Thread: New Yorker Cover

It's kinda tasteless. But hey, freedom of speech...

I find this bothersome.

The camouflage in Michelle's pants does not go well with the back ground, White house has to be re-painted.

Oh and the disclaimer from the Author himself...

New Yorker Cover: Clever Satire or ‘Tasteless and Offensive’?

Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.

The July 21 cover of the New Yorker cover depicts a turban-wearing Barack Obama fist-bumping his Afro-headed, machine gun toting wife Michelle as they stand in the Oval Office, with a portrait of Osama bin Laden above the fireplace with an American flag burning inside.

NewYorkerGet it?

The satirical cover harpooning the stereotypes and more insidious accusations against the expected Democratic nominee hasn’t prompted any laughs from the Obama campaign, which a spokesman called “tasteless and offensive,” an opinion seconded by John McCain’s campaign.

(Lost in the discussion is the actual story, “Making it: How Chicago Shaped Obama” which can be read HERE.)

“Obviously I wouldn’t have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics,” New Yorker editor David Remnick told the Huffington Post today, “I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed ‘lack of patriotism’ or his being ‘soft on terrorism’ or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.”

Remnick continued: “The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are… We’ve run many many satirical political covers. Ask the Bush administration how many.”

The high-brow publication has long been a favorite of sophisticates who presumably would get the joke. Not so much. “I hope the New Yorker sees a drop in subscriptions from this stunt,” wrote a poster on MyDD.com, the liberal blog which opined the view of many on the left that the cover will only serve to spread, not debunk, the Obama rumors.

“So, apparently, it’s ‘satire.’ Trouble is, we can count on the media not to play it that way. They will probably raise a big fuss over it, and the net effect will simply be a further spreading of the rumors the cover is pretending to debunk,’” the site wrote, “Apparently, the satirists at the New Yorker weren’t prescient enough to see that it would play out that way, or didn’t care.”

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : New Yorker Cover: Clever Satire or ‘Tasteless and Offensive’?

David Remnick On That New Yorker Cover: It's Satire, Meant To Target "Distortions And Misconceptions And Prejudices" About Obama

Heard about this on talk radio this morning and was hoping to see the cover - thanks for posting it. This is what free speech is all about.

It's satire, just a joke, you're not supposed to take it literally. If anything, it's insulting the people who go on about "Terrorist fist jabs" and "Obama is a black muslim terrorist"

The only people who will look at this and think otherwise (the same people who talk about fist jabs etc..) are people that would never even vote for Obama in the first place. So it doesn't make a difference whatsoever.

The US flag burning in the fireplace.....that's the kicker.

Good grief. Is there some sort of rule that all politicians must have their sense of humor surgically removed before running for office?

I think the cartoon depicts Michelle Obama's mindset perfectly, very militant and anti-American.

Satire, Joke, Malafide or Mischief, call it what you want, it has a powerful message that will surely affect the mind of the voters,

Masterful in terms of Psyops.

Bigger version of the picture: