'Satirical' Obama Cover Stirs Controversy

[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."

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I find the cover distasteful and inappropriate. I have not read the issue, nor do I plan to buy it- so I cannot comment on any content between the pages.

Where I think this "satire" fell short is in that it made a lot of untrue assumptions about what Obama opponents really think of him. In the process of taking the liberal elite approach of assuming that people don't like Obama because of irrational and erroneous beliefs about him being some kind of anti-American figure, they left both sides scratching their heads and the only logical conclusion is that this is an offensive portrayal intended to incite a divide that just isn't there. . . .

They wanted to make it seem like we who do not like Obama are unintelligent rubes who think he is some militant type- and, gasp, a Muslim. And with that, they are playing to the very kind of bigotry liberals purport to want to eradicate.

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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-opposer 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".

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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...)

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

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

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.