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.

I was gifted to a subscription of the New Yorker.... love their cartoons and covers .....

How come no one bitched and moaned over the one which had Hillary and Obama in bed reaching for the ringing red phone?


hmmmmm?

The only problem I have with the cover is that the address label is stuck to mine!

Posted by: questioner | Jul 13, 2008 7:40:19 PM

Well for those of us who have actually researched Baracks' ties over the last 25 years, Davis, Ayres, Wright, Farrakhan, Odinga, Pfleger, Rezko, Michelle being proud for the first time in her adult life, claiming to be patriotic by not showing patriotism, his antipathy towards those who do not think like him, the problem with his birth certificate and a hundred other shady things, I happen to believe that this depiction of the Obama's is spot on.

Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | Jul 13, 2008 7:40:07 PM

This is completely inapproperiate, not to mention offensive. The New Yorker should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Obama has the potential to do great things for this country when we need it most. Obama is capable of overcoming some serious issues we are facing in today's society. He's clearly a patriot who deserves our respect, as does John McCain. This "art" is the epitome of ignorance.

Posted by: CC | Jul 13, 2008 7:39:28 PM

Well, there seems to be plenty of room on these posts for anti-Obama sentiment whether the facts given be real or imagined. And Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, all are equal targets. But let someone mention that there are other prominent political figures with closer ties to the powers in the middle east more deserving of being characterized on the cover of the New Yorker...and rather civilly at that and those posts get deleted as fast as they are submitted. Freedom of speech is a privilege, not a right.

Posted by: foxisms | Jul 13, 2008 7:37:09 PM

Oh yeah LL Bara.....who can fight off terrorists is a meaningless issue? Hmmm....I am going to have say that most victims of 9/11 and the downturn in the economy that fighting terrorists is not a meaningless issue. Obmaa and his supporters are clueless.

Posted by: chattyway | Jul 13, 2008 7:35:18 PM

About the Cartoon Cover, I am sure it will become a collector's item!! Where is your sense of humour, folks? I forgot, you only reserve that for Hillary or McCain - it is taboo to speak, draw or think ill of the chosen one!! We are just messing with you, man! LOL!

Posted by: Beckie | Jul 13, 2008 7:34:20 PM

Tasteless magazine cover!

Remember 91% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s...less than 55% of Democrats voted for it.
What is the Political Party that continues to supress the growth of African Americans? (Hint - It's not Republicans)
Posted by: American Patriot | Jul 13, 2008 6:57:13 PM
And when it was signed Johnson predicted the lost of the south for Democrats. Democrats that were enrage by that legislation left the Democratic party and joined the Republican party. Where they continue to reside today.

Posted by: ks katty | Jul 13, 2008 7:30:46 PM

The old saying, "what goes around comes around". Obama blasted Hillary in every way possible, very distasteful at times, with the pro Obama media. Now, the media has turned their backs on Obama and he is seeking help from Hillary. What a hypocrit he is. he can dish it out, but can't take it. Good for you, New Yorker....keep it coming....America does not want Obama!

Posted by: Janet | Jul 13, 2008 7:29:23 PM

The fact that Obama supporters might cringe about this seems to show that they are way too afraid of the radical right. The idea that this might somehow "reinforce" the very same slanders it is satirizing, is giving way too much merit to the slanders themselves. Most voters don't believe any of that nonsense and this is not likely to make them start.

There may be more legitimate concern about the "low-information" voters that might actually take such things seriously enough for it to affect their vote. But the answer to that is not to shy away from things that stupid people might misinterpret. To do that we would all have to become very boring.

Posted by: jock59801 | Jul 13, 2008 7:27:09 PM

Having lived in NYC (attended Columbia) and having often been seen as ahead of my time, I do not consider such negativity funny or ironic; it's just abominably distasteful. No candidate or party needs to use such means of expression. While it is idealistic to think fairness in political campaigns is possible, I wish truth and honesty had more clout than viciousness. When is this so-called clever, twisted way of depicting the political leaders going to be replaced by straight forward reporting?

Posted by: Nita Bogart | Jul 13, 2008 7:25:57 PM

Many people, I for one, will go and buy the magazine. I have to agree, I think the sophsticated in our country doesn't like Obama, contrary to what the media says. Also, again, when people, common folks, see this pic, it will ingrain in them negativity about Obama. Especially with bin Laden hangin over the fireplace and the American flag burning in the fireplace. If you remember back in the 50's and 60's, when the Saturday Evening Post and the Readers Digest put political cartoons/illustrations on their covers, these were very powerful in the American thought concerning candidates. Times haven't changed that much. The news media will have this all over the place, added to this, the internet. Everyone will see this picture and form an opinion. I feel most of the opinions will believe this is the real Barack and Michelle. Again, I think Obama is imploding and will not be elected in November.

Posted by: Will | Jul 13, 2008 7:25:00 PM

This is true art! It would make a great screen saver. Wonder if I can buy a tshirt.

Posted by: Artist | Jul 13, 2008 7:22:21 PM

The commenters here saying things about the cover like "the truth really hurts" and "there's truth behind every joke" just proves how monumentally the New Yorker screwed up here. They obviously vastly overrated the intelligence of the American people. Their little inside "joke" is not funny and they should be ashamed.

Posted by: Lisa | Jul 13, 2008 7:21:53 PM

Who cares what a bunch of New York liberals think anyway? They are the people who let Hillary be their senator!
What was Hillary working on when 9-11 occurred? With reps like Rangel and Schumer, they are totally out of touch with the rest of the country! I am feeling bitter now...I better go cling to my guns and my religion!

Posted by: Headley | Jul 13, 2008 7:21:08 PM

I am actually planning to go to Barnes and Noble and buy a copy to hang on my wall....way to funny. I bet this issue is going to be one of the New Yorkers higher selling issues. Obama may do a first for the demmies, lose NY.

Posted by: chattyway | Jul 13, 2008 7:19:32 PM

Jmengate, actually it is a picture. Its just not a photograph, digital or otherwise. It is also an illustration.

Posted by: JJ | Jul 13, 2008 7:18:02 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words. This is going to hurt Obama's campaign. The undecided will see this picture and it will stick in their minds. The supporters of Obama will see it, and, knowing that The New Yorker is putting this on their cover, will give credence to its main idea and will change their support of Obama. If you have noticed here lately, the mainstream media is really vetting Obama in a negative way, vetting him, and the GOP hasn't even started. Looks like Obama is barely staying afloat with these attacks...and now, even from his own race. Sorry, but I think this is the beginning of the end for Obama.

Posted by: Will | Jul 13, 2008 7:17:55 PM

Jock...no but we do accidently run across such stuff when we aren't careful. Bwaahahahah like I said, it is not going to affect small town people's opinion of Obama---we got more common sense and already have him figure for what he is---NO GOOD! It's the kiddie college students because they are so easily controlled by cartoons and other meaningless images and New Yorkers themselves which this could be demostrating that the BIG city folks don't much care for Obama and his pastor and wife either. As I have said on other posts for the last few weeks.....I see cracks forming around the demmie support lines....even though dummy Obama calls himself an uniter he may well be the demmie divider.

Posted by: chattyway | Jul 13, 2008 7:15:56 PM

There's truth behind every joke.

Wake up America, Obama isn't going to bring positive change to our country. He's going to destroy it from the inside out. From the top down.

Posted by: lawofattraction | Jul 13, 2008 7:13:41 PM

I think this shows that the undecurrent of Americans that do not want Obama in office is beginning to come to the forefront. I think its a good idea, as someone already said, to show in a silly picture what the true feelings of Obama and Michelle are. The Obama supporters attack anyone and anything that brings negativity to Obama but are only way to willing to blast McCain on each and every word he speaks. The American public has had their fill of the flip-floppin Obama....I don't see him winning in November and I hope and pray that Americans and the media continue to bring out the negative aspects of the Obama's.

Posted by: AndyRandy | Jul 13, 2008 7:12:50 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS