There they go again....

Message

mrkelley23 · #1 Post by **mrkelley23** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:41 pm

Those oversensitive Obamas. I mean really! How could anyone misinterpret this cartoon?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedish ... ma-an.html

Bob Juch · #2 Post by **Bob Juch** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:56 pm

How are the thousands of people seeing the cover on a newsstand supposed to know it's satire?

peacock2121 · #3 Post by **peacock2121** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:09 pm

Bob Juch wrote:How are the thousands of people seeing the cover on a newsstand supposed to know it's satire?

What do you think the thousands of people will think it is?

sunflower · #4 Post by **sunflower** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:18 pm

Bob Juch wrote:How are the thousands of people seeing the cover on a newsstand supposed to know it's satire?

Maybe because it's a CARTOON???

But seriously...I am not defending this particular cartoon, I just want to say that it is very much in line with the type of satire that New Yorker magazine routinely puts in their magazine and/or on their cover. I mean if Matt Lauer came out with it on the Today show, it would be out of character for him (and the network) and kind of a different story. Maybe that sounds like a double standard but as far as New Yorker, this is their thing, they create political satire designed to elicit a reaction.

peacock2121 · #5 Post by **peacock2121** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:24 pm

sunflower wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:How are the thousands of people seeing the cover on a newsstand supposed to know it's satire?
Maybe because it's a CARTOON???

But seriously...I am not defending this particular cartoon, I just want to say that it is very much in line with the type of satire that New Yorker magazine routinely puts in their magazine and/or on their cover. I mean if Matt Lauer came out with it on the Today show, it would be out of character for him (and the network) and kind of a different story. Maybe that sounds like a double standard but as far as New Yorker, this is their thing, they create political satire designed to elicit a reaction.

It's like the difference between BDM saying something and Uday saying the same thing.

Even skoop can hear the difference.

That didn't come out right, but you know what I mean.

yeah, that's it.

Thousandaire · #6 Post by **Thousandaire** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:37 pm

I think it's hilarious. Especially Michelle's Angela Davis hairstyle (OK, who here remembers Angela Davis?).

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #7 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:55 pm

I find it amusing that satire directed against Obama is tasteless and/or racist, but none of the popular media blinked at the sexist way that Hillary was treated.

ne1410s · #8 Post by **ne1410s** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:53 pm

Oh, fergawdssakes, it's a cartoon! (The New Yorker cover.)

silverscreenselect · #9 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:00 pm

Certainly we can't disrespect a major presidential candidate on a magazine cover:

ghostjmf · #10 Post by **ghostjmf** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:21 pm

Its a game. If the Obama Camp didn't object to the fullest, people would wonder why not. So they object to the fullest. So New Yorker Editor Guy (OK I missed his name) gets to go onto mucho radio shows (& TV too probably I'd bet) & say "its satire; we do this a lot" & "if you have to say 'its satire' on the cover, it kinda loses its bite, but look inside at the table of contents page" (which says "its satire folks" in educatedese).

Do I honestly think this will lose Obama any votes? From people who thought he was a Bin Laden-worshipping Moslem married to Angela Davis in her heyday? But were gonna vote for him anyway until they saw this cover?

Seriously, I heard a radio interview over the weekend with someone from "Latinas for McCain" who said over & over again that she didn't trust Obama because he had converted from Islam to Christianity. The interviewer told interviewee several times that wasn't the case, but interviewee wasn't buying it. I don't think Obama lost her vote just based on this cover. Which hadn't come out yet. Seriously.

Here's Fanny! · #11 Post by **Here's Fanny!** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:08 pm

They just showed this on the news. Right before the guy who got excommunicated for making a calendar of shirtless missionaries (Men on a Mission). They still had their pants on, but the Mormons were not amused, just the same.

silverscreenselect · #12 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:30 am

ghostjmf wrote:Its a game. If the Obama Camp didn't object to the fullest, people would wonder why not. So they object to the fullest. So New Yorker Editor Guy (OK I missed his name) gets to go onto mucho radio shows (& TV too probably I'd bet) & say "its satire; we do this a lot" & "if you have to say 'its satire' on the cover, it kinda loses its bite, but look inside at the table of contents page" (which says "its satire folks" in educatedese).

Obama has dropped a bit in the polls since the primaries ended, most of it the last couple of weeks due to his "move" to the center on a number of issues. None of the things that have caused his polling problems are a result of dirty Republican politics or even a concerted campaign effort on their part.

Where episodes like this will hurt Obama in the long run is if he is pegged with a reputation as a whiner and complainer. He's being asked to measure up against John McCain, a guy who spent five years being tortured in a Vietnamese prison, and he can't even take a silly magazine cover.

When the ugly stuff comes out this fall, the media and public response will be to ignore any Obama criticisms as just more whining from a guy who can't take a rough-and-tumble campaign without hollering about unfairness and racism.

nitrah55 · #13 Post by **nitrah55** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:06 am

I think the cover is very funny and well within the bounds of conventional satire.

Clearly, there are people who disagree with me.

If, for instance, The New Yorker ran a cover with McCain, say, hooked up to an IV and with an oxygen mask, it would neither be (a) satire or (b) funny because it would be making fun of an unassailable fact- he's old. The New Yorker cover works because it is lampooning images that have been created about the Obamas by others.

Bob Juch · #14 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:17 am

nitrah55 wrote:I think the cover is very funny and well within the bounds of conventional satire.

Clearly, there are people who disagree with me.

If, for instance, The New Yorker ran a cover with McCain, say, hooked up to an IV and with an oxygen mask, it would neither be (a) satire or (b) funny because it would be making fun of an unassailable fact- he's old. The New Yorker cover works because it is lampooning images that have been created about the Obamas by others.

But it's only funny if you know it's satire. The average guy walking past a newsstand won't.

tlynn78 · #15 Post by **tlynn78** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:22 am

The average guy walking past a newsstand won't.

Average guys where you live must be more stupid than average guys where I live.

t.

Bob Juch · #16 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:24 am

tlynn78 wrote:
The average guy walking past a newsstand won't.

Average guys where you live must be more stupid than average guys where I live.

t.

Think how dumb the average guy is. Now realize that half of everybody else is dumber!

tlynn78 · #17 Post by **tlynn78** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:38 am

Think how dumb the average guy is. Now realize that half of everybody else is dumber!

Granted. But dumb is different from stupid.

t.