Obama: New Yorker cover insults Muslim Americans

[Big Don]

July 15, 2008, 11:12PM
Obama: New Yorker cover insults Muslim Americans
Democrat says satire doesn't bother him on a personal level

By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press/Houston Chronicle
Excerpt:





CHICAGO — Democrat Barack Obama said on Tuesday that the New Yorker magazine's satirical cover depicting him and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals doesn't bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.
_______________________________________________________
A cartoon of him dressed, more or less, the same way he was ACTUALLY dressed in a widely circulated picture is "insulting to Muslims?"

What a weak response.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Sounds akin to "I'm hurt but I want to appear to be above it all, so I'll express my hurt-ness as defending someone else"

 

[celtic_crippler]

Only radical Islamist seem to be offended by cartoons.... so does this acutally prove that Obama isn't a radical Islamist!?!?! LOL

I just find it interesting that during this whol fiasco that it's the left that's been insulting the left! The "New Yorker" is a liberal magazine! Quote me one right-winger that's brought up race in this race?

....latter days of Rome.....sigh...latter days of Rome....

 

[CoryKS]

Sounds akin to "I'm hurt but I want to appear to be above it all, so I'll express my hurt-ness as defending someone else"

I think it sounds more like a lame attempt to use Muslim rage as a weapon against the magazine. "Hey, did you hear what those guys said about you?!"

 

[theletch1]

Ya'll do understand that the New Yorker cover was a jab at conservatives whom they believe actually believe the things depicted in the picture, right?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Top left hand corner above the article

Both the Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns have criticized a satirical cartoon of the Democratic presidential candidate and his wife, Michelle.

The New Yorker
​

​

 

[celtic_crippler]

Ya'll do understand that the New Yorker cover was a jab at conservatives whom they believe actually believe the things depicted in the picture, right?

They do? ....geez...I wonder why they never bring it up then? Seems to me it's always a "Lefty" that brings up this stuff...kinda' like the magazine...ya know...the "New Yorker"....it's not necessarily known as a "Right-Wing" magazine.

 

[Empty Hands]

They do? ....geez...I wonder why they never bring it up then?

Terrorist Fist Jab on Fox News.

"The contention that Obama was educated at a radical Muslim madrassa surfaced on the Web site of the conservative Insight magazine the day after Obama announced he was jumping into the 2008 presidential race. Conservative Internet blogs and the Fox News Channel picked up the story and spread the charges just as his candidacy was getting off the ground." Link.

Just for the race-baiting fun: Michelle Obama described as "baby mama" on Fox News.

Nope, as usual, it looks like it's all the crazy libs' fault.

 

[Sukerkin]

Chaps, I know that I have to keep saying that it's not my country whenever I post in one of these threads but is it just me, as an outside observer, who thinks that there is something very broken in your political process?

Surely selecting who is going to run the country is a serious endeavour and should be decided by more than who can sling the most dirt to discredit other candidates?

I know that if I was resident in America I would be campaigning heavily for a "None of the Above" option until the powers that be got around to realising that democracy only works if the politicians involved actually have a clue about how to govern.

 

[Empty Hands]

Surely selecting who is going to run the country is a serious endeavour and should be decided by more than who can sling the most dirt to discredit other candidates?

Ah, one of my favorite hobbyhorses! Americans of all stripes say they want a different type of politician. They say they want positive candidates, "straight shooters" who will tell inconvenient truths, a brave (wo)man who will make unpopular but necessary choices in pursuit of a higher goal. However, time and time again, Americans as a collective have harshly punished any candidate that shows even a glimmer of these tendencies. They reward venal politicians who tell them what they want to hear, make any necessary statement or promise that fulfills their wants without any longer term appreciation of the consequences. We consistently reward politicians who throw the most dirt possible, and make the most absurd and contrived attacks.

In short, we have scumbag politicians because that is what we want. It is what we have selected for with our voting behavior, and that is what we have. Evolution in action!

Almost every candidate that fulfills part of what Americans say they want - Perot, McCain in 2000, Kucinich, Paul, even guys like Keyes - are labeled as fringe nutcases. Only milquetoast prevaricators like Bush, Kerry, Dukakis and the like can survive the gauntlet.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Surely selecting who is going to run the country is a serious endeavour and should be decided by more than who can sling the most dirt to discredit other candidates?

I've been waiting for the rest of the world to decide "enough, the position of POTUS has too much economic and military power over the rest of the world to be decided in such a senseless way"... and decide to do something about it...

 

[Twin Fist]

I've been waiting for the rest of the world to decide "enough, the position of POTUS has too much economic and military power over the rest of the world to be decided in such a senseless way"... and decide to do something about it...

yeah, they could try..............

 

[FearlessFreep]

yeah, they could try..............

point being that the office of president wields an enormous amount of power and yet the way we select someone for that office is awfully irresponsible

 

[Twin Fist]

to a degree, yeah I have to agree.

I would love to see a wrestlin match decide it.

or maybe a round of jeopardy.........followed by wrestlin...........

 

[CoryKS]

point being that the office of president wields an enormous amount of power and yet the way we select someone for that office is awfully irresponsible

And yet, it seems to work - otherwise, the president wouldn't have that economic and military power in the first place.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think that is sort of the point tho' i.e. the system does not work when it comes to putting someone in the top job who is actually qualified to make a difference for the better.

The power resident in the role is not being vested on someone who can make effective use of it; that's why you are presented with nothing but slickly packaged puppets to chose between in the first place. They are coached to spout demographically targeted quotable sentiments, crafted by the finest fiction writers (one must be polite and not call them professional liars), to fool the electorate into thinking they're actually going to do something different from all the other numpties that have preceeded them.

It does in fact seem to have gotten worse over time when it comes to the presidential candidates. That's what makes it so hard for the media-support personnel in each camp to come up with anything like a campaign based upon something other than denigration of the opposition.

Which leads us back to the contentious cover noted in the OP. If I was Obama and confronted by such a thing, it would be a source of great satisfaction that that's the best they could do by way of counter presentation to my position. Of course, it could be subtle inversion-propoganda designed to actually increase support for the supposed target ... are you sure you wouldn't rather have a monarchy?

 

[celtic_crippler]

Terrorist Fist Jab on Fox News.

"The contention that Obama was educated at a radical Muslim madrassa surfaced on the Web site of the conservative Insight magazine the day after Obama announced he was jumping into the 2008 presidential race. Conservative Internet blogs and the Fox News Channel picked up the story and spread the charges just as his candidacy was getting off the ground." Link.

Just for the race-baiting fun: Michelle Obama described as "baby mama" on Fox News.

Nope, as usual, it looks like it's all the crazy libs' fault.

For the record I'm a card-carrying Libertarian and don't care for either of them, but I feel I must point out that both your sources are left-leaning. LOL

Chaps, I know that I have to keep saying that it's not my country whenever I post in one of these threads but is it just me, as an outside observer, who thinks that there is something very broken in your political process?

Surely selecting who is going to run the country is a serious endeavour and should be decided by more than who can sling the most dirt to discredit other candidates?

I know that if I was resident in America I would be campaigning heavily for a "None of the Above" option until the powers that be got around to realising that democracy only works if the politicians involved actually have a clue about how to govern.

Who selects them? Not me! Did you nominate someone? We're told who the nominees will be for us to vote for and then who the candidates will be in the end.

And, at the end of the day it's the Electoral College that decides, not the popular vote (though the majority of the time they do match....wonder what would happen if they didn't?...probably nothing.)

I routinely vote "none of the above" though it's not actually an option. Us Libertarians have to lobby just to get our candidate on the ballet and even then some states won't include them.

Ah, one of my favorite hobbyhorses! Americans of all stripes say they want a different type of politician. They say they want positive candidates, "straight shooters" who will tell inconvenient truths, a brave (wo)man who will make unpopular but necessary choices in pursuit of a higher goal. However, time and time again, Americans as a collective have harshly punished any candidate that shows even a glimmer of these tendencies. They reward venal politicians who tell them what they want to hear, make any necessary statement or promise that fulfills their wants without any longer term appreciation of the consequences. We consistently reward politicians who throw the most dirt possible, and make the most absurd and contrived attacks.

In short, we have scumbag politicians because that is what we want. It is what we have selected for with our voting behavior, and that is what we have. Evolution in action!

Almost every candidate that fulfills part of what Americans say they want - Perot, McCain in 2000, Kucinich, Paul, even guys like Keyes - are labeled as fringe nutcases. Only milquetoast prevaricators like Bush, Kerry, Dukakis and the like can survive the gauntlet.

Sad but true.

..and don't think Washington doesn't realize it and play into it either.

It's simply amazing that in the "information age" people don't take the time to research the candidates (voting records, policies, etc) before voting.

They just continue to buy into the party rhetoric and what they're spoon-fed by the biased media.

....latter days of Rome I'm tellin' ya!

 

[Empty Hands]

It does in fact seem to have gotten worse over time when it comes to the presidential candidates.

Television. Television, and now the 24 hour news cycle. How ironic that such a large increase in information availability would lead to such a state. None of these tiny "gotcha" moments would have even been noticed in an earlier time. It is notable that in the first televised debate, Nixon vs. Kennedy, those who listened on the radio were more likely to say Nixon won while those watching on television were more likely to say that Kennedy won. Kennedy of course was telegenic, while Nixon had yet to learn those lessons.

Not that the previous age was perfect, by any means. Scurrilous and partisan attacks have been rampant from the earliest days of our elections.

 

[Empty Hands]

...but I feel I must point out that both your sources are left-leaning. LOL

With screen captures and video. That makes the lean irrelevant. It is no surprise that in a simple web search incidents embarrassing to the right would not be heavily promoted on right leaning sites.

 

[Big Don]

When Obama dressed like this, was it "offensive to Muslims?"