MyDD :: Obama New Yorker Cover

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

Pretend it wasn't The New Yorker. Pretend it was The Weekly Standard. Still funny? Pretend it was the New York Post. How about now?

Now consider that the article referenced by the cover is written by the New Yorker's current Washington correspondent, former correspondent for The New Republic, a man who wrote a scathing article that portrayed Obama as a shameless opportunist in both this article and one he wrote for TNR back in March of last year.

Still feel benign to you?

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

Let's pretend that it is actually a cover of John McCain with his wife Cindy dressed as a preening vapid beauty queen and him dressed as a stereotypical Vietnam war vet taking money from lobbyists and wearing an adult diaper.

Would that be funny? Would it be clever? Would it be acceptable coming from The New Yorker?

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Get a sense of humor (none / 0)

isn't that what you tell us?

by catfish2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get a sense of humor (none / 0)

I have a sense of humor, that isn't funny. But that's to be expected, the only thing ever funny in the New Yorker is the occasional Jack Handey column.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:24:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get a sense of humor (none / 0)

Look, I posted one below of Ahmedinejad and Obama in a Larry Craig-esque pose. THAT is funny, even if it's still offensive. The other thing isn't funny at all, though. It's just stating the premise of the joke without delivering a punchline.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And Bernie Mac's sister, mome are whores (none / 0)

is funny. Heh.

by catfish2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Bernie Mac's sister, mome are whores (none / 0)

It was a funny joke. Not a fresh joke by any means, but an amusing one. We've seen stuff like this for a long, long time. Almost as long as comedy has existed. Vaudeville had the role of the angry, unfaithful wife. Benny Hill was completely built on that sort of thing. Ditto a lot of Monty Python. It doesn't make it right, but it is by no means inordinately offensive. It's just that it happened to be performed at a benefit for someone who a lot of people happen to have a vested interest in portraying as sexist.

Meanwhile, that doesn't change a thing about the cover in question. I saw a beautiful comment at TPMCafe on the subject:

The New Yorker's take-away message is: Unlike the hicks who actually believe this crap, our readers are sophisticated enough to know we are merely engaging in naughtily satirical fun.
At a swoop, the magazine has stereotyped the Obamas, the hicks, and its own elitist readers.
The trifecta.
Satire that is indistinguishable from what it purports to satirize fails as satire.

I can't put it any better than that.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It was not a funny joke, it reinforced stereotypes (none / 0)

just as the cover does.

by catfish2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:29:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh Isn't the (2.00 / 1)

Shocking--from a magazine that's supposedly left of center.

I kmow it's satire--but in very poor taste.

by esconded on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The difference is (2.00 / 1)

that the Weekly Standard would be endorsing the smears, rather than mocking them.

by JJE on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

It's not supposed to be benign, not by any stretch of the imagination. The intent is clearly to provoke a response, with the hope that people will see the forest through the trees. Look at the cartoon carefully. You have Barack dressed as a Muslim, Michelle with a big afro and a large automatic weapon, while the American flag burns in the fireplace and there's a painting of bin laden on the wall.

Can there really be any doubt that TNY is making fun of people who think these things are true? Michelle is a militant black woman who hates America! Barack is a Muslim! They burn the flag for fun! They love bin Laden! Please.

Clearly, they're skewering idiots who believe this kind of crap.

by Denny Crane on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

Well, somehow I doubt those people will mind, because this is exactly like the kind of thing they would create themselves if they had the talent and creativity. I expect to see this in at least a few local businesses down here.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0)

It's disgusting.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know satire is supposed to be edgy, (2.00 / 1)

but I really, really dislike that.

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:23:33 PM EST

Re: I know satire is supposed to be edgy, (none / 0)

I think this one was also meant to be satire (same artist):

I think I'm beginning to understand his definition of edgy.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know satire is supposed to be edgy, (none / 0)

Check his archives.
It would appear he also made a picture of Clinton with a sad face wearing both Mets and Yankees caps that showed up a week before the 2000 election.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, that is not cool... n/t (2.00 / 2)

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that is not cool... n/t (2.00 / 1)

Not cool? Perhaps not. But I'm glad I live in a country where we let people be that crass.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm glad they have the freedom (none / 0)

to do it, but I wish they had the taste to refrain.

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You and me both, my friend (2.00 / 1)

by The Fat Lady Sings on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:01:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i was thinking the... (2.00 / 2)

exact same thing.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

Let's also talk about the article, which is every bit as bitter and negative as you'll find anywhere. The New Yorker wants to be The New Republic, it would seem.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:24:29 PM EST

by elie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you know, i read the article, and while i certainly wouldn't call it complimentary, nothing in it really pissed me off. as someone who used to live in chicago, i found it absolutely fascinating. it really didn't change my support for obama. in fact, it reaffirmed my confidence that obama is an incredibly capable politician and will certainly win this thing. :)

the cover on the other hand, is inexcusable...

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

Perhaps it was just me, but I found that any positive outlook of Obama was eclipsed by the way it tried to directly reinforce the current Republican narrative, that Obama is nothing but a pandering politician who will do anything to reach office.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:11:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That narrative isn't current. (2.00 / 1)

Anyone who has known about Barack for more than just this primary knows that he is a pandering politician willing to do anything to reach office.

by LatinoVoter on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That narrative isn't current. (none / 0)

See, the fact that you buy into it tells me all I need to know. If there was an ounce of objectivity, you wouldn't care.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't feed the PUMA trolls. eom (none / 0)

by Geekesque on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why is it that that so called 'left' (none / 0)

is doing this?

Is the PUMA crowd delighted? And who are they?

Who was spreading rumors about Obama's madrassas schooling? Bob Kerry and 'others' on the left.

This is so offensive.

Perhaps it is time for Barack to come out with a public statement that once and for all disputes this garbage.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes it is inexcusable. It feeds into a stereotype of Obama. I too read the article and thought it was fair. Most here know I don't care for Obama but this is my honest opinion in reference to the cover and article.

the cover on the other hand, is inexcusable...

by soyousay on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

The phony story tomorrow would be Obama trying to kick someone's butt lol not the satire .

by lori on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:25:24 PM EST

trying to sell mags (2.00 / 1)

I hope the New Yorker sees a drop in subscriptions from this stunt.

by highgrade on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:32:45 PM EST

Oh come on, Where's your sense of humor? (2.00 / 3)

by dbrown04 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:35:42 PM EST

What's so humorous about it? n/t (2.00 / 1)

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Irony not your thing, I guess, (2.00 / 1)

by dbrown04 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not just ironic, (2.00 / 2)

it's disturbing and unnecessary. It has too much shock value to be funny.

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by dbrown04 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM EST

Re: Obama New Yorker Cover (2.00 / 2)

The cover is wrong for a lot of reasons.

Maybe its a joke and when you turn the page it will read 'I'm just messin' with you.'

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM EST

Well, it didn't show him with one testicle (none / 0)

If it had I imagine you'd think it was great.

by JJE on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LMAO. Oh Snap! LOL!!! (1.66 / 3)

by LatinoVoter on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it is real (none / 0)

it is in poor taste.

by Coldblue on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:42:10 PM EST

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

My first reaction, when I saw a smaller version, was revulsion. Now that I've had a chance to look at a larger image and study it, I've changed my mind.

It succeeds in being satire only because it includes so many different smears. That makes it obvious that they are spoofing the smears. If it only showed Obama and Michelle fist-bumping in the Oval Office it would have been different. Or, if Obama had been in regular dress and the picture of Osama had been missing.

The biggest problem is that it appears on the cover of an issue that contains an Obama hit piece. I don't know what other articles about Obama might be in this same issue. Is there one debunking the urban myths shown on the cover?

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:49:22 PM EST

by animated on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope, the New Yorker cartoons have always been non sequiters in terms of the content. But see, the problem is that the satire will fly right above the heads of the media and most of the public IMO. As I wrote above, I think the end result will just be a further spreading of the various smears, or maybe just a vague sense that there's something wrong or "un-American" about Obama.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

This came from the same artist in 2000.

Check the date. That's right, October 30. One week before the election. That wasn't meant to be damaging at all, I'm sure.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama New Yorker Cover (2.00 / 1)

October 11, 2004.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, that was the year (none / 0)

the Yankees and Mets were in the World Series. Picking who to root for was a political problem for every NY pol.

by JJE on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, that was the year (none / 0)

OK, then I'm sure we'll see absolutely no unflattering images of Obama or the Democrats in October of this year. It's just a coincidence.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol wut (none / 0)

What point are you trying to make? I just pointed out that the relevant context for that cover undermines the notion that the New Yorker has some cover-illustration policy of hurting Democrats right before elections.

by JJE on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 cover (none / 0)

That cemented Kerry's elitist image. Does the New Yorker really prefer Republican presidents?

I'm just wondering.

by esconded on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I doubt it (none / 0)

Hendrik Hertzberg, for example, is pretty anti-GOP.

The Bush/Kerry cover is worse than the innocuous Clinton one. It looks like this particular cartoonist likes to depict the candidates the way one would picture them if one knew nothing but media soundbite personality stuff.

by JJE on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt it (none / 0)

Still doesn't explain that proudly "look at those crazy muslims" image above. Take a look for yourself, I'm pretty sure I put a link to his available images on that site. See if you see any that redeem him.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:49:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, that was the year (none / 0)

The 'Hillary as Yankee fan' produced tons of lols among Republicans. I'm sure LatinoVoter here thought it was hilarious. It's not a joke that makes any sense in any other context than to smear her as a carpetbagger.

They wouldn't make the joke with Giuliani. It wouldn't make any sense and it wouldn't occur to them.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

okay, but that particular cover (none / 0)

was about the subway series. It wasn't about carpetbaggery. It was just about an NY pol not knowing who to root for.

Also, Giuliani was no longer in the race at that point. It was Lazio and Hillary had it in the bag in October 2000.

by JJE on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, but that particular cover (none / 0)

I know - I'm a New Yorker; I was just tossing out Giuliani's name.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When Hillary (none / 0)

is presented as being a terrorist with a portait of Osama Bin Laden in the oval office, ring my phone.

I like that cover and I think Hillary did too. I remember that week. We were allowed to dress down in my (private) high school in Queens. I didn't know what to do, so I went in wearing a Yankees jersey and a Mets jacket.

Looking at the cover, I say to Hillary "Yeah, I feel your pain."

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When Hillary (none / 0)

Nono, my point is that all the images I posted on this page are from the same artist, and they're only SOME of the ones that you can buy on a T-shirt. I'm saying that this is not an innocent mistake, this is a deliberate attempt to paint Obama with these smears to play into conservatives' sweaty palms. Just like that flattering portrayal of Bush or that pic of Clinton.

Also, maybe it wasn't an issue up there, but down here, I remember thinking that Clinton's problem was that she was being perceived as not a real New Yorker. Wasn't that an issue back then? The idea that she just moved there to run for Senate?

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:46:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When Hillary (none / 0)

Wow. Just found another one. There ARE plenty of Bush, too, but nothing quite like this. Ahmadinejad, and thanks to the current cover, we know exactly who that sandaled foot is supposed to be.

This one is actually kinda funny, but it's still pretty offensive.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:55:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Meh, parody (2.00 / 1)

I don't see what's wrong with making fun of the wingnut smears. It's ham-handed, to be sure, but it's mocking the smears, not endorsing them.

by JJE on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:58:19 PM EST

Fuck it (2.00 / 3)

Let's just make the "white males only" rule explicit, and save everyone a lot of heartache.

I'm ok with people being critical of the man. If the cover depicted a sleazy machine pol, that's opinion. If it depicted a twirling flip-flopper, ok fine, if that's what you believe. Even an undercover Republican, right? Draw him riding an Elephant.

The people at the New Yorker are smart, ad smart people have a myriad of ways to express disapproval. WHY PICK THIS ONE? What I see on this cover, sadly, is that disapproval represented as "they're too black". Pictures of my parents in the 60's would have looked almost exactly like that one (minus the AK-47).

Good thing I'll never run for President, because then I'd have to pretend I've always been proud of America, when right now I am fairly close to tears.

by Neef on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST

Re: Fuck it (none / 0)

Wow, that's not what I got at all. I've been a subscriber for years, and it seems quite clear to me what they point is: "if you view the Obama's this way, you're a fool, and now let us poke this stick in your eye."

They picked this one because they wanted to point out how ridiculous the smears are. I have no idea why you think The New Yorker is suddenly engaging in is some sort of overt racism.

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm getting tired (none / 0)

of parsing "not racism". Not tired in the annoyed sense, just tired. The cover feels like an indictment of people with afros.

I certainly wouldn't start some anti-Imus-like "shut the NYT down" group. But I'm also entitled to how I feel.

by Neef on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm getting tired (none / 0)

Not suggesting you aren't entitled to how you feel. You are, and so I am. I don't agree with your perspective - simple as that. I think the cartoon and it's title "The Politics of Fear", make a strong statement about racism. You don't agree with me, and that's fine. But if you don't want to engage in a discussion, I'd respectfully suggest you might be in the wrong place.

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sometimes (none / 0)

rather than a discussion, you just need a day away from the blogs (which is what I took). I couldn't really have discussed the issue objectively anyway at the time.

I do agree that this is a place for discussion, and that's why I value it. In retrospect my comment was pure venting, and I'd remove it if I could.

by Neef on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:21:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lay off the New Yorker (2.00 / 1)

In no way is it a right-wing rag, it's trying to be funny and satirical; Lizza's article was interesting to say the least and he's not a right-wing tool. I've got the sense that he likes Obama. That article makes Obama out to pretty darn intelligent if you ask me, sufficiently ruthless, and dispels any notion of naivete (notice McCain has dropped that word from his description of Obama?).

by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:06:57 PM EST

Re: Lay off the New Yorker (2.00 / 2)

Intelligent isn't what bothers me, it's that it makes him out to be precisely what the Republicans want everyone to believe that he is. A pandering, lying politician. John McCain, on the other hand.... If Lizza has shown just as much coverage to McCain's NUMEROUS instances of pandering and lying and in just as straightforward a tone, then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he has not, perhaps you should NOT.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing wrong with the cover (1.33 / 3)

It is satire and is making fun of the "smears." And I don't know if that is suppose to be the White House, it could be the Obama mansion for all you and the author of the quotes knows. Surely, anyone who would make a bootleg Presidential seal would surely have a bootleg presidential rug made too.

by LatinoVoter on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:37:44 PM EST

Re: Nothing wrong with the cover (none / 0)

Must you use this an another exucse to bash Obama. Get. A. Life. Support Hillary and follow her great lead. Vote for Obama, or if not, go to your friends at PUMA.

by smgreene on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not your slave (1.50 / 2)

to boss around and tell me what I must do or where I must go.

Maybe you should take your own advice and get a life and not stalk me.

by LatinoVoter on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not your slave (none / 0)

FYI, the type of remark in your signature is all that stands between this cover and a lawsuit or boycott. You've got no room to talk at all.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You recognize the quote, right? (none / 0)

His sig line is a direct quote, except the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

by dbrown04 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You recognize the quote, right? (none / 0)

Yeah - Barack Obama is Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton is Monica Lewinsky. Real Rush Limbaugh shit.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:01:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My sig is a quote from (1.50 / 2)

Barack's spiritual guru of twenty years the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I just changed Bill Clinton to Barack Obama and instead of making it about black people (like Wright did) I made it about the FISA bill.

So if you want to file suit against someone or start a boycott let me know and I'll Google map you to Obama's church or the good Reverend's mansion in Tinly Park, IL.

by LatinoVoter on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My sig is a quote from (none / 0)

Yeah. Um. Changing the subject and the direct object in a sentence in no way changes it substantial meaning....

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My sig is a quote from (none / 0)

Wasn't right when Wright said it, but it's doubly wrong when you say it, because you have not chosen it as a throwaway line to get applause, you have made it your signature. And done it in a way to showcase your "I'm too cool for racism" racism. Bravo.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice double standard. (1.00 / 1)

When Wright said it it was a throwaway line. When I use it it isn't a throwaway line but an example of my racism.

Using your logic then Wright is racist and so is Barack because the only people who are friends with and use racists as a moral compass is another racist.

BTW if such negativity can be inferred about the quote why do you figure Barack never stood up and condemned it? Why was there no apology to the Clintons for being victimized by Wright's racist rant against Bill Clinton on Christmas day of '07.

by LatinoVoter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I apologize to the Clintons (none / 0)

for anything Jeremiah Wright ever said. Does that make you happy? Now, I demand you apologize to Barack Obama for when James Carville said he had one testicle.

by JJE on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice double standard. (none / 0)

That isn't my logic at all.

My logic is that Wright used it as a reference in front of an urban, mostly black, Chicago audience. He's well known for using popular culture references, so to use the phrase Ridin' Dirty would have been a big laugh line.

You are using it ironically to deliberately reference the song because it is an example of the kind of phrase from African-American culture that I can only presume makes you chortle. And it's especially offensive because that terrible black minister used it when talking about the Clintons. You are using it because you want to be a racist douchebag, but you know we'd get offended if you really said what you meant, and you know we'd be right. So instead, you use a phrase like that to "confront us with it" and that way, hopefully, make you not seem like such an ignorant fool when you say it.

That being said, if you ARE Latino, you should contact John McCain. They've been looking for Latinos who really and truly wonp't vote Obama because he's black.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:40:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LMAO. (1.00 / 1)

Never seen someone reach for so many straws in such few words.

by LatinoVoter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LMAO. (none / 0)

Yeah, I was exhausted last night.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not a stalker (none / 0)

But, I do find the slave reference offensive since I am a black female who has recently traced my ancestors. Also, I have never written to you or about you before.

by smgreene on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:49:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing wrong with the cover (none / 0)

Don't feed the trolls. Particularly this one - running around with a sig that's supposed to be about Hillary and Barack having oral sex?

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing wrong with the cover (none / 0)

But they're so cute, the way they waddle over to you and quack away at each other...

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by ottovbvs on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:51:04 PM EST

I take the New Yorker, have for forty years, it's one of my favorite mags. Haven't read Lizza's article yet but disabuse yourself of the idea he's neutral. He's not. He was dumping on Clinton during the primaries. I'll have to see if he's now dumping on Clinton. The cover is inflammatory although it was almost certainly meant as satire.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

Those saying it's satire are correct. The problem, the subjects of the satire won't even realize that fact.

You can be sure that cover will be up at all the typical Obama hate sites, front page stuff, saying "see finally someone else sees!"

The sad part is they won't even realize the point the artist, the ridiculous nature of their multitude of claims against Obama.

The problem with satire it requires people pay attention or be smart enough to realize the point being made.

I haven't gone to noquarter or hillaryis44 yet this evening, but am highly confident they won't even get the fact that the joke is on them.

by nextgen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:57:19 PM EST