In a New Yorker Minute
They did it. With the stroke of a pen, The New Yorker did what the Republicans have been trying to do ever since Obama proved a force to be reckoned with in the 2008 election: they created the perfect GOP Smear Campaign poster.
On its July 21, 2008, cover, The New Yorker is portraying Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office as fist-bumping, ‘fro donning (Michelle), US flag burning, bin-Laden-outfit wearing (Obama) and bin-Laden praising (crowning the mantlepiece) connivers.
The Obama Campaign is incensed, and HuffPost is not about to quench the fire. But let’s be honest: this cartoon barely has enough spark to ignite the bomb in the Prophet Muhammad’s turban (if you still don’t know how it got there, ask Jyllands-Posten), let alone a firecracker. To be sure, I’m not even certain if this qualifies as a stroke for freedom of speech.
As a matter of fact, one could have hoped that Barry Blitt (the artiste) had come up with the cover sooner, and sold it to the GOPs while Clinton was still in the game, because that would probably have shaved off a couple of days of the Democratic nomination circus. It is so blatantly sarcastic that not even David Plouffe could have come up with a more effective chain mail to demonstrate the audacity of ignorance of some Republican voters, even if he’d wanted to (heck, he could have had the entire Pixar Studios, and he still wouldn’t come up with anything as effective).
I mean, if the Bush Administration had summoned the press corps for a PowerPoint presentation, we might have had something to fear, but we’re talking about The New Yorker here – Cloud 9 on print for liberal, U.S. intellectuals (any liberal intellectual worldwide who can get his or her hands on one of those subscription coupons, for that matter).
To be honest, that the Obama campaign can’t laugh at this is disturbing, and casts a shadow over their purported freshness, not even a YouTube featuring Obama doing the “Soulja Boy” could drive away. Plouffe should raise the donation requests to $27.99, so they could start printing t-shirts with the cover rather than the mythical “O” – that’d be sure to out-fundraise McCain.
Just to be sure: is Obama wearing flip-flops?
By Peter Dahl
Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via Email
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
Peter Dahl
I apologize for not having a picture of the cover in this post – technology is playing a trick on me!
Bear with me…
Jul 14th, 2008
Kolja
So the new yorker produces an ever so ironic cover which is sure to raise some attention and produce some controversy – which intention do they have?
That’s the point I just don’t understand. The article is decidedly pro-obama. I’ll just assume their target audience is as well. who are they talking to? the average conservative? and if so, aren’t they reinforcing these rumors by putting them on a US-wide magazine cover which is easy to misread? how many people will see the magazine cover and NOT read the article – a lot. will all of them catch the irony? I doubt that.
If they are simply trying to avoid the bizzilionest magazine cover featuring obama’s face, it would be a very short-sighted move. and if this is just an attempt to raise sales at the newsstand I am deeply disappointed with the New Yorker.
btw: 10% off all registered voters in America believe Obama is a muslim (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=509).
Jul 15th, 2008
Peter Dahl
Granted, the cover is a little too late…I actually did mean it, when I said, I wish Barry Blitt had come up with the idea sooner.
The New Yorker has a LONG tradition of cartoon satire. The New Yorker’s #1 priority is to cater to its readers – not Dubuque (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DD1339F937A25755C0A96F948260) – and the core readers are likely to get this joke.
If you catched late-edition on CNN this evening, where Wolf Blitzer brought it up, the consensus was that the spirit of The New Yorker is being misinterpreted, and that the situation is being exaggerated.
The New Yorker has, througout most of the election campaign so far, been very much on the side of Obama – it should be clear that they are in no way now trying to tarnish his image…
And, frankly, the people who will conclude from this cover that Obama is any of the things satirized, are prone to believe that anyhow – whether its coming from FOX or the New Yorker.
To raise another point (which is a critique of Obama, I would not have made 6 months ago): I remember watching a CNN/YouTube debate, where the candidates were asked about their stance on reparations (to descendants of slaves). Obama was the only one clear-sighted enough to offer that he’d rather use that money to create better schools, so that when the children graduated, they wouldn’t even consider the color of their skin an obstacle, because they had the same, equal, qualifications as anyone else.
Where Obama has disappointed, the way I see it, is in his failure to recognize that this sort of clarity and freshness is what triggered “the movement” – a clarity and freshness he has failed to maintain. As an example, this very visionary was unable to tackle the issue of his alleged affiliation with Islam unruffled (the “lapel story” applies here, too): he should have made clear the absurdity (not to mention the glaring insult towards the app. 6 mio. American Muslims) of him having to even defend his regligious views – in a land which has as its 1st Amendment the very principles of freedom of religion, press and expression. Moreover, anti-catholicism was explicitly polluting the political environment in American politics in the 19th century (and as late as into the 1950s & 60s – cf. JFK’s Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech of 1960) – by now, officeholders should know better than trying to instill fear by arousing religious sentiments.
With the lapel, Obama seemed to want to redefine the meaning of patriotism, and deconstruct anachronistic symbols…and all of a sudden he is wearing a lapel every chance he gets?
My point is this: Obama did to an extent bring this upon him himself. Had this man of change, this beacon of hope, been as persistent in defining himself, as he was when he had to stand out among the other Democratic candidates in the beginning, he could have easily overcome attacks like him being tied to the Muslim community, by pointing to these as utterly disrespectful towards Muslim (or any religion scapegoated for political gain) and, frankly, racist. Rather, he chose to emphasize his 20 years with the Trinity United Church of Christ…
Jul 15th, 2008
Peter Dahl
In sum: rather than effectively dismissing all the insults, satirized on the cover of The New Yorker, for what they are (ignorant, insulting, racist…), Obama has to some extent played the Republicans’ game by trying to prove them wrong (lapel, Trinity United Church, tough stance on Iran…).
In that respect, I think The New Yorker is entitled to its cover…
Jul 15th, 2008
Reply to “In a New Yorker Minute”
You must be logged in to post a comment.