Skip to comments.CARTOONS AND CARICATURES (Reinhard)
Posted on 07/17/2008 11:09:40 AM PDT by jazusamo
There's Barack and Michelle Obama fist-bumpin' in the Oval Office. He's in Islamic garb -- a turban, tunic and sandals. She's a study in radical chic -- Afro, combat fatigues and boots, AK-47 strapped to her back. A portrait of Osama bin Laden gazes down on the first couple. An American flag burns in the Oval Office fireplace.
Not funny. Obama's team was spot on in calling The New Yorker cover "tasteless and offensive." John McCain was right to call it "inappropriate" and "offensive." I'm a big fan of cartoon kicks and giggles and no fan of either Obama. Barack Obama has serious questions to answer about his past associations (Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and William Ayers) and Michelle seems full of left-wing resentments about both her nation ("For the first time in my life I'm proud of my country"), but neither deserves such a loaded caricature on the cover of a national magazine. Talk about giving aid and comfort to a limited crew of yahoos in the republic's fever swamps.
And The New Yorker's excuse for its "Politics of Fear" cartoon only added insult to injury -- and unmasked Obamaland's diseased and paranoid view of those who don't share their beatific vision.
Barry Blitt's cartoon, we're told, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." According to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, the magazine's staff told his campaign that "their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create."
Isn't that special? The New Yorker seeks to lampoon Obama's right-wing critics and ends up offending Obama's boosters.
You know, all Obama's right-wing critics think Michelle's a radical-terrorist and Barack's a closet Muslim with a fondness for Osama. I guess you have to be there -- in the rarefied air of The New Yorker offices or the steamy bunkers of Obamaland -- because that's not the right-wing critique of the Illinois senator I see. This explains why Blitt's cartoon missed its intended target. There's no real intended target to hit. It's all in Blitt and Team Obama's paranoid imaginings. Blitt deployed a cartoon on behalf of a cartoonish view of Obama's right-wing critics -- he didn't caricature reality -- and it backfired on him and Obama.
Now that's funny.
I don't know what campaign Blitt's been watching, but it's not the one I've watched. The reality-based campaign has featured Hillary Clinton's Democratic primary campaign circulating the picture of Obama in a turban and Clinton saying Obama isn't a Muslim -- "as far as I know." The reality-based campaign also featured McCain denouncing a talk-radio host who used Obama's middle name (Hussein) at a McCain rally. Yes, there are no doubt Obama critics who traffic in this Muslim Manchurian candidate nonsense, but they don't reflect a meaningful element of Obama's right-wing opposition or this presidential race.
If it's unclear what campaign Blitt's watching, it's no mystery who's pushing the paranoid fantasies found in Blitt's slick laugh riot. Look no further than two primary figures in his "Politics of Fear" cover cartoon. Yes, meet the Obamas.
Here's Michelle Obama, last February discussing "the obvious, ultimate fear bomb" -- the use of Barack's full name -- deployed against her husband in his 2004 Senate race: "We learned, No. 1, that when power is threatened by real change they will say anything to stop it."
Ah, the big, bad no-names, "they."
And here's hubby discussing the upcoming race last month in Florida: "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
True, he was good enough to name the "they" -- those Republicans, don't you know? -- before saying they would make his race an issue. Classy.
Yeah, there's no other possible reason to oppose Obama. What a joke -- unless, of course you're an Obama or a New Yorker cartoonist.
So, have you heard the one about a Muslim man and AK 47-toting African-American woman fist-bumpin' in the Oval Office?
Really? Why not? There's nothing in this article that tells me why they don't deserve the caricatures since they are based upon elements of truth in the past of both. Obama was quick to trot out the high road when the cover first appeared and say he has no comment, but it took his campaign about 10 seconds to issue a statement, presumably with his endorsement. His tactic of introducing racism into the race before anyone else shows where he's spent his defensive efforts. And when no one came forth with that argument, he launched it himself...no sense wasting all that effort, right?
His stumbling and stammering when he must speak without the benefit of canned speeches and teleprompters tells me this guy doesn't have a position that he can call his own. The flaws on the cover of the magazine simply amplify what he and she are already telling everyone.
You make good points and I believe McCain should have just kept his mouth shut about it.
Bush’s fault. No, wait, McCain’s fault.
Maybe they do when you come to see that Obama's online donations (over 3 million "donations in the 10-15 dollar range) seem to be coming from a few accounts from Middle East doners.
Oh, but Obama is a "Christian" right? Where's his baptism certificate?
I won’t settle for anything less than a baptism certificate that can be verified by the churches records.
Agreed, him just saying it is not convincing due to all his other statements, he’s on both sides of everything.
I’d bet none exists.
I probably can’t find my baptism or confirmation certificates.
Actually, the NYorker cover was the truth, plain and simple. An article posted this am on FR, early, around 6 AM, a letter to the editor by a Cuban American listing nonothing Presidents elected because we ‘wanted change’, and the tragic aftermath every time. It should be printed by the GOP and sent to each and every voter. We’re up to our necks in Jihad thanks to Carter, of course. And then there was Kennedy and his cowardice at the Bay of Pigs, thousands of Cubans killed. Russian missiles twenty miles off our shores, the brink of WWIII. Fidel in power for years, Cubans enslaved. The letter was well worth the read. I’ll see if I can find it.
Yeah, the libs can go around whining about it, but I think it's just great. These are the people who think they can run our health care, energy, and the war on terror, when they can't think their way out of a paper bag.
You are known by the company you keep.
Obama Attended Hate America Sermon (NewsMax.com March 16, 2008)
Sandinista cutthroat endorses Obama (July 02, 2008)
Europe shows love for Barack Obama--George Galloway endorses Obama (June 06, 2008 )
Would you at least know what church or city it occured in?
So what are these changes that Obama brought to Illinois since 2004?
Our Lady of Grace Roman Catholic Church in Gravesend, Brooklyn, NY.
Not sure of the exact street address, but it’s on Ave. W between East 3rd and East 4th Streets.
I remember that much. :)
Dunno about Father Cutrone, though...
That would be nice but like you I don’t see it happening.
I suspect they laughed first and figured out the rationale later. Laughter's instinctual and goes a lot deeper than ideological positions that you can put into words.
Some of their Bush covers made very pointed anti-Bush statements: Bush doing Cheney's housework. Bush as Nero. Bush as the kid who breaks everything in the store and has to pay for it. Bush as a rider whose horse has very large blinders. Bush's cabinet meeting under water.
By contrast the Hillary-Obama cover of them in bed together when the 3AM phone rings was less satirical and more silly. This one fit somewhere in between. Of course the object of the satire wasn't the Obamas themselves. But I wonder if they just wanted the laugh more than anything else.