Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama Camp Hammers New 'Ironic' New Yorker Cover Depicting Conspiracists' Nightmare of Real Obamas

July 13, 2008 5:46 PM

The sophisticates at The New Yorker have come up with a cover that is sure to get the magazine a lot of attention. Negative attention. From their friends.

An illustration by Barry Blitt depicts Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his wife Michelle in the Oval Office, revealing their "true" selves: Michelle is in full revolutionary garb, an enormous afro making her look like a millennial Angela Davis, holding an automatic weapon and wearing military pants.

In the cartoon Michelle is giving dap, or fist-bumping, with her husband who is wearing a turban and is dressed in garb perhaps more appropriate for a madrassa in Lahore than the Oval Office.

A painting of Osama bin Laden hangs above the fireplace, where the American flag is being burned.

Ht_newyorker_080713_blog

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports that when he was asked about the controversial cover during a press avail today, Obama shrugged and then said, "I have no response to that."

His campaign had a response later in the day on Sunday.

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

Knowing the liberal politics of the magazine, I believe the magazine's staff when they say the illustration is meant ironically, as a parody of the caricature some conservatives (and some supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.) are painting of the Obamas.

But it's still fairly incendiary, at least as these things go. I wonder what the reaction would be were it the Weekly Standard or the National Review putting such an illustration on their covers.

Intent factors into these matters, of course, but no Upper East Side liberal -- no matter how superior they feel their intellect is -- should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing.

"This is as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish," says a high-profile Obama supporter, "and I suspect that other Obama supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or buying a magazine that trafficks in such trash."

But I would assume over at the Conde Nast building, they think it's droll.

I cannot imagine there aren't some angry, angry people in Chicago right now wondering if they should ever even talk to the New Yorker again.

- jpt

* This post has been updated with the response from the Obama campaign.

UPDATE: The Huffington Post publishes a comment from the artist, Barry Blitt, who says, "I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

Asked if in retrospect, given the outcry, he's glad that he submitted that cover, Blitt says, "Retrospect? Outcry? The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."

The New Yorker, of course, has a history of brilliant and occasionally controversial covers. There's the Art Spiegelman Valentine's Day picture of a Hasidic man in lip-lock with an African-American woman; Ed Sorel has depicted bin Laden on the subway; Saul Steinberg's 1976 homage to a New Yorker's egoistic view of the world is legendary.

More recent Blitt covers of some edge and note include one commenting simultaneously on the Larry Craig "for whom the stall tolls" scandal and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments about homosexuality; the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Bush presidency; and Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in bed together with the red phone ringing.

While I'm in a linking mood, here's the American Society of Magazine Editors' 40 Top Magazine covers of the past 40 years (as of 2005) and a 1999 story by then-Salon columnist (now with Time) James Poniewozik expressing concern than then-brand-new New Yorker editor-in-chief in chief David Remnick was being too cautious with his covers.

July 13, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | Share | User Comments (545)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

THE KLAN IS ALIVE --SHEETS AND ALL-
REMICK IS A RACIST-----
MY GRANDSON (13)WAS WRITING A PAPER ABOUT ONE SLAVE IN THE CIVIL WAR AND MY OTHER GRANDSON (15) WAS WRITING A PAPER ON THE ELECTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARD IRAN WAS ONE CHOICE HE CHOSE------
I SAID THAT PRESIDENT LINCOLN, MY LOVE, WAS SMILING----AND THEN THE NEW YORKER IDIOTS KILLED THE SPIRIT OF JOY ABOUT WHAT HAD EVOLVED IN AMERICA---WIN OR LOSE----
I AM A REPUBLICAN-----CANNOT CHANGE NOW BECAUSE I HAVE WAITED FOR MCCAIN FOR A LONG TIME---

Posted by: mc | Jul 22, 2008 8:49:09 AM

The first sign of a political dictator is one that will start giving mandates that control the people that hire him, ie., control the way you drive your vehicle, how much water you use when you flush, mandate government controlled health insurance, and make sure that you will speak Spanish.

Any self respecting citizen of the United States should speak loudly and say " No Way ".

Posted by: ron Sprague | Jul 18, 2008 2:18:04 PM

The only trouble with the NewYorker cover about senator 0bama is its p0litical inc0rrectness .

Posted by: nway | Jul 18, 2008 11:45:55 AM

Some editor drinking too much caffeine coffee and smoking some cuban cigar and coughing like mad hit his fist on the table and scattered the papers and pens and guffawed at his own wild demented dark rabid joke that he worships at his pseudo shrine called sick satire!
This was and is some sick joke that was flushed down the gutter by someone else and picked up and washed and sprayed with scented perfume and varnished and put aside to dry and then patched up and posted as satire in what used to a respectable iconic magazine.
Sad poor journalistic taste by what may be remote controlled manipulated editors standing on the auction block of insanity. Trashy media has marched into the ivory palaces of media moguls and put their mud dripping boots on the elephant leather sofa's of the office of the ministry mindset opinion with the open agenda of trashing the respectability of hardworking dedicated American's like Barak and Michelle Obama.

Posted by: Errol Smythe | Jul 17, 2008 6:17:34 AM

The NYer did this on purpose, guys. DUHHHHHH

Posted by: duh | Jul 16, 2008 5:59:32 PM

I watched on Tuesday July 15, 2008 John McCain conduct a Town Hall meeting in New Mexico
and I have to say that Mr. McCain was impresive on his dialogue about the issues facing America,
and listening through the whole meeting I was at the point of wanting to vote for him, but after reflecting
on what was asked to Mr. McCain, I realized that there were no follow-up quetions, for example:
when he was asked what he would do to help Small Business's in America, he responded by saying
that he would help them by giving them tax incentives, no one asked his viewpoint about his recommendation
for a 'Tax and Cap Bill'. and what effect this bill would have on Small Business's and their tax obligations.

Some one asked Mr.McCain about our illegal immigrant problem and he confirmed his stance on
'Immigrant Reform', and the major problem of killings and drugs comming into our country,
his response was that we need to send more money to Mexico to help combat this problem,
but he did not mention the fact that we are reducing the amount of financial aid to our own
enforcement officials on the United States side of the border.

The people who posed the questions to Mr. McCain asked some very important questions
and they sounded like very educated people, but I can not help but think that the poser of
these questions were paid stand in's.

Posted by: Patty Reynolds | Jul 16, 2008 2:14:21 PM

As I sit down to my cup of coffee and newspaper in the morning I can't help but reflect on how totally biased the news media are, it would seem that they think we only have two political parties to choose from in the United States.

Our two party system is the real conspiracy in this country. Bob Barr said to watch the way Democrat's and Republican's try to resolve the problems that our country is in, is a joke, because they are the problem!

I have to stop watching TV and get on with my life because I think my brain is turning to pudding.

One more thing; if I hear about government mandates one more time (ie, you have to: turn down the thermostst, drive less, buy health insurance, use less water when you flush or buy those stupid little flourescent light bulbs, etc., etc.), I think that I'll have to get down and dust off my trusty old cannon

Posted by: ron Sprague | Jul 16, 2008 2:10:33 PM

Congratulations on the cover. Finally someone in the fifth estate had the courage to put in print what all of mainstream America thinks. Stick to your guns. The ones that are howling at the gate for someone’s head on a stick are the same bleeding hearts that scream to defend the rights of the freedom of the press when it is something that they believe in. The only better cover would have been Osama going nuts as a chameleon on a crazy quilt trying to change his colors to match. That’s what he’s doing now trying to hide his true colors until the election. Then, God forbid he should win, will we finally see the true Obama.

Posted by: Randy Waltz | Jul 15, 2008 6:27:52 PM

If this cover had taken a similar approach to a figure on the religious right, would there have been the same outrage by the liberals? And talk about elite, the main argument seems to be that the poor stupid lower middle class white guy won't get the satire. Yeah, they're all too dumb to read and understand The New Yorker. It may be in bad taste. It may be offensive. Hey, the crucifix in a jar of urine is offensive to many. Some people are offended by drawings of their religious leaders. I don't see anyone calling for the heads of the people who made the calls to display those. It seems only Senator Obama is off limits. I am not a fan of W or Cheney but I have seen car stickers and t-shirts that were as derogatory as this. Yes, the cover of NYer isn't a bumper sticker but freedom of expression applies to it as well. It is this kind of double standard on the left that has made me a recovering Democrat.

Posted by: LCS | Jul 15, 2008 11:47:59 AM

Rush Limbaugh discovered a shtick that was picked up by Ann Coulter and others. Whenever they were called out on some of their more outrageous and extremist attacks, they would say they are just practicing the time honored traditions of lampoon and satire. But they know full well that they are tapped into a rich vein of the American audience that take everything they say as gospel. Whatever they say are as authoritative to that audience as the book of Genesis. Metaphors, allegories, parodies, satires, and such mean nothing to them.

The New Yorker cartoon will be fodder for them.

Posted by: JoeC | Jul 15, 2008 10:58:33 AM

The red flags on this “...journalistic boo boo...” is egg on the faces of all those that had their laughs around the editor's coffee table when he approved this cartoon picture of the politics of fear.

Posted by: Errol Smythe | Jul 15, 2008 6:16:41 AM
----------------------------------------
Errol sounds like merry old England and the papers that pass for news there.
Wohooo are they ever nasty and sensasional. Read a mag lately? I found "journalism" there to be quite disgusting! They sure enjoy the freedom of the press and the soapbox in our sister country!

Posted by: HP Boston | Jul 15, 2008 10:38:23 AM

Time for a change in Editorial policy . Freedom of the press can only be a defence for good accurate responsible journalism and not for bad inaccurate irresponsible journalism that is devisive and incites racial prejudice and is a threat to tatsteful respectful and credible journalism.

Posted by: Errol Smythe | Jul 15, 2008 6:12:53 AM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not buy playboy, girl or the inquirer. If you do not like the New Yorker shun it, freedoms are going to often by the way side in America.
Where were you when sexsim and gender bias was running rampant in this campaign, did you not get it? Were you unaware that the MAJORITY of America wonen got it.
If you political newbies do not get satire and accept it for others as foul, get over it when aimed at your guy.

Posted by: HP Boston | Jul 15, 2008 10:26:34 AM

To all the hypocrites:

Where were your indignant voices when the very same New Yorker published their infamous "3 AM Red Telephone" cover?

Then, there was not a peep from the BHO peeps. Now, they do protest too much, methinks.

I also wonder how many of these indignant people actually read the New Yorker on a regular basis? Were it not for the cover being plastered all over the Internet, most of you wouldn't even have been aware of it.

So, sweetie, get over it.


Posted by: Yavo Lem | Jul 15, 2008 8:33:03 AM

The reptilian underbelly of gutter swirl profile politics has slithered on the editorial pages of modern day journalism leaving a trail of distaste, disgust and mistrust of what used to be iconic media status of respectable and responsible journalism.
A sad day of the media. Some people just don't know where to draw the line between editorial sensational media gutter garbage and good editorial sound judgement. A few resignations may be in order from those responsible for smearing gutter mud swirl on the banner of freedom of the press and shredding good editorial judgement versus low taste perverted satirical comedy to control the damage the media credibility has suffered.
The red flags on this “...journalistic boo boo...” is egg on the faces of all those that had their laughs around the editor's coffee table when he approved this cartoon picture of the politics of fear.

Posted by: Errol Smythe | Jul 15, 2008 6:16:41 AM

Word on the street is that some media agencies have no respect for the good taste of their subscribers and that such media agencies have a hidden agenda to brainwash targeted sectors of the community so that they can impose a predetermined mindset that is stereotyped to be offensive distasteful and down right mean and dirty.
There was a serious breech of good sound judgement by the editorial department of the New Yorker Magazine.
Were a few giggles and laughs around the cartoonist's coffee meeting table worth it?
This hidden agenda to derail Barak Obama and Michelle Obama's respectablity is downright dirty and mean and represents the reptilian underbelly of gutter journalism .
People have integrity and high moral standards and are tired of trashy jornalism.
If certain media agencies want to continue to sensationalize swirl and stereotype certain high profile people including Barak and Michelle Obama with patchwork profiling that stretches the credibilty of good journalism just for a few giggles and a few laughs by a few staff members employed by such media agencies, then mass cancellations of subscriptions to bankrupt trashy journalism may be the panacea to such irresponsibility.
Respect should not be just a by word.
Falling standards shred and tatter the banner of respectabilty and corrupt responsible journalism and throws gutter mud on the respectability and patriotism of American citizens and is disrespectful and downright mean and dirty to all patriots including Barak and Michelle Obama .
Time for a change in Editorial policy . Freedom of the press can only be a defence for good accurate responsible journalism and not for bad inaccurate irresponsible journalism that is devisive and incites racial prejudice and is a threat to tatsteful respectful and credible journalism.

Posted by: Errol Smythe | Jul 15, 2008 6:12:53 AM

Methinks.. it is truly disrespectful. I worked for a major newspaper for years

The ability of the (ahem) editors, publishers to control the pictures, that they choose to PORTRAY to the generaL SPONGE MASSES IS disgusting at best, unlawful at the worst. Subliminal perception... run amuck!. That author should truly be ashamed... boooo, big booo to you

Posted by: deborah | Jul 15, 2008 4:24:46 AM

Of course its a satire. Based on type of publication The New Yorker has always been, it's obvious this is a sarcastic image. It's obviously making fun of anyone who believes the absurd claims that Obama is linked to Islamic fundamentalism. IT'S JUST OBVIOUS COMMON SENSE. It's not even a matter of people lightening up, it's simply a matter of people understanding satire and sarcasm.

Posted by: emmanuel | Jul 15, 2008 3:14:33 AM

Barry Blitt's attempt at an explanation is a sorry excuse for a tasteless cartoon. None of his other so called funny depictions were people running for the highest office in the land and he knew exactly what result he wanted.

That's the way of people like Barry Blitt: You do and say stuff like this and then you turn on the people and ask what's the fuss all about.

Posted by: exatlantic | Jul 15, 2008 1:20:13 AM

I think this is terrible. I think there should be some sort of punishment put on the reporter, cartoonist, whatever you call him. I find it very offensive. How far will it go?

Posted by: JJensen | Jul 15, 2008 1:18:45 AM

WOW! This cover just changed my mind about Obama and his wife. I thought they were just good old folks who loved our country. Now I want to thank the New Yorker for correcting me. This cover has changed my life forever!

Posted by: yougottobekidding | Jul 15, 2008 1:04:37 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS