"Republicans say they plan to keep up an aggressive rapid-response operation aimed at Barack Obama while he visits Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and western Europe this week, hoping to counter the massive press coverage Obama's trip will generate. Foreign policy is one of the few areas where polls show John McCain has an edge with voters, and the GOP has no intention of letting Obama use the trip to catch up."

Strange stuff. The idea that having campaign rallies and photo-ops overseas is going to give Obama foreign policy cred or experience is laughable as is the notion, expressed by a poster below, that the trip is "historic". That the MSM is tagging along doesn't surprise me. This is a classic "lazy" story that the MSM loves. All they have to do is cover the events and blather on. It suits them perfectly.

"If the cover had shown "Joe Sixpack" and "NASCAR Nellie" cowering in fear in front of a picture of the Obamas looking this way, it would have made its point. But it didn't, so it came off as an attack on the Obamas."

So because the satire didn't include what you thought it should that means that it didn't make it's point in general and that it came off as an attack on the Obamas despite the almost instant explanation from the New Yorker? I don't think that's a reach.

"If the New Yorker is depending on the sophistication of it's audience, does that sophistication include noticing that this particular shot is out of the norm for the magazine?"

Um, it's not out of the norm at all. Political satire is nothing new for the mag.

"The government approved cartoons mocking Jewish people before WWII in Germany and Japanese people in internment camps were not satire - they were not intended as such. They did not portray Jews or Japanese in ways that were perceived to be "over the top" or sympathetic. They portrayed them just as people widely believed them to be, they fed existing stereotypes."

Exactly. On top of that, the New Yorker image is designed to mock notions that are not widely held at all. The comparison between this New Yorker cover those cartoons is, frankly, assinine.

Yeah, you're right all that other stuff the Obama camp put out was "just words". I love the new spin though because it's much easier to blame the dissapointed supporters for "not listening" rather than being accountable for his own actions. I guess the real Obama he was not the Obama they knew and it's all their fault.

"It's a gift from the New Yorker - providing a much needed (by the Obama campaign) distraction from the article that accompanies it."

Yep, the accompanying article is the real potential problem for the Obama camp. I suspect they know this and are using "outrage" over the cover to blunt the impact of the article.

So um, where were all these "outraged" Obama folks when HuffPo created these satirical covers of Michelle Obama?

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ladies-and-gentlemen-your-new-democratic-party/

Crickets chirping........

In terms of the "New Yorker" anybody who doesn't get the obvious intent or has to resort to tortured reasoning why the satire supposedly "failed" is an idiot or has an pre-existing agenda. On the other side, the people who would foolishly believe the cover stereotypes didn't need the cover to "reinforce" their craziness and won't get that they are being mocked and that's their problem.

No I don't have any comments. The situation is well known though you are apparently enjoying it and making some dubious claims. But anyway, carry on....

Yeah, I expected that's about all you have left to do. Just posture and spout and wail. Have fun!

"Seriously chief, I'd keep arguing but I have no idea what your point is. You believe Obama said what he did in an act of self-flaggelation to make himself more palatable to white America. That's a nifty theory, but it's also completely unproveable so you're really just blowing smoke here."

Of course you don't. You don't even know what's going on in Philly but you stupidly think you can expound on the state of black America in general.

Anyway bub, the nifty trick is you telling me what I beleive about Obama's "Father's Day Speech". As usual, your interpretation is suspect but I understand that you aren't up to snuff here and in over WAY your head on this subject so you have to try and shuck and jive your way through. I guess it's your way of flaming out to avoid further embarassment like like Diomedes did though you do it in a much quieter way so I guess that's somthing in your favor. Anyway, I'll try not to spank you so hard next time. You seem like you could use a break.

Sure Mike sure. You are in control. Feel better now?

Still licking your wounds and looking for support? You started the smack talk and you were warned and you lost. C'mon now, it's time to get over it.