Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[haltz]

The fact that it was so over-the-top was one of the things I liked about it. I mean, maybe (probably) it shouldn't have actually happened, but that's that's an illustration of what Fox News implied. It's obviously incredibly absurd and hard to look at. I should pin it up at work.

[Radbird]

Unfortunately, there are people in this country who will take that cover as an affirmation that their suspicions were true.

[clevername]

Unfortunately, there are people in this country who will take that cover as an affirmation that their suspicions were true.

and that, I think, is the biggest problem with it.

It's making fun of the stupidity in believing that's what he's really like but ignoring the actual stupidity of the people who believe that's what he's like but won't "get it" and who will look at the cover to use as a rallying cry.

I imagine that picture will show up on more right wing sites/discussion boards than left and will be used as kerosene.

Better if it were buried in the magazine rather than on the cover for anyone uninformed person who walks by to see.

[GatewaySnayke]

Sorry to break away from the terrorist stuff, but I really need to work for Media Matters.

Andrea Tantaros says that John McCain changed his position on offshore drilling because the American people want it. Yet the American people don't want to be fighting a war, but he insists that we'll stay there until we have victory.

Just had to type this out to see if it looked as ridiculous on my computer screen as it did when it was registering in my brain.

Carry on.

[haltz]

From Radbird's article:

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.

it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover.

I totally agree with this. It's not The New Yorker's fault that the people that think these things are also too stupid to see obvious satire.

[clevername]

From Radbird's article:

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.

it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover.

I totally agree with this. It's not The New Yorker's fault that the people that think these things are also too stupid to see obvious satire.

well, that's fine if they don't care who gets elected, but I assume they want Obama in.

Right or wrong, it might do more to hurt him than help open anyone's eyes. People aren't going to understand the man with satirical pictures that make fun of them, they're only going to understand him with actual discussion and education. This picture doesn't create a favorable environment for that to happen.

Funny picture for those of us who have been banging our heads against the wall reading all this stuff but that's probably about it.

[haltz]

First and foremost I'm sure they want to sell the thing. I'm sure they've accomplished that part.

Who are these right-wingers that are going to hold up a copy of The New Yorker as a rallying cry? I don't see that happening.

It could've been done a little differently, or not put on the cover, but tasteless political satire isn't without precedent and I think we're all better off for it. There's always going to be some retard out there interpreting art or satire the wrong way.

[clevername]

the fact that it's on the cover of the New Yorker doesn't matter anymore. It's on the web and the 24 hour news stations. People are talking about it and not always in full context. I think it's highly likely it'll spread and a good number of people who will be doing the spreading won't get it.

Imagine the morons from West Virginia who were on the Daily Show being handed a flyer with that picture.

OTOH, I wish Obama hadn't come out and reacted the way he has. He could have used it as a jumping off point to further address the rumors and innuendo instead of the reactionary "it's offensive" comment that won't spark any conversation. A speech in the similar vein to the race speech would have been nice.

[haltz]

Yeah, but is the top of it going to be cropped out? And I didn't see that daily show episode but I'm imagining that these are the same type of mongoloids where something like this isn't going to change their opinion one way or the other. They'll just be lunatics with a new picture to look at. Maybe it will help with the people who aren't actually brain dead by illustrating that the things Bill O'Reilly has been telling them are ridiculous.

I'm also sure that I don't mind if The New Yorker prints something that their readers would find funny and that will sell. It's not like there was a chance that Obama's camp was going to give this a thumbs up publicly (or that he'd use it in any fashion). Political cartoons are never embraced by either side and it is tasteless. That's always the idea in hold-up-a-mirror satire or comedy.

[clement]

Whatever their intentions, I think it's a bizarre cover. Political cartoons usually make it clear what point they are trying to make. As a magazine cover, that thing can be interpreted however someone wants to interpret it. Most people who see it aren't going to read the article that explains what it means.

I'm surprised the media hasn't made a bigger deal about McCain's latest foot-in-mouth episode where he jokes that our increasing cigarette exports to Iran during the Bush years has been a good thing because it will help kill more Iranian people. That's the kind of stupid and ill-conceived statement that the infotainment networks usually leap on and psychoanalyze to death. And it's certainly worthy of at least as much air time as the pointless quotes from Jesse Jackson and Phil Gramm got.