Obama Lashes Out at New Yorker Racist Cover

Yeah but Rob, people who think that way aren't reading the New Yorker, nor are they probably frequenting establishments with the New Yorker on display!

Hiding behind their guise of free speech, the press once again yells "FIRE", this time in the political theater, as they continue to try to influence the public to vote for whichever party they and their media mogul employers are promoting, during their daily dose of distortion. Please don't confuse them with the facts.

Tough. This is standard New Yorker fare. Just because some people who might see the cover won't understand the satire nor the New Yorker's style is no reason to "dumb down" to the those who won't bother to read it, or to "get" the New Yorker.

Obama and his followers have just about worn out the race card, but they keep trying to trump everything with the tattered bit of flimsy cardboard. Bottom line: Obama is a public and political figure. He will be criticized. He will encounter jokes and satire, as do all political and public figures.

Maybe if Obama had grown up to the point where he could accept that he would get the same treatment dished out to every other politician I'd lend more credence to anything he says. So, what, he gets elected, someone overseas says something snippy about him as they launch a little war somewhere, and what, he's going to cry racism?

He's either a complete candidate for the highest office in America who is, simply, an American, or he's running as a token, knows it, and is exploiting it. One or the other.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but this thing of "oh, don't say anything about Obama, or it's racist" stifles America's free political commentary. America's politics have always been robust and sometimes brawling. Anyone who enters that fray needs to understand that everyone gets made fun of.

When there was all this jocularity about President Carter being a peanut farmer, with all the TV skits, snide comments and cartoons, was that racist? After all, he was a drawling Southern white male land-owner and farmer, the type of character impugned in cartoons, bars, and literature (memo: read Faulkner).

I'm not so sure.  I think you can get it a most subway stops in NY.

To all those who think the New Yorker cover was intended to somehow help Obama by showing how mean and racist his right wing enemies are, please paste the following link into your URL line:

nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-covert-operatives-hillaryland-soften-battlefield-coming-coup

Satire or not, this feeds into those preying upon the fears of an unknown number of citizens who have embraced the continued misinformation regarding Senator Obama, insisting he is some maniacal, closeted sheik in American clothing waiting to fulfill some fatwa, poised to attack America.

The official Obama camp has spent the majority of the time running away from saying race is the motivational factor behind many of these actions, wisely allowing those who can be quoted as 'close to the Obama campaign' to raise the issue.

There was a rude awakening for many young, White Obama supporters in Pennsylvania, eagerly knocking on doors, to have those doors slammed in their faces, often having unsavory racial remarks throw at them as the door closed. The Obama camp quickly noted that those incidents were by and large not the usual reception received by their campaigners, but it has been happening across the country.   

Since it isn't PC, a term many around here have been using of late, to say in some circles, 'I don't like him 'cause he's Black', it becomes necessary to embrace whatever else can be found lying around.

There is no way around the fact that there are those within the United States that are not pleased with Senator Barack Obama's rise to the top as the Democratic nominee, their reasons being simply because he's Black, period, and any other excuse raised to aid them and offer them an excuse for not accepting his candidacy will be pounced upon with enthusiasm.

People need to actually *read* and analyze the material in the New Yorker. They might be surprised. Here's just one sample from what's available online.

The above link is a darned good article. But it is long and comprehensive. So, here's the closing paragraph: "Meanwhile, McCain has been busily reversing his views in highly consequential ways. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they favored the rich; now he supports their eternal extension. He was against offshore oil drilling as not being worth the environmental damage it brings; now he’s for it, and damn the costs. He was against torture, period; now he’s against it unless the C.I.A. does it. He keeps flipping to the wrong flops. But he and Obama can both take comfort in what they’re avoiding. If they were clinging to every past position, the flip-flop police would be busting them for stubbornness and rigidity in the face of changing circumstances. Bush all over again! Flip-flops are preferable to cement shoes, especially in summertime. ♦"

Then there's the 15-page article "Making It--How Chicago Shaped Obama. Darned good reading, From page 5: " His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded. In 1993, Crain’s Chicago Business reported that Obama had “galvanized Chicago’s political community, as no seasoned politico had before,” and an alderman told Crain’s, “Under Barack’s leadership, we had the most successful, cost-effective and orderly voter registration drive I’ve ever been involved with.” When “Dreams from My Father” was published, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive; Booklist included the memoir in a “guide to some of the best books of 1995.”

Note the system didn't let me put in the second bit of quoted material. If it won't allow it this time, and continues to just worry over me spamming, then ya'll will have to go to the article.  ;}

Karen:  PA is home to many virulent racists.  It is a hotbed for KKK-like vigilante stalking groups, of which I have written on the site ("Vigilante Injustice").  And I'm in Bucks County, near Philly.   Sad thing is, I don't think it's any different anyplace else in the state, or the nation, for that matter.   But you don't have to be a racist to believe that Obama is inexperienced and has demonstrated a penchant for expediency that has crossed the line to hypocrisy. Don't think that all people who don't like Obama are racists.  Maybe they just don't like hypocrites who change their positions to fit the current moment.  And maybe they think that a stronger candidate should get the nomination.  It's not too late for that to happen.  

What the article says becomes irrelevant as the image on the cover becomes the "story."

As I've wrttiten, I have to believe that the people at the New Yorker, the top editors at least, knew what the impact would be.  They knew it would hurt Obama, and possibly revive talk of a Hillary challenge to his nomination.  The establishment Dems don't want to put up a loser, and Obama's starting to look like that's where he's headed.  McCain's an awful candidate whose campaign is foundering;  yet this week he's narrowed Obama's lead significantly, to the point where the race is considered a dead heat in many polls.  Obama's going down even before he gets to the convention.  Look for a Hillary resurrection, as I write in my "Get Political" column, which you can find on the site.

Scrivener, I understand you don't have to be racist to have 'issues' with Senator Obama. I'm merely saying that there ARE those out there that have issues with him because he is Black, plain and simple.

All who have principled reasons for not choosing him as a candidate or for president know who they are. 

With respect, I disagree. Obama is the presumptive nominee. Unless some delegates figure out a way to not vote the way they are pledged, he's got it sewed up. Of course, conventions can be wild things.

And I don't think the New Yorker had anti-Obama intent. I think they were doing their New Yorker thing.

So let me ask you--have you actually read any of the stories? You'll find material in there that's very very complimentary to Obama, even laudatory.

Karen, with respect, there are people who will vote for him simply because he is black. I consider that to be as mis-guided as voting against him because he's black.

I want to vote for a candidate, regardless of race or gender, who I think is the best overall candidate for the job, whatever it is. I've never voted a straight party ticket, I've never voted for/against anyone for any reason except the totality of the candidate.

And I hope that across America, rather than regarding this as a "pass/fail" test of "are we able to elect a black candidate, if not we're all racist", somehow, at some point, the campaign gets into--voting for the person regardless of race.

There will always, alas, be racism and other forms of prejudice. But I don't consider that the cure for it is the reverse racism, although that's a normal human tendency. I think we have to rise above that to regard each other as people.

Yea, I'm an idealist.  ;}

It all makes sense now. I couldn't understand the reason that The New Yorker went after the Democrats since the story above says that it is a "left" (Democratic) Publication.

"Barack Obama recently warned of the coming racist attacks Republicans were about to unleash, but it looks like the left has beaten the Republicans to the fist".

until I followed Scriveners comment link above. Thanks Scrivener & mpress

nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-covert-operatives-hillaryland-soften-battlefield-coming-coup

Hillaryland's Covert Operatives Soften the Battlefield for the Coming Coup

I did not vote for Obama simply because he is black. I voted for him because the U.S. is a country founded upon the ideology and practice of white supremacy, the belief that whites are superiour to people of color. I voted for Obama because it is time to demonstrate to our citizens and nations around the world that we are not inherently flawed by the pervasive, deep-seated racism within our society. If Obama had not launched his campaign, I would have voted for Hillary. I believe that sexism and mysogny played a major role in the Democratic campaign, opening the door for Obama to win. However, Hillary did show that she might not be the best person for the job when she mismanaged the finances of her campaign.  Despite my belief that sexism remains an important issue in the U.S., I feel that people of color have been subjected to much more discrimination, injustice and hatred than women have suffered due to sexism. However, having made that statement, I do not mean to minimize what women suffer due to sexism. Michelle Obama has to deal with the double whammy of sexism and racism. The front cover of the New Yorker is offensive. I am disappointed that the New Yorker demeaned its image as a reputable magazine by joining the Obama detractors. I'm embarressed to say that I have several New Yorkers in my magazine rack. I'm debating whether to trash them or not. Whatever happens over the next few months will not change my mind about who I'm voting for. I'm voting for Obama and encouraging every one I know to do the same.  Its time we end the long-standing tradition of older white, males having all the power in the U.S. government. It's time for change. 

What a shame. A terrible reinforcement.

Karen as it stands now there may be more people voting for Obama because he is black than against him because he is black. Both are voting skin color which is sad. Most Americans don't know the real Obama. Is it the one who hangs out with the racist Rev. Wright for 20 years or is it the one who hangs out with the Bonnie and Clyde couple from the Weather Underground? After the Rev. Wright episode the satire from the New Yorker should have been expected only Obama thought the "racist" Republicans would do this. I guess he was wrong....Today's hate and racism and sexism is at home with the leftist Democrats. All can see that now..

Obama is a baby.

Hasn't he seen the images the Left has created with Dubya as the target for the last 7 years?

The New Yorker cover is tame -- and it certainly isn't racist -- it's politics.

It was the same for Kennedy, folks were concerned about voting for a a RC.  Leiberman, folks didn't want to vote for a Jew.  Romney, folks didn't want to vote for a Mormon.  Thankfully things are getting better.  But the test is when we have a Black man with a majority vote in the White House.

I am not voting for Obama because he is outside of my political ideology.  If he met my political tests, I would vote for him in a New York minute.  Anyone who was involved with me , during my  Public Relations stint with the Republican party,  knows I had a Black boss and voted for a Black man for president in 2000 in the primaries.  I did hear, with quieted voices, reminding me that my candidate was black.  I said, your kidding me, He is?  LOL 

Drives me nuts that folks are still stuck on this.  Now if the candidate has a tatoo and a beard I might not vote for them.