Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Obama outraged over this week's New Yorker cover

  1. #1

    Obama outraged over this week's New Yorker cover

    It's "satirical", with Barack and Michelle in the Oval Office. Obama is dressed like a Muslim cleric, Michelle is sporting a blacksploitation afro and machine gun on her back, there's an American flag burning in the fireplace and a picture of OBL hanging on the wall. They are giving each other the "terrorist fist bump."

    Obama is outraged and found it offensive, here's the New Yorker's reply:

    [QUOTE]"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and 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," the New Yorker statement said.[/QUOTE]

    Check it out, what do you guys think: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25673296[/url]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626069]It's "satirical", with Barack and Michelle in the Oval Office. Obama is dressed like a Muslim cleric, Michelle is sporting a blacksploitation afro and machine gun on her back, there's an American flag burning in the fireplace and a picture of OBL hanging on the wall. They are giving each other the "terrorist fist bump."

    Obama is outraged and found it offensive, here's the New Yorker's reply:



    Check it out, what do you guys think: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25673296[/url][/QUOTE]

    The line between trying to parody a stereotype and trafficking in one is thin. I don't think this cover walked it very well.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2626074]The line between trying to parody a stereotype and trafficking in one is thin. I don't think this cover walked it very well.[/QUOTE]

    It certainly isn't subtle, but then again, I guess that was the point. Finding humor in the extreme, I suppose.

  4. #4
    Its the truth in the "satire" thats bothering Obama and the lovely MEchelle

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    I don't think it's meant to be an attack on Obama. I see it for what they claim it to be; a satirical depiction of everything Obama's detractors are trying to portray him as.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=sourceworx;2626091]I don't think it's meant to be an attack on Obama. I see it for what they claim it to be; a satirical depiction of everything Obama's detractors are trying to portray him as.[/QUOTE]

    That's how I see it too. And before anyone says, "Oh, but it WILL influence the right-wing evangelical voters in the south"... no, it won't. Evangelical voters in the south don't read the highbrow, pretentious New Yorker.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626093]That's how I see it too. And before anyone says, "Oh, but it WILL influence the right-wing evangelical voters in the south"... no, it won't. [B]Evangelical voters in the south don't read the highbrow, pretentious New Yorker[/B].[/QUOTE]


    LOL. So true.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,246
    I think it's so over the top that it's no so offensive. Then again, it's not me and my wife on the cover so I do think he has a legit beef here.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,246
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626093]That's how I see it too. And before anyone says, "Oh, but it WILL influence the right-wing evangelical voters in the south"... no, it won't. [B]Evangelical voters in the south can't read.[/QUOTE][/B]


    Fixed

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    706
    Yeah, I think the New Yorker's Statement was right on..and if our politicians didn't have to worry about dumb citizens that interpret satire literally, I imagine BO might be able to have a chuckle out of this. However, with micro-managed, dumbed down, hyped up political images, and cultural icons... any candidate must maintain that image and only that image (without any cleverness or nuance) ... SAD...

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    706
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626078]It certainly isn't subtle, but then again, I guess that was the point. Finding humor in the extreme, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626093]That's how I see it too. And before anyone says, "Oh, but it WILL influence the right-wing evangelical voters in the south"... no, it won't. Evangelical voters in the south don't read the highbrow, pretentious New Yorker.[/QUOTE]

    No, but they see it in their boston educated doctor's office and **** themselves....really look where I live...that's why it is scary on the cover...it is a picture...so they don't have to read

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=nmac21;2626115]No, but they see it in their boston educated doctor's office and **** themselves....really look where I live...that's why it is scary on the cover...it is a picture...so they don't have to read[/QUOTE]

    Ha... alright, fair point.

  13. #13
    It's classless and just look who already has it in their posts.

    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626118]Ha... alright, fair point.[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=cr726;2626121]It's classless and just look who already has it in their posts.[/QUOTE]

    Who has what? I keep signatures and avatars turned off, if that's what you mean. I can't see any of that.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=sourceworx;2626091]I don't think it's meant to be an attack on Obama. I see it for what they claim it to be; a satirical depiction of everything Obama's detractors are trying to portray him as.[/QUOTE]
    A curious attack on "conservatives", isn't it? I wonder how close the brass of New York Mag is with Team Clinton.

  16. #16
    CBTNY

    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626124]Who has what? I keep signatures and avatars turned off, if that's what you mean. I can't see any of that.[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2626093]That's how I see it too. And before anyone says, "Oh, but it WILL influence the right-wing evangelical voters in the south"... no, it won't. Evangelical voters in the south don't read the highbrow, pretentious New Yorker.[/QUOTE]

    they may not read it, but they will see this cover shown on TV....and that is where the real damage gets done, if they read it, they probably would understand what the magazine was doing, but instead, all they see is this pic, which is already in CBTNY's sig...

  18. #18
    Not exactly groundbreaking or revolutionary, mags have taken satirical cartoon shots at politicians forever.

    It's certainly a broadside at first glace, although knowing the New Yorker I am sure it's meaning is something a bit different than what "first glace" would imply.

    But really, why would any of us be outraged? Sure, I get Obama (it is him after all), but us? What are we new? Political cartoons were ok for everyone previous to Obama, right? Plenty of "Bush = Monkey" Cartoons about, and both Clinton and Reagan suffered plenty under the cartoonists pen.

    If there is one thing I've noticed about the Obama campaign, it's a vast oversenstibvity to any form of criticism or attack, as if doing either to him was somehow "wrong". He's played it very well, and deflected alot, but he better hope people (the vast sheeple) don't catch on before election day.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=cr726;2626121]It's classless and just look who already has it in their posts.[/QUOTE]

    Are you surprised? :zzz::zzz::zzz:

  20. #20
    I think it is satire, like they say, but I can also understand why Obama wants to address it.....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us