PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
adamsappel
Member
Those of you who are pissed off about the New Yorker cover are only angry because it mocks your candidate. Do you feel betrayed because it's from a liberal magazine? I'm reminded of that recent TDS where one of Jon's Obama jokes fell flat and he said to the audience, "Not so funny when it's your guy?" I think Colbert's brand of satire mostly flies under the radar and many don't even understand he's mocking them.
Where was the outrage over these covers?
Oh, hey, lookie here. I wonder who's the bottom?
Obama should have "brushed it off." You can say you understand the joke, but didn't think it was funny or necessary, and convey the same message as all the faux outrage press releases. They're only encouraging the story, as well as the inevitable imitations.
Where was the outrage over these covers?
Oh, hey, lookie here. I wonder who's the bottom?
Obama should have "brushed it off." You can say you understand the joke, but didn't think it was funny or necessary, and convey the same message as all the faux outrage press releases. They're only encouraging the story, as well as the inevitable imitations.
The Chosen One
Member
I could see the uproar over the New Yorker cover a mile away, especially when the Obama campaign denounced it so harshly. I know the Obama campaign is worried about any hint of Swift Boating but at the same time they need to grow a thicker skin. Frankly i'm getting tired of hearing Obama constantly having to denounce or express his outrage at something the least bit controversial. Wesley Clark, Bernie Mac, NY cover, and the list goes on.
Btw, +1 for Johnathon Alter FINALLY shaving off the pubs on his dome! :lol Long overdue.
EDIT: I agree with the post above me 100%.
Btw, +1 for Johnathon Alter FINALLY shaving off the pubs on his dome! :lol Long overdue.
EDIT: I agree with the post above me 100%.
I'm neither pissed nor offended. I just think it's stupid, unfunny and lacking insight. In fact, that same description would be apt for the other New Yorker cover you just posted. Actually, that one might even be worse since it comes out of absolutely nowhere.adamsappel said:
Of course, I'd also compare even the best New Yorker cartoons to an average Family Circus strip. These guys try to be soooo clever that they go full circle and are never clever at all.
worldrunover
Member
Dan said:
This. Also, the fact that any little slight against Obama is blown up in the MSM because he's a black candidate and they don't want to seem racist, which in itself is racist. He is being vetted COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY because of his color, and this cover is more proof that his candidacy is under a greater microscope than most others in recent history.
polyh3dron
Banned
.maynerd said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The Chosen One said:
Harshly my fucking ass. They denounced it and moved on. Obama today himself didn't even say anything about it.
The Chosen One
Member
mckmas8808 said:
Quote the statement released by the Obama spokesman earlier today and tell me that's not a harsh response.
The way Obama personally responded to it should have been the first and only response to the cover. The reason the story is running as wild as it is is because of the original statement released by the Obama campaign and their complaints about it on background with reporters.
WickedAngel
Banned
adamsappel said:
Several things.
1. None of those are nearly as offensive (Not because of the picture, but because most of them are commentaries on the realities of his actions).
2. None of those involve his family.
3. As far as I can tell, all of those are responses to the many, many blunders that have taken place since he came into office.
4. None of those completely misrepresents Bush; the Saddam imagery is questionable but even it is true, considering Bush is the defacto ruler of Iraq right now.
You're really stretching. You have four blatant misrepresentations of everything Obama stands for before the election has even occurred and they've brought his family into this. It wouldn't be any more appropriate to have a caricature picture of McCain in a nursing home looking disheveled, confused, and having his soiled body cleaned by Cindy.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
adamsappel said:
As has been said, Laura Bush is in none of those. You're reaching.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Got to love Hannity and Fox News saying the New Yorker cover went over the line
:lol
:lol
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The Chosen One said:
Again straight bullshit. The cover in of itself is controversial. And like Tamon said most people on TV AREN'T talking about Obama's campaign denouncement.
The image itself was going to make the news rounds today be itself.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
WickedAngel said:
Are they any BS lies going around about John and Cindy McCain?
User 10639
Member
Maybe they actually get that it's parodying them?Karma Kramer said:
User 10639
Member
Oh god man, I'm so sorry.Chichikov said:
I didn't even realize the enormity of what I was implying there. ;_;
adamsappel
Member
Oh, wait, you all are mad about the way Michelle is being portrayed? She is an advocate for her husband, commentary on her is not out of bounds. The "rumors" about her are that she hates America and Whitey. Re-imagining her as a Black Pantheresque revolutionary is a worthy parody of that. Personally, I've always hated most New Yorker covers. I just plain don't like that art style. If the recent cover were a photoshop I could see the offense. It's clearly satirical, and you may not find it funny, but offensive? Doesn't cross that line to me.BenjaminBirdie said:
Disregard all the "Bush is Stupid" covers I posted. Is this one not on the same level? Bush and Cheney disapprove of homosexuality, yet they are being portrayed as gay icons. And Cheney just shot somebody to boot! Does it offend anybody here?
Well, it's illustrating the false beliefs and fears about him. It certainly isn't mocking the people who believe them.Hitokage said:
Anybody read Rolling Stone? Every "National Affairs" article usually has a far more mean-spirited illustration. I've seen some pretty vicious editorial cartoons. I still think this hurts you all more because it's against Obama and it's been belabored by a mainstream media that courts controversy over substantive discussion.
FitzOfRage
Member
adamsappel said:
According to the New Yorker, that's exactly what they were going for.
FitzOfRage
Member
I think it's poorly executed. Because if you were going to make an illustration for something like an Obama smear e-mail, what would you change about that? It's good to go as is.
Their excuse is that they took these misconceptions to a ridiculpous extreme, but the problem I think is that the misconceptions start at a ridiculous extreme, so it comes off as pretty indistinguishable from the actual slanders.
Raising the other covers kind of shows the problem. Those covers were meant to insult Bush. As long as you accept the premise that they are out to insult the Obamas (which would be to further the stereotypes), they are pretty comparable to the Bush covers (I don't think they were trying to dispel the idea that Cheney shoots people in the face there).
But in this case, they say they're insulting the people insulting the Obamas, not the Obamas, and I think it falls flat.
Their excuse is that they took these misconceptions to a ridiculpous extreme, but the problem I think is that the misconceptions start at a ridiculous extreme, so it comes off as pretty indistinguishable from the actual slanders.
Raising the other covers kind of shows the problem. Those covers were meant to insult Bush. As long as you accept the premise that they are out to insult the Obamas (which would be to further the stereotypes), they are pretty comparable to the Bush covers (I don't think they were trying to dispel the idea that Cheney shoots people in the face there).
But in this case, they say they're insulting the people insulting the Obamas, not the Obamas, and I think it falls flat.
Synth_floyd
Banned
It's good satire. I don't get what the problem is. It's making fun of all the ignorant smears by gathering them together and showing them for how stupid they are. Almost every night on The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert jokingly refers to Obama as a "secret muslim" and he always gets laughs for it. How is this any different?
The Chosen One
Member
Exactly. Basically the NY cover puts all the smears in one space collectively. When you step back and look at all the smear attacks as a whole, you can see how ridiculous and over-the-top they are. That's what I thought the cover was trying to convey. Again, you may not find it funny, but I don't see how anyone could think the cover was offensive or had malicious intent unless they have a limited intellectual capacity or get hyper-sensitive to any perceived criticism of Obama.
The New Yorker isn't running Obama's campaign. It's not their responsibility to make sure their cover adherer's to the lowest common dominator just so Obama doesn't lose votes in rural Ohio.
The New Yorker isn't running Obama's campaign. It's not their responsibility to make sure their cover adherer's to the lowest common dominator just so Obama doesn't lose votes in rural Ohio.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
adamsappel said:
I thought we were talking about the Obama camp's reaction. I don't care either way, although it's amusing to watch the MSM opine that there should have been an article about it in the magazine itself.
For the first time in the like billion years of The New Yorker being published.
worldrunover
Member
The Chosen One said:
No. This whole thing reminds me of the Golf Magazine cover with the noose on it. That was retarded, over-reach for attention and shameless self-promotion of how "edgy" the editor can be, and this is no different. That one bit the editor in the ass, and I hope this does too. Not for being offensive, but for being a stupid attention whore.
maximum360
Member
Incognito said:
Scarbs is no longer a Right Wing Nut, shill maybe, but not a crazy conservative. Joe's problem is that he can't accept that anyone may have an opinion different than his own. BTW, Mika got all indignant about people emailing her regarding her comments about Obama's many flip-flops. She made sure to frame the conversation so that it would seem that the "left wing nuts" were more adamant about protecting Obama's image than I'm sure what many really want, fairness in reporting. Since McCain graduated summa cum laude from flip-flop university, you'd think she might mention that too.
The Chosen One
Member
tanod said:
Are you really that dense? You don't plaster a big red sticker on satire that spells out the joke/point for dummies. In order to understand the irony or sarcasm of satire, it requires the reader to be at least little bit knowledgeable of the situation and have a decent head on their shoulders.
The cover isn't trying to mock the people who spread lies. The cover is mocking the smears itself that are spreading about Obama. It doesn't mock Obama (or Michelle for that matter) personally. I don't understand how it can be interpreted any other way by any reasonably intelligent person who doesn't have blinders on.
The Chosen One
Member
maximum360 said:
Mika was clearly in the tank for Obama during the primary season, so now she's over-compensating by making a big deal on non-issues about Obama. I stopped watching Morning Joe a couple of weeks ago because like you said the hosts seem incapable of doing fair reporting. Every morning they always seem to have a way they want to spin something. It doesn't matter if their guests bring up good counter-points, if it doesn't fit their daily narrative they'll just talk right through it.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
scorcho said:
There's a definite correlation between the last 8 years of pure shittyness this country has gone through and the feeling of not letting an Obama presidency slip away.
We are all starved pit bulls ferociously guarding the only scrap left to us.
The Chosen One
Member
Also from the above article:
The Chosen One
Member
Hitokage said:
oops, yeah I didn't mean to say funny. I meant to say to understand the point it was trying to convey.
polyh3dron
Banned
OFFSHORE DRILLING CAN'T SAVE US BUSH, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
polyh3dron
Banned
BTW I haven't read much of the PoliGAF thread lately, but IMO this New Yorker cover is going to help Obama in the long run. It's going to force the media to put every single misconception that our low-information voters have of Obama right into the forefront and under a microscope where they'll be easily debunked.
With our president up on TV right now acting like a fucking idiot saying that we've got continued economic growth even with our issues while there is a Dow Jones ticker on the screen with a consistently falling price that's around 10860 :O I don't think Obama is going to have a problem in the election.
Oh and Bush: So we're going to be using battery technologies in our cars soon huh? WHY THE FUCK DID YOU KILL THE ELECTRIC CAR THEN? The GM EV1 says hi.
With our president up on TV right now acting like a fucking idiot saying that we've got continued economic growth even with our issues while there is a Dow Jones ticker on the screen with a consistently falling price that's around 10860 :O I don't think Obama is going to have a problem in the election.
Oh and Bush: So we're going to be using battery technologies in our cars soon huh? WHY THE FUCK DID YOU KILL THE ELECTRIC CAR THEN? The GM EV1 says hi.
The cover while controversial, did it's damn job!
Personally I think it's poking fun at the ridiculous fear-mongering the right has been throwing at Obama (terrorist fist jab- oh god people are stupid). At the same time it could have been handled A LOT better so it wouldn't come off so offensive.
Personally I think it's poking fun at the ridiculous fear-mongering the right has been throwing at Obama (terrorist fist jab- oh god people are stupid). At the same time it could have been handled A LOT better so it wouldn't come off so offensive.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked