When did people lose their sense of humour?

And you call yourselves liberals.

And you call yourselves liberals.

Even those of us who did not want such a cover did not advocate censorship.

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- The cover of this week's New Yorker magazine may explain why Barack Obama isn't reaching out to Michigan's Muslims.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is shown in the Oval Office, wearing a turban and bumping fists with his wife, Michelle, who is in combat boots with a rifle slung over her shoulder. The cartoon, intended as satire, is a reminder of the dangers of any association with Muslims for Obama, who has fought false rumors that his middle name, Hussein, indicates he was born into the Islamic faith.

Muslim- and Arab-Americans represent 4 percent of the vote in Michigan, a battleground in this year's election. Yet Obama, who has held 13 events in the state during the presidential campaign, hasn't visited a mosque or met with Muslim leaders.

Bill Ballenger, editor of the nonpartisan newsletter Inside Michigan Politics, said Obama, 46, has to strike a delicate balance. The Illinois senator ``doesn't have to pander'' to such voters, who are likely to back him anyway, though he can ill- afford to ``dismiss them in an arrogant fashion.''

While Obama is leading in Michigan polls, some politicians said it would be a mistake for him not to actively court the state's Muslim voters, who went for Democrat John Kerry four years ago and Republican George W. Bush in 2000. . . . .

. . . .Several Muslim and Arab leaders said they would like to meet with Obama. They said they haven't had any direct meetings with Arizona Senator McCain, 71, either.

``We're not asking for much,'' said Imad Hamad, regional director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Dearborn. ``We're asking for equal opportunity and equal time and equal respect. They've met with other communities, so why is the Arab-American, Muslim community out of the loop?''

Some Muslim Obama backers said they understood their candidate's motivation in keeping his distance.

``There's an Islamophobic wave,'' said Ron Amen, an Obama volunteer who is also the facility manager at the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. ``I understand him making an effort to convince people that he's not a Muslim; I don't want to see Obama get saddled with any more baggage as a result of support from Arabs and Muslims.''

Barack Obama to the New Yorker: It's your right - but you weren't right.

In his first substantive talk about the magazine's inflammatory cartoon depicting him and his wife as fist-bumping terrorists, Obama told CNN's Larry King the image fueled misconceptions and insulted Muslim Americans.

"I know it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it," Obama said. "But you know what? It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment."
LINK

Question: If the cartoon wasn't about Obama, a point about which at least most of us agree, then why is the cartoon about Muslims? If the point of the satire is to illustrate the absurdity of the way some on the right are attempting to portray Obama, couldn't the same be true re Muslims?

[Obama:] "I know it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it," Obama said. "But you know what? It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment."

Barack Obama tries to repair a PR blunder, but 2 days too late

As our Swamp colleagues report, Barack Obama finally commented last night on the highly controversial cover of this week's New Yorker magazine. And he said all the right things. But he was about 54 hours tardy.

Sunday, as soon as the elitist magazine released its provocative cartoon cover, Obama declined to comment, not wanting to elevate it to something important enough for a candidate to speak about. Fine. But, as The Ticket promptly reported here, advisors still sent out his communications director, Bill Burton, to denounce it:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree." [..]

Denouncing it Sunday was an instinctive act. Genuine, to be sure. But really dumb damage control. It was a huge PR mistake by a campaign that doesn't make many. [..] If the cover is so tasteless and offensive, why purposely call it to the attention of millions of Americans with a strong denunciation on an otherwise slow news Sunday afternoon? It turned a mere magazine cover that the Obama campaign would rather no one see into a must-see for millions. [..]

[W]hat if Burton had made himself available -- that's not hard to do with reporters circling like hawks -- and waited for the inevitable New Yorker question and said something like, "C'mon, guys. It's a magazine cover, for Pete's sake. A cartoon. They think it's satire. It's a free country. It's sure not funny. We think there are far more important issues to put on the cover of a magazine, like the looming mortgage crisis that the Bush administration and its McCain cronies have ignored so long." [..]

We're now in Day Three of discussing the magazine cover that Obama didn't want many to see. So, last night on "Larry King Live," right out of the box before asking about Obama's main message, his big Iraq speech, old Larry goes right to the top issue: "We welcome to 'Larry King Live' Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. He made a major foreign policy address today in Washington. We'll get to that in a moment.

"But I've heard a lot of others comment on it. We haven't heard you speak about it yet. That New Yorker cover which depicts you and your wife, and you dressed in a Muslim outfit, your wife in a kind of military outfit, Osama bin Laden's picture burning [sic], what do you make of that?"

And Obama calmly replied: "Well, I know it was the New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It's a cartoon, Larry, and that's why we've got the 1st Amendment.

"And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it."

Smart stuff. Too late.

Imagine what else we might all be talking about this morning if that had been the campaign's opening response Sunday.

Foxfyre wrote:

Question: If the cartoon wasn't about Obama, a point about which at least most of us agree, then why is the cartoon about Muslims? If the point of the satire is to illustrate the absurdity of the way some on the right are attempting to portray Obama, couldn't the same be true re Muslims?

Reread what he said.

Satire is tricky; you have to nail it or people will think you're serious.

Poorly done satire (which IMO the cover was) runs the risk of being taken seriously.

If the cover is taken seriously, then it adds to peoples fears of Muslims rather than lampooning such fears.

Summarily, the materials I have seen quoted totally sucked. Or, shall I say, were entirely without artistic merit (to avoid offending the grammatically correct DrewDad).

The perfect response by Obama.

The question, of course, is whether or not his campaign reacted to the cover without consulting him.

I'm not sure we'll ever know, although Malcom clearly believes campaign staff went off the reservation.

My bet is that he was consulted, and whether or not the attempt to reshape the story succeeded or failed, Obama would have given the very same answer to Larry King's question.

I don't think the original reaction to the cover was an attempt to "make hay." I do think the campaign would have been very happy if the cover was never published and so it seems clear that they were looking to quash it rather than exploit it.

It did back fire on them though.

I was in an airport news stand yesterday and a fellow wearing cowboy boots and hat was looking for the New Yorker with the Obama cover. (The garb really means nothing but I know how so many of you like to sterotype Texans). When he found the July issue on sale he was clearly disappointed. I advised him that he needed to wait for the August issue to which he responded "Turn about is fair play isn't it?"

Obviously he had seen the cover and believed it was an attack against Obama, but I doubt he ever would have seen the cover if the Obama campaign didn't make a stink about it.

nimh wrote:

The perfect response by Obama.

The question, of course, is whether or not his campaign reacted to the cover without consulting him.

I'm not sure we'll ever know, although Malcom clearly believes campaign staff went off the reservation.

My bet is that he was consulted, and whether or not the attempt to reshape the story succeeded or failed, Obama would have given the very same answer to Larry King's question.

I don't think the original reaction to the cover was an attempt to "make hay." I do think the campaign would have been very happy if the cover was never published and so it seems clear that they were looking to quash it rather than exploit it.

It did back fire on them though.

I was in an airport news stand yesterday and a fellow wearing cowboy boots and hat was looking for the New Yorker with the Obama cover. (The garb really means nothing but I know how so many of you like to sterotype Texans). When he found the July issue on sale he was clearly disappointed. I advised him that he needed to wait for the August issue to which he responded "Turn about is fair play isn't it?"

Obviously he had seen the cover and believed it was an attack against Obama, but I doubt he ever would have seen the cover if the Obama campaign didn't make a stink about it.