New Yorker Magazine Cover…Too Much?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The New Yorker Magazine has a motherlode issue on the stands…a collector’s issue if there ever was one. It shows Barack Obama and his wife Michelle in the White House. However:
Obama is garbed in traditional Arabic clothing and headdress, and Michelle is in military fatigues with an automatic rifle (and the ammunition sash). On the wall is a portrait of Osama bin Laden, and an American Flag is burning in the fireplace.
Both the Obama camp and the McCain camp are crying foul, that this goes too far and is not funny. Tasteless, even.
The New Yorker says it’s satire, that they are mocking the covert fears of the conservatives. They point to the article inside that is favorable to Obama as evidence that they meant no harm.
I think it may be over the top, but it really plays to the deepest uneasiness that exists out there in the electorate. Studies have shown that even though we say we don’t like negative political ads, they do impact how we vote.
What do you think? Will this cover have an impact?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I said I thought it might be over the top, but I am not offended by it because I understand the satire.
Both the Obama and the McCain campaigns spoke out against it, so they thought it was offensive.
The news media is jumping on it because they like to create controversy, so it’s the flavor of the moment (when they’re not ooh-ing over the Brangelina twins).
Vote:
0 0 Hi Nemesis,
Loved the article….my take is that this is not any type of “ad” but rather a neutral (although, honestly, I always find the NewYorker a bit left-leaning in general) magazine’s attempt to poke fun at how “smear” campaigns attack. As such, I would’ve thought the Obamas would have found humor in it.
Just IMHO. Thanks for a thought-provoking article.
Vote:
0 0 Obama’s campaign denounced the cover due to a really interesting concern: They said that not many people would be willing to pay $4.50 a pop to actually read the article and would be left with the image of Obama in muslim dress. These folks, of course, are probably the same crowd of people that cling to their guns and religion to get by in tough economic times.
Maybe “those people” are too stupid to read….or too lazy…..maybe those are the same type of people that Obama is counting on to vote for him….people that rely on symbolism over substance. Kind of ironic that Obama is worried about the very thing that he throws out on a daily basis. Seems kind of hypocritical to be against symbolism when it negates your message, yet use that same symbolism for your own political gain.
Vote:
0 0 Only weak thinkers fear strong images.
Vote:
0 0 Comment # 4 by Bundy on July 15, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
[quote] These folks, of course, are probably the same crowd of people that cling to their guns and religion to get by in tough economic times. [end quote]
My short time here on this site would certainly come to an end should I comment like I want to comment concerning this fine piece of ignorance disguised as a comment.l
Vote:
0 0 I concur Mr Bumpy.
Vote:
0 0 It was obviously intended as satirical humor but it was miscalculated (and therefore probably “over the top”).
The “miscalculation” is the overestimation of how familiar the general public is with these political issues (often referred to as “low information voters”). Interest level aside, there are a lot of people who work long hours and/or taking care of kids/family where seeing such a cover publicized may be one of the few exposures to a candidate they have.
The best satire usually has a prerequisite of some knowledge/background of the issue being satirized. In this case, even though the magazine is obviously directed at its specific audience, when the national media picks it up, there’s a whole new audience.
Vote:
0 0 Very good point, bluenote#8.
Because of the national media making this an issue, it’s become something that goes far beyond its initial target audience, and the consequences that may occur were probably not intended.
Vote:
0 0 The preface to Mr Bumpy’s earlier comment #5 is this link: http://www.slate.com/id/2195317/?GT1=38001
Worth a look. 
As for bluenotes comment, good point. However, that’s the problem with the National (drive-by) media, they blow the littlest things out of proportion on a daily basis and it’s unfortunate that your average Billy D. Public still doesn’t realize this.
I also think bluenotes miscalculation is a sort of miscalculation in stating that because some people “work late or have family’s to take care of” that this is only one of a few “exposures to a candidate they have”. If this is truely the case, (which imo thankfully isn’t) than I’m glad we have our electoral college put our President into office instead of a popular vote. I think people are a little smarter than to base their decision (or one of their decisions) on a “cartoon” in passing.
As always, just my opinion FWIW.
Vote:
0 0 Uncle Bumpy, you should have cited Slate as your source before using their material (the “weak thinkers” quote)
Regarding your comment #6, just FYI, Bundy was only referencing Obama’s quote about the people who clutch religion and guns. If you aren’t familiar with it, I can find a link for you.
Vote:
0 0 Comment # 10 by CR67 on July 15, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
The preface to Mr Bumpy’s earlier comment #5 is this link: http://www.slate.com/id/2195317/?GT1=38001
Actually, it wasn’t. I never read the Slate story, but the web is littered with those who quoted those words.
Vote:
0 0 Comment # 11 by easterner on July 15, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
[quote]Uncle Bumpy, you should have cited Slate as your source before using their material (the “weak thinkers” quote) [end quote]
Gee easterner, too bad I didn’t get it from a Slate story. The political blog world is littered with the phrase right now.
[end] Regarding your comment #6, just FYI, Bundy was only referencing Obama’s quote about the people who clutch religion and guns. If you aren’t familiar with it, I can find a link for you. [ end quote]
I’m quite familiar with what Obama was referencing, thank you.
Would there be anything else yourself and CR67 would like to assume?
Vote:
0 0 Leave me out of this. I was just adding a link to the phrase you left. I was in no way “assuming” anything about your comment.
But thanks for your concern.
Vote:
0 0 LOL …. no problem CR67. Seriously though, if I could figure out how to get links to actually work there wouldn’t be an issue on this. I’m not real adept at the WordPress formatting.
Vote:
0 0 No problem Mr Bumpy.
Regarding the links, all I do is highlight the address and then cut and paste it into my comment. (usually works for me)
Vote:
0 0 Comment # 15 by CR67 on July 15, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
Thanks for that CR67. I’m used to a different blog system that used bbcode for linking up.
Vote:
0 0 Anytime! Nice to have you posting here. I enjoy reading your comments.
Vote:
0 0 The Editors had the best comment on this:
The problem is that the New Yorker - like me - is not an organ of the Obama campaign, and so is under no obligation to justify what it says on the basis of whether it may be misconstrued by idiots to the detriment of that campaign.
I think the cover will have a small positive impact, by bringing the silliness of the anti-Obama Swift-Boat campaign to light. But the fact of the matter is that all those people forwarding the “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle Hates America” emails are just looking for cover for their racism. They’ll never vote for Obama at all.
Vote:
0 0 Uncle Bumpy: “My short time here on this site would certainly come to an end should I comment like I want to comment concerning this fine piece of ignorance disguised as a comment.”
Hi Uncle Bumpy…what did I assume about that? It sounded to me as if you were attributing the Obama quote referenced by Bundy to Bundy’ and not Obama…if not, can you tell us what you were so upset by in Bundy’s post?
Moreover, why would you want to link to the Slate piece that CR67 provided, as you sarcastically indicated to me that you didn’t get it from a “Slate story”? I’m a little puzzled by your being annoyed with me and then thanking CR67 for providing the link to your quote (comment 14 and 16)
Sorry if you misunderstood my questions . . . I just don’t understand why you got so upset. I wasn’t trying to put you down, I was honestly trying to clarify where Bundy’s “guns and religion” language came from.
Vote:
0 0 Bundy #4,
Your comment leaves me a bit confused. You seem to be implying that Obama is all symbolism and no substance. Is that your opinion?
If so, I think you are being unfair. That would be pushing a right-wing story line that is completely false. Obama has been on a tear for the last month, giving substantive speeches on multiple topics - Iraq, national security, the economy, religion in politics, etc. He has proposed specific changes to programs, withdrawal from Iraq at 2 brigades per month to be completed in 16 months.
Meanwhile, McCain has been empty. He just released a totally numberless economic plan stating that he’s going to extend Bush’s tax cuts, add new tax cuts, increase military spending, AND balance the budget. How? No one knows. Unspecified spending cuts. “Savings” from the victory in Iraq, whatever that means (since Iraq is 100% deficit spending, there are no savings from leaving Iraq). He will squeeze some money out of SS, but he won’t say how.
The difference in substantive details between the two is striking, and it is McCain who comes up short.
Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment above, though. Let us know.
Vote:
0 0 Comment # 19 by easterner on July 15, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
Uncle Bumpy: “My short time here on this site would certainly come to an end should I comment like I want to comment concerning this fine piece of ignorance disguised as a comment.”
[quote] Hi Uncle Bumpy…what did I assume about that? It sounded to me as if you were attributing the Obama quote referenced by Bundy to Bundy’ and not Obama…if not, can you tell us what you were so upset by in Bundy’s post? [end quote] Because something SOUNDS like something to you, does not make it so, easterner. As I stated in a previous post, I feel I am aware of what Bundy was pointing out. I have read quite a bit of this sites stories and a large portion of comments on those stories, and it is my opinion that the site admins and moderators are less than tolerant when it comes to free speech. favoring instead a more politically correct approach. I will stop short of expressing my opinion on what Bundy was saying. I certainly hope that Bundy was stating that Obama was being show as a symbol and stereotype, and my attack would have been against Obama and NOT Bundy.
[quote] Moreover, why would you want to link to the Slate piece that CR67 provided, as you sarcastically indicated to me that you didn’t get it from a “Slate story”?[ end quote]
Please, do tell where i was wanting to link to a Slate story? I clearly stated that the words came from the web that littered with the phrase these days. You once again choose to assume rather than ask for clarification.
[quote]Sorry if you misunderstood my questions . . . I just don’t understand why you got so upset. I wasn’t trying to put you down, I was honestly trying to clarify where Bundy’s “guns and religion” language came from. [end quote]
Again, you assume that I am upset, which I am not. Sarcastic, yes. Upset, no. As we roll along here you and other contributors will find that I will leave some ambiguity and open ended phrasing into my comments. The intent is simple - those on one side of the fence will make assumptions, those on another will ask for sake of discussion for clarification.
Thanks for your comments easterner.
Vote:
0 0 easterner - I had a substantial reply to your #19, but upon posting said reply the site went wanky and error messages all over. I tried to repost and it gave me a duplicate content message. Long story short - you are taking the liberty of assuming too far when it comes to my comments.
I have a cut and paste of my original reply, I will try to repost that later.
Vote:
0 0 easterner- I tried to respond to your #19, but the site went wonky and error messages popped up. I tried once more and then got a duplicate content message.
Short version of my lenghty reply is that you are taking the liberty of assuming far too much; and also that any comments I might have regarding Bundy’s comment are not for Bundy but rather candidate Obama himself.
I will attempt a couple more time to post my original reply.
Vote:
0 0 Thanks anonymous …….I see what you are saying now……..thanks for the clarification!
Saw the editor of the New Yorker (boy, is he younger than I expected) on the news again, standing by his decision to go with that cover. I must say, no matter what side of this issue one takes, it is refreshing to see someone stand by a decision they made, and take the heat from those who disagree, rather than crying mea culpa and firing underlings in some big dramatic gesture.
Vote:
0 0 To restate the obvious: I am saying that Obama is more symbolism than substance. My earlier comment was revealing the irony in how he has profited from symbolism for so long and is now experiencing the double edged sword of negative symbolism attacking him (albeit unfairly).
As for Idahoagie’s comment in #20 about being unfair to Obama, while I partially agree, it is interesting to note that Idahoagie labels folks that disagree with Obama and circulate e-mails against him as being racist. I certainly hope that Idahoagie, like most intelligent liberals can ferret out real racism from that of political distain for a politician that flips and flops.
Just because people disagree with Obama does not make them racist, nor does the fact that people who support Obama should be called unpatriotic…..yet, both sides get drug down that path. Don’t fall for Idahoagie’s baloney (sorry Ida, couldn’t resist that linkage with baloney and the hoagie)!
So, Idahoagie, if Obama is doing so great then why is the race tied?
After almost two months of a constant Obama lead, generally in the six to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat’s lead?
Part of the slide is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.
Obama has managed to take flip-flopping to new heights. In the time of a month and a half, this candidate - who we don’t really yet know very well - reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:
• After vowing to not engage in private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telecoms from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has gladly voted for the legislation. (And raked in campaign cash from AT&T)
• He backslid on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Yet, he maintained the District of Columbia’s gun ban WAS constitutional and refused to sign on a friend of the court brief to uphold 2nd Amendment rights. (McCain did sign on)
• He told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
• From a 100% pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
• For the very first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor. (Trying to co-opt McCain’s position)
• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first. On July 2nd, he told two different audiences different messages about Iraq. One version was absolute pullout on his first day in office, version two was consult with the military.
• During the primary season, he backed merit pay for teachers - but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
Obama’s major flip-flopping is materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political season….can you spell expediency?
As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician with all the trappings of “Change”, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disgust of his more naïve supporters.
McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue - oil drilling - exposing how Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begets the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.
The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. Al Gore rears his ugly head again. If there was ever a fracture between elitist and populist approaches to problems, this is it.
In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many liberals have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades. They say the tax is useful to curb demand, conserve and lower prices. This is only partly true, the real agenda is climate change.
Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of “gradual adjustment” to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels of gas prices. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.
Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for us ordinary folk to afford the journey to work in the morning.
If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters, maybe even Idahoagie would come around if he/she were intellectually honest.
Overall, it seems that Obama is trying to move closer to many of McCain’s positions. I realize that many people accused McCain of being too liberal on certain stances like waterboarding, but it seems that Obama is trying to come closer to being McCain than McCain is coming to being Obama. This is why the race is tied. Many people don’t trust Obama and are starting to see him as an opportunist rather than a committed believer in pol icies that will improve the lives of the American people. It doesn’t take a New Yorker magazine cover to get people to see that.
Vote:
0 0 I certainly hope that Idahoagie, like most intelligent liberals can ferret out real racism from that of political distain for a politician that flips and flops.
Just because people disagree with Obama does not make them racist,…
You missed my point. I said that those people who are forwarding the “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle hates America” emails are covering for their racism. I said nothing about people who oppose Obama for other reasons.
So, Idahoagie, if Obama is doing so great then why is the race tied?
The race is nowhere near tied. McCain is 5 to 10 points behind, and will drop farther behind as people learn that the “Straight-talking Maverick” is a media creation. One poll, probably an outlier, says nothing. Furthermore, national polls mean nothing either. The state results matter, and they show that Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. are in play. Obama is way ahead at this point.
Part of the slide is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.
This happened over the last week: McCain flip-flops on gay adoption, Fiorina complains about McCain’s record on women’s health issues, McCain called Social Security a “disgrace”, had his main economic advisor call America a nation of whiners. Obama had a great week.
Obama has managed to take flip-flopping to new heights. In the time of a month and a half, this candidate - who we don’t really yet know very well - reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:
Wrong. This is pure GOP talking-point nonsense. It worked in 2004 to get our current failure of a President elected, but it won’t work again - primarily because McCain is the king of flip-flopping. Torture. The GI Bill. Wiretapping. Talking with Iran. Tax cuts. Immigration. Etc. See here for a long list.
McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue - oil drilling - exposing how Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begets the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.
Hah! Good luck with that one. The GOP is sweating pure desperation. They’ve completely tanked the economy, they’re insulting the American people, major banks are failing, and so many Republicans have turned out to be utter criminals. It’s funny to see the GOP’s defenders grabbing at straws.
If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters, maybe even Idahoagie would come around if he/she were intellectually honest.
Oh, I’d be pissed. Just as I was that he supported the unconstitutional FISA bill. But that’s Obama. He’s a centrist, and always has been. I’m honest enough to see that. But the GOP and it’s defenders try to paint him as “the most liberal senator.” I think you probably need to evaluate your own intellectual honesty.
Overall, it seems that Obama is trying to move closer to many of McCain’s positions.
Nope - Obama was always there. The lie that he was a liberal was created by the GOP.
I realize that many people accused McCain of being too liberal on certain stances like waterboarding,
Nope - McCain supports torture, including waterboarding (another McCain flip-flop).
This is why the race is tied.
Wrong again. Obama is 5 to 10 points ahead, and farther ahead in EC votes.
Many people don’t trust ObamaMcCain and are starting to see him as an opportunist rather than a committed believer in policies that will improve the lives of the American people.
There - fixed it for you.
It doesn’t take a New Yorker magazine cover to get people to see that.
It would take a much different New Yorker cover to even address that issue in the first place. The New Yorker cover is aimed at very stupid McCain supporters, and America sees that. Why do you think that so many of the normal GOP supporters are denouncing it? The GOP is the champion of dirty-tricks politicking, and they’re denouncing this cover because it makes them look bad.
Vote:
0 0 wow this reads like point/counterpoint.
I believe both pols (and every one that I’ve known so far) end up reversing their positions or modifying them along the way, and these two are no different. People who decide that only one party does it for expediency’s sake rather than accepting that all pols do this, are fooling themselves using their mental filters.
I also believe that off shore drilling is not the answer. My understanding is that we don’t have the refinery capacity to handle more oil domestically, and there are thousands of sites to be drilled that they already have the permission/rights to drill…but don’t need to expend more money to do this as right now they are having windfall profits and have no incentive to go get the oil they could get (even if they could refine it when they got it). (WHEW! long run on sentence but I’m too lazy to go back to fix it.)
That probably didn’t belong here but it was a thought I had while reading two very well detailed comments!
Vote:
0 0 Back to the subject -
Tom Tomorrow explains the subtle art of cartoon satire, with examples!
The magazine arrived in the local bookstores on Tuesday. It sold out before Wednesday at lunch. It’s a hit.
And it has been successful in exposing the Swift Boat tactics being used by some on the right.
It’s been a success all the way around.
Vote:
0 0 Hi Idahogie:
I saw your posts on the whole PZ Meyers’ debacle on Scienceblogs; unfortunate that we can’t have a discussion here about Meyers’ stated intent to desecrate a communion host online, as that would violate the “no religion” rule…..
would make for a great discussion over here, I bet!
Vote:
0 0 Yes, indeed, Easterner. I’d love it.
Maybe there’s a loophole, though. Atheism isn’t a religion. But you’d probably have to mention the wafer, so it probably wouldn’t work.
In any event, we may just discuss that topic at our Drinking Liberally meeting tonight - if we can get past the Great New Yorker Cover Controversy.
Vote:
0 0 So, let me get this straight….if people think Michelle Obama hates America they are racist? It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with her views on America being a “mean country” (her words) and being proud of her country for the first time in recent memory. She invited scrutiny by injecting them into the campaign.
I don’t know what polls you are citing, but Congressional Quarterly has many of the states you cited as a statistical dead heat.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/07/latest-statebystate-general-el-18.html#more
I can’t believe you can call Obama a centrist! Do you call gun control, needle exchange, abortion on demand, raising taxes (including gasoline taxes and social security) by returning income taxes to the Clinton rate of 39%, talking to Iran, having a second economic stimulus, corportate welfare for Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac……oh man, The National Journal (which by the way is NOT a republican leaning publication and is well respected by both sides) said the following about Obama:
“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.”
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
It is amazing that the real talking points (which IMO are bogus) aren’t even correct:
McCain has never supported torture. He stood on principle and recognized this was not a postion America should have to be involved in. Read the Washington Post below to confirm his vote. The Post is not a Republican mouth piece either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502062.html
It is amazing that the facts don’t seem to matter much here to certain folks. It is also amazing that Idahoagie can blatantly label McCain supporters racist and stupid. When the best a candidate’s supporters have got is to label opponents racist and stupid, perhaps they should look at themselves in the mirror and realize that perhaps they are describing their own behavior and beliefs more accurately than that of their opponents.
Vote:
0 0 Don’t worry Hoagster…..the media is in the tank for Obama and will get him elected despite all his flaws.
On his upcoming overseas trip, Barack Obama will be met along the way by the anchors of the three network evening newscasts. About 200 other journalists have also asked to join Obama during his trip.
But Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post (that Republican Rag…..not!) reports that John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months — all unaccompanied by a single network anchor and with little fanfare.
The Tyndall Report, which monitors news coverage, says that since June the nightly newscasts on the three networks spent a combined 114 minutes covering Obama while devoting just 48 minutes to McCain. So, do we count the cover of the New Yorker Times as part of the 48 minutes!!!!
Vote:
0 0 So, let me get this straight….if people think Michelle Obama hates America they are racist? It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with her views on America being a “mean country” (her words) and being proud of her country for the first time in recent memory. She invited scrutiny by injecting them into the campaign.
Yes. Anyone sending around emails saying “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle hates America” is covering for racism. They choose to accept counterfactual beliefs and plainly idiotic conclusions to justify their opposition to Obama. If they just opposed Obama on his positions, that’s what they would argue.
I don’t know what polls you are citing, but Congressional Quarterly has many of the states you cited as a statistical dead heat.
That’s my point. Those states were easily won by Bush in 2004. Now they are in play.
I can’t believe you can call Obama a centrist! Do you call gun control, needle exchange, abortion on demand, raising taxes (including gasoline taxes and social security) by returning income taxes to the Clinton rate of 39%, talking to Iran
Yes. These are all centrist positions, supported by 60-75% of the American public. The American public is very liberal on issues, actually, and Obama is centrist.
The National Journal (which by the way is NOT a republican leaning publication and is well respected by both sides) said the following about Obama:
Their methodology is widely recognized as flawed. Read this.
McCain has never supported torture.
McCain voted to allow the CIA to pursue interrogation techniques beyond what is allowed by the Army Field Manual. He has never ruled out waterboarding for that purpose, and has said that he leaves it up to Bush to decide (which means that he allows for torture, as we all know that Bush authorized waterboarding and other torture methods).
It is amazing that the facts don’t seem to matter much here to certain folks. It is also amazing that Idahoagie can blatantly label McCain supporters racist and stupid.
I agree. It is amazing. Now you’ve repeated your initial mistake (I’ll be generous on that one) that I “blatantly label McCain supporters racist and stupid.” This time it’s an out-and-out lie. I’ll repeat it again for you, slowly:
Anyone sending around emails saying “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle hates America” is covering for racism.
Perhaps you can start getting it right from now on. Or you can leave everyone with the impression that you can’t read, or that you are a liar. Your choice.
Vote:
0 0 “The New Yorker cover is aimed at very stupid McCain supporters, and America sees that.”
Hogie, these are your words. What you fail to note is that the New Yorker article was not aimed a stupid McCain supporters. It was actual aim was to support Obama by pointing out ludicrous positions of the Anti-Obama crowd.
I don’t believe you are “getting it right” here. Your comments are inflammatory and rude. Congratulations, I am sure Obama would love to have you as a supporter.
Vote:
0 0 #35, Cal, you made a great point in your second paragraph, and then pointed out that Idahogie was inflammatory and rude…and you lost me. Your last sentence seems to say that those kinds of people are the kind of people that Obama has or wants as his supporters.
Dang, folks. If you think someone is being rude (and we do tend to get over the top on this site at times) wouldn’t that be enough to point it out?
Adding to the fire afterwards is unnecessary. IMO
Vote:
0 0 Agreed, good point Nem.
Vote:
0 0 Idahogie,
I’m puzzled: why did you quote yourself and respond to it in your last post?
In your quote by quote response to Bundy, you state: “Yes. Anyone sending around emails saying “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle hates America” is covering for racism”. Later in that post, you italicize this same sentence, ostensibly yours, and then respond to it (kinda nastily, IMO).
Did I misread the quote? Wasn’t that what you said in response to Bundy?
Vote:
0 0 Easterner,
Sorry I didn’t get back sooner. Three days camping - no news, no paper, no computer.
Also, sorry it wasn’t clear what I was doing in post #34. I originally made the comment about those who forward the bogus emails about Obama in post #19. Bundy responded in post #26, misrepresenting my position by claiming that I said anybody who opposed Obama and circulated emails against him was racist.
In post #27, I corrected him, using nearly the same sentence. At the beginning of post 32, Bundy expresses fake incredulity (”So let me get this straight …”), specifically about my comment that people who claim Michelle Obama is unAmerican or hates America are racist. Near the end, he says this:
It is also amazing that Idahoagie can blatantly label McCain supporters racist and stupid.
In post #34, I responded to the first comment about Michelle Obama by repeating my original statement (that would be the third time, if you’re counting). I responded to the second lie about my comment by repeating it again, this time as a quote to show exactly what I had said earlier.
And I was nasty about it. Bundy either cannot read and should not be participating here, or he likes to misrepresent people, even after being corrected. I think he deserves to be treated with disrespect.
I notice that he has not yet apologized for his behavior.
Vote:
0 0 You want me to apologize to you? For what? For questioning your assertion that anyone who questions anything about Obama is racist, or a stupid McCain supporter?
The point is that the New Yorker cover wasn’t even meant as a slap to Obama, yet many of his hyper-sensitive supporters take it that way and pull out the race card when it didn’t need to be taken out of the “deck”. Does anybody else get tired of the race card being pulled in the 10th hour of the campaigns? Both sides do it. It is a old and tired trick.
I am not going to apologize one bit for questioning Obama and pointing out the irony of this situation. If people choose to start disrespecting people because of a disagreement then perhaps it it the Hoagster that should voluntarily decide not to partake here. Exchange of opinion is what this is all about–if you don’t like it too bad–and too bad that people choose to get nasty when there is no reason to.
Now the circle is complete. Hoagie has become just like the other Obama supporters and gotten upset and rude when he/she didn’t have to do so.
This thread, like many before it were good when they stayed on topic and stuck with issues and not so much about the poster(s). I can read, and I am not a liar. I would prefer to debate the merits of the various campaigns with out being called stupid, racist, or a liar. What do y’all think about the irony both here and the New Yorker cover?
Vote:
0 0 I am going to make a lot of people upset with this comment, so Joe E, feel free to take out the content (but mark it as removed by administrator/moderator or some such, please don’t just make it disappear as if it had never existed).
Bundy and Idahogie. You clearly disagree with each other, and you clearly have written several times now to explain how you are right and the other one is wrong. It’s very obvious that at this point, you’re not going to convince the other on this issue. Each of you is asserting that the other is misrepresenting your position, and each of you disagrees that you did so.
Since the point of having a blog is to invite comment, and enjoy discourse, we will inevitably have comments that are diametrically opposed to our own. We then respond, and we debate, and we agree or disagree, still.
To continue to argue about who misrepresented whom becomes “he said/he said” and really adds no more value to the discussion. Neither of you is going to give in on this one, and the rest of the readers are going to get tired of the alpha dog routine. Plus you end up degenerating into attack mode.
I would like both of you to continue to comment and I hope that neither one of you chases the other off. (Plus I hope that I do not chase either of you off.)
I would say “there, off my soapbox” but no such luck for you, I’ve got a little more to write (and this one is getting too long to add it herein).
Vote:
0 0 One sentence in each of the last two comments before mine (#41) makes me want to respond specifically:
#39 Idahogie “I think he deserves to be treated with disrespect.”. …….I disagree with you on this. If you feel he is being a jerk, responding by also being a jerk may feel better to you but does not resolve the issue, and in fact, just puts you there in Jerkville with him, to other readers. Please don’t confuse what I’m saying, here…you have the right to explain why you think he is wrong and you are right. But you really should maintain a respectful position and not sink to his level.
#40 Bundy “Hoagie has become just like the other Obama supporters and gotten upset and rude when he/she didn’t have to do so.” ………If you’re not Cal the Humble Idiot, (see #35) you probably get your news/views from the same source. I am (at this time) an Obama supporter, and I’m not usually upset or rude when I don’t have to be…it’s very argumentative and not conducive to good discussion when you throw out those sweeping generalizations about everyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Now, I’ll come down off my high horse (for a little while). Everyone, have a great day!
Vote:
0 0 Nemesis -
I respectfully disagree with you. I’m not trying to convince Bundy of anything at this point. My first post to him was full of respect (see #21). Since then, he has repeatedly misrepresented my statement. It’s not an argument of opinion, or he said/she said. He is plainly misrepresenting me, repeatedly. The evidence is all there, for anyone to judge:
Me #19: all those people forwarding the “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle Hates America” emails are just looking for cover for their racism.
Bundy #26: Idahoagie labels folks that disagree with Obama and circulate e-mails against him as being racist.
Bundy #32: Idahoagie can blatantly label McCain supporters racist and stupid.
Bundy #40: your assertion that anyone who questions anything about Obama is racist, or a stupid McCain supporter?
I don’t think that people can carry on a civil conversation when somebody is blatantly lying. Bundy has now done it at least three times. I pointed out the first misrepresentation nicely (post #27). The second time, I called it a lie. Now, Bundy is just being a belligerent jerk. If people feel that I’m somehow being rude to point out his misrepresentations of my statement, that somehow, we’re both to blame, then I’m willing to listen.
What would your response be if someone were lying about what you said repeatedly, even after being corrected?
Vote:
0 0 Accusations of racism aside (which may be bordering on mind reading), if republicans are to win the presidential election, they are not going to do it by questioning patriotism and claiming their opponent is is a member of a politically incorrect religion. They are going to have to focus on some things that have more compelling evidence. Otherwise, by the time election day comes, it will be quite moldy.
As the Clintons have recently learned the hard way during their third Presidential nomination campaign, it’s much more difficult to hide contradictory facts now because unedited contradictory footage may pop up on youtube instantly. So since the newscycle time is greatly accelerated over the last time they were involved in such a campaign, they had some difficulty adjusting and fumbled more than their opponent.
There is an old quote “a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” This has been attributed to Mark Twain (which might be a good example of a lie). Regardless, lies may travel at lightening speed now but the truth is also able to put on its shoes much faster.
Vote:
0 0 #44 BluerNote, that was a fabulous comment!
I would add that it seems to take the truth a little longer to put on its shoes when the lie is part of a smear campaign. Thus negative ads or things such as misunderstood satire can have an impact even though the truth is out there…somewhere, getting ready to run.
Vote:
0 0 Idahogie #43, thanks for the respectful comment and question.
I understand that you are upset and believe that your position was misrepresented. That is certainly valid to point out. When he denies it, and goes on to make his case by way of explanation, it seems we now have a difference of opinion about what you meant vs what he meant.
But instead of stopping there, both of you continued to deploy the “I said/You said” comments. However, it’s clear that neither of you are really convincing to the other, and the rest of us are left out here reading all the reruns. (We’ve mostly already made up our minds, too).
As far as me thinking that you were being rude, I was commenting upon your statement that you were being nasty because you felt Bundy deserved to be treated with disrepect.
Regarding your question at the end. If I felt that someone was attacking me and repeatedly misrepresenting what I said even after I attempted a correction, I don’t know if I would have the presence of mind to be civil (I’d like to think I would but who knows, I’m human too).
I’ve been bashed and grown tired of the bashing (and pondered leaving this website several times) in the last 7 months since I started commenting heavily. Each time I think I’ve had enough, things calm down a bit and I decide to stick around.
I try to hold my tongue and modify how I respond to people to try to create safe areas where people can disagree with me without fear of being bashed in return, (but I’m not afraid to indicate when I think things have gone over the line).
I don’t know if that is what has helped but I’ve noticed the derogatory remarks aimed toward me have lessened. I’ve tried to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric in my comments (although someone told me recently that I went too far because I was now too wishy-washy to be taken seriously). I guess they LIKED it when I was upset and fought back.
You know that column about Tim Russert that you felt was less glowing than others but more accurate? I really liked Tim Russert, and I may be more like him in that way, in that I appear to be less critical of “the opposition” in my efforts to prove that I’m open minded and fair. I don’t mean to play favorites in that way, so you’re certainly welcome to call me on it every time you think I’m doing that.
I value your opinion, and I want to be able to read lots and lots of comments (and posts, too!) by you in the future.
Vote:
0 0 And the coronation continues:
Obama has all three major TV network anchors salivating over him in Iraq. McCain’s previous visits to the region went practically unnoticed.
Now, the New York Times refused to publish an op-ed piece written by McCain in response to the Times publishing Obama on 7/14/08 before he departed overseas. The Times gave McCain suggestions on how they would publish his piece if only he would mirror Obama’s piece. “Mirror”, so why don’t they just write the piece for McCain….I mean, why waste the time to submit your own work when it will just get rejected because they don’t like the content.?
While they are not the government and entitled the censor anything they want, it seems to me that in the interest of fairness they should publish his piece as is and not as they (The Times) want it to be. This is just another indication that the media are in the tank for Obama big time and these types of outlets don’t want any criticism of THEIR candidate. This type of censorship is Un-American and should be condemned.
Vote:
0 0 I appreciate your point of view, Nemesis. I guess we’re different people. Like the commenter that you mentioned, I too like reading a sharply argued debate between people of intelligence, and would love to see you skirmish with somebody (hopefully someone more graceful than Bundy). But I can understand why an individual (or a site) might not like that kind of thing.
Again, though, I’m not trying to convince Bundy of anything. I haven’t addressed him since last Thursday, and I won’t unless he corrects his record of misrepresentation. But he still seems to be stubbornly asserting his lie. I don’t expect any reversal.
In fact, he comes off as somebody who has forwarded his share of “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle hates America” emails.
Vote:
0 0 Your Fox news source, being SO fair and balanced, failed to tell you the rest of the story. If you’re truly interested in finding out the REAL story, I urge you to check the same headline on various websites and read what they have to say.
There’s more to this story but since it doesn’t fit the conservative world view it isn’t on your link at that source.
Vote:
0 0 Oh, Idahogie, I’ve marveled at your ability to have that sharply argued debate and maybe one day I will surprise you!
Vote:
0
Vote:
I think it’s sad that political correctness has encroached into every little section of our lives. So what if the attempt at humour offended you, I’m sure it was pretty funny to some. But we’ve become a nation of out of control political correctness where we better not say the slightest thing to offend or hurt somebody elses feelings and I for one think its absurd. There are alot more important things to concern ourselves with than the cover of the New Yorker. This hyper sensitivity over political correctness has gotten way out of hand.
(just my opinion. heaven forbid I offend anyone)