'Satirical' Obama Cover Stirs Controversy

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

2) The people for whom this cover reinforced beliefs are in the exact same place they were before . . . .

The people for whom this cover would reinforce their beliefs don't read The New Yorker.

And in all likelihood, they don't get satire.

I didn't see the cover until last night, after hearing news story after news story about it. (Hey, at least it was a break from Brangelina's twins.) After seeing the cover, my thought is that perhaps it could have been better executed (although please -- no lame thought bubbles), but it was clear what it was and who it was really making fun of.

I do believe that the person who drew it as it is rather than as a thought bubble or some other way might have been projecting insecurities, but I'm not a psychologist.

Obviously.

jk . . . sort of.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Obviously.

jk . . . sort of.

YOU HUSH, mister.

[DaemonSeid]

Here is the question....suppose Mad magazine had dome something like this?

How seriously would it have been taken?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Here is the question....suppose Mad magazine had dome something like this?

How seriously would it have been taken?

Seems to me that comparing The New Yorker and Mad magazine is like comparing apples and elephants.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Here is the question....suppose Mad magazine had dome something like this?

How seriously would it have been taken?

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. I think that the illustration was inflammatory enough that, no matter the publication, people would have been angered by it.

Also - I agree with EE-BO's post above, in that the cover misses the point why a lot of us don't want Obama for President. I'm against Obama for many of the reasons EE-BO mentioned (skyrocketing taxes, too much spending on entitlement programs, etc.).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. I think that the illustration was inflammatory enough that, no matter the publication, people would have been angered by it.

Also - I agree with EE-BO's post above, in that the cover misses the point why a lot of us don't want Obama for President. I'm against Obama for many of the reasons EE-BO mentioned (skyrocketing taxes, too much spending on entitlement programs, etc.).

I slightly disagree...it hit the point square on the nose and it is what i said a long time ago...Obama is not only your atypical candidate, he is your atypical BLACK candidate and because of that, a lot of fears were played upon in the very image, that much is known, now if you yourself has risen above the pettiness because you don't like his politics, then more power to you and I can shake your hand on that, but the pic was aimed at those whose politics squarely are aimed on 'appearances', 1/2 truths and misinformation. Those are the ones that feed off of the deception and play to people's fears as to why they shouldn't vote for him.

In essence, it misses the point of why the thinking and intelligent person, who sees past the surface wouldn't want him for president, but it hits the point why the fear mongerers and bottom dwellers don't want him for president.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

he is your atypical BLACK candidate

We haven't had enough black candidates to have a "typical" one.

They've observed enough black people to have their perception of a "typical black person." That perception is what resonates in every aspect of society, including the political realm. That's what all this stuff is really based on. Not politics.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

In essence, it misses the point of why the thinking and intelligent person, who sees past the surface wouldn't want him for president, but it hits the point why the fear mongerers and bottom dwellers don't want him for president.

The "fear mongerers and bottom dwellers" are actually not that different than the thinking and intelligent person when we're talking about race. Sometimes they are all one in the same. "Fear mongerer and bottom dweller" aren't exclusive to a particular social class, education level, or political party.

None of it is an irrational (meaning, anger and hatred driven for no explanable reason) response. It's all based on group position and threat of the unknown. Afterall, we're really talking about race dynamics and not politics. If we were talking about politics, the stereotypes of Obama as an unabashing Liberal who will take your tax dollars would've been used and not the stereotypes of Obama as a terrorist and Michelle as some militant/domestic terrorist? (black) woman. The New Yorker folks were doing a satire of individual and cultural perceptions.

(As for the cover itself, I'm unmoved and uninterested. But I don't have to be moved or particularly interested to see what is going on here with American and what The New Yorker folks were commenting on.)

[33girl]

I will say one positive thing....Michelle looks pretty smokin' (for a caricature) rocking the Angela Davis style.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I will say one positive thing....Michelle looks pretty smokin' (for a caricature) rocking the Angela Davis style.

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."

[a.e.B.O.T.]

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.