Especially on Jack and Jill.

Known peddlers of false smears.

One of my own posts.

Their archives are atrocious.

That first link misses the mark as well.

Remnick Defends Obama Cover, Idea That Readers Aren't Retards-- "... That sounds like the sort of "nuance" that a responsible editor would know never to attempt! Why can't you be more like Rolling Stone, David, and only feature angelic photos of Barry as Jesus Christ? ..."

--sums this fauxtrage up perfectly. Not everything is offensive, and once again--- IT'S OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN THAT IS ENSURING THE WHOLE COUNTRY SEES IT AND KNOWS ABOUT IT. Talk to them before you ensure that no humor (even tasteless humor) is not allowed about the whining candidate who never makes a big deal about issues the way he does about this nonsense.

This country doesn't read the New Yorker.

but hidden in Michelle's 'fro are the words "Paul is the Walrus"

I'm not the least bit offended by this, because it IS satire. It doesn't promote racial stereotypes; what it does do is raise legitimate questions about who Barack Obama is, and what he stands for, through the use of exaggeration.

No wonder the Obots are up in arms -- the more the question "who is Barack Obama...REALLY" gets asked, the worse it gets for Obama. Not because he's a "Muslim", but because he has gone out of his way to be a blank canvas upon whom people can project their own aspirations. This cover is the flip side of that strategy -- its not just aspirations, but fears, that can be projected on Obama, and its his own fault.

... than accusing Hillary of wanting to assassinate Obama. Or using RFK's memory for the smear, if it comes to that.

Wake me when the wankfest is over, wouldja?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

from 04-- http://www.thenyrm.com/000637.html

"The New Yorker—D The 940, 000 readers of The New Yorker live mainly on the deep-blue coasts. Its strongest swing-state growth has come in places with little power in the Electoral College, like New Hampshire and New Mexico. So, despite the fury of Hendrik Hertzberg's "Talk of the Town" pieces, these particular intelligentsia aren't likely to sway the outcome in 2004."

(their circ is actually smaller than 940k -- "readership"/"readers" is always used since it makes a larger figure to sell to advertisers and presumes multiple readers per copy.)

& over...

It would really have been nice to have a candidate who made a big deal out of issues, and solving problems, but this is what it'll be like from now til November.

Appalling.

Where the faux outrage does more harm than good. Whether or not you find the cover offensive, the manufactured outrage has pushed the visibility of the cover beyond the half million ppl who would have understood that it was a play on rumors.

The Obama campaigns serial exaggerations of outrage enforce their defensiveness and keep stories in the press longer than necessary. This is why I don't think Obama's campaign is all that impressive. If he wasn't running against Hillary where there was free reign to blame Hillary for everything, he would have gotten creamed.

All these images of Obama are sitting quietly in the background of people's consciousness and the more exposure they have the more damaging it is for him. The GOP strategy is to get people to say: "well, that may not be true, but there are so many things like this out there, something MUST be wrong".

PB2.0 needs to learn when manufacturing controversy does more harm than good.

because Americans didn't understand that "All in the Family" was satire.

But the reality is we know in hindsight that Archie did an admirable job of making racism look ridiculous. Satire is one of the most powerful forces we have to move society forward. I praise the New Yorker for publicly embarrassing the nasty, furtive little senders of terrorist-fist-jabber emails. It's a kind of indictment of truthiness that truly works.

Meanwhile, George Carlin is weeping.

The article is ignored.

Intentional? What part of it? And by whom?

Cui bono, indeed.

I expected to see more agreements that this image was offensive, seeing as how that's what I'm seeing on most of the other "liberal" blogs.

Good to see not everyone out there is so stuck in "Obama is the savior we need" mode that they didn't get the joke.

Plus, I mean, it's the New Yorker. They're not stupid people, even if they've done some pretty stupid things in the past. This isn't one of those things. This is genius.

The only part of the plan they messed up was not recognizing that the Obama campaign would use this as another "oh, poor me" moment...or maybe they did? I'm sure it increased their readership for the next few issues tenfold.

The article is ignored.

Intentional? What part of it? And by whom?

Cui bono, indeed.

I don't think it is intentional, but good catch. In any case, that cover really really offended me.

And the nasty u-tube and nearly all the so-called news outlets and talking heads?

And where is all the outrage at all the continuing misogynism? All that "humor" from BO supporter BMac was just funny? Just OK?

Dowd got one thing right when she called him OBAMBI - he's such a cry baby.

To me, the satire doesn't work. And bad satire often is offensive to a lot of people because it misses its mark. And, of course, like misogyny, racism hurts all people of color, not just the ones it's aimed at (something perhaps the Obamas themselves should've thought of when they were happily leveraging misogyny against Hillary and lecturing black fathers). I'm not sure this is racist, but it's easy to see why folks might be offended. Although you rarely get good satire if you're not willing to risk bad satire and I think in these cases intent is important. Here, I think the intent was fine, but the execution wasn't very good (IMO).

I do think the outrage, coming from a campaign whose candidate most recently couldn't bring himself to seriously decry misogyny at a campaign event, is hard to take. And that's not even getting into how quick Obama has been to that charge (it will be interesting to see where the pundits come down on this and if we're getting to the point where Obama has a "cry wolf" problem where racism is concerned).

Hey, Obama, the New Yorker was just messin' with you.

Hipster racism? Is that what led so many white creative class members to think Obama's politics were secretly like Jesse Jackson's?

I don't think that is a good excuse.

However, having experienced racism/discrimination personally, I have a hard time being offended by this especially when the intent is pretty damn obvious. If we think this is what we think racism is, the Black community is in trouble.

DCb, you know that the image has a title -- "The Politics of Fear" -- which appears inside the magazine, right?

Racism, like sexism, should always be denounced. My problem is that I see the cover more as bad satire than true racism (although I admit it's a close call and could be seen as both).

It's just hard to take the outrage from the Obama folks, who seem to be fine with racism and sexism when it's not directed at their chosen one.

the TNY is trying to have it both ways. But that is just me.

"I still see it as satire, and the notion that most Americans are incapable of seeing that strikes me as excessively paranoid and a little condescending." -- http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th...

he's over Obama, i guess--no more crush.

the Internet rumors about Obama.

The major source for coverage of these rumors is FOX News, iirc.

Now, to have made a point which would have made a point, the New Yorker could have had everything in the cartoon inside a TV screen, with the FOX logo and some crazy bottom crawl or chyron which would make FOX's coverage of these rumors the subject.

To have just used the Obamas? Kinda misses the point they say they were making.

Pretty out there cover, but to achieve what?

Rev. Wright playing on it.

It's all in the headlines: "Obama slams New Yorker portrayal..."

See, Obama's running against New York. You know how those New York liberals are. So it's part of the centrist positioning. And underneath that, for the voter who really chooses to dig into the story, comes the racist smear. And Herzberg plays along with it....

[Reach me that bucket, wouldja hon?]

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

no fauxtraged special comment about this, i guess.

Yes, I do mean that. He openly called for her to be beaten, if not murdered.
I have no use for that ... media weasel. He gives sportswriters a bad name.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Yes, it's satire which would be better showcased in the Onion or the old National Lampoon accompanied by some irrational and satirical rightwing rant. As has been noted the serious article inside the mag will be largely ignored.

LOL.

Anyone remember this gem?

Second, how dare you take me for such a fool? How dare you threaten me? Yes, threaten. Such tactics don’t work on me, and the fact that they work on you says you can be bought at a cheap price. Don’t come at me with lame ass appeals and scare tactics about the Supreme Court and how bad McCain would be. You cannot scare me into voting for a person who has shown such a lack of principle.

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/...

Or when they pushed the RFK smear?

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/...

contempt held and contempt expressed.

get used to it.

you're going to see a lot if it in the next four months because senator obama invites it:

his empty rhetoric.

his skinny neck.

his egghead personality.

his policy vacillation.

his vague, jabbing, manner of speaking.

his faux rapper persona.

his non-mainstream wife.

his blossoming reputation as a self-serving political achiever (cf, gov bill clinton).

his lack of any achievement in any sphere of politics, especially that of the political executive.

obama supporter screaming "race" served the senator well in february thru june.

that won't help him at all now;

he de man.

to sum up

obama and his wife invite ridicule.

they are going to get a lot of it.

don't forget to thank your local democratic super delegate for his/her courage and good judgment.

... against the sea of Obama fen who consider it harmful. Frankly, I'm amazed, but it's actually logically-consistent with his position of using satire on his show.

The funny thing is, he's making the distinction between the audience that Gets It (the local NY audience) and the VRWC members who consider it as truth. He sure as hell made no distinctions when HRC got slammed; in fact, he contributed to the smears, and sold them to his audience as true.

May his agita reminds him of what happens when a man cries 'wolf' too much, or more precisely *fails* to warn his audience about its extremist tendencies. He kept his mouth shut during the RFK smear; may he be unlistened to, now.

The cover elicited the exact reaction it was satirizing. It may be construed as bad satire, but it really exposed exactly what they were saying in the first place.

what hope is there for the rest of us?

------------------------------------------------
“Just say NO! to Kool-aid.”

Cover charges
If Obama's campaign is upset by a magazine satire, what will it do when the real attacks begin? -- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edit...

is a good read.

the more thin-skinned a politician appears to be,

the more he/she invites ridicule, so get ready for more fun.

burton, et al maybe showing just how inexperienced they are at the presidential game, but the the obama campaign has to do something to discourage this sort of imagery because it fits emerging stereotypes of the couple so neatly.

wonder what maureen dowd will have to say on sunday about abu barrack's skirt?

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/...

that some folks seem to think that the new yorker cover is satirizing something other than the obama's?

the art work satirizes the couple, period.

if you want to add more convoluted interpretations, help yourself.

the cover accompanies a story by ryan lizza, first noted here by lambert, which is not at all complimentary to obama's "presidential timber" image.

the cover complements the article.

in this teapot tempest, as in all others,

the world very neatly divides itself into those who support abu obama and those who don't.

considerer this brain fart from the usually calm and sensible kevin drum washmonthly.

socially correct thinking is sooo appealing, kevin.

makes a giant deal out of falsely interpreting stuff like this cover, etc,--and then Obama speaks like Kerry and expects it to come off good, and as strong -- "... What’s missing in our debate about Iraq, what has been missing since before the war began, is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy . . . [T]his war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe. ..." -- http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/15/...

We should have a discussion about our foreign policy (but he says that in 10,000 words) is the answer to our occupation of Iraq ?????

recognizes the political damage for what it is - and, i have no doubt, for what was intended.

the daily howler

the boys at obama,inc need to learn to keep quiet about some things.

has what i regard as a more appropriately sensible and cynical view of the boiling outrage over the new yorker cover featuring abu obama and wifle.

cannonfire

I think it's important to note that there is a line that was crossed routinely in HRC satire that was NOT crossed by this cover.

The cover did not show unattractive, grossly exaggerated African-American physical features (other than the 'fro needed for the Angela Davis resemblance) or the most evil of stereotypes. Funny or not, it was confined to mocking irrational political smears.

If the same had been done for HRC, I for one would have been grateful. I would have been glad for any effort to ridicule the anti-HRC garbage. There was none. I would have welcomed "The Politics of Misogynistic Paranoia" with her stirring a witch's cauldron, darkening photos, with references to her assassinating Vince Foster, RFK and Obama.

But it would absolutely have to omit the "ugly old woman" features or lesbian or castration jokes, because these are too personal and trigger damaging, visceral bigoted reactions. Which was precisely the intention of "Curious George" and why it was particularly vile. Which, of course, is why precisely these images dominated the incredibly abundant HRC "satire" that Obama supporters and media universally found so hilarious.

(Of course, the other key difference was that HRC satire was mocking HRC herself, not her smearers like the NY cover. Intent matters a lot to me, whether well executed or not.)

I am sick beyond measure at the hypocrisy these last two days of Democrats who freely reveled and wallowed in the misogynistic satire that literally saturated the media just weeks ago.

smart-asses, and bullies, and knowing how to disarm each.

Kerry also under-responded to real threats to his reputation, and didn't know how to brush off less-threatening, general ridicule. It's as if neither he nor Obama know how to exhibit a sense of humor, even though they find nothing funny about being attacked.

Am I mistaken, or did the Big Dog know how to deal with all the hatred, and could sling it back with a grin?