Letters to the Editor
-
Missed the point of the left-wing reaction
This sophisticated analysis misses the big point, namely that Obama cannot be touched critically, whether on his merits, satirically, or other wise, without a cry of racism going up. The only exception is criticism that he is not lefty enough ( or his flipped from a former leftist position). If he becomes president we're all going to have to watch what we say about him.
-
Salon defending racism? Ah, yes! Because it is against Obama.
And we all know how much Salon hates Obama.
The argument (a weak one at that) made that the New Yorker has run other covers making fun of Bush misses one vital element: those covers against Bush weren't racist.
The Obama is derogatory on several levels. Bush's are just toying with his own failures as a person, and as a human being.
But the two Obamas presented here are not human. They are racial stereotypes, and they are not presented to truly ridicule the lunacy of the attacks against Obama, but instead to tattoo them in the public's mind.
Why Salon needs to defend this shit is beyond me.
-
Sturm & Drang
I'm liberal. I found it funny. I also found the blogosphere's reaction a welcome addition to the circus. All this attention to the cover will do more to dispel those ridiculous Republican viral emails than anything else ever could.
Theatrics are a necessary component of political power. If the Republican's were smart, they would be heralding from every NASCAR feed that McCain got a marriage license with Cindy before he was granted a divorce from Carol, flash picture of each and their net worth. A certain segment of the male demographic would go cha-ching, woo-hoo and high five one another.
-
Missing the point
Leaving aside the idea that there are more important things than being able to say whatever you want and make whatever joke you wish without receiving criticism for it, I think the more important point is that neither the New Yorker or any other mainstream magazine would ever, ever, ever publish a similar cover about McCain. Obama is fair game as an "other" where McCain is not.
-
Irony is dead because Americans are brain-dead.
Joe Sixpack and his wife NASCAR Nellie can't even spell irony. But they know when they see a picture of that N***** who is trying to throw their beloved Dubya out of office, and that picture assures them that he IS a Muslin and his wife is a Terraist, that even those gay-boy New Yorkers have finally admitted the truth.
Kamiya, you really don't know much about Americans, do you? Here's a hint; you have to get the hell out of places that have any buildings higher than two stories to find them.
They will take this picture seriously, and they will elect McCain in to finish the destruction of the United States. And the Salon poster Elephantman will dance.
-
Actually, I think it's Hysterical
That's the cover AND the reaction to it.
When I saw it, I snorted my morning coffee I laughed so hard. Yikes! And I like Obama.
But I guess I'm not progressive enough to be totally offended as I voted for Clinton. After the sheer nonsensical crap that the "progressive" left threw at her, I knew they had totally lost any sense of reasonable perspective.
The Overly Righteous Left needs to get over itself.
-
"Full Spinal Tap 11"
What a great line!
And... We already have good and bad discussion on this topic, in the Salon War Room: http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/14/lizza/view/?show=all
Please take a look, before you post here.
-
Thank you
Thank you, thank you. As an English teacher, a writer, an Obama voter, a New Yorker fan, I have been absolutely freaked out over the response to this. Where to start? The people who think the magazine should censor itself and dumb down to the point where the "average American", whatever that is, can understand? The people who think it is about Obama? The people who think the cartoon is racist? The anti-semites who blame some sort of Jewish media? The good liberals who have never read the New Yorker and yet presume they know all about it? The idiots who never heard of it and yet assume it is anti-Obama and presume to dictate its content?
I and my fellow teachers are failures. Our students have learned nothing. Not only can they not interpret a piece of literature, now they cannot interpret a cartoon.
Oh. My. God. The end of American civilization is near. I'll cling to my copies of the New Yorker (as long as they don't dare apologize for being smart) and go down with the ship.
-
Satire needs to do three things
Satire needs to do three things simultaneously. The target must be worthy of satire, i.e. pompous and stupid. The satire must hit the essence of the target dead on. And, it must be viscerally funny.
The New Yorker cover fails on all three. Right wing idiots are worthy of satire without doubt, but that's not who the cartoonist hit. The Obamas ended up being the target. The satire is therefore not funny.
Now, lots of very hip plugged in people got the joke, and that's fine. That doesn't prove the image is good satire, nor that it is worthy of the New Yorker's elevated standards. There's a reason the wag said satire is what closes on Friday night.
The New Yorker just found out why.
-
No laughing matter
.
The Obama camp could have easily handled this with a funny retort or by saying that there are far more important matters to discuss than a magazine cover.
Instead they chose to turn it into a huge story by responding as though making fun of or criticizing Sen. Obama is sacrilege.
I saw how ugly this was going to get when I read a comment on Salon that this was done by Jews who don't want an African-American president. There's not already enough division in the party and in the country, lets throw some good old anti-Semitism in, too
-
The New Yorker is right
That's a great drawing and great satire. I love it. Only an idiot who's been visiting another planet for the past seven years would think otherwise. I hope the New Yorker continues its long tradition of good, intelligent commentary in both word and cartoon.