:)

And I'm sure it's no coincidence that you and others are able to identify her 'fro as the "Angela Davis style." Reluctantly on her part, Davis was reduced to the "black woman with the big 'fro and the fist in the air" by the mainstream. And consequently black women who were perceived as too visible and opinionated (or considered militant) and/or rocked a 'fro have been "Angela Davis-ed."

Well, I could have said Coffy, but none of the younguns would have known what the heck I meant.

coffy, afro, bush...you chose the comparison that was the most identifiable. :)

I don't think they are equating all people who oppose Obama with uneducated rubes. The reasons you give for not supporting him are, well, very reasonable and well thought out.

But the fact is that there really are those unintelligent rubes out there who, no matter how many times they see and are told that Obama is a Christian, refuse to believe it. I don't think at all that The New Yorker was trying to paint all Obama-opposers with that brush. They were targeting the real unintelligent rubes -- and the political operatives and commentators who exploit it by feeding the ignorance.

MysticCat;
I agree, mostly, with you. And I will take your comments one step further.
I recall several interviews with voters down in Florida done right after Obama toured the area. The replies on this subject where along these lines: "My children keep on telling me not to believe everything I see in my e-mails. That many of the comment about Obama are wrong and incorrect. But I keep on seeing them, I keep on reading them. And more you see of them, the more you believe them".

Well said. I can buy that argument.

One thing about Obama's candidacy is that it is very provocative in an unhealthy way. To his credit, I do not think he has exploited race and it does put an unfair burden on him- but I am where I cannot really watch news reports on this stuff anymore.

The recent polling about how many people think Obama is Muslim are especially annoying. It exposes a sad reality about people believing what they want to believe, but I am willing to bet a similar poll could have been done on any Presidential candidate in the past with a similarly disturbing outcome.

And so why is it such a thing to do it for Obama? We all know why, and it has nothing to do with his political message or fitness for the job.

I find the cover to be absolutely fantastic. Everyone from right to left are finding it offensive, and it is. The depictions outside the cartoon of Barack as some extreme muslim or the anti-christ and Michelle as some black power enthusiast are also offensive. The cartoon was merely highlighting such. We don't find it offensive when the latter is discussed, McCain has hinted at such depictions of Barack and Michelle... but he finds the cartoon offensive. This is the gloriousness of politics, which is always to be highlighted by the Republican party who glorify the ridiculousness of politicians so well. (not saying that the men and women in the blue dont glorify it either...)


I must say however, the timing of this is poor. It would of been much more effective 3-4 months ago when this seemed to be a much bigger deal. There are still people out their who believe the muslim/black power schtick but it seems old news now.

Exactly - BOTH sides do it, so to claim that it's just the Republicans is, well, incorrect.

Oh, I know, but this incident glorifies the ridiculousness of one side... There are PLENTY of cases that glorify the ridiculousness of the left. The cartoon is just a little late, I don't think this issue is dead, but it was WAY more relevant a couple months ago.

Mystic...I got a BUNCH (literally) of rubes I can introduce you to and their reaction to the New Yorker cover...was as expected....

Also I don't think the timing is poor at all...this is simply another one of those curveballs that politics throws at you to remind you that it's not a clean business and those that get in it will either live with shyte up to knees or get out.

It really goes to show what some people are thinking and will probably continue to think well after November has come and passed.

A couple of items here:
1) A commentary by Clarence Page
Obama Cover Has Bite, Benefits

I winced. I'm sure that's what the New Yorker's esteemed editor David Remnick expected me to do when I saw the Barack and Michelle Obama caricature cover that everybody's talking about.

Every so often the quiet little liberal-leaning literary and cultural magazine presents a cover that is intended like a high-class editorial cartoon to startle us. Back in 1993, for example, during a time of high tensions between blacks and Jews, cartoonist Art Spiegelman raised hackles from some and heartfelt praise from others with a cover that depicted a black woman kissing an Orthodox Jewish man.

The controversial Obama cover by artist Barry Blitt is just as startling as that earlier cover, but not nearly as clear in its meaning. If a casual observer didn't know that the New Yorker was a liberal literary and cultural magazine, they might easily believe Blitt's drawing was trying to promote the right-wing smears that it intended to lampoon....
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=7058&pg=1

2) How the cartoonist own peers reacted to the cartoon:
http://cagle.com/news/NewYorkerCover/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...er-McCain2.jpg

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...stPop_Emailed7

1. Burning the Constitution
2. Using a walker.
3. His wife has prescription drugs in her hand.

This cover sucks. Again, I get what they are doing and it doesn't offend me (it may offend others) but I don't like the cover.

Hey, turnabout's fair play, right? And if anyone's the big winner in this scenario, it's the cartoonist. Cover of the New Yorker AND Vanity Fair within weeks of each other? Cha-ching. The most amusing part for me is always the comments section. Ah, America.

What do you mean about "turnabout?" McCain and the Republicans didn't do the cover, the New Yorker did.