Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Surprise...The New Yorker Cover Snafu is Just Another Obama Silver Lining

Well, as the old saying goes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s no longer funny.

There’s another well known axiom to humor. Tragedy plus time equals comedy.

Obviously, when it comes to the New Yorker’s latest cover featuring the Obamas as closet Al-Qaeda members and/or Black Panther era terrorists, an insufficient amount of time has passed between that elusive “now” and the whisper campaign that is ongoing against them. As to tragedy, the only tragedy in this episode seems to be the way in which the New Yorker has turned a subject matter that hungers for serious political discussion into a mangled, tone deaf and insensible gaffe.

To that point, another axiom of humor. It has to be based in fact. But Michelle Obama has never been seen sporting an Angela Davis style afro, or packing a Kalashnikov. And there are no long lost pictures of Barack wearing a Thaqib on secret weekend outings, never mind the Osama bin Laden portrait and the flag burning in the fireplace. Okay, there was that one picture of Barack adopting local Muslim attire as a courtesy to his African guests, but come on, that’s like mistaking George Bush for a member of the Kankouran West African dance troupe. There’s just no basis in fact for either assumption.

And when it comes to humor hitting the mark, or falling flat, let’s not forget another maxim. Play to your audience. You don’t start your standup routine at a Borscht Belt, Catskill summer retreat by saying, “And speaking of Jews…”

At every level of humor this satire failed. Not enough time has passed, nor cultural equanimity achieved, since the bruising Democratic primary campaign. There was no basis in fact for the joke, only cynicism and innuendo, and the New Yorker made the incredibly preposterous assumption that they were only appealing to their hip, chai chugging West Side audience. That, or it was an attempt at ramping up their circulation. I don’t know which conclusion would be considered the more disgraceful.

Yet, I still see the silver lining. As with the already well vetted attempts by some to portray Barack Obama as just another Jesse Jackson extremist, and the more recent and insidious Fox News attempt to portray the infamous fist bump as some sort of secret terrorist cipher. Barack Obama has survived, and I dare say even thrived under difficult circumstances.

Why? Well, in my opinion it is because, however unsavory these episodes may be, they force our society to face its inner struggle about electing a “black” candidate. The truth is on the table, and the public must fall one way or the other. Either you’re an unrelenting redneck, who will never vote for Obama anyway, or you watch the grace of the man under fire and realize none of this tripe warrants him being discredited. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans fall into this latter category. Remarkably, resiliently, the public at large has seen through this current absurdity, as it has seen through everything else thrown at the man. And Obama simply becomes a more sympathetic character, the more he strides with grace through the political minefield around him.


Comments (12)

avatar

"Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans fall into this latter category. Remarkably, resiliently, the public at large has seen through this current absurdity, as it has seen through everything else thrown at the man."

Well it sounds nice, I'd love to know you were right, but where's your evidence for this conclusion?

Perhaps it's not conclusive enough for some, but as a start, it was Democratic Americans who saw through it enough to choose him as their nominee, Manuchurian Muslim candidate madness and all.

Fair enough, Fran. Maybe I got a little carried away in the heat of the moment (isn't that fun to do?) but the latest Quinnipiac poll http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1192&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0, taken between July 8-13 shows Obama leading nationally by nine points. It may not have factored in this latest snafu, but Obama has weathered enough of such negative press and misinformation about him to warrant optimism, I think. I certainly feel that way. I'm duly impressed at how Obama flourishes amidst difficulty. He's one cool cookie, as they used to say. By the way, I'm working on a more historical blog, which goes to that issue, and hopefully you'll come to give me your views on that, as well.

Peace,
Gary

avatar

I do appreciate your post and welcome your insight.

Hopefully, you are right and Obama will reap some benefit from the NewYorker's example of lack of good judgment.

I do believe he is handling it with grace and integrity.

(Will be interesting to see how NEWYORKER responds to public outcry.)

Well, I hadn't thought about the silver lining but ... now that you mention it. I don't have a TV so I don't know how the MSM has been handling the issue but if they are talking about it and saying "oh this is horriable bad thing to portray Obama and his wife like this because it just isn't true" that could be a good thing for Obama. And it does seem that he has fared very well when bs gets slung his way.
I am the last person in the whole US to get my issue of the New Yorker so I haven't seen it yet except online pics. I have seen some pertty negative covers about Cheney (the holloween one was outrageous(ly funny)) and Bush. I think maybe somewhat over the top but nothing that Obama can't handle.

Great post. I look forward to reading more from this writer.

I hadn't really looked at it this way, but I have to agree. It's really the only explanation that makes sense given how well he is doing versus the huge hurdles he had to overcome. Even some of the small "scandals" would have killed a lesser candidate's chances.

So I can buy the Obama campaign as almost a national catharsis as we look at race and class and where we have come as a society these last 40 years. The last time we had such a conversation it involved riots and teargas and burned out inner city business districts. The "system" clamped down ever harder as a response.

This time it is system changing instead. Perhaps we have grown up a little after all.

avatar

I think it will have no effect. The only ones who might conceivably believe it in any way reflects reality are those who are committed to voting against Obama.

AOBTW I thought it was funny.

avatar

We will not know if Obama has survived or weathered these vicious racial attacks until he is sworn into office on Jan 21, 2009.

So, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Obama has not even made it out of the Denver convention yet.

avatar

Lets not confuse Obama's adept use of the New Yorker as actual bad behavior on the New Yorker's part. First of all, the cover wasn't supposed to be a knee-slapping "ha-ha" approach at humor. It was supposed to be an over the top caricature of the hatchet job campaigns that have been aimed at Obama. To think that most New Yorker readers wouldn't get the joke, seems a little laughable. What's impressive to me is that Obama's campaign is using the issue to deftly drive that same point home to the chunk of the electorate that neiher reads the New Yorker and potentially doesn't immediately get the satire. By being offended, he pushes these over the top characterizations into the limelite in a way that highlights their absurdity. And since he does it by bashing what is essentially a friendly publication, he doesn't draw the discussion into a polarized liberal-conservative shouting match. Thats smart on his part - it doesn't make the New Yorker actually wrong on the defense of their satire.

...and the episode forced John McCain to publicly state that portrayals of the Obamas in such a manner can be offensive, further making him look like an ass for having such tripe promulgated on his behalf by Fox News and the RW echo chamber.

And on yet another level, it shows the inability of the RW to 'get' satire. Satire isn't always funny, but it almost always delivers an important message.

avatar

This is a shrewd observation, though how calculated it was is not so clear. I think the Obama campaing responded as they did because they instinctively knew how this wildly publicized cover would be received in the heartland -- which is to say, without irony since few voters know the New Yorker is supposed be satirical. The rest of what you described just falls into place. But I think you've got it right. What worries is that we've had two presidential elections in which a careless MSM sabotaged the better candidate and many of us fear it could easily happen again. Last night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart hit the main point when he called out the MSM -- not the wingnuts - for perpetuating the falsities that the New Yorker was trying to satirize. This tells us something we need to know -- that the danger lies not with the deliberate perveyors of smears and bias, but with the civic irresponsiblity of the news media who think this is all a game of infotainment to be played at the public's expense.

avatar

If you think that Jews have never been bashed at the Catskills...then you have never been to the Catskills....

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address