Obama '08?

Lash wrote:

Fox, hi.

To me, this type of "caricature" feels like Condi Rice as Aunt Jemima.

But, I have to admit, I'm questioning my feelings about the Dutch paper's use of Mohammad---my feelings then---and this.

Hmmm.

Yes, it struck me that way too when I first saw it. After reading the New Yorker's explanation that it was a caricature of how Obama's opponents are attempting to portray him, however, it made more sense. It would have served its intended purpose much better if the magazine had captioned it: "The Politics of Fear--How A Candidate is Advertised by the Oppostiion" or something to that effect.

On its face, the caricature is offensive. As it is intended, it is not.

0 Replies

Guess I'll have to gauge the media and general reactions the next few days...but initially I don't see this is much of a hit on BHO's campaign.

To me his campaign is already derailed somewhat by him going off message and trying to be all things to all people, and those are of his own doing...he doesn't need outside help.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The swift boaters have started!

The New Yorker Magazine dumping on Obama? You compare that to Swift Boating? Laughing

Not even close, ci. Perhaps this could be the Clintonistas at work, still?

0 Replies

I guess at first blush, it appeared to be an attempt to sway an election. Of course, you hear the explanation of satire---and can easily believe it---but then, you know it is FEEDING Obama's opposition--and feeding them in the lowest way possible. It seems like a hatchet job...but a hatchet job is NOT a racial attack...

When you examine the picture---at least when I do---it's harder to justify outrage.

Obama's wife is dressed to look like Angela Davis...(there's nothing wrong with that, is there?) Obama is dressed in Muslim garb.... (is that an insult? I don't think so.) I guess if I was an Obama supporter, I'd be horrified--but taking time to look and question, I don't think this is a racial attack.

(Refreshed and now see your post, Fox.)

I guess if they were eating watermelon ...

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Guess I'll have to gauge the media and general reactions the next few days...but initially I don't see this is much of a hit on BHO's campaign.

To me his campaign is already derailed somewhat by him going off message and trying to be all things to all people, and those are of his own doing...he doesn't need outside help.

The worst effect it will have will be in another instance in the pattern of Obama's claim to 'control his message' while repeatedly we see these instances where his pack dogs go out to be offended and indignant and adamently protest while Obama himself is magnanimous and remains above the fray. With each reoccuring incident, that is looking more and more phony (and dishonest).

0 Replies

snood wrote:

He's obviously from the school of thought "When thoroughly entrenched in a ditch of your own making, keep digging."

It is obvious that a bunch of people on the ultra-left propelled Obama, maybe not the same people that were pushing for Clinton, but leftists nonetheless. Shute, he built his political career by networking in Chicago, hobnobbing with fellow leftists at places like the Woods Fund, snood. He has been able to move his campaign into acceptance by a wider audience of people, mostly unsuspecting I think, but at the roots of his political career is a very leftist scenario.

Some of his supporters: First it was convicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko; then it was Nadhmi Auchi; then it was William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; then it was Rashid Khalidi; then it was Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, Rev. Otis, Father Pfleger and the TUCC; then it was Louis Farrakhan; then it was the New Black Panthers; then it was Aiham Alsammarae; then it was Jodie Evans; then it was Hamas; then it was Hugo Chavez; then it was Fidel Castro; then it was Muammar al-Gaddafi; then it was North Korea's Kim Jong-Il; then it was the Communist Party USA; then it was ___; and then it was ___.

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/one-degree-of-separation-obamas-ultra.html

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The swift boaters have started!

The New Yorker Magazine dumping on Obama? You compare that to Swift Boating? Not even close, ci. Perhaps this could be the Clintonistas at work, still?

I wonder if anyone has opened the magazine (figuratively) and read the article inside. Certainly not all favorable to Obama but not all negative either. It's a fairly nice article.

0 Replies

I've really appreciated Ryan Lizza's reporting on Obama. I haven't gotten this week's issue yet (usually get it Thursday) and already read the article about lawns, am trying not to read the whole thing before it arrives (I LIKE reading the actual magazine). So haven't read it yet, but looking forward to it.

As for the cover, maybe it needs context, but I just "heh"-ed when I saw it. I got it immediately as skewering the rumors, not furthering them. There is the aspect of not repeating rumors because that gives them legitimacy -- even if you repeat them in a negative, "that's not true" way -- but overall I just am not that bothered by this.

0 Replies

Reminder to everyone, humor, to work, needs a grain of truth. The cartoon has it. Perhaps the magazine stumbled into an unintended consequence, or did it?

0 Replies

The truth is, "Yeah, these rumors are ridiculous. Look how ridiculous!"

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
The swift boaters have started!

The New Yorker Magazine dumping on Obama? You compare that to Swift Boating? Not even close, ci. Perhaps this could be the Clintonistas at work, still?

I wonder if anyone has opened the magazine (figuratively) and read the article inside. Certainly not all favorable to Obama but not all negative either. It's a fairly nice article.

Those who see the front cover vs those who will bother to read the inside article are worlds apart. That cover "is" the impression most will walk away with.

0 Replies

The anti-Obama numbnuts who understand the cover enough to believe it already believe it. Otherwise they would not understand the cover and it will have no effect.

Those who know it is a satirical caricature know it is untrue; most of those who know Obama know it is untrue and, if they don't understand the cover, will make the effort to find out what it is all about. No harm. No foul.

Sooooo, in my opinion, the only net effect that the cover will have is in the perception of either justifiable indignation and/or exaggerated indignation with Obama staying above the fray to make him look good. His worshipers will worship him even more. Those who see him as something of a fraud on that score will simply feel the opinion they already hold is reinforced. Again little real net effect.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The anti-Obama numbnuts who understand the cover enough to believe it already believe it. Otherwise they would not understand the cover and it will have no effect.

Those who know it is a satirical caricature know it is untrue; most of those who know Obama know it is untrue and, if they don't understand the cover, will make the effort to find out what it is all about. No harm. No foul.

Sooooo, in my opinion, the only net effect that the cover will have is in the perception of either justifiable indignation and/or exaggerated indignation with Obama staying above the fray to make him look good. His worshipers will worship him even more. Those who see him as something of a fraud on that score will simply feel the opinion they already hold is reinforced. Again little real net effect.

Hey Fox: why don't you quit using the word 'worshiper' in relation to Obama supporters? It's pretty classless and is really your own little version of the NY cover.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well Cyclop. Feel free to PM me a list of all the terms that in your estimation are proper to use and which ones you deem classless. I think that might be interesting. And potentially useful for later reference. I would appreciate your including permission to make the list public as appropriate though.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well Cyclop. Feel free to PM me a list of all the terms that in your estimation are proper to use and which ones you deem classless. I think that might be interesting. And potentially useful for later reference. I would appreciate your including permission to make the list public as appropriate though.

I just told you publicly, consider that one item to be the list.

When you decide to use other terms which are classless, I'll add them on; it's a work in progress.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The term 'Obama worship' gets you at least 3.3 million hits. It has become a standard campaign term to describe the messiah-like adoration his followers express for him. It is at least one of those things that puts some people off as it being unhealthy to heap such emotional energy on a political candidate.

No intention to offend and I'll try to avoid using the term as a euphemism in the future. I do trust you will be equally as accommodating when you are advised that a particular term is found to be offensive?

http://amadeo.blog.com/repository/953653/2905421.jpg

0 Replies

I think that this phrase -

"messiah-like adoration"

is a sign of two things: fear, and envy.

Fear that so many Dems have a candidate that they can get behind and get excited about.

Envy that you have nothing even close to it on the Republican side.

We all understand what it is; it's a dig, and an example of whistling past the graveyard, all wrapped up into one condescending little package.

One thing that I do find funny: the term is often used, as you have, to describe 'irrationality' or behavior which doesn't seem to recognize logic. I think it's odd that a group of people who so stridently work to protect people's right to do actual worship would use the term in that way, as I doubt you would like to hear your belief in God (or whatever) be termed 'irrational' Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think the NY caricature of his wife looks like a female Ted Nugent. She's black enough.

0 Replies

To Cyclop. My God is God. Obama isn't.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To Cyclop. My God is God. Obama isn't.

To Fox: we're well aware of that. He's nobody else's god either. So enough with the bullsh*t. mkay?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know