Sunday, July 13, 2008

About that New Yorker cover...

Mike Allen of Politico doesn't quite have all the outrages down:
The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife. An American flag burns in their fireplace.
First of all, it's not their fireplace, it appears to be the Oval Office fireplace (assuming there is one). And he missed the picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall.

But the outrage potential is understandable. In reading the very long New Yorker piece (click on pic for link) it's obvious Obama has long longed for high office and therefore long understood the value of making friends outside his own constituencies. That means the white community, absolutely necessary if a black man is to win the presidency.

Arguably his worst gaffe of the campaign so far was to mention the "bitter clingers" because of the damage that could inflict on the traditional white voters. No doubt his "fight the smears" website was set up to reassure white voters that 1) he wasn't a Muslim, or 2) didn't sympathize with terrorists. The drawing works against that effort, even if satire.

But at the same time, not everything in it was satire. Obama is shown wearing the same garb he wore during a trip to Africa some years ago, something he generally shouldn't desire to toss under the bus, unless he thinks Africa will fit.

As to the burning flag, their friend the former domestic terrorist did a tap dance on Old Glory in 2001. It's interesting the piece hardly mentioned Ayers (something sure to amuse Tom Maguire) other than to say he's been accepted back into polite Chicago society, suggesting his flag dance was perhaps acceptable to those folks, too.

So perhaps the cover could actually work in Obama's favor as yet another way to suggest that asking questions about his past associations actually represents a smear, with those doing so worthy of nothing but ridicule. Time will tell as the complaints come in and the general consensus is formed.

Perhaps the most interesting reaction might come from camp Clinton. Bill just got through speaking out against the troubling divisions in America so a comment seems in order. And perhaps we'll even get one from Hillary if she can manage to remove the duct tape.


Anonymous said...

I don’t know about this, AC. Is “tasteless and offensive” another way of saying that whenever one person’s sense of humor isn’t politically correct, it should be condemned? I think if you look at the history of political cartoons … none is ever respectful to the targeted individual, or hardly reverent toward whatever office that person holds. The symbolism, however, does appear to reflect Obama’s past. Mr. Obama refuses to cross his heart during the National Anthem or pledge of allegiance, admits to roots within Islam and Africa, and both he and his wife embrace the same black (Marxist) theology as the so-called Black Panther organization and Nation of Islam. So if one were to acknowledge the presence of all of these peculiar aspects of the man who would be king … why should anyone conclude The New Yorker cartoon os tasteless and offensive? I don’t get it. I have long said that the entire concept of “political correctness” is to silence opposing views; it is an attempt to shame people in to shutting up. So maybe this overly sensitive, young, and inexperienced black Muslim-Christian isn’t ready for prime time after all.

A.C. McCloud said...

I have long said that the entire concept of “political correctness” is to silence opposing views; it is an attempt to shame people in to shutting up.

While I agree I'm torn over the ulterior motive here. The New Yorker seems like it might be a Hillary rag, and if so, they might be trying to reinforce the Obama=Muslim terrorist image under the cloak of "satire".

Then again, it also works for Obama IF enough people become outraged by it.