Clintons Commission New Yorker Cover Art
Ah, sweet summertime. A time for late afternoon trips to the lake, neighborhood BBQ’s and Cape Codders on the deck while the kids play hide and seek into the night. And then there’s the race for the White House - the push and pull of right and left, the bitter conflict of Conservative vs. Liberal, that unending battle between good and bad. I apologize for being verbose but I’m positively giddy over the now infamous ‘New Yorker’ cover.
Can you believe all these enraged journalists crying foul over this satirical look at the Obama’s? I’m truly afraid Chris Matthews is going to stroke out on the air. His response on July 14th’s Hardball was this:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know you can say, on a sophisticated level, that everybody gets the joke. But people who see that picture of him in the turban and his wife carrying an AK-47 and the big picture, a loving picture of Osama Bin Laden, an American flag burning in the fireplace. I’ll bet you any money that the right will be using that as T-shirt material within the next couple of weeks”¦ We have 12 percent of this country who believe that Barack Obama took the oath of office as a U.S. Senator on the Koran. We’ve got 19 percent of other Americans, adding up to 31 percent, who really have doubts about his religious background who do think he might be a Muslim. This picture with him in the turban on, what’s it gonna do? “¨
RONALD BROWNSTEIN, ATLANTIC MEDIA: Well first of all, as, as Ryan said it’s intended to be a comment on a comment. If you look at the subscription list of The New Yorker I’m guessing that short of Prius owners it’s gonna be hard to find a, a demo-, a consumer demographic group that is gonna be more inclined toward Barack Obama. So I think they certainly felt that their readers were going to get that they were attempting to invalidate the right’s portrayal of Obama by taking it to, what they saw, as the logical extreme of the arguments that are being made. Now whether people try to use the argument in another way, I don’t know. But clearly the intent here is to disqualify these arguments by raising them to a level of absurdity. And I’m guessing, for their audience, that people who got that, people who subscribe to The New Yorker, probably are going to get that. Now whether others, you know, take it differently we can’t say.
Apparently, if you’re not chortling at the cover and its satirical content, you’re stupid. But also, if you’re not deeply offended on behalf of the Obama’s, you’re stupid. The claim is that the subscribers of The New Yorker are smart and sophisticated enough to “˜get it’ but the rest of us Neanderthals are not ““ especially if you’re in the MidWest. In response to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Jonathan Capeheart (Washington Post) queries:
“¦the folks at the New Yorker are very smart, very learned, learned people, but once you get outside of the confines of Manhattan and the Upper West Side, you sort of begin to wonder if anyone — if there was a conversation around the table about how will this be viewed by people who won’t necessarily get the joke. I mean, even with an American flag burning in the fireplace, I don’t know if those folks, those 12 percent of people polled in that poll you just showed still believe that Barack Obama is, is Muslim. What is that cover going to do for their beliefs and whether he is a Muslim, whether he is truly an American, whether Michelle is this secret Angela Davis militant, I think it pushes– it pushes the line on what’s acceptable and what’s offensive.
Oh, boo who. The Liberals have outsmarted themselves again. When will they learn that they can’t have their cake and eat it too? They cannot continue with the elite humor and innuendo and then be offended when it’s interpreted differently from what they envisioned. Myself, I’ve been having trouble sleeping ““ I can’t seem to stop giggling. And yes, I am going to make a t-shirt out of it. I may also blow it up to a 30×40 print and hang it in my living room. It’s brilliant no matter which side you’re on. I mean, of course Obama won’t hang a portrait of Bin Laden in the Oval Office ““ he’ll set up a completely separate shrine room.
Watch as the Dem’s use this as a way to explain away Obama’s mysterious 12 point drop in the polls. In June, Obama was supposedly 15 points ahead of McCain, now the spread is 3 points. How can a magazine cover that hasn’t hit newsstands yet be the reason? Is it possible that as Obama travels around the nation preaching his snake oil prescriptions for the reformation of America the American public has figured out he’s not only unqualified but has no original ideas?
The Dem’s really overestimated the white guilt of the American public. Why do they keep attributing their own feelings of inadequacy and unfairness to the rest of us? Maybe, just maybe, if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were coming to a close, if the economy was humming along at breakneck speed and the illegal immigrant invasion had been staunched, then we might have gone along with their “œtry out the young black guy” bid for the White House.
But we’re not that comfortable with Obama. I mean, look at what he’s done in his bid to win the moderate vote. We question his commitment to Christianity and we are treated to the scathing and hateful sermons of his Pastor and mentor. We are curious about his wife and her arrogance towards white America and we’re racists who need to “watch out”. We worry about his lack of experience and he mocks the experience of others, saying he will learn on the job. He lambasts our insecurities and calls us out on our clinginess.
In short, he’s not one of us. And we’re too concerned with the big picture to risk it all on the new guy. So the media can call “œfoul” all they want over the cover, but they should remember it was their guys who created and published it. If they hadn’t thrown such a big stink, it would have gone unnoticed by most of us. After all, most of us are too stupid to understand such highly intellectual humor. I think the Obama’s should check with the Clinton’s ““ this PR catastrophe is straight out of their playbook.
Popularity: 32% [?]
Comment by marla corndog on 15 July 2008:
your website makes me want to throw up
Comment by gopmom on 16 July 2008:
OK, marla corndog. Next time visit before you eat. Thanks for stopping by and have a nice day.
Comment by PanSkeptic on 17 July 2008:
You’d do better to question McCain’s commitment to Christianity. Has anybody ever seen him in church? And what about that “Agents of Intolerance” crack?
OTOH, Obama’s commitment to Christianity is not challenged by any of the evangelicals who met with him in private session not so long ago. They know that he is a deeply commited Christian, and you don’t have an ounce of evidence otherwise.
Mom, you don’t know spit.
Comment by gopmom on 18 July 2008:
PanSkeptic, You’ve missed the point. Obama was the one who so proudly displayed his Christian credentials. And based on the result - his abandoning of his Pastor and church - he would have been better to ignore the issue. How out of touch does a guy have to be to think that the American public would accept or even approve of the BS being spewed in his “church”. It doesn’t appear to be a very Christian place. McCain, on the other hand, has not paraded before us in his Sunday best,in and out of churches across America. For McCain, it’s a non-issue.
You seem to want to lump me into that fringe group that thinks the President must be a Christian when I don’t feel that way at all. I would prefer a Christian or Jewish candidate, simply because our nation and its laws are based on basic values derived from these religions, but it’s not make or break for me. My comments in the above article were meant to be a satirical look at the troubles Obama has faced in his quest for the Dem nomination - I guess maybe you didn’t get it.
Comment by AMP on 18 July 2008:
Who cares if a candidate goes to church or not? Does it help him make critical decision on the spot as is sometimes needed? Does it fix the economy?
Frankly, if a president is not committed to religion, I could care less. You don’t question this when interviewing CEOs, and that’s what we’re doing during this campaign.
Comment by gopmom on 19 July 2008:
AMP, it doesn’t matter if a candidate goes to church or not. But it does matter if he does go to church and listens to hateful diatribes that condemn the nation and the majority of the population he wants to lead. Any thoughtful person would then question that candidate’s motives. The reality in the USA, however, is that most voters do want a President that attends a Christian denomination church.
Comment by AMP on 21 July 2008:
GOPMom,
Both candidates have attended churches and been endorsed by ministers spewing “hateful diatribes”. I don’t think most (the moajority) voters care at all about whether a president attends church, but are more interested in character.
I tend to look at track record, and in lieu of this, associations and lack of hypocrisy. Looks like one of the two legitimate candidates definitely has the edge there in my eyes.
Comment by gopmom on 21 July 2008:
AMP, I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with yourself or contradicting yourself. So, because Obama’s 20 year association with a foul mouthed, race baiting, Black Liberation Theology thug was a “church” association it doesn’t matter or does this count as a “hypocritical association”? Because the point I’ve been making all along is that no one would have remarked on Obama’s religious status, beyond that he attends a Christian church, if he hadn’t made such a big deal out of it. He introduced us to his mentor, not the other way around. He should have known better - unless he wants it both ways, as in the black people like this guy, so he’s my mentor and the white people are afraid of him so I’m going to dump him.
Comment by AMP on 21 July 2008:
GOPMom,
First, Obama was linked by many (inlcuding you) to being muslim. Of course, he’s going to denounce things he’s not.
The point I made was this: I don’t care if someone attends church or not, I care about track-record (or other factors). I agree Obama’s linking to Wright (as a qualifier as he has no track record really) bears note, but not because he attended a church. What bears note is that Obama had to know about this guy (and others) well before all the stuff hit the fan, and to me that’s bad judgement. It would be one thing, if it were just Wright, but Resko, Ayers, etc?
Comment by gopmom on 21 July 2008:
Apparently we agree on everything except semantics. But I don’t remember saying I thought he was Muslim, just pointing out that he has a “dodgy name” that might not sit well with many Americans. Wright is an issue for Obama for the following reason - his self professed mentor, who led him to Christianity and has guided him and his family for twenty years is appalling. Rev. Wright is everything Obama claims not to be yet they were (are) so close. If Wright had been a professor or colleague, the issue would have been a different one. Because Wright is a Christian minister who preaches very un-Christian ideas, he is doubly appalling. It was Obama’s mistake to bring him into the public political arena and he has never satisfactorily settled the issue - he can’t. He sat there for twenty years - there is no excuse for that and for this reason his judgement is suspect as are his true beliefs and motives. It’s not whether Obama goes to church or not, it’s they distasteful church that he attends (attended).
Comment by Zbigniew Mazurak on 22 July 2008:
“1. The students/young voter turn out is huge, historically unprecedented.
2. African-American voters (same as above).
3. Conservatives, alienated by McCain, stay home on election day.
4. McCain runs “honorable” campaign, refusing to criticize Obama’s politics.
5. The media referees the rules such that McCain is evil, Obama a saint.
6. There is a new “electoral map”, whereby a Democrat can win without white, blue collar voters.
7. Clinton primary voters give in and turn out for Obama.
8. Independents break big for Obama.
9. Obama actually does pulls some Republican votes.
10. The Libertarian Presidential Candidate (Yes, there will be one) draws a tiny number of votes…but just enough to make a difference in a close race.”
GOPMOM - every factor you’ve listed except #6 and #7 has already been deployed.
Comment by gopmom on 22 July 2008:
Welcome, Zbigniew. Thank you for the input. But I’m still confident Obama will not win. #’s 6, 7, 8, and 9, not to mention 3 are enough to get him in. But as for #1, students are not a safe bet to rest a campaign on. As he drifts closer toward the center, they will dump him. And they are starting to see him for the slick politician he is - another adult not to be trusted. And they don’t show up or forget to send in their absentee ballots, no matter how enthusiastic they are. Black people will vote for him, but they are only 12% and the electoral college process will balance out their vote.
I’m waiting for Thursday in Germany, when he stands in front of a German military monument (that will tick off all of the “Greatest Generation”) and pleads with Europeans to just give peace a chance. Unless his staff manages to trade out all those European flags for Old Glory, he will pay dearly for this publicity stunt.
And even after all of this, if America still elects him, I’m out. How’s the real estate market in Krakow - it’s one of the most beautiful citys I’ve ever seen.
Comment by Zbigniew Mazurak on 23 July 2008:
I don’t know how’s the real estate market in Krakow except that these days, apartments in that town are very expensive. I don’t live in Krakow, you know.