New Yorker's Controversial Obama Cover (threads merged)

Parent Cafe
201

<p>Hindo

</p>

<p>But I wasn’t referring to any particular aspect of his appearance. It seems like any visual lampooning whatsoever hits a major nerve, despite eight years of skewering Bush in every way imaginable. Really, any verbal assault on Obama is met with shock and protest as well. </p>

<p>You know, I bet that to a large degree Obama is a very likable person, and people just don’t like to see him picked on. On the other hand, I have always felt that many on the far liberal left like to dish it out, but they sure don’t like to take it. Not you though, Hindoo. You are most people’s favorite liberal. :-)</p>

202

<p>Oh. I just assumed that the reference to “visual terms” meant skin color. … Thanks for your kind words, spideygirl. You have no idea how welcome they are right now!</p>

203

<p>That’s because Hindoo secretly is a closet conservative and just hasn’t come out yet… :)</p>

204

<p>In your dreams, pmrlcomm! I’m still waiting for you to admit your deep and abiding admiration for Obama.</p>

205

<p>I don’t have any kind of hatred or ill-will (aside from hoping he loses the election) towards Obama. I have to admire anyone who can reach the highest levels of their craft and being a nominee for POTUS is right up there. I just don’t care for his views. I’m not like those seething Bush haters and those that insist Gore should be President. If Obama wins I’ll support his decisions. He will be my President. I may not always agree but you won’t find me wishing him ill-will like others do with Bush or did with Clinton.</p>

206

<p>

</p>

<p>I reject this. When Obama began to run, very many people assaulted him with the claim that he was too inexperienced, and generally there was no shock or protest, but only a counterclaim that he was essentially as experienced as his opponents. Quite valid.</p>

<p>When Obama was assaulted because of his Rezko relationship, there was no shock and protest about it, but generally counterassaults that aimed to diminish the relationship’s political importance. Typical American politics.</p>

<p>The shock and protest comes up when people assault him not based on what he did, but on what he is. They are claiming, for example, that the man is a Muslim, and using this as a weapon against him. The claim is fraught with several moral problems, not the least of them being that 1. it implies that being Muslim is evil (which assaults all Muslims), and 2. it is patently false. The protest exists to protect Muslims and to set the record straight. It is protest that is warranted.</p>

<p>When Fox News implied that the Obamas’ fist bump was a “Terrorist Fist Jab”, the protest and shock occurred because of Fox’s clear and present stupidity. It was clear to most people hearing the claim that Fox was deliberately attempting to sway public opinion by use of dishonorable means. The fist bump is so much in common use that kids of all races have long used it. The Pixar film “The Incredibles” has existed years before Obama’s run for the presidency, and even in that film we can see the fist bump used between the main characters. Fox was attempting to imply that the Obamas have an evil terrorist agenda against the United States. It was a terribly low blow for any organization purporting to be an institution of journalism. The shock and protest against it was certainly warranted. When Dan Rather worked similarly against George Bush, the outcry was quite the same, so much so that Rather literally lost his job.</p>

<p>I think the attacks against Bush are quite different from those against Obama, often due to America’s sordid racial history. Calling Bush a chimp is not the same as calling Obama one because whites have long done precisely this against blacks to justify the idea that we are less than human. I do not claim here that calling Obama a chimp should be forbidden. I claim that when a person does this, he is saying something far worse than when he does it to Bush. So if people should be shocked by it in Obama’s case (which is as much their right as it is our right to call Obama ugly names), we have no logic supporting our whining about “double standards”. There are none here because a different meaning for the word exists when it is used toward blacks, and this difference in meaning was established in our yet unresolved past.</p>

<p>Now, we all feel this, and we know precisely what is going on. So why is it that we must spell this out? I think America is filled with a lot of very insensitive and evil people who wish to exploit America’s ugly racist past, using it against Obama by calling him a monkey, while falsely hiding behind the technical and trivial similarity that exists between using the word toward Bush. They know the meaning is vastly different between the two, but wish the freedom to be openly racist while gaining protection from any repercussions via the confusion the similarity presents. It is transparently immoral and uncharitable. But there it is for all to see, if only we would just admit the truth to ourselves.</p>

207

<p>“The shock and protest comes up when people assault him not based on what he did, but on what he is. They are claiming, for example, that the man is a Muslim, and using this as a weapon against him. The claim is fraught with several moral problems, not the least of them being that 1. it implies that being Muslim is evil (which assaults all Muslims), and 2. it is patently false.”</p>

<p>I haven’t gone back and read all the posts, but do agree with this. I don’t care what his middle name is, what religion his parents were, or even what religion he is either, for that matter. And that goes for any candidate. Where (or even whether) they worship is not what concerns me most.</p>

208

<p>Drosselmeier:.</p>

<p>First your post mentions a few examples of times when Obama was criticized and there was not a resounding protest from the left. You imply that you have won that point, yet there certainly have been other instances of exaggerated outcry. An early criticism of Mrs. Obama is an example. You can debate the validity of the uproar, but you cannot debate that it occurred.</p>

<p>Next your post moves on to the example of Obama and his religion.

I completely agree that trying to label him as a Muslim is bigoted (as in the way I have seen this applied it implies that being a Muslim is something negative) and false. Yet this one example is not enough to support your statement that

<br>
What people do is completely intertwined with who they are. The process of getting to know political candidates is all about trying to figure out who or what they are, and what they might decide or do based on those things. There are certainly instances where criticism of “what he did” meshed with “what he is” met with completely unwarranted vocal protest (his choice of spiritual leader, for example). Americans deserve to know what Obama thinks, what he feels, what he believes, who he follows, etc. in order to predict what he might do in the future. </p>

<p>

This point is ridiculous. As far as swaying public opinion goes, Fox gives lots of air time to liberals. In the opinion, discussion, or entertainment parts of their broadcasting, it is certainly not unusual or “dishonorable” to use sarcasm as a means of persuasion. Fun was poked at Obama in a fleeting phrase. This happens all day long. The particulars of the dig have to do with Obama’s association with a known domestic terrorist. Apparently the person who made the dig at him didn’t think that was such a great thing in a guy who wants to sit in the Oval Office. I don’t either. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Few would argue that the eight years of skewering President Bush has been met with a lot of protest (if any).</p>

<p>I have not seen Obama compared to a “chimp”. There was one Curious George t-shirt issue, which I have previously debated was way overblown. In brief I feel the character is more a statement about curiosity combined with a lack of experience leading to trouble. That makes it a perfect analogy. The visuals of the character would not, in my mind, be a negative if Obama, Bush, Cheney, Gore, or anyone else were to be lampooned with it. To me it’s just overkill to have this little adorable, beloved character grouped in with the “chimp as racist slur” issue. The reason I think it is worth debating is that it’s valuable and interesting to see where we are language-wise. It is important to note that when a word is used, it can have a different meaning to the user and the listener (and it often does). </p>

<p>In real life, however, the essence of good manners is kindness - to treat people the way they wish to be treated. If Curious George is an offensive characterization, it should not be used. Do I think that the matter should have gotten to the point where the person who owned the rights to the character threatened to sue the t-shirt guy? Good Lord, no. </p>

<p>Frankly, to me the overreaction is not good for Obama. What does it say when Bush a gazillion times over is compared to ugly, evil, hairy-faced primates of absolutely every sort, and just one time Obama is drawn as the exceedingly likeable and cute Curious George - and all Hades breaks loose? You cannot fairly look at the t-shirt issue without CONTEXT. None of this was as simple as someone “calling him a monkey”. In addition to context, INTENTION needs to be examined. Just because something is hurtful does not mean it was intended as such. Hurtful things which are unintentional should be approached very differently than ones which were intentional.</p>

<p>

I have to say that I have not ever seen even one word or picture comparing Obama to a monkey other than the Curious George picture on the t-shirt incident. I don’t agree that “America is filled with evil and insensitive people who want to exploit America’s ugly racist past”. If I were to hear anyone “calling him a monkey”, I can assure you that I would condemn it, and I am confident that the vast majority of other people who will vote for McCain would do the same.</p>

<p>Some of the truth which needs to be “admitted to ourselves” may just be found in some soul searching about why it is that these overreactions occur.</p>

209

<p>IF Obama were raised Muslim, he’d still be a Muslim according to other Muslims or else there would be a jihad against him for converting.</p>

<p>My main concern, however, would be that he’s lying about it. </p>

<p>Read the interviews with Obama’s half-brother in Kenya.</p>

210

<p>I’ve often heard business suits referred to as monkey suits.
My father is black, and it never occurred to me to be offended.
I’m behind the times!</p>

211

<p>“First your post mentions a few examples of times when Obama was criticized and there was not a resounding protest from the left. You imply that you have won that point, yet there certainly have been other instances of exaggerated outcry. An early criticism of Mrs. Obama is an example. You can debate the validity of the uproar, but you cannot debate that it occurred.”</p>

<p>Well there certainly was no “uproar” here, other than to counter the claim that Ms. Obama has never until recently been proud of her country. Obama himself issued a calm, well-presented, warning to leave his wife alone, but that was regular American politics. The Clintons did precisely the same thing regarding Chelsea, especially when McCain joked that Janet Reno was her father. Nice guy, that McCain. McCain did exactly that when someone attacked his daughter. I think you are exaggerating the normal political counterpunch that typically occurs in almost all campaigns when family members who are not running for office are attacked.</p>

<p>”What people do is completely intertwined with who they are. The process of getting to know political candidates is all about trying to figure out who or what they are, and what they might decide or do based on those things. There are certainly instances where criticism of “what he did” meshed with “what he is” met with completely unwarranted vocal protest (his choice of spiritual leader, for example).”</p>

<p>In virtually every case where there was a response from the left that met the level of what I would call a genuine “uproar”, the response occurred because of the attacks on Obama’s identity, either racial, or religious. When Hillary released a picture of Obama in traditional African dress, people cried foul because it was a very low and false assault of the man’s identity. While it is true that what people are is linked to what they do, what they are does not compel what they do. For this reason it is comprehensively fallacious to condemn Obama for being a certain religion (or not) or being of a certain race. We ought to condemn him for what he actually does.</p>

<p>Now when it comes to the “vocal protest” regarding Obama’s church, you are grossly mistaken. While perhaps some people on the left counterpunched those who attacked Obama for statements made by someone else, there was certainly no “unwarranted outcry” from the left. This is a gross exaggeration of what really took place. The unwarranted outcry came from the right and from Hillary supporters, those who aimed to take Obama down in the polls and potentially out of the race. I think you are perhaps mistaken about the source of that outcry, since it was intense and blasted over Fox New 24/7. That would have rattled the brain of even the soundest person.</p>

<p>“Americans deserve to know what Obama thinks, what he feels, what he believes, who he follows, etc. in order to predict what he might do in the future.”</p>

<p>I do not gainsay this, and I think you should try to maintain your point here. That point, if you will recall, is that ANY attack on Obama provokes an uproar from the left. You are in effect claiming the left is so eager to protect Obama, so uncritical of the man, that it has a knee-jerk hysterical response to ANY attack of the man. I think this is a false and dishonest characterization of what truly has taken place. Where Rev. Wright’s statements are concerned, for example, rather than there being an uproar from Obama’s supporters, we actually have an uproar from Hillary’s and from the Right, both groups aiming not to protect, but harm Obama. The response from Obama’s people was certainly not hysterical. It was no uproar. It was a political counterpunch against a claim that could have very well taken their candidate out of the race. I understand that you would have rather they simply endure the hysteria without a response, but Obama is out to win this election, in case you haven’t heard.</p>

<p>“This point is ridiculous. As far as swaying public opinion goes, Fox gives lots of air time to liberals.”</p>

<p>This is irrelevant to your point. I remind you that you are claiming that ANY assault on Obama is met with leftist “uproar”. I content that your claim is false, and obviously so. That Fox gives liberals air time has nothing to do with this. It also has nothing to do with the uproar that took place when Fox implied that Obama’s fist bump with his wife was a “terrorist fist jab”. The uproar that ensued after the implication was quite warranted because everyone, even some on the right (if you can imagine that), thought it ludicrous and in poor taste. E.D. Hill actually lost her show at Fox because of it.</p>

<p>“In the opinion, discussion, or entertainment parts of their broadcasting, it is certainly not unusual or “dishonorable” to use sarcasm as a means of persuasion. Fun was poked at Obama in a fleeting phrase. This happens all day long. The particulars of the dig have to do with Obama’s association with a known domestic terrorist…”</p>

<p>Such is Fox News, to poke fun at something that sane people would consistently take seriously. No. Reasonable people understood precisely what was going on, and it had nothing to do with any alleged association with domestic terrorists. It was yet another assault on the man for what he is, and not what he has done. Rightist Fox actually nailed E.D. Hill because of the moral error, suggesting that someone at Fox actually has something of a brain.</p>

<p>“Few would argue that the eight years of skewering President Bush has been met with a lot of protest (if any).”</p>

<p>Two things: 1. with Bush’s approval ratings hovering around 20-25%, there are obviously few who would argue that the eight years of skewering President Bush ought to be met with a lot of protest. 2. It is very rare that any of that “skewering” has had anything to do with what Bush is. Bush has been a most horrid President, a monstrously incompetent leader. He gets skewered for this reason, and many people will not challenge it for this reason. Obama often gets attacked, not for his record, but for what he is. When that occurs, uproar sometimes takes place. It is supposed to take place in this instance.</p>

<p>”I have not seen Obama compared to a “chimp”. There was one Curious George t-shirt issue, which I have previously debated was way overblown.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://i5.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/y164/wteach/surrender/SMObamaCPUSA.jpg[/url]”>http://i5.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/y164/wteach/surrender/SMObamaCPUSA.jpg&lt;/a&gt;
[Bad</a> Ideas: The ‘Racist’ Barack Obama Monkey Puppet](<a href=“http://gawker.com/tag/bad-ideas/?i=5016520&t=the-racist-barack-obama-monkey-puppet]Bad”>http://gawker.com/tag/bad-ideas/?i=5016520&t=the-racist-barack-obama-monkey-puppet)
[Obama</a> Monkey Phone ad](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2179484/Barack-Obama-‘monkey’-phone-advert-row.html]Obama”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2179484/Barack-Obama-‘monkey’-phone-advert-row.html)
[Restaurant</a> Owner Under Fire For Obama Monkey Shirts - News Story - KNTV | San Francisco](<a href=“News – NBC Bay Area”>News – NBC Bay Area)</p>

<p>“In brief I feel the character is more a statement about curiosity combined with a lack of experience leading to trouble. That makes it a perfect analogy.”</p>

<p>Well, you claim this, but reasonable and knowledgeable people understand quite precisely what is going on here, its meaning, and how it attempts to exploit history to attack the man by making fun of him racially. The uproar here is quite warranted because these are attacks on the man, and not on his actions.</p>

<p>“Frankly, to me the overreaction is not good for Obama.”</p>

<p>Of course, to you, nothing can be good for Obama because obviously you detest the man so much that you cannot find it in your mind to perceive when he is being unfairly assaulted. If you cannot understand these assaults, then I suspect there is very little possibility, if any at all, of your ever seeing anything good for Obama. I do hope McCain wins.</p>

<p>“What does it say when Bush a gazillion times over is compared to ugly, evil, hairy-faced primates of absolutely every sort, and just one time Obama is drawn as the exceedingly likeable and cute Curious George - and all Hades breaks loose?”</p>

<p>It says people do not feel compunction where Bush is concerned because the comments only apply to Bush and his obvious incompetence. But when the comments are applied to Obama, they assault all black people due to the historical meaning attached to the comments during America’s recent and sordid past. People, the reasonable ones that is, understand this and are sensitive to it. They are trying to be charitable in view of the past. It is all quite adequate. I think your claim about liberal “uproars” is false, and I reject it.</p>

212

<p>Excellent article by Richard Prince on this subject on the website of the Maynard Institute for Journalism Excellence. The link will show you the Nation’s cover which satirizes the New Yorker’s cover. </p>

<p>"Sen. Barack Obama said on Tuesday that the New Yorker magazine cover depicting him and his wife as a Muslim and a terrorist, respectively, insulted Muslim Americans. And as the debate continued over what constitutes effective satire and what is merely offensive, the Nation magazine fired back at the New Yorker with a cartoon disparaging its controversial cover.</p>

<p>Referring to e-mailed rumors about his religion, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Tuesday:</p>

<p>"One last point I want to – I do want to make about these e-mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this New Yorker cover.</p>

<p>"You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim Americans, something that we don’t spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I’ve been derelict in pointing that out.</p>

<p>“You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America’s all about.”</p>

<p>Obama, a Christian, blamed himself for not being forceful enough in challenging some of the rumors about him, including that he is Muslim.</p>

<p>" Well, I know it was The New Yorker’s attempt at satire," he said. "I don’t think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It’s a cartoon, Larry, and that’s why we’ve got the First Amendment. I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what’s happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. </p>

<p>“So I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it.”</p>

<p>The progressive magazine The Nation, meanwhile, unveiled a cartoon prepared for its Aug. 4 issue showing Obama tossing the New Yorker in the fireplace as he knocks down Eustace Tilley, the New Yorker’s fictional, monocled, foppish icon.</p>

<p>“While I understand why many object to this cartoon – and to images which they believe reinforce stereotypes (and there are many at The Nation who found the New Yorker cartoon offensive), I believe satire – even if it flops or offends – has a place in our culture and politics,” Katrina vanden Heuvel, the Nation’s editor and publisher, wrote in presenting views on the controversy from some of her publication’s cartoonists.</p>

<p>“I have to say this, that the readers of The Nation are not the same readers of, say, Us magazine,” wrote Steve Brodner. “To accept the premise of [drawing for a] ‘mass audience,’ I would have to make my work understandable to people who know next to nothing about the daily changing political landscape. Then you become like ‘Saturday Night Live’ at its worst: thinking it can, for example, satirize Jack Abramoff by making a lewd joke out of his name (‘I don’t even know Abram!’), leaving the viewer comfortable in not knowing anything about the issue. No, we are speaking to our readers, whom we feel very much in a kind of wonderful conversation with.” …"
[Obama</a> Shrugs Off Cartoon | The Maynard Institute](<a href=“http://mije.org/richardprince/obama-shrugs-off-cartoon]Obama”>http://mije.org/richardprince/obama-shrugs-off-cartoon)</p>

213

<p>ED Hill didn’t learn much at Harvard, I guess. Her off the cuff remark about the “terrorist fist jab” wasn’t her own, though. That came from a reader comment following a Cal Thomas article on a political website. It snowballed & was falsely atrtributed to Thomas. Got some coverage in political blogs (the type of blogs that any correspondant would be reading for background.) Hill foolishly repeated the phrase, thinking everyone would get the reference. Wrong. Many Fox viewers are fearful of Obama’s willingness to meet unconditionally with terrorist-supporting dictators & his obvious foreign policy naivete. They do not consider him a terrorist. That’s absurd.</p>

<p>Obama as a monkey: Haven’t seen any of this. But comparing a race of people to primates is not reserved for blacks. Irish immigrants were frequently characterized as primates, in both political cartoons (Thomas Nast) & editorials in major newspapers. Today in the Middle East, Arab children are often taught that Jews are apes & pigs.</p>

214

<p>

</p>

<p>I took a look at the monkey phone ad, it was done in Japan, so it has nothing to do with us.</p>

<p>From the link provided</p>

<p>

</p>

215

<p>NSM–thanks for the great link; the commentary there helps put into words what i’ve been trying to say.</p>

216

<p>This is coming from a guy who is yet to meet a single muslim group. </p>

<p>[Obama</a> Steers Clear of Michigan Muslims He May Need to Win State - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080716/pl_bloomberg/aercm5vov0ja;_ylt=AkUpqe.0wlpigeurVFNgXa9snwcF]Obama”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080716/pl_bloomberg/aercm5vov0ja;_ylt=AkUpqe.0wlpigeurVFNgXa9snwcF)</p>

217

<p>

</p>

<p>Very interesting that Obama tries to say that the cover is an issult to Muslims (when we all (?) understand that it is a jab at those who wish to portray the Obama’s as terrorists). </p>

<p>This is the same tactic used when he/dems/supporters attempt/s to suggest that attacks on him are attacks against all black people (i.e. “racism”).</p>

<p>Is this an attempt to rile up certain “groups” to rally around his candidacy by trying to make them feel that attacks against the candidate are attacks against “them”?</p>

<p>I guess it’s some sort of “strategy”, but it seems underhanded & manipulative. It’s fear-mongering & divisive (esp. for the candidate who was oh-so-above all that. Right :rolleyes:).</p>

218

<p>

</p>

<p>I pretty much agree with you on this, pmrlcomm. (Other than the fact that I’m a seething Bush hater!) I disagree with McCain on certain issues, but respect him in other ways. If he’s elected, he’ll be my President and I’ll pray for his wisdom and success at the job. My problem with Bush was that I always felt disenfranchised with him as “decider-in-chief”–that in the final analysis, he really didn’t give a rat’s you-know-what about me, what I cared about, or feared, etc. He just took the bit between his teeth and charged recklessly off in whatever dangerous direction he wanted to go (sometimes with the benediction of our weak-kneed Congress), wreaking havoc along the way. I would trust both Obama and McCain not to be so arrogant and irresponsible.</p>

219

<p>I’m not a history buff so I don’t know this. Has any other POTUS been faced with similar circumstances (9/11 et al) so early (8 mos) into their first term? I’m not going to defend Bush BUT if he truly did what he thought was in the best interest of the country, at the exclusion of individuals in this country (“he really didn’t give a rat’s you-know-what about me, what I cared about, or feared, etc.”), then he did the right thing even though he knew he would be demonized when all of it started. The execution of it is another matter but I can’t judge what his motivations and intentions were. I’m sure there will be plenty who will give me grief for this statement and go on about oil and everything else. I’m pretty sure there have been other leaders vilified for their actions only to be exonnerated in the end. Only history will be able to judge how great Clinton (sarcasm) was and how terrible Bush is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have learned that sometimes you have to do something very unpopular and stay the course to change things. My kids don’t understand why we do some of the things we do. It looks stupid to them but they don’t, nor should they, see the whole picture. Everyone in this country thinks they know as much as it’s leaders do and, rightly so, we don’t.</p>

220

<p>When Obama made his famous speech about race, and called the grandmother who raised him (rather well, it seems in terms of a resume, at least) a “typical white woman”, that, to me, put it all up for grabs. Plus the speech showed me that he really has no idea what he is doing or saying if he wants to unify the country. </p>

<p>I hope that he will lose and that someone more unifying will eventually emerge. Until then, he can be alone with his racial prejudices and lack of respect for his grandmother. Character is very important to me in leaders and he has very little. He blows with the wind and demeans and racially categorizes his own grandmother if he needs to to make what he considered a seminal speech to win votes. Whose votes he wanted with that speech I can only guess at and not say in this forum because I do not want to get to his level of foolery.</p>