New Yorker Cover pisses off Obama camp

[Dirt McGirt]

Bush Lover is a troll, ignore him, most of us do.

Does anyone see the brilliant irony of Bush Lover's post in this thread?

Pure genius and fucking hilarious.

 

[Skull Pilot]

leave it to the knee jerk libbys to not see that this is actually a pro BHO piece

 

[jillian]

Thats exactly the attitude many of those upper crusty New York old money
racists have towards Blacks and many minorities, tasteless and offensive.

That is the magazine they all read isn't it "The New Yorker".
What did we expect.?!.

Stereotype much?

I thought all people in Jew York City were minority loving liberals... ah well. ;oS

 

[Ravi]

[youtube]176628[/youtube]

 

[Diuretic]

leave it to the knee jerk libbys to not see that this is actually a pro BHO piece

Apparently the article took him apart somewhat.

 

[Anguille]

Apparently the article took him apart somewhat.

But his reaction does give him the opportunity to distance himself from liberals and intellectuals and, who knows, that may make him more attractive to those gun toting people In Pennsylvania he insulted last year.

 

[manifold]

But his reaction does give him the opportunity to distance himself from liberals and intellectuals and, who knows, that may make him more attractive to those gun toting people In Pennsylvania he insulted last year.

Assuming they're not still bitter.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

People calling it "satire" haven't read the accompanying article - which is very good BTW - and it's about as close to a hatchet job against a lefty as you'll see in The New Yorker. Ryan Lizza shows conclusively that Obama is just another career politician with no core beliefs, and will adopt whatever position is the most politically expedient.

The Political Scene: Making It: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Be sure to check the audio on the top left as well.

I have to admit that I was follwing the satirical cover and hadn't read the piece. I checked out the link after you posted it. I definitely see what you're saying. I could see a gullible libtard who painted Obama as an honest, well-to-do politician being upended by the article and seeing it as a hatchet job. One might even see it as a retaliatory, hit-piece for Hillary.

Personally, I'm a bit more realistic about politicians and wasn't shocked by the content. I understand that pandering and catering to special interests are all part of politics. It won't change my vote since I'm only voting based on one issue this fall.

But Obama supporters do need to check it out and read it. Nice link, ninja.

 

[Ravi]

I read it too and got the impression The New Yorker was pandering to somewhat rational conservatives, making Obama look admirable for running a well crafted campaign -- an admirable trait for a leader.

 

[Chris]

Great publicity stunt for the New Yorker.

Brilliant!

 

[Ninja]

This gentleman gets it. Well, everything except for the satire deal:

To the Editor:

I am a black man and a Democrat, and I thought the New Yorker cartoon was very funny. It was not racist; rather, it was great satire. More important, I thought it was brave. The New Yorker must have known that legions of unamused Obama supporters would go crazy as they did during the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s recent whispers.

As Democrats, we have become so afraid of losing this election that we’re afraid to hold Barack Obama accountable for changing directions or criticize him at all. The campaign has thus become a disturbing cult of personality, and a minefield of booby traps for black leaders, old white guys, anyone who strays off message and now any voice of satire or wit.

With luck, this cover will finally start a discussion about the dangers of unequivocal support for one person, and the abdication of principles in the face of fear of losing votes.

Rich Harris
Brooklyn, July 15, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/lweb16obama.html

A pre-emptive "fuck off" to anyone who brings up Bush - never voted for him, never unequivocally supported him. I can freely criticize the Obamabots for their refusal to hold Obama accountable on one single issue.

To quote the brilliant Christopher Hitchens - "i have no political allegiances - party dogma makes people stupid."

 

[Dirt McGirt]

This gentleman gets it. Well, everything except for the satire deal:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/lweb16obama.html

A pre-emptive "fuck off" to anyone who brings up Bush - never voted for him, never unequivocally supported him. I can freely criticize the Obamabots for their refusal to hold Obama accountable on one single issue.

To quote the brilliant Christopher Hitchens - "i have no political allegiances - party dogma makes people stupid."

Two things:


First, Ricky Harris is probably William Joyce pretending to be a black man to give the New Yorker article some support....

Second, Hitchens was drunk off his ass when he said that....

 

[Ninja]

Two things:


First, Ricky Harris is probably William Joyce pretending to be a black man to give the New Yorker article some support....

Second, Hitchens was drunk off his ass when he said that....

johnny walker black ftw

 

[jillian]

This gentleman gets it. Well, everything except for the satire deal:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/lweb16obama.html

A pre-emptive "fuck off" to anyone who brings up Bush - never voted for him, never unequivocally supported him. I can freely criticize the Obamabots for their refusal to hold Obama accountable on one single issue.

To quote the brilliant Christopher Hitchens - "i have no political allegiances - party dogma makes people stupid."

Oh.. I have a problem with his support of FISA's immunity provisions.

But he's still head and shoulders better than McCain.

 

[Charles_Main]

Oh.. I have a problem with his support of FISA's immunity provisions.

But he's still head and shoulders better than McCain.

What should trouble you more than his support for it, is the fact that he first called it illegal and then unconstitutional, and then voted for it. If he can make a swing like that, how can you trust anything he says.

 

[jillian]

What should trouble you more than his support for it, is the fact that he first called it illegal and then unconstitutional, and then voted for it. If he can make a swing like that, how can you trust anything he says.

I also can't trust the guy who called the religious right "agents of intolerance" and supported reproductive choice and who now talks about having to "respect the rights of the unborn" and who hates judicial review when it says that the legislature can't divest the court of habeas corpus review but loves it when it says that the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional.

It's a function of priorities.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes yes, how horrid of him to want to respect the rights of the unborn. Don't get me wrong, I support a womans right to an abortion, just not over and over and over, and only with in a reasonable time frame(first tri-mester), But I want some controls on it. My opinions on abortion changed a bit when I saw my first child's altra sound.

Though I do have a hard time faulting people who think it is a sin, and an abomination and all. Me I tend to agree it is wrong, but I am willing to compromise on the Issue. To bad it seems the far lefties at least are not. They want un restricted access to abortions, some even up to the moment of birth. Horrible if you ask me, but to each his own I guess.

That said though, I do not deny McCain changed his position on it.

I guess we just have different priorities, You want a president who supports un restricted access to abortions, and I want a president who does not call things illegal and unconstitutional and then Vote for them.

 

[manifold]

Check this out. It's damn good.

Art Fag City The Daily Show on The New Yorker Cover

The best part is when he rips on the Obama response (about ~3 minutes in) and then the media for being hypocritical douchebags.

 

[Diuretic]

Brilliant stuff - thank you for the link.