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.


Wow, Ive reached 77 years and seen alot of good and bad happen in our country, but never low of this type, sorry, no matter what side of the fence your on, this is wrong .... President Bush has not been my favorite President but would I want to see him and Laura portrayed in a manner such as this...I think not! For shame New Yorker, for what its worth, I'll not purchase your magazine again.

Posted by: Maggie Schmitt | Jul 15, 2008 12:49:24 AM

Oh boy... if you don't read the New Yorker regularly you might be missing something. It's called humor. Not that the New Yorker has a monopoly on witty satire, but that's EXACTLY what this cartoon is. It's MOCKING the ridiculous rumors about Obama. Guarantee that 99% of people who read the magazine now what up and think the cover is humorous and that is is making... a joke.

Just because there are enemies out there doesn't mean every kid with a water-gun is a terrorist.

It's just ink.

Posted by: Jake | Jul 15, 2008 12:44:16 AM

hey john...im pretty sure you know nothing about it .May God have mercy for you on the day of Judgement.

Posted by: courtney handspiker | Jul 15, 2008 12:33:37 AM

Finally, America gets a true picture
of who obama really is, wake up folks,
he's doing exactly what he has been
trained to do by those that want our
country destroyed. Who are those? just
look at the picture, anymore questions?

Posted by: John | Jul 15, 2008 12:30:08 AM

I can't believe that anyone would find this cover funny. Yes I am angered over the cover. They are Americans. Is this country so afraid of what might happen if a Black Man was running the country that we would attack him on any level. I am sadden that our country is letting hate rear it's ugly head at a such an important time in our history. We need to look at where our country has been. The status quo is not working. We need to change. Let's not let our fear of the unknown or ignorance block us from moving forward and regaining our place as the great nation that we are suppose to be.

Posted by: trixi | Jul 15, 2008 12:29:00 AM

What if the New Yorker next month had a similarly "funny" depiction of the McCain family. Let's dig up some "conspiracy" items for that cover. For starters, let's put a picture of his wife with a Budweiser, only cross off the name and put the name of the new owner. Then, let's put some war pictures that depicted what the war he served in was really about. Then, let's show him jumping back and forth over a fence, because that is what his party seems to be accusing him of doing every day. Let's see how funny that would be.

Posted by: CLT | Jul 15, 2008 12:10:55 AM

What is really shocking is that this got printed when the media is pandering to Obama like he is the 2nd Coming. The New Yorker is a liberal magazine. This isn't some conservative smear campaign... it is a lampoon by one of his own.

I also agree with all of the comments observing that criticizing Obama means one is a racist. I know it is a prevailing attitude that African Americans who don't support Obama are branded as self-hating and "wannabee" whites.

I don't care what his color is, but I do care that he hasn't seriously been vetted by anyone and the media is shielding him from scrutiny. He is singly the most unqualified person to get either party's nomination in recent history.

Posted by: justin | Jul 14, 2008 9:51:25 PM

if only we could vote for positive issues rather than voting against negative feelings. this would make people able to stand up and say things like "i voted for john mccain because..." and not "i will never vote for john mccain because". this is a lost vote, coming from someone who should put their strong feelings to good use in a way that would make them accountable for the future. because of their vote being "lost" in a heated way, they don't deserve to have any say in the running of the country.

Posted by: willie whyte | Jul 14, 2008 9:49:31 PM

Looks like just what it is .So REAL.

Posted by: John Watson | Jul 14, 2008 9:04:09 PM

"wonder how the muslim community will take this.

i too worry about this country."

From what I read, they are excited about one of their own making it to POTUS.

Posted by: Ron | Jul 14, 2008 8:15:13 PM

wonder how the muslim community will take this.

i too worry about this country.

Posted by: zey | Jul 14, 2008 7:18:17 PM

Let's get the chase in regards to can you trust this man. My Grandma always said that you can measure the dept of a man's feelings and likeness of a man by the way he treats his family and the people he surrounds himself with. In this election cycle we do have a very real constrast picture of the two candidates, Obama and McCain and that contrast is in their personal lives, not the sound bits, or radio talk shows talk, but in their lives. Who would you trust, you say? Would you trust a man who divorce his first wife because of an accident that disfigured her, only a month later married a rich person or would you trust a man who has done his best to make a fine home, who loves his wife and children and has worked his way though life, college, work and the light, who guaduated at the top of his class or do you trust a person who just bearly made in his classs, never had to work a real job in his life. Who do you trust? do you trust a man who had tried to associate with different groups of people, made decisions in life that may or not been popluar at the time, or do you trust a person who does what is needed to get an office, but votes agaist issues that are for the common man, who associates himself with a president who will go down in history as the biggest failure of presidents, or do you trust a man who is in a party that talk the talk about family values, but who personal lives, business dealings speak volumes and who seemed not able to take responisibity for their actions. I have more respect for the Clintions for staying together, rasing a wonderful child, and making their marrage work after a very terrible mistake. I respect men and women, no matter what their polical beliefs love and work to make their marriages and family work. Or do you respect a man who disrespects his wife and calls her a dirty name in public and who has lost the respect of his peers due to a anger problem. The one thing I haven't seen Obama do during this election season is to loose his cool or bearing and to me that speaks valumes about the man. He has had everything thown at him, but the kitchen sink, and he maybe angery, he has handle himself with grace and honorable actions. He is able to response to those who attack him with respect and honor. The mark of a true man is how he deals with adversity and when he is down and if he can raise above those things, he is a true warrior and a honor to his community and fellow man. So, if you are going to fall on the I can't trust deal, it would be wise to look at all the facts or both men and then compair. That way you can make an informed decision as to who is the right person for the task at hand. Thank you.

"ALL MY RELATIONS"

Posted by: Wanbleeman | Jul 14, 2008 6:47:23 PM

This is just a lame attempt at a character assassination.

Posted by: Jacob Weinstein | Jul 14, 2008 6:35:08 PM

It is scary how many stupid people are out there who would believe that this is the real picture of Obama and his wife. (Look at Rook a few places up). The cover is of course legal, but it is tasteless. . While it is legal, it fails to be smart or witty. Let's just hope those who believe the cover to be true pictures of the Obamas stay home from the polls. They are obviously not smart enough to be voting for the direction the country should take. They (most Republicans) are barely smart enough to know what's best for themselves.

Posted by: Michael | Jul 14, 2008 6:31:44 PM


The reason Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama is because they are embarrassed of him, his life, his unfair tactics and his beliefs. And they still don't know all about him.

1. They don't want a candidate that has been in a twenty year relationship with Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.

2. They don’t’ want a candidate that has a twenty year relationship with Father Pflaeger as his compass in life

3. They don’t want a candidate that went to a church that supports Louis Farrakhan, an anti Semitic racist.

4. They don't want to defend Black Liberation theology.

5. They don’t want a candidate that lies about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Syrian Criminal that sold his property to Obama and supported his campaign.

6. They don't want a candidate that could work with a domestic terrorist, William Ayers.

7. They don’t want a candidate that Hamas supports.

8. They don’t want a candidate that Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam support

9. They don’t want a candidate that has a wife that has just now realized she was proud of our country.

10. They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices

11. They don’t want a candidate that mentions 57 states in his speeches. 50 states in the USA and 57 states in the Nation of Islam (IOC website)

12. They don’t want a candidate that fights unfair and steals Michigan delegate votes from his opponent.

13. They don’t want a candidate that feels sorry to leave a church that is anti American and that preaches hatred and racial views that are cruel and nasty.

14. They don't want a candidate that is inexperienced.

15. They don’t want a candidate that considers it a loss to not to be able to attend his anti American, racist Church.

16. They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.

17. They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate

18. They don’t’ want a candidate that misleads the youth with an ‘Obama girl and her behind in their face”

19. They don’t want a candidate that says he’s an African American and missed the MLK Remembrance Day and the Louisiana Black Caucus meeting

20. They don’t want a candidate that has done nothing for humanity except talk about it.

21. They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.

22. They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama


23. He scares them to death.
24. He is embarrassing.
25. He is unelectable.

Posted by: Al from NJ | Jul 14, 2008 5:54:53 PM

Obama is never being addressed properly because, God forbid, one word said that can be twisted will be as a racial slur.

Sexism is much more prevelant.

Obama should get over it.
He's still being vetted. Let the media deal with him.

And yes, he is scary and risky.

Posted by: Al from NJ | Jul 14, 2008 5:52:45 PM

Obama is still not telling the truth about his upbringing.
His father is a non practicing Muslim.
So if he doesn't want to clear the air with Americans the press will go after him until he does.

Also he has never explained his relationship with William Ayers, a coworker of his.

Obama shouldn't complain after he had his mentor mock whites and disgrace Senator Clinton. He never apologized to Clintons.

I can't imagine Hillary or McCain's ministers mocking blacks the way his reverend, mentor and friends did.

Who is the racist?

And for those people that don't know this: Clintons have worked their whole life for the underdog and for civil rights. President Clinton has his office in Harlem, his choice. He could have had an office on 5th Avenue overlooking Central Park.

He loves African Americans and I am sure he is hurt by anyone that even suggests that he has any racists attitude towards them.

Posted by: Rick from Pa | Jul 14, 2008 5:49:14 PM

So what do we do? keep the same system that have failed us, stay the course going down a road that leads us to the end. I don't think so, I may not like the man, but what he is saying or doing is the right thing, that is a small price to pay. There are a lot of leaders that I personly don't like, but if the are doing the right things I could care less. I am not supporting Obama because he is black/white, or a liberal, or because he is the midwest, I am supporting him for bettter or worse, he is our candidate, he won the primaries. There is nothing we can do to change that, so what do we do? We try to let who ever is running how we feel, what we want from him and we work together to get the right things done. The wrong way of doing this is not by listening to the opposition, but by getting involved, by listening and learning and by not being afraid to find out the truth beyond our narrow spear of views. I am neither a Repub or Democrative in this requard. I just want what is best for our people, I don't listen to the far right, or the far left. I am just a simple man in south Texas, but I read, I learn and I can see what the current policies are doing to us and "I DON'T LIKE IT" I don't like that I am suffering, scared that I may be on the streets in the coming months, that I can't affort to drive to work, or to work like a dog for pennies. I don't like the fact that I see what is happening to our troops at Fort Sam and other military hospitals, I don't like that i see homes empty and people losing everything and our jobs going overseas and some jeck, tell me that all this is in my mind. I am so mad that I would rather vote for Bee Bee the roadrunner, before I vote to continue the same road under the repulicans ie, McCain and company. I am not scared for my Country and I am crying because, we can't affort to continue down this path some what for us to go. So, I will take my chances on the unknown with the facts I have at hand and Pray to God that I did the right thing. I want fresh ideals and I want for us all to work together to make a new begining to bring our nation the hope and reason that we need to solve our problems together. Sound bits, non facts or misconceptions are going to change that I have hope and I see a man, thou not perfect, has a vision to the fulture, not the past or present, the FULTURE, for it is the coming generations and children that I am hoping for.. Thank you.

Posted by: Wanbleeman | Jul 14, 2008 5:20:55 PM

I was so happy when I heard about Obama and supported him until I learned more about his church. I am pleased with the New Yorker cover because it validates what many black people think about Obama but cannot say anything openly. Good job but you forget the large bus and the super delegates that are pull the bus for Obama

Posted by: bobafreeman | Jul 14, 2008 5:19:37 PM

Why does everyone insist on making this a racial issue? Barack has never accomplished anything except being elected to the Illinois State Senate, and then getting elected to the US Senate and serving half a term. Barack Hussein Obama has the most liberal voting record in Congress! That is saying something when you consider the company he is in. He has a more liberal voting record than Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Polosi, John Murtha, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc. etc. etc. Here is a sample of Obama’s voting record:
He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
Supports affirmative action in colleges and Government.
In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
His religious convictions are very murky, but was a regular church attendee.
He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.
One of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all muslim nations.
Opposed the Patriot Act.
First bill he signed that passed was campaign finance reform
Voted No on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers
Supports universal healthcare.
Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
Supports granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.

Also, he has stated that he would get rid of all space based weapons and anti-missile defense weapons.

Posted by: Ron | Jul 14, 2008 5:08:23 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS