Nothing Funny About Obama Say Liberal Comedy Writers

“Satire is supposed to make a point. The New Yorker’s cartoon was designed to show how any criticism of Barry or Michelle is simply right wing ranting. Unfortunately for them, they were hung on their own petard. There is always a grain of truth in good satire”

White Liberal comedy writers just can’t find something funny about Obama. So they say. The now famous cover that backfired on the leftists at the New Yorker which was supposed to show the ignorance of the right but ended showing the thin skin of the Obamites was a great example of how the Liberals feel they are immune from criticism.

The media made a big issue of a caricature that was funny because it was based on the truth. The image Obama has with many Americans is of an unknown radical. But the Libs who can find something funny about any other candidate just can’t cross the line and risk being called a racist by the usual suspects who wait for the opportunity to scream “that’s racist.” Obama and his people insist he is not Muslim but they act just like the radical Muslims with outrage over stupid cartoon spoofs. Obama better grow some thick skin if he wants to be POTUS because the sensitivity level is at orange….mpress

Why? The reason cited by most of those involved in the shows is that a fundamental factor is so far missing in Mr. Obama: There is no comedic “take” on him, nothing easy to turn to for an easy laugh, like allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing, or President Bush’s goofy bumbling or Al Gore’s robotic persona.

“The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way,” said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson’s monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Mr. Letterman. “He’s not a comical figure,” Mr. Barry said. source

CONTROVERSY ADDS TO AD WOES AT THE NEW YORKER

AS it turns out, it might not be just the Obama campaign that's bent out of shape over this week's cover of The New Yorker.

Rumors have swirled inside Condé Nast that advertisers also were upset with the latest rhubarb, which depicts Barack Obama in Muslim garb and wife Michelle as a machine gun-toting radical.

Publisher Drew Schutte said he has indeed heard from people, but as far as he knows, none of them has been an advertiser - only disgruntled readers.

"Our numbers are the first telephone numbers listed in the magazine, so we're probably getting a lot of the calls," he said of the angry calls that have reached the ad sales department.

Asked how many angry calls had poured in, Schutte said he had no way of gauging.

While this type of controversy is the last thing a publisher needs in these troubled times, certainly if it gives advertisers pause, the timing is especially bad for The New Yorker.

The magazine is now among the most troubled magazines at Condé Nast, and it remains to be seen if the current controversy upsets the title's tenuous hold on profitability.

Through the July 7 issue, The New Yorker is down a staggering 21.2 percent in ad pages to 699.69, compared with the same period a year ago, when it racked up 887, according to Media Industry Newsletter, which tracks the industry.

The magazine, whose parent company is S.I. Newhouse's Advance Publications, was estimated to have lost more than $175 million under his ownership before it finally turned a slight profit in 2002, when David Carey was publisher. At that time, it was pulling in about 2,200 ad pages a year.