Opening the Day: New Yorker Gets Ironically Racist

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04


Happy Monday everyone!  I got my iphone, so I'll be writing a review later this week.  And Netroots Nation starts on Thursday, if you're coming we'll have an OpenLeft caucus.

  • David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, has an interview discussing the new racist cover about Barack Obama.  

  • Arnold is saying he'd take the post of Energy czar' in an Obama administration.  I don't know if that's energy secretary or 19th century murderous Russian autocrat placed in charge of American energy policy.

  • Hill staff jobs are controlled by private email lists.  Not a surprise, I suppose, but still depressing.

  • Bush will be overridden if he vetoes the Medicare advantage bill that passed last week.

  • This is a good article about Joe Lieberman in the Senate.  If he speaks at the Republican National Convention, he's toast.  And he knows it.  But he really really wants to be the center of attention.

    Greg Sargent takes the article apart and explains the context the New York Times fails to put in there.

  • Jim Webb doesn't read blogs, thinks they are written by anonymous and irresponsible people, and wishes they wouldn't be so fixed in their positions early on with regards to FISA.

  • Lobbyists are swarming all over Democratic Chiefs of Staff at special fundraisers.

  • Don Cazayoux is in trouble.

    First, in what can only be viewed as a major blow to newly elected Rep. Don Cazayoux (D), state Rep. Michael Jackson filed as a "no party" candidate for the fall general election.

    Cazayoux was already in for a tough race in the Baton Rouge-based 6th district against state Sen. Bill Cassidy (R), whom GOP party leaders have united behind, but Jackson's presence in the general election is sure to eat into Cazayoux's base of support.

    Cassidy and Cazayoux are both white, and if Jackson were to run, he would be the lone black candidate in a district that is 33 percent black. Jackson is well-known in the district and lost a special election primary runoff to Cazayoux this spring.

What are you reading?
Matt Stoller :: Opening the Day: New Yorker Gets Ironically Racist

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Opening the Day: New Yorker Gets Ironically Racist | 65 comments
On Webb .. (0.00 / 0)
what blogs did he read? .. does he read Glenn Greenwald? ... and Webb does realize that the bill was capitulation .. right? .. also .. "irresponsible people"? .. that could go for most of Congress ... even Chuck Schumer(who wasn't responsibile for IndyMac going up in smoke .. but who shares in the blame of the Fannie and Freddie fiascoes)
He's A Jackass, But He's OUR Jackass (4.00 / 1)
Really, what did people expect?  He's a Reagan Democrat.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Well I am sure sites like Not Larry Sabato (4.00 / 2)
among others who helped get his name out there when he was not even  blip on anyone's radar screen for the Democratic nomiee for the Senate will be happy to know their efforts were the results of irresponsible people
Racist cover? (4.00 / 3)
It's clearly satirical and meant to expose the absurdity of those on the Right -- and some on the Left -- who traffic in this filth.

It is instructive, however, to see how the vast majority of the the netroots are reacting to this pointed commentary.  

The stakes of this race have apparently scrambled many minds.  

You Clearly Have No Idea How Communication Works (4.00 / 2)
But the New Yorker folks cannot use that lame excuse in defense of their sorry asses.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
They just did (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes, of course... (4.00 / 1)
Swift and Twain were horrible communicators, Paul.

[ Parent ]
Thank God Chappelle Uses a Laugh Track (4.00 / 1)
otherwise everyone would think he really is a white supremacist!!



Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Didn't Dave Chapelle say he was foregoing a multi-million dollar (4.00 / 2)
contract because he came to realize that whites were laughing a little to hard at this kind of humor?
[ Parent ]
Yah, that's it, too many white people laughing (4.00 / 1)
The theme of the day is "Irony".

Between the first and second seasons, Comedy Central was sold. "There was a lot of new faces. Viacom had acquired the entire asset of Comedy Central. Certain things happened that were strange at the time." Chappelle straightens his back and mimics the voice of an older white executive: " 'Dave, we're having a symposium on the n-word, and we wanted you to speak about your use of it. It's just for our information.' And I did it, but afterward I was like, That was real stupid of me. Why the fuck would I explain to a room full of white people why I say the word nigga? Why on earth would I put myself in a position like that? So you got me on a panel, me and all of these, like, Harvard-educated, you know, upper-echelon authors, me, and a rapper. So here I am explaining, and I was real defensive 'cause of what was going on at the show at the time--we had just shot the Niggar Family sketch, and I was at a symposium on the word nigger. So I'm feeling like I'm fighting censorship. They say, 'We just want to know how far we should go with something like that.' And the subtext of it is, 'Do you want to know, or do you want to tell me something?'

"You have all these Harvard-educated people saying, 'I think the word is reprehensible' and talking about the destructive nature of blah, blah, blah. . . . You know, pontificating."

Silence. A sigh.

"But the bottom line was, white people own everything, and where can a black person go and be himself or say something that's familiar to him and not have to explain or apologize? Why don't I just take the show to BET--oh, wait a minute, you own that, too, don't you? Same thing happened with the Rick James episode. They gave us the notes and there were like forty-six or some insane number of bleeps that we would've had to put over it. 'Well, Dave, then why don't you go in and explain to them yourself.' So now I'm sitting in a room, again, with some white people, explaining why they say the n-word, and it's a sketch about Rick James, and I don't want to air a sketch with that many bleeps over it; it will render it completely ineffective. Give me another week and I'll just come up with something else. Run a rerun. 'No, we can't run a rerun, we've got ad buy-ins' and blah, blah, blah. Okay, well then, fine, I don't want to do it then. And so then there was a compromise. It was the only episode that aired with a disclaimer. But again, it was a position where I was explaining to white people why the n-word. It's an awful, awful position to put yourself in.

Bolded for my pleasure.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
source (0.00 / 0)
sorry meant to include it http://www.esquire.com/feature...

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
PC poisoning (4.00 / 1)
Paul, it's the New Yorker. Their chosen role is to stick sharp needles into the beige hides of the dull and "serious". Are you really claiming that this cartoon is going to turn normal folks into raging racists?

In speaking of how communications works, you seem to forget about the effectiveness of humor and satire. The NY cartoon looks at the politics of fear and holds it up for ridicule by putting its real face in plain view.

You, OTOH, respond by fear and rage at the "danger" the satire represents, and thereby give power to its targets. If it recall correctly, there were people who wrung their hands over the certainty that Swifts "Modest Proposal" would justify the eating of children among the lower classes. I'm sorry to say that your fear strikes me as being in the same category. It's really past time for our side to quit worrying about what morons think and what might stir them up. We've got problems enough on our own little acreage.  

[ Parent ]
Comparing This To Swift Is An Insult Swift Did NOTHING To Deser ve (0.00 / 0)
In your view, the label "satire" magically absolves the perpetrators of all possible sin.

This is simply idiotic.

Swift was a genius.  The perpetrators of this farce were idiots at best, knaves and idiots at worst.

I've been writing satire since I was teenager.  I even did a whole "New World Songbook," with titles like "Puff, The Magic H-Bomb," and "Michael, Close The Shelter Door," so lecturing me about satire is not going to impress me much.

Failed satire isn't satire.  It simply is what it pretends to stand against.

It's precisely because I value satire so highly that I find this so utterly reprehensible.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Shrug. (4.00 / 1)
"Failed" or "successful" is in the eye of the beholder. I think if anything, the cartoon goes a long way to defang the racist attacks from the Right -- which is a hell of a lot more effective than the predictable whiny outraged posturing from the liberals.
[ Parent ]
Wow, Paul, it sounds like... (0.00 / 0)
... you used to have a sense of humor.

[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
it's obviously satire. Poorly done, but satire. The real problem witht he New Yorker is that its pretentious.
[ Parent ]
Not Just "Poorly Done" But Failed (0.00 / 0)
When someone builds a bridge, but it's poorly done, it might not carry the load it should.  When someone builds a bridge that fails, it's not a bridge anymore.  Well, this is failed satire, and that means that it isn't satire anymore.

The pretentiousness is a good part of the cause, of course, but it's hardly the whole of the problem.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Someone else made that point with me and now agree (although I don't call it offensive) (4.00 / 1)
I was comparing it to Borat, but they pointed out that in Borat there was never any confusion about whether the title character was to be taken seriously or not (so all the stuff borat did was clearly the acts of a buffon) , and here there are two interpretation- and that's why it fails.  
[ Parent ]
the problem (4.00 / 3)
The problem is that this will easily be appropriated by racists who will miss the irony and instead view it as the truth and perpetuate it as such. I wouldn't be surprised to see this cover make its way onto t-shirts and other memorabilia. Such items have already cropped up among the rank and file of the Republican Party, whether it's pins asking if we should still call it the White House if Obama is elected, or shirts comparing Obama to Curious George. This cover was meant to be satire, but mark my words, it will be used to perpetuate some of the ugliest racial stereotypes out there by actual racists.
[ Parent ]
Yes, absolutely, but is that the (4.00 / 3)
fault of the New Yorker?

Should they not engage in any satire that might be appropriated by racists? Should we reserve our outrage for those who use the cover to spread, rather than criticize, racism? Or is the creation of something than can be misused to spread racism, even if that's not the intent, also to be condemned?

[ Parent ]
well but I think I now understand the point (0.00 / 0)
the point of a skilled satire is to convey the fact it is satire. No one could have take Borat, for example, and hold him as an example of how true things are that he says. On that level, this does kind of fail as satire. I still don't think its offensive, but it is a failed effort.
[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
"I wouldn't be surprised to see this cover make its way onto t-shirts and other memorabilia.

Can't wait to get a framed numbered print for my Osama Obama collection.

/satire

[ Parent ]
you people need to chill out (4.00 / 1)
ohh the hand wringing! the world will certainly come to an end.

god, the left hammering on one of the only good magazines around. are you people kidding? it would be a coup if racists start buying up new yorkers with sarcastic covers about racism.

why don't you all worry about something important like a the Treasury buying stock in shit companies in order to continue to prop up a real estate bubble.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
I, for one, (4.00 / 1)
have no intention of trying to suppress in-your-face satire for fear of what some morons might do with it. Years ago when I was tending bar in a working-class bar, customers would sit in a drunken daze and cheer about how Archie Bunker had it right and what a great show that was.

If our side spent more time trying to communicate what we have to offer and less time trying to be the Ministry of Thought we'd be a whole lot more successful. Indulging the fear-driven authoritarian tendencies of the Left does not advance our cause.  

[ Parent ]
I'm with you. (4.00 / 1)
The satire seems clear--and even heavy-handed.

But reading a few sites, I think there's more than 'scrambled minds.' Many people feel that the cover accurately represents the racist imaginings of a great many whites--and so portrays, and even ratifies, that racism. (So while it's clearly an exaggeration, and meant as satire, the fact that it gives shape to this racism is an ugly problem.)

Seems to me that a snippet of one conversation--between the New Yorker and its readers--is fine there, but ugly when pasted into other discussions.

I've said many things in backblog discussions that would sound  horrible if I said them somewhere else. The New Yorker isn't talking to the Right. They're talking to their readers. The Right will, of course, do what they always do: but I'm not sure that's the New Yorker's responsibility.

[ Parent ]
Many people feel that the cover accurately represents the racist imaginings of a great many whites (0.00 / 0)
That's what makes it sarcasm!  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Well, if people think (0.00 / 0)
Jews are hook-nosed international bankers who eat Christian babies and pull the strings of the White House, and your cover shows a hook-nosed Jewish banker sitting down for a meal of suckling baby with an obviously deferential George Bush, you're not really being satirical.

You've gotta go over the top to be satirical, and many people feel that this cover isn't sufficiently over the top. It's just an attractive poster that makes people's formless racism more graphically pleasing.

I think that, for the intended audience (of New Yorker readers), they're wrong. But that for other audiences, they're right. Thing is, I'm not sure you can condemn someone for giving people to whom they're not speaking the wrong idea.

[ Parent ]
i guess the afro should have been bigger (0.00 / 0)
what?

you're not being satirical enough if you show a jew eating a christian baby? right. that's like so plausible. who are you worried about getting the wrong idea? crazy rabid racists who really think a presidential candidate is going to hang a picture of Osama Bin Laden in the white house, and his wife wears combat boots? guess what, if they don't get this as sarcasm they won't get anything. they'll probably just think your "more sarcastic" image is even more accurate and they'll use that. which makes me think, we should probably ban humor all together, lest someone get the wrong idea. it's for our safety.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
...and for the children, (0.00 / 0)
don't forget. Ever.

If we can keep the children humor-free, we can breed a whole new generation of frightened liberals.

[ Parent ]
You seem to have missed the 'if' in my comment, so (0.00 / 0)
here's another one: if.
[ Parent ]
Sorry, i did (0.00 / 0)
quite right you are.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
That cover is hilarious! (4.00 / 4)
sarcasm anyone?

it gets boring when the online left community needs to take everything literally and gets itself in a kerfluffle.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
It might or might not sing as satire, but racist? Of course not. Like some fuzzy-headed college student, Matt can't tell the different between racism and a critique of racism. But then Matt's always been very loose with that term. Not too long ago he called John Edwards racist.
[ Parent ]
Did you see Atrios this morning? .. (4.00 / 1)
he quotes Doughy Pantload .. of all people .. and here is the exact quote from Doughy Pantload himself(which Atrios linked to):

"What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review."

That's from freakin' Doughy Pantload!!!

[ Parent ]
Except (4.00 / 1)
The NR would never in a million years be that upfront about its darkest beliefs. That's why the NY had to do it.
[ Parent ]
dont let them in on it (0.00 / 0)
it will spoil the outrage.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
But how many people .. (0.00 / 0)
know The New Yorker uses their cover for satire? ... I didn't until earlier today ... after all .. how funny can the joke be ... if no one is in on it?
[ Parent ]
Satire (4.00 / 1)
Here is my attempt to make this actual satire:

Idea suggested by Kevin Drum

[ Parent ]
Yes! Precisely! (0.00 / 0)
If you're really clear about what you want to say, it can be quite easy to say it.

This may not be the ideal image, but it gets you out of the wrong ballpark and into the right one.

And isn't that, supposedly, precisely why they get the big bucks?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Enron (4.00 / 3)
Maybe it is time to revisit Arnie's roll as Enron's bag boy.
I don't get the big deal about the cover (4.00 / 2)
It should be completely obvious that it is satirizing the absurdity of the rumors about Obama, not making fun of Obama himself. Especially given that it's titled "The Politics of Fear."

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
Let Me Make This Simple For You, Sam (4.00 / 1)
1 picture = 1000 words
"The Politics of Fear" = 4 words

Get it?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
irony is our friend (0.00 / 0)
In a sense, I agree: the image does reify the paranoid right-wing fantasy about Obama. But the fact of the matter is, his candidacy has always been predicated on the notion that the particular simple-minded caricature of Obama, as a terrorist/black nationalist Zelig of conservative fears (which itself is being caricatured by the New Yorker), won't win out against a more textured (one might say sane) image of the man. This has been a theme of his candidacy from the beginning: the "hope" he's always talking about is really about negating the fear that's inherent in the minds of many when they imagine a black president.

In this context, I think that the New Yorker cover does exactly what needs to be done - it mockingly confronts the simple, fear-based image of Obama. Yes, this sort of ironic criticism is relatively subtle; it's certainly more subtle than the Obama=Terrorist meme. But if this sort of argument can't win out for the majority of voters, then Obama can't win the Presidency anyway.

[ Parent ]
Ad hominem attacks (4.00 / 2)
You Clearly Have No Idea How Communication Works

Gosh, Paul, I'm so glad you're a front pager so you can explain this stuff to us dummies.

Condescending much?</valleyspeak>

The New Yorker is not a part of the Obama organization. Their responsibility is to their readers, not to the task of denying ammunition to racist right-wingers.

And, since the "ammunition" represented by this cover is the most ludicrous bullshit I've ever heard, I don't think it's that big a deal.

Yessir, I disagree with you. I can't wait to see how you call me stupid.

[ Parent ]
Pardon My Curtness (0.00 / 0)
I've been sick since Friday.  Hence no weekend posting.  I have little bursts of energy.  I have no tolerance for racism or failed satire.

Back in the 1960s, when my parents were the only people I knew who read the New Yorker, this same sort of thing could have been defended because the way in which imagery and ideas circulated then was quite different from what it is today.  Key reason: very few people who didn't know the code would see the image.

Today, making the same sort of arguments that would have flown back then is simply an act of willful ignorance about how images circulate and impact people.  The image circulates far more widely than the understanding of how to read it.  And the New Yorker just had to know that.

It was a deliberately malicious act, and a racist one at that.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
deliberately malicious act (0.00 / 0)
you sound ridiculous.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
People That Sophisticated Don't Get Their Codes Wrong By Accident (0.00 / 0)
So your preferred theory is that they're frat-boy stupid?


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Refuse to be held hostage by idiots (0.00 / 0)
Since everything I say and do can be misinterpreted by neo-Nazis or Klansmen, should I just shut up?

I'm not going to do that.

The logical outcome of what you're proposing is that we don't say anything, which clearly isn't what you believe. Where do you draw the line?

I have no tolerance for racism...

I still like to think of that as a given on a site like this. I know it's probably not true...

...or failed satire.

I have huge tolerance for failed satire, but the cover in question isn't failed. I got it instantly, and then dug in for all the details like the flag in the fireplace.

If ignorant or deceitful people decry Swift's advocacy of cannibalism, is it failed satire?

[ Parent ]
But why do they have a responsibility to people who are too stupid to get it? (0.00 / 0)
I don't think there's any excuse for racism or sexism, and I think I've spent an awful lot of time on this blog making that clear. But this is an anti-racist cartoon, a piece of satire that mocks the absurd accumulation of rumors and smears thrown at the Obama's.

So if conservatives or idiots are going to (willfully?) misinterpret this, is it the New Yorker's job to prevent that? I mean, that's the argument we heard with FISA, right? By criticizing Obama we'd allow the media and conservatives to paint us as weak and divided. And we said, "fuck you", we're gonna do our thing, they're going to do theirs.

And I think that was what the New Yorker is doing. They're going to make fun of the crazies, they're going to do it on their cover, and it's going to be done in a way their audience can appreciate.

No doubt some of my good will is because I really love the magazine, but I just don't see this how everyone else (nearly) does.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
they knew what they were doing (4.00 / 3)
excusing bigotry under cover of satire is lame.  
[ Parent ]
the "title" is hidden inside the magazine (4.00 / 1)


Hearing his views, I could not help exclaiming: "Why, Mr. Debs, you're an anarchist!"

rjt12@.....
[ Parent ]
the "title" is (0.00 / 0)
in the exact place every New Yorker magazine cover title is. Inside the cover. One of the fun parts about the covers is that they are often jokes that don't make sense until you see the title.

It happens that this one does make sense without seeing it, though. The intent is totally obvious. The title only reinforces it.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Politics of Fear (0.00 / 0)
Well, if it actually said in big bold letters on the cover "THE POLITICS OF FEAR", then perhaps you'd have a point.  It doesn't.  You don't.

I guess this could be a brilliant plan to get the base back on Obama's side...  nah.

[ Parent ]
See above comment (0.00 / 0)
The title is where every New Yorker title is. I don't know about everyone else, but I always check the title, because the covers often don't make sense until I do.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Mindless Bailout Crap from Congress and Whitehouse (4.00 / 1)
The Fanny Freddie bailout is the sort of thing that turn people like me against all parties.

Jim Rogers (former partner of Soros) and Goldman Sachs also thing this is the stupidest fucking move ever.

Thanks Chuck Schumer, dickhead.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Don't Let the Gropenator Grope Us Any More (4.00 / 1)
Probably one of the stupidest things Obama could do, given the vasty gap between the Gropenator's image and reality.

Last year, he had the head of the California Air Resources Board fired because he wasn't happy with the Gropenator's go-slow approch on implementing AB-32, California's global warming law.  

I wrote about this for Random Lengths last year, and published a diary about it, "Promise Like Gore, Deliver Like Bush? (Schwarzenegger On Global Warming)".  Here's how it began:

On Thursday, June 28, the Robert Sawyer, Chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), resigned with the hearty thanks of Governor Schwarzenegger.

"Dr. Sawyer took on one of the most critical jobs in all of government: keeping California's air clean and safe," Schwarzenegger said in a prepared statement. "He fought tirelessly for California's bold vehicle emission standards and did an outstanding job launching the world's first low-carbon fuel standard for transportation vehicles."

But it was a lie.

Sawyer did not resign. He was fired. By Schwarzenegger. Apparently for wanting to do too much too quickly to fight global warming.

"I was fired, I did not resign," Sawyer told the L.A. Times almost immediately.  "The entire issue is the independence of the board, and that's why I got fired."

The firing followed Sawyer's vote against a package of three global warming "early action measures" that he regarded as inadequate.

The next Monday, CARB's executive officer, Catherine Witherspoon, resigned, blasting the Administration for duplicity and delay.  "I've had it with contradictory signals from the governor's office, and micromanagement on the side of delay and public statements chastising us for not doing more," she said.

But the lie about Sawyer's firing was only the tip of the iceberg.  The iceberg is Schwarzenegger's image as a pro-environment leader in fighting global warming. derived largely from his signing of AB 32 [PDF] last year, a sweeping law to roll back greenhouse gases 25 percent between now and 2020.  As events have unfolded since Sawyer's firing, not only has Schwarzenegger's "Jolly Green Giant" image taken on an ogreish tinge, a contrasting image of his similarity to fellow Republican George W. Bush has been progressively reinforced.

Last year, Phil Angelides, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, tried repeatedly to make the link, identifying Schwarzenegger with Bush.  But the rest of the Democratic Party seemed bent on undermining his message, capped by the historic passage and signing of AB 32, which allowed Schwarzenegger to campaign as a champion of the environment.  Just three weeks later, however, Schwarzenegger issued an executive order, S-17-06, which, much like Bush's numerous signing statements, effectively undermined and reversed the law it was supposed to reinforce.

A key bone of contention in the passage of AB 32 was whether to give priority to direct regulatory measures, or to a market-based "cap-and-trade" system that would allow those who reduce greenhouse gases to sell credits for their cleanup to those who continue generating them-a system that sounds great to businessmen and economics students, but has never worked in practice. Schwarzenegger favored cap-and-trade, but he lost. Cap-and-trade would be allowed as an option in 2012, after a full spectrum of regulatory measures were put in place. S-17-06 not only reinstated cap-and-trade on an equal footing, but shifted responsibility and created an entirely new structure for developing policies.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, principle author of AB 32, responded by saying that S-17-06 "is totally inconsistent with the intent of the law and with the way that it is written."

In contrast, Phil Angelides is now the head of Apollo Alliance.  If Obama is really serious about problem-solving as opposed to imagery, it's Angelides he should choose as energy tzar, not the Gropenator.

But given the choice between image and reality, I'm fairly skeptical about how Obama would choose.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

I still have more faith in Obama (0.00 / 0)
than to expect something this stupid and cynical from him. Schwarzie was the guy who let Enron and the rest of the Bush/Cheney gang get away with stealing $billions from California. Despite recent disappointments, I don't believe Obama's either that oblivious or that treacherous.
[ Parent ]
After FISA, I Trust Nothing (0.00 / 0)
He's already betrayed us on the Bill of Rights.  Everything else is trivial in comparison.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
I think (4.00 / 1)
that if Obama's campaign wants to oppose the New Yorker cover (as opposed being nonchalant, "it's satire and no reasonable person could believe those things anyways"), they should do so a lot more forcefully. All the verbs I'm seeing in news headlines are along the lines of "complains", "decries", and so on. No one likes a whiner. They need to either show some genuine moral outrage -- which can be described by words like "outraged", "blasts", "slams", etc. -- or shut up.
In other words (4.00 / 1)
they need to stop cowering, and in far more instances than just this one. The defensive crouch doesn't suit them very well. The Obama campaign right now feels like the Obama campaign of the week before the March 4 primaries, and it's not a good feeling.
[ Parent ]
"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" (4.00 / 3)
"When people in Europe asked where I come from, I always say I am a New Yorker; I never say I am an American. I have read and loved the New Yorker every week since I was 15 (1960). I smiled at this cover, but did not laugh out loud. This artist has done several excellent ones, but this is not one of his best.

What would be funny if it wasn't so ill-advised was the reaction of the Obama campaign and Obama supporters.  If Obama were truly the consummate pol the inside article claims he is, he would have laughed and thanked the artist for doing more to combat the absurd rumors about him than the campaign had managed in 18 months. Instead, the New Yorker cover is going to be today's major story, and the more outraged Obama supporters are, the sillier they seem.

I devoutly pray every child and teen in America requests a New Yorker subscription for their birthday. Then no child would be left behind. If political cartoons are not offensive, they are no good. When I was in high school, a regular essay question on the New York regents given to all high school students depicted a politically satirical cartoon from some period of American history and ask the student to explain it. I loved those questions, but they were extremely challenging. They can use this one.

No wonder we don't have any satirical protest songs anymore. Can you imagine the reaction to Draft Dodgers Rag or Love Me, I am a Liberal? Reincarnate Phil Ochs.

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"

 Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Our own worst enemy. (0.00 / 0)
Every damn time. The cartoon harmed nothing, and might have performed some needed inoculation. The liberal reaction to it, OTOH, just confirmed every meme about how Obama supporters are clueless, naive closet authoritarians, the ideological descendents of the asshole ayatollahs after the Danish cartoons. Thanks all, for giving the bad guys ammo yet again.  
[ Parent ]
I am African American. (4.00 / 2)
I understand this is satire, and weak satire.

But most politicians are voted in by LOW INFORMATION VOTERS, meaning these people will not get what the New Yorker is trying to convey.

There is a reason reps from the NY Mag is doing a media round today.  They are getting blasted for this.

Even though they had good intentions, this was executed terribly and the message on that magazine REINFORCES to John or Jane Doe gliding by the teevee, that wow maybe the Obamas are really like that.

And let us not start with the viral email that started yesterday with that magazine.  NY Mag blew it and my subscription.

What does your being African American (0.00 / 0)
have to do with anything?
[ Parent ]
The cover is racist to some (0.00 / 0)
It's not just inflammatory towards the Obamas, some people also find it to be racist in its depiction. I believe that's where icebergslim is coming from.  
[ Parent ]
Opening the Day: New Yorker Gets Ironically Racist | 65 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox