'Satirical' Obama Cover Stirs Controversy

[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.

[jon1856]

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/

[DaemonSeid]

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