Obama is ‘All Class’ in Response to New Yorker Cover

The New Yorker Magazine, a magazine I happen subscribe to and read regularly, recently published a completely tasteless and foolish cover to their latest issue. I was more outraged than Obama himself in fact. The cover features Obama in traditional Muslim garb, and his wife in military clothing brandishing a gun.

Just a quick heads up for the folks at the New Yorker – when over twenty percent of all Americans think Obama actually grew up in a Muslim household…liberal magazines such as yours shouldn’t add gas to the fire.

Conservative magazines don’t go out of their way to liken John McCain to Methuselah do they?

No they don’t.

Get it guys?

Enough said. 

Here is Obama’s response on Larry King as he took it all in stride…

Someone from The New Yorker really needs to step up and apologize for this.

  Like this post? Share it with others…

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl



Filed under Democratic Party, Election 2008, Media, Politics

11 responses to “Obama is ‘All Class’ in Response to New Yorker Cover

  1. exemployee

    I agree, he handled it quite well, but they really didn’t put him in an outfit that he hasn’t already put out on the internet ( just google obama in muslim clothes) and up pops multiple photos of him while he was in Kenya. So, where’s the problem. Also, Michelle Obama, comes off as a brash, loud, outspoken women who is on the defense almost everytime she speaks. It is not any different from when they showed V.P. Cheney with a smoking gun after he shot his hunting partner. Take it for what it is, satire. That’s what The New Yorker is all about. To quote the Godfather, “It’s not personal, it’s business.”

  2. exemployee,

    I know, I know, but the cover? Come on!

  3. The cover was meant to make fun of the media and the ignorant people who think those things about the Obamas and was political satire. The question was did they go to far…

    A reader of the New Yorker would understand the cover but what about someone seeing the cover who was searching for a copy of “Christianity Today” or “Rods and Guns” magazine. The cover just reinforces the stereotypes among some people.


    I don’t understand you comparing Michelle Obama with Dick Cheney and their covers. Cheney actuality shot someone while hunting and Ms. Obama is not part of some black panther militant group.

    George Bush has worn Saudi head dresses when visiting there but yet we don’t see him the subject of political satire on the cover of a magazine wearing it.

    I just think the New Yorker should have put the cover inside the magazine instead and/or had a related article to go with the image.

  4. Marc

    Actually, Bush has seen considerable satire in his hand holding with the King of Saudi Arabia and begging for lower oil productions, which he deserves to be satired for.

    Listen, I’m gung-ho Obama but I really am tired, just plain dog tired of 10,000 screaming chicken little who support his campaign getting upset about any lil’ old joke or criticism attached to his religion or race and I think, so is Obama.

    As he indicated in the interview what really upsets him is the distraction this creates away from the real issue and your own overly righteous sense of outrage only fuels that distraction.

    Listen, there has plenty of satire made about McCain’s age, Clinton’s feminity, etc… It’s only because of the sensitivity of the subject material that you’ve become upset. The candidates themselves have all indicated the same low-level annoyance at the satire against them and do you know what, it’s really their right to be outraged, not yours. If their has been injustice done, then they’ll let you know they feel that way and you can merry well jump in with them, but otherwise you’re just as much of a nuisance to the candidate as the satire itself.

    Finally, the New Yorker was only doing what it has, in this country, every right to do and its just what they have been doing for decades. If you really want to express your outrage in a way that will affect them, cancel your subscription.

  5. Marc,

    Let’s just boil it down to gravy. I’ve been reading the New Yorker for almost twenty years now, and if you have, you would know that satire in the New Yorker is usually aimed at conservatives. It is one of the most liberal magazines on earth. Why hit Obama??? But more importantly, why reinforce a underground Republican urban legend that simply isn’t true???

    It seems odd to me.

    Obama is not a Muslim fundamentalist, most of whom are universally equated with violence and terrorism, and as MJ pointed out, Michelle Obama is not a militant. So what gives?

    I can think of about ten things, off the cuff, they could have done satirically to be clever, but this wasn’t one of the ten. They poked at Obama. Fine. But they really offended Muslim Americans as Obama himself indicated – some of whom are friends of mine. That’s what frosted me a bit.

    I’m sorry, but I disagree with you completely.

  6. Marc

    Oh, right, they only criticize conservatives?
    Did I not see a cover scant months ago of Hillary and Obama in bed together at 3 A.M.?

    They aren’t helping the other guy, while bigots may latch hold of this cover and pass it around politicians on the far right now have to fear having satire rubbed in their face.

    In fact, thats the objective of a satire, to undermine the a serious message by adding humor to it. I’m not really sure how you could read the New Yorker for 20 years and not get that.

    It’s you who hurts the liberal cause more than anyone as now the right has a whole cadre of leftist blogs who scream like a bunch of nancies when their candidate comes under what it is some fairly unsubstantial criticism, which wasn’t even aimed at the candidate anyways!

  7. Marc,

    If you are going to be argumentative, you must at least put the minimal effort forth to read carefully.

    Conservatives have a bad habit of playing loose and fast with quotes, as you have, which leads me to believe you are lying when you say you are “gung-ho” Obama. I think you may be a Republican to the core, who indeed loathes liberals – and you did a really poor job hiding it. How close am I?

    Back to that later.

    In my comment I clearly stated that the New Yorker’s satire is “usually aimed at conservatives.” Where you get “only criticize conservatives,” from my comment is beyond me.

    Also, to be clear, the universally accepted definition of ‘satire’ is to use sarcasm to expose or discredit “vice or folly.” I see little of either in this cover. In fact one could easily interpret the cover as folly, which is simply a lack of good sense!!!! How ironic is that?!

    “…cadre of leftist blogs”, “scream like a bunch of nancies..” Come on Marc. This sounds like Limbaugh and O’Reilly speak to me buddy. It’s O.K. You don’t have to hide it. It’s okay to be a conservative. I have Republican friends. Really I do. But, two rules – if you comment here, you need to tighten up you debate skills. Two, if you’re going to post comments, be honest. Deal?

  8. Alfie

    To anyone but Matt or MJ especially. Does anyone think that the New Yorkers intellectual smugness/arrogance played a role in approving the toon ?

  9. Marc

    In light of this conversation, i think we’ll all enjoy what Vanity Faire is planning to put on its cover…


    Concerns there Matt?

  10. Pingback: Vanity Fair parodies the Obamas New Yorker Cover « Capitol Street

  11. Steven

    So is this site dead? Sure looks like it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s