http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/....html

Someone had to realize how badly this would look and how it would come off to the less educated crowds who would take this and run with it.

Liberals are just mean people

Somehow, I am sure we will see this up through election day.

What the [freak] are you talking about?

My point was that they really shouldn't have tried to come up with a creative cover to make light of the idiotic ways Obama and his wife are being portrayed (if that's what they were trying to do) considering that some of the brain dead mouth breathers in this country will start to buy into what the cartoon is portraying and it will only fuel the fire.

It's a satire. It's completely valid. Where's the problem?

Can we PLEASE stop sticking up for the stupids please? If they can't keep up, leave them behind, it is the way nature works.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

He needs some of those stupids to vote for him in the fall so he has to stick up for them.

myspace.com/nicknelson

If they'd burried the satire in a typical New Yorker article, the stupids would have never noticed because they would have stopped reading after the third word they didn't understand (i.e., two sentences in). Personally, I would not be surprised to find out this is part of Hillary's Revenge (a/k/a the Vast Hillary Conspiaracy to have Obama lose to McCain so she can run in 2012).

Whatever- OBAMA AND HIS WIFE ARE OFFENDED BY IT (the cover). I guess you just don't get it.

Those who read New Yorker will of course read the article in its entirety. Others don't care.

I'll do my part...

Modified by hu at 12:22 PM 7/15/2008

http://brasil.indymedia.org/im...2.jpg

Quote, originally posted by Knightsport »

I got it. It's a satire. It's completely valid. Where's the problem? Can we PLEASE stop sticking up for the stupids please? If they can't keep up, leave them behind, it is the way nature works.

I get that it is satire, but unfortunately something like 20% of the voting public is actually stupid enough to think that he is a Muslim, and this cover just reinforces all of the worst stuff that comes out of the right-wing misinformation and smear campaigns against him. Maybe next month their cover can be "satire" of John McCain's POW experience and have him on all fours in a gimp outfit with a ball-gag, and have Cindy McCain standing over him in some dominatrix wear brandishing a whip. Not that there is a grain of truth to the notion that she "dominates" him, of course.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

RonPaul2008!!!

Haha, what is your part? Making sure that cover is reinforced in everyones minds?

Oddly enough on NPR they have talked about this on two shows, and both simply talked about the satire of it and, imo, understood the point the New Yorker was making. Both of the shows that initially talked about it only made a reference to it while talking about larger issues. It's sad that they will now probably have to make a show about this cover and discuss something that should be blatantly obvious. /sigh

The fact that Obama's team is upset just shows that they are actually worried about this being an image rallied to by many on the right. Again... /sigh

All of those people couldn't be anymore wrong. here what i think

My reactions different.

First you have to understand that The New Yorker is a very left-liberal spoken magazine. They're not conservative in stating their opinion and they don't promote the status quo This sentiment is shared by a lot of liberal minds (perhaps why the artist best fit for the job was a Canadian?).

Second, New Yorker has a very niche audience, whom also tend to sway to the left-centre, and because of that, it's not a mainstream magazine made available to the whole US population. It's safe to say that majority of Americans, especially in the central and southern states are not regular readers. these people have more conservative take on politics and religion.

Having said that, a vast majority of people whom find this offensive and tasteless are not regular readers. they are not exposed to the magazines unconventional takes on various subject on a monthly basis.

The New Yorker doesn't include any piece inside explaining the cover, which goes to show how seriously they treated this as a satirical depiction. But here is the kicker, im quoting the official release

Quote, originally posted by published on the nytimes »

In a statement, the magazine said the cover combines ''fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.'' ''The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another,'' it said. Delete

I agree with the statement completely, but i understand the outrage as well. Most people are so drawn to this guy and his politics that they forget they can still laugh at him. But on the other hand the magazine is exposing the brutal hypocrisy of the republican side. All the fantasy imagery in the cover were at one point or another provoked and propogated by the Conservative Republicans, but conveniently so they joined hands with the Democrats to voice their distaste in the cover.

hahahah Isn't that hilarious? If anything i think this magazine cover will play in favor of Obama come November and not against him, as so many people think it will.

(damn that was long.. k back to work)

p.s. at the risk of sounding discriminatory, i think only smart people will find the real meaning of this cover. unfortunately majority of America isn't smart enough to read between the lines, and because of this, i agree with Michael Bloombergs message that this humor can be dangerous. its only dangerous when regular Joe's take it for face value and read nothing into it and make a decision base don that. (how sad)

Obama understands this, he's been smart enough to dismiss and not mention it again.

Modified by .faramarz at 4:25 PM 7/15/2008

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/1092/haicq3.jpg

I don't think the point of the cover is to laugh at Obama as much as the right for the ridiculous things they come up with.

myspace.com/nicknelson

They all probably thought the New Yorker was some kind of sandwhich before this happened.

I actually want to know who broke this story first. Who grabbed a hold of this and said, "sensationalism JACKPOT!"

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

Obama: Magazine insulted Muslim Americans
He rips New Yorker cover, blames himself for not combating rumors earlier
The Associated Press
updated 6:24 a.m. ET, Wed., July. 16, 2008
CHICAGO - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday that the New Yorker magazine's satirical cover depicting him and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals doesn't bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.

"You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things," the presidential candidate told CNN's Larry King. "And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about."
Obama blamed himself for not being forceful enough in challenging some of the rumors about him, including that he is Muslim. Obama is Christian.

The son of a Kenyan father, Obama lived in the largely Muslim nation of Indonesia as a child. He dealt with similar questions in February after a photo surfaced of him wearing traditional Kenyan clothing during a visit to Africa in 2006.

The cover of the magazine, which hit newsstands Monday, depicts Obama in traditional Muslim clothing — sandals, robe and turban — while his wife, Michelle, has an assault rifle slung over one shoulder and is dressed in camouflage and combat boots with her hair in an Afro. A flag burns in a fireplace behind them as they bump fists, and a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs above the mantel.

New Yorker Editor David Remnick told the Huffington Post Web site the cover was chosen because it had something to say.

‘Tasteless and offensive’
When first asked about it on Sunday, Obama declined comment. His spokesman, Bill Burton, said it was "tasteless and offensive."

Obama said he's developed "a pretty thick skin" running for president and has "seen and heard worse."

"I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead," he said. "But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And as I said, ultimately, it's a cartoon, it's not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25698555

i hate the fact that muslim is the opposite name for terrorism, in this country.

If 9/11 didn't happen, it wouldnt matter at all.

On the other hand you have what is known as the extra constitutional amendmends to being president.

Because many Americans are scared of Muslims.

pretty much because school systems are heavily basis on what they teach and the media does such a shitty job presenting the facts, because they are only looking for ratings and entertainment.

look at what kids were taught when the cold war was going on. all communism is bad; when the fact of the matter was there was no communism it was majority totaliernism not communism. today communism still isnt really taught in schools and when it is, its considered a bad form of government because everyone is equal and it doesnt make money like free market societies.

today Islam is not really taught in school either and when it is, it's because SOME teachers think its worth educating their students on the subject. for some reason most people relate Islam to killing people.

what if the Jews or Hindus or Scientologist commited 9/11 ? how would you feel then, and dont answer with the " well they didnt so it doesnt matter," response.

Quote, originally posted by xiaogou »

If 9/11 didn't happen, it wouldnt matter at all. On the other hand you have what is known as the extra constitutional amendmends to being president.

thats not true americans viewed muslims badly BEFORE 9/11 happen. i would venture to it has something to do with D.S. and Bush Sr.

I agree totally. Actually in high school before 9/11, around ten or twelve years ago, I remember being pretty frightened at the prospect of a committed group of people who would blow themselves up to punish us for being an open society. But as I got older, I learned the other half of the story.

Muslims are indeed viewed poorly in the US, and it's not entirely an accident. But much of it is just fear and ignorance. Americans are afraid of a minority that doesn't want to suck up to us all the time. We're afraid of a minority that is associated with draconian systems like Sharia or Wahhabism. And we're afraid of a group of people that make us feel soft and weak. We would prefer not to feel this way, so we feel a sense of relief when we see a group of them get wasted by a US gunship, even though it was just a wedding party.