The Obamas on the New Yorker...this should be interesting

[RootSkier]

[skideeppow]

i am getting comfortable with some popcorn for this one.

[Tippster]

Uh.... wow. I'll read it.

[spindrift]

i am getting comfortable with some popcorn for this one.

This seat's already taken...

[rideit]

I have been a New Yorker subscriber for (honestly) 28 years.
Never lapsed, only missed issues when they couldn't keep up with me.
That is possibly the most incendiary cover ever, if that is serious.
Wow.
I can only imagine the obfuscation of the ironic subtext by the opposition.

[timvwcom]

Haven't read the article... but it supposedly slams the McCain side for THEIR portrayal of Obama; hence the "attempt at humor" (MY term for it) on the cover.

Edit: Here is more from the artist; Barry Blitt Defends His New Yorker Cover Art Of Obama

Barry Blitt is the artist behind this week's very controversial New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama. Via email, I asked him to respond to those who feel that his work was offensive, and to explain his own personal feelings about the Obamas. Here's what he wrote:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

And in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?

"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."

Rachel Sklar has much more.

Update: Three of Blitt's previous cover pieces are below. Note the Ahmadinejad bathroom shot, probably the most provocative recent New Yorker cover prior to the current one

From that Rachel Sklar piece;

Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.

The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?

Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."

The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:

"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."

Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.

Maybe they won't like the written word either from the sounds of it...

[Dexter Rutecki]

What a great cover. Hilarious.

Unfortunately, the Redumblicans pushing the ideas that inspired the cover won't get it.

[RootSkier]

The only thing that would have made this thing more interesting is if the daughters would have been on there with dynamite shirts.

[rideit]

'Dynamite', or 'Dyno-Mite!'?

[Steven S. Dallas]

Pretty good satire, if you ask me. The New Yorker is a liberal publication and has already endorsed Obama (although it clearly struggled during the primaries, out of its loyalty to Clinton), so any outrage over this is either ill-informed or manufactured.

[Benny Profane]

Those three other covers made me laugh. This one doesn't. Although I can easily imagine her in a fro back in 1970 with her fist in the air. And, to be fair, I always imagined Hillary back then in pseudo hippie garb shouting dogma at some sit in.

[stupendous man]

The New Yorker is a liberal publication and has already endorsed Obama (although it clearly struggled during the primaries, out of its loyalty to Clinton), so any outrage over this is either ill-informed or manufactured.

Isn't the issue more like many non-thinking people will see this and simply perpetuate the stereotype. Not only will a certain segment of the population duped by that cover NOT READ inside the new yorker, they will only see the image on third party media. The only thing to figure out is whether that segment would vote, or vote for obama, anyways.

[Benny Profane]

Isn't the issue more like many non-thinking people will see this and simply perpetuate the stereotype. Not only will a certain segment of the population duped by that cover NOT READ inside the new yorker, they will only see the image on third party media. The only thing to figure out is whether that segment would vote, or vote for obama, anyways.

Non thinking people don't read or even see The New Yorker, unless their doctor or dentist thinks and leaves it in the waiting room. Fox will spray all over this for a few days, until they're distracted by some other racist shit to spew about.

[smitchell333]

Here is one of the sources that this representation is probably based on. It was emailed to me by a family friend who apparently believes it.

From here:
http://www.2sistersfromtheright.com/


The Jihad Candidate
by Rich Carroll


Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level. 'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.
Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or the fact that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?
As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'
There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?
Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?

[Jer]

Plagiarist.
That's ripped off word-for-word from "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca."

[splat]

Angela Davis for VP!

[Craven Morehead]

I thought maybe I'm ur Huckleberry picked up a job at the New Yorker
Stupid people here took him seriously.......

The most sensitive are usually the most racist deep inside. Watch Jesse Jackson get all offended.
Look at Ted Haggard all sensitive about sin when HE is the homersexual pedophile.
If you can't take some shit you might as well put a gun to your head.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Isn't the issue more like many non-thinking people will see this and simply perpetuate the stereotype. Not only will a certain segment of the population duped by that cover NOT READ inside the new yorker, they will only see the image on third party media. The only thing to figure out is whether that segment would vote, or vote for obama, anyways.

That's a spot on assessment IMO. Likely many republicans are looking at this image and thinking "FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT RIGHT". McCain doesn't like the cover because it makes him and the republican supporters look ridiculous...BO doesn't like it because dumb people left and right will not read the article and take it as truth.

[Jer]

Michelle looks much better with a fro.

[Craven Morehead]

Michelle looks much better with a fro.

STFU .......you racist bastard.......can't we ban your IP address??

[TNKen]

I, of course, like the fact that she has an AK with a hi-cap mag.