The New Yorker and the Hubris of Arrogance

BO and MO protest a little too much here.

how about the article inside on how obama is a typical chicago politician?

Obama accused Bill Clinton of being a racist Come on in The water fine good buddy!

Odrama

Perfect.

WTF, this is political satire. I’ve seen worse on Bush, Clinton, and others. Is Obama’s skin that thin or did this thing hit too close to home for their liking? It sounds like the Dutch controversy. Can’t say anything about or make satire about Obama. Obama’s always the victim it seems.

Is the poster size version available yet?

These would make wonderful placards for the convention!

Why does Obama refuse to face McCain in unscripted unrehearsed town hall meetings? He has been challenged repeatedly. Enough with the stupid pompous and preachy speeches.

After Randi Rhodes called Sen. Clinton a f***ing whore at an Obama fundraiser and Bernie Mac joked about women being ‘ho’s” there isn’t much room for high ground among the Obama campaign people.

WOW! Can I get that cover in a poster size? Mt only problem with it is they should have had Ayers dancing on the flag!

Satire is supposed to be directed at those whose opinions, attitudes, etc. one seeks to ridicule. If the New Yorkers’ purpose was to ridicule the right wing, the cover should have featured right wing characters, rather than the “victims” of so-called right wing claims.

The more important point, to me, is that if Obama is so fragile that ridicule and name calling throws him off his game, how will he hold up against foreign leaders (or the Republicans, for that matter) who will push his buttons in negotiations? “It’s not fair” is not much of a counter for dictators or states who sponsor terrorism. Obama should have laughed. That would have shown some strength.

I don’t think the cover is a gaffe at all.

It is exposing stereotypes and “myths”.

The real joke to me about it is, watching the spinning heads decry the cover and have a meaningful dialouge about the articles pertaining to the cover.

I wonder what was going through the artists’ head as the cover headed the press.

I did however look at the cartoons of 1928 Germany to see if any cartoons existed that might be similar in tone.

what ever can sharpen the focus of the electorates mind will do when it comes to BO.

In lieu of the transparent facts people will have preconcieved “notions”.

Seems like the folks over at The New Yorker didn’t waste any time on being PC.

I still don’t get what OBL was doing in the frame….even in satire; that is fractured.

live by the progressive/liberal/hip word, die by the progressive/liberal/hip cartoon!

it’s like Act II of the blogo-battle over FISA….

the hubris and pathos here are mythic, no?

a Greek trajedy?
a Shakesperean play?

Obama and his drones think they have the right to criticize Hillary, McCain and everyone else but that they should not be the subject of ridicule. Typical mindset of authoritarian dictator types like fascists and communists.

The reason why this cover is a disaster for both the New Yorker and Obama is because it gives a visual to what 50% of the country has already been thinking.
For some people they just couldn’t put their finger on it as to why they felt uncomfortable about Obama.
The New Yorker cover is like a road map to understanding all the deep rooted negatives that have been accumulating in their collective minds.

For some this is the tipping point to vote against Obama.
For others such as myself there are greater issues that make Obama unfit to be Commander and Chief.

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=att-portal&p=Clinton

Clinton 2012

A cartoon satire of Barack and Michelle rises to the same level of what Senator Clinton endured.

She was depicted as Hitler mustache, swastika, and all.

The Hillary flying on a broom is a classic.

The “pimping out her daughter” remark. Implying that Hillary’s a madam and her daughter is a prostitute.
No such comment was made when Obama approved an interview with his under aged daughters.

Then the suggestion that she needs a good f**k. By whom is not made clear. Implying rape is always a winner.

Let’s not complain about any of that.

Okie dokie.

I must disagree with you. There were covers at the NYR that depicted Bush/Cheney as gay cowboys using the Brokeback theme. Then there was the one about Katrina, with Condi, and the gang sitting in the Oval office half submerged in water. If you don’t get it, at least respect for once, freedom of the press. If you don’t get that cover you might not be getting the way the magazine’s very dry delicious wit goes about making fun of everyone, in this case using the fear of the right to make a point. People who think Obama is a muslim are not going to vote for him anyway, the rest who are not voting for him will not need the cover to make that decision. What is going on here?

Once again, Obama has let out his dogs. The most disturbing thing about this reaction is that the left as well as the right is absolutely paranoid. Obama’s faux indignation is just a way to threaten the press and media. It doesn’t stop him from using his ruse, to obliterate his opponents, and by the way he’s doing it here, then why this regrettable exhibition of ignorance and intolerance for wit or humor.

Are Americans stupider than we than they sound and look? Are we going to behave like the Muslims who rioted over those Danish cartoons? Is there anyone not drinking the kool aid?

Now I fully understand why Christ died, not for our sins, he was just exhausted. “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

I very much enjoy this Obamabot-free, free-wheeling discussion.

Maybe Obama can clean up his act by using Oprah’s whisk now that she has finished her cleansing. Oprah thinks she too is God this week. Must be something powerful in those Kool-Aid enemas.

It’s about that time to staple a copy of that cover on every phone pole in America, nice and low so the kiddies can see it when mom drives by.

Wow, this is the most stunning thing I ever have seen you have the MSM complaining that Obama is a victim because the New Yorker was saying he was a victim.

This is getting confusing!!

Just say no deal to this obvious attempt by Team Obama to turn Senator Obama into the victim of a Muslim witch-hunt using a SATIRICAL New Yorker cover, rather than have him face the large number of troubling questions about his past, his current political relationships, his fund raising sources and the fact that his US Senate activities may have been influenced by foreign input.

http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/just-say-no-deal-to-new-yorker-its.html

You see, it was all a lie that Obama’s close associated Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers are anti-American.

It’s a slanderous myth that Obama’s associates and even his church have promoted terrorists and terrorist causes.

And of course Mr. Obama never wore an Islamic outfit. Nor did he and Michele ever do a “fist bump.” Nor has his campaign been endorsed by Hamas and other terrorists.

These were fantasies dreamt up by lunatic rightwingers.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/new-yorker-portrays-obamas-as-terrorists

This is just another in a series of political tricks to try to garner support for Obama, as he is free falling in the polls and in in the ability to raise money. Last week it was Jeese Jackson:

How perceptive of Jesse Jackson to notice that the arrogant Affirmative Action post turtle Barack Hussein Obama has been “talking down” to black people — just like he’s been talking down to everyone else. Obammunists are advised not to blame Jackson for rather crudely expressing his jealous wish to castrate the Obamessiah. As the folks at Democratic Underground will tell you, the whole episode was the fault of Fox News — unless of course it was all cleverly staged by Jackson. Gibbers a DUmmie named KharmaTrain.

“Part of me thinks Jesse could be playing this for a “Sistah Soljah” moment for Obama. His son is a big wheel inside Camp Obama. Obama has been taking a lot of heat lately from the bigots and this could take their hatred and direct it in another direction…going after an old favorite target. Jesse knew where he was sitting and maybe he’s taking one for the team. It also shows, once again, for the majority who are tuned off on this network, how racist they, and repugnican, are.”

It seems the wise and benevolent extortionist Jesse Jackass played those racist repugnicans at Faux News like a violin.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/07/an_amazing_theo.html

PUMA

I am a Clinton soldier.

But, I have this to say about the New Yorker.

They crossed the line with that cartoon.

Let’s all shut our big mouths for a minute and think about those Obama children.

When I saw that magazine cover I did not laugh, the first thing that came to my mind were their children and what they would have to endure as a result of seeing such a vile picture of their parents.

Politics is a wicked world. But, on this one the New Yorker crossed the line and those little Obama girls are going to have those images of their parents that were in a national magazine imprinted in their minds for the rest of their lives.

Oh sure you can say they won’t see the picture……they will surely see it and you cannot sugar coat it.

I ask…….what then will they think of this country?

I truly am a Clinton soldier and I bet she would agree!

that cover is making fun of this site and community yet you idiots like it

the jokes on you. literally.

wow you’re dumb.

Why is BHO BHO pied piper and mesmerized followers SOOOOOO concerned about this “tasteless” (per BHO BHO) NY’er cover?

Nothing to fear, but fear itself. Woops, numbers slipping, people questioning… Expose working.

This was in ‘The Onion’ a few years ago and I do not recall anyone getting upset about it (see link below – beware – it’s The Onion being satyrical). You might have to copy and paste the link?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42136

Not one Democrat got upset when they saw that one on Laura Bush now did they. NOPE.

I am starting to realize there are a lot of Democrats voting for Obama that have no sense of humor and no understanding of the phrase, ‘freedom of speech’ – unless they’re the ones ‘speaking’. Some of these same people become petty and viscious when they lose control or don’t have control over everything and everyone within their universe and even outside of their universe. They can’t stand it when someone can’t or won’t see things their way.

Some Democrats, like those at some of the other blogs, really scare me. Especially the ones that drank the kool-aid for Obama. I’d name names but those blogs scare me (not kidding – vicious snakes). I think one of them sent out a spam on my work e-mail because I – I can’t figure out who else would have done it and it was at a time exactly when I was banned for standing with Hillary and against Obama. So I won’t name them or visit that (%^(#^( blog.

The reason most people can’t appreciate the satire intended is because parts of it are really exaggeration that touches too close to the truth. It may be a bit over the top but that is what satire is. We know Michelle is not advocating violence and Obama is not Muslim. But the unintended exaggerated symbolism is there.

The burning flag was especially symbolic, considering everything Obama has done during the primary and with the FISA vote.

The militant Michelle is an exaggeration of her attitudes towards America and the bitterness she can’t seem to keep hidden.

The Obama garb is an exaggeration of his remarks about why 911 happened, etc.

I don’t get the satire or irony in the Bin Laden portrait. That was just plain dumb.

I understand why the Obamas and their followers are outraged. I’m not sure they really understand why.
And I agree with many others – where was the outrage when this was done to Hillary many, many times.

I think this may just be another falling on the sword by the Obamaniac left. A lot of people appear willing to be thrown under the bus for the Golden One, who desperately needs a diversion from his multiple flip-flops and refusal to present a valid birth certificate. This cartoon is no different from any other political one, except that there are so few that dare to lampoon the Great Black Hope. If, for instance, the left had created a cartoon with McCain collaborating with the North Vietnamese, there would be little outcry over it. And this uproar, like most others involving BO, will not help him. It will just convince the majority of voters that he will stop at nothing to play the victim. And most people want a hero, not a woose, as Prez.

SATIRE AND THE CITY

There’s a wonderful episode of Sex and the City, when vainglorious writer, that aficionado of sex and the New York City life, Carrie Bradshaw, finds herself on the cover of New York Magazine looking worn and anything but glorious the words: ”Single and Fabulous?” plastered above the thirty-something’s shop-worn face.

Bradshaw had been duped by the magazine’s publishers who had told her the title of the article was to be Single and Fabulous…exclamation point, not question mark. Big difference.

Bradshaw and the four girlfriends around whose lives Sex and the City revolves act like the cover is nothing but an affront to their lives as single women to each other in the scene following Bradshaw’s discovery of self as satirical cover art. Later in the episode, each of the women proceed to act out the emotional question marks of their lives. It wasn’t pretty.

The message the magazine piece explored was anything but subtle but certainly satirical, the cover forcing four women, if not all those single women caught in their own ironic lives who watched the episode, do what a good magazine piece does: think, ponder, and yes, question.

That’s what good satire does. And certainly that is what honest satire as defined by the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc., according to that purveyor of honest definition, Dictionary.com ought to do.

In the Sex and the City episode, the writers were satirizing the new American culture.
This week, another New York magazine, The New Yorker, is taking a satirical look at political candidate Barack Obama. The New Yorker, long a leader in the arena of the satirical is being lambasted for its cover art designed by Barry Blitt depicting Obama and his wife Michelle, he in a turban, she as a fist-bumping, gun-slinging wife, a big portrait of Osama Bin Laden over their mantelpiece, in the fireplace a burning American flag.

The image is an amalgamation of all the right-wing’s attacks on the first African-American presidential nominee, the guy with the Muslim-sounding name, who has at times refused to wear an American flag on his lapel, and whose wife has made some comments even Barack Obama wishes he could forget.

Asked how he feels about the controversy surrounding his cover, Blitt responded, “I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.”

Now satire has long been a tool of political criticism. The identifiably American form of humor emerged in the late Colonial era. Benjamin Franklin published essays in the NEW ENGLAND COURANT that were widely read and acclaimed for their satire, and his POOR RICHARD’S ALMANACK (1733-1758) became famous for its brilliance. Samuel L. Clemens, aka Mark Twain, blended wit and political criticism. In the Twentieth Century there was the great Will Rogers, and, of course Lenny Bruce. America recently lost George Carlin, but still has satirists Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. But let’s not forget Obama’s hometown Chicago’s Second City, the National Lampoon, and the myriad political cartoonists who use their pen as sword poking fun at our politicians in our newspapers across America every day.

So why is Barack Obama and company so outraged by The New Yorker cover that his campaign quickly condemned the rendering with Spokesman Bill Burton saying in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create? But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

And why did John McCain’s press secretary issue a similar statement condemning the cover, as well as a barrage of ipso facto statements of horror coming from the left and right wing bloggers?
What makes The New Yorker cover anymore incendiary than any other of their satirical covers? Satire is not for the faint of heart. It was never meant to be.

Well, no satire here. Just plain truth: the statement from the Obama campaign was a brilliant attempt to play the victim of racism card and shore up its liberal base recently retreating from its candidate when he, in a not so subtle way, moved his positions to the center.

Those writers on the left have long been the victim of racial guilt.

The right and candidate John McCain want to be careful not to be boxed into being seen as racist as Senator Obama’s campaign so ably boxed in Hillary and Bill Clinton.

By the way, the cover of the issue is aptly titled “The Politics of Fear.”

American’s should be afraid, very afraid, when they lose their sense of humor.

Halli Casser-Jayne
http:///thecjpoliticalreport.com

If this New Yorker cover art depicted Uhuru Kibaki and his wife Lucy, the average person would look at it and assume that these two must be terrorists. Why? Because they don’t have any other information to go on, they don’t know anything about the Kibakis.
Maybe that’s the problem with this illustration of the Obamas. We don’t have enough information about who Barack really is to laugh at the satirical message the artist was trying to convey.
Obama needs to release his original birth certificate, marriage license, school records and declassify his passport information. Obama needs to be the transparent candidate he promised. Until documented facts are presented these rumor will continue.

I may not know what Satire is (A columnist?) but I know what is funny. The heads exploding over at the Great Orange Cheetoh blog.

I’s like that Denmark/Mohammed Cartoon satire american-style.
It’s satire! Did the New Yorker offend their God?

man, you people are crazy. get over it. Obama won, clinton lost and the usa is better for it. she would have destroyed this country even more than bush has.