Obama '08?

..m'kay

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?

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?

Well maybe they should have shown both of them as chimps.

Oh, wait, that chimp cartoon is reserved for Bush.

It gets exciting when Diest puts down his Game Boy and tries to play A2K.

Despite being a media storm, this story isn't going to actually do anything to any vote.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Despite being a media storm, this story isn't going to actually do anything to any vote.

T
K
O

Don't be so sure. There are many ignorant people who will look at that cover and think it is true.

Aw, George, that's not very nice.

It's irrational and a sign of zealotry - to object to terminology that paints one as irrational and a zealot?

Cycloptichorn

I'll bet that when the heat blows away, Obama himself will react with more restraint and less indignation than many of his over-zealous supporters.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Aw, George, that's not very nice.

It's irrational and a sign of zealotry - to object to terminology that paints one as irrational and a zealot?

Cycloptichorn

Well, compared to your frequent reactions to some who disagree with you, it was mild in the extreme.

I didn't suggest that your objections (or anyone else's either) would necessarily be a sign of "irrationalitry or zealotry"; rather that the obvious zealotry of many Obama supporters often leads to hyper sensitivity to even ordinary political argument - and yours was an example of that.

The case at hand illustrates the idea well. I don't defend the New Yorker's magazine cover -- its fairly gross satire was meant simply to attract attention and promote the sale of the magazine. Its defenders, of course, tout the virtues of free expression in an attempt to cover their evident greed and self-interest with phony applications of principle. It is offensive, but it is also pretty common stuff, practiced far more often by the magazine in question against conservatives of all types. Making a big deal of it is usually self-defeating. More importantly, attempting to suppress, it would lead to far worse side effects than simply enduring it.

I'll bet that when the heat blows away, Obama himself will react with more restraint and less indignation than many of his over-zealous supporters.

GeorgeOb1 writes

Quote:

I'll bet that when the heat blows away, Obama himself will react with more restraint and less indignation than many of his over-zealous supporters.

He already has. It is reported that he shrugged it off. And I'm not buying that. He has gone to great lengths to make a show of shutting down Moveon.org and others and requesting that they direct funds to him so that he can 'control his message'. Some on this thread have criticized John McCain for not following suit.

But time and again we are seeing Obama's campaign or surrogates prominently condemning or protesting or being indignant about whatever, while Obama remains unruffled and 'above the fray'. Does he really believe that we think he can claim the power to 'control his message' but is unable to control his own people? I think he counts on being able to insult with impunity the intelligence of his supporters.

Obama top strategist David Axelrod told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" it was a "cartoon poorly executed. . . . Did we like it? No. Is it the focus of our attention? No."

John McCain said, "We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it's tasteless and offensive."

I didn't complain about the illustration on the cover of the magazine. I was complaining 'bout the word 'worshiper.'

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I didn't complain about the illustration on the cover of the magazine. I was complaining 'bout the word 'worshiper.'

Cycloptichorn

Lighten up. It's just a figure of speech, and it was used in good humor to make a characterization.

I saw the art and I loved it. I'm thinking there may be a generational disconnect here.

I look at the cover and I see intentional irony. The kind of humor that makes Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert so popular. I can't think of the phrase "secret Muslim" without breaking a smile and rolling my eyes. While some older liberals may see this and smell attack, I think younger individuals see this, and immediately zoom in on the punchline. As stated, the article was very pro-Obama, so I think the intent was to be shocking. Perhaps graba new reader.

I take offense at people who think Michelle looks to be painted as a terrorist. I guess that's the intention of the cartoonist, but in reality, she just looks like a chick with a gun.

But that dog don't hunt.

I don't think it was in good humor at all, but okay, I'll take your advice

Cycloptichorn

Obama is talking about spending hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars on new
programs outside our country without any mention of cutbacks here at home.