The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Apparently, they were trying to portray the Obamas as they fantasize the Right sees them.
Trying to put words into your enemy's mouth never works well or long, and tends to backfire, as in the case of "Exhibit A", now showing.
This made the local news last night. According to the report, The New Yorker claims this is satire, but the Obama campaign claims it is simply poor taste.
When the reader has to be instructed that it is satire, then it isn't satire.
I think the portrayal of their fireplace is pretty accurate.
If you have to be instructed it's satire, it's also possible that it is either not good satire, or the observer lacks a sense of humor.
Both of which are possibilities as well as it not really being satire.
One day when my sister was visiting, I said "Hey, how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?" She spun and spit "That's not FUNNY! That's NOT a joking MATTER!"
I shrugged and started to walk off, and she, still really mad, said "Well? What's the punch line?" "That's it." "What's it?" "That's not FUNNY YOU SEXIST PIG!. You hit it in one."
"Well, that's not FUNNY!", She's still mad that I laugh hilariously telling the story, and she insists that it's NOT A FUNNY JOKE... despite her reaction, proving the humor in it.
Let me see if I've got everything:
Obama, in Muslim dress, after he becomes president, in the oval office, with a picture of Osama bin Laden over the fireplace, burning an American flag, while meeting with who? (large afro, AK-47 over the shoulder, camo pants, combat boots, earrings, lipstick, doing some kind of non-standard handshake gesture)
He's meeting with his wife, portrayed as a militant black/feminist supporter.
I got it.
And it's going to be one of the most widely distributed issues in recent history.
What is funny is how strongly every publication source is pushing information about this. Nothing like a left-biased outlet trying like hell to make sure people are riled up about this.
Funny... most people didn't comment or care much on all those comparisons of Bush to a monkey during the 2001 election.
Intentional or not, the effect is to make the issues depicted as well as the individuals themselves critisism-proof. I doubt thew Obama's have the skills necessary, but if they were to make a point of offering to autograph copies and laughing the whole thing off, no one could defeat the campaign.
Except themselves, of course.
Which was the main point I tried to make here once before; the Obama's don't have the ability to carry off the necessary public persona to win a national election. There's just too much objectionable about him and them. The New Yorker may be trying to make these specific objections unmentionable, but the Obama's have too many more for this effort (if it intentionally is such) to succeed.
It also makes them criticism-proof.
Why don't you have a spell-checker, Kevin! :)
(Use Firefox. It has one built-in. - Ed.)Edited By Siteowner
"... the Obama's don't have the ability to carry off the necessary public persona to win a national election. There's just too much objectionable about him and them."
Provided, of course, that enough of the voting public realizes that he and they are objectionable.
So, what is the net effect of this magazine cover? Does it help, by showing them in a manner that, if not a bullseye, is at least on the target, or does it hurt, by satirizing the complaints about them? It depends on whether or not the viewer has to be instructed that it's satire, and on whether or not the viewer receives that instruction.
I make no prediction other than that it's gonna be interesting ...
Me? I think the Obama campaign approved it beforehand. I'm cynical enough to think they did this just so they could express their outrage, and to gain some armor against any valid criticism that might come their way.
But the one truly valid criticism that is not in the picture is this. Obama is a dedicated socialist who deeply believes in using government to remake society. His plans, while ill defined and little considered in the press, will radically remake the United States and our place in the world.
Obama should consider Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price for a VP running mate. Between the two of them and with Ms Obama's assistance the Democratic Party will be in a position to offend the sensibilities of every citizen of the united States equally. Without the help of the New Yorker.
Maybe I do lack a sense of humor. I don't thing the cover is funny or offensive. I think it's true and scary as hell.
It made the news again last night. It is extremely rare that a national event makes the local news here two nights in a row. Methinks some nerves are tinglin' ...
What were they thinking??? What else?
"This oughta get some attention."
Well the portrayal of Michelle Obama as militant is certainly accurate.
I think the magazine cleared this with the Obama campaign ahead of time. It only make sense. They pile all of the issues together, defuse them in a very public way. It can only work to their advantage, and they get a little sympathy in process.
They picked all the stereotypes the Obamas have been facing except the one that sticks. He's a socialist and a proponent of big government controlling as much as possible. The "change" that he keeps harping about is change to the fabric of American society. I think he would be a very bad choice for President because I think the change he want to inflict on us would be a very bad thing for the United States.
A perfect opportunity to say, over and over,
"This is what BAD PEOPLE think about the wonderful Obamas. They are NOT like this, but BAD PEOPLE think they are. If you aren't offended by this, you are a BAD PERSON".
Sen. Obama has already warned us to "be careful", and that Mrs. Obama is "off limits" for me to talk about.
You know, like that Sheriff in Mississippi telling Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney to "be careful about registering those niggers to vote".
For their own good of course.
Sorry, Kevin, but next time you gripe about someone refusing to respond, I'm gonna throw this in your face!
You are both the most brilliant blogger I read and you have the biggest "stupid spot" (that's like a "blind spot") I have ever seen. You INSIST on confusing image dimensions with file size. To me that is as ignorant as confusing "clip" and "magazine". I use the word "stupid" because you flat-out refuse to listen, research, and learn. And (to my frustration) I know you are DAMNED GOOD at those things.
Size of file: 334.83 KB (342861 bytes)
The code src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/ObamaNewYorker.jpg" height="538" width="393"
changes the display dimensions, not the file size (that I had to sit and wait for dial-up speed download on). This is why there are "thumbnails".
Again, I am truly impressed by your writing, thought process, and mind. I actually consider you boderline brilliant (if not actually there) and offer this crude criticism in an effort to push you further on the path...
Please feel free to abuse me at pdefriesse [at] yahoo [dot] com
Yes, I really am Pete (pronounced Peet)
Damn, Peet, don't hold back! Tell me how you really feel.
If I were on dialup, I'd probably notice how slow the images load, but I'm not, so I don't. Therefore it has not been an issue for me.
And so far, you have been the only reader to complain.
I'm really sorry! Would you like me to code the HTML so it appears as plain ASCII in green-on-black for your convenience, too? ;-)
What flavor would you like for your next dish of free ice cream? How about Rocky Road?
Photobucket does not offer thumbnail images of the items I store there. In order to do that, I'd have to save two copies - one thumbnail and one original. I don't do that. Sorry. Nor am I strongly influenced to do so at this point. Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm sorry you're stuck on dial-up, but why is this my problem?