- instead of talking about Gramm or Fannie Mae or the status-of-forces in Iraq.

[KittyWampus]

73. yes, there is something. Obama is looking out of the illustration directly at the reader.

[EstimatedProphet]

88. The send-up is in the subject itself

there's no need to point out that it's a parody of rightwing smears, because that's the sole source of everything contained in the image. The image itself indicates that. Where else has anyone been saying the stupid things that are being parodied?

[scheming daemons]

68. This cover "controversy" will get more people to read the magazine....

....which is a good thing.



I have no problem with this cover at all. Those that do, need to step back and see the whole forest. You're not, right now.


This cover highlights the idiocy of the RW arguments.

[WCGreen]

71. Yep, what the OP said...

[EstimatedProphet]

84. HOW DARE YOU!

Don't you know that the New Yorker cover has guaranteed that McCain will win?!? It PROVES that Obama is a Muslim!

If you got the cover you will get this post.

[truth2power]

89. It's great! It's satire...

it mocks the RW responses to the fist-bump.

It's a caricature of what Obama and Michelle look like to the RW mind (sic). "Ooooo!. Look, that fist-bump is a secret turrist signal! They're comin'tuh git us....Oooo!"

Good on the New Yorker!! :evilgrin:

[Xenocrates]

92. The meat is in the article, The candy is on the cover

R&K!

This cover did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Now, if only everyone could get past the cover, and into the article.

Not offended at all.

[TheDonkey]

95. yes, because people are going to be flocking to the newstands to pay $5 for this piece of trash

and read the article.

[tekisui]

94. It's Brilliant. It is an inoculation.

As my great-grandpappy said, "Shovel all your shit in one pile."