I am trying to understand why the Obama campaign decided to call attention to the NY Mag.

[Quixote1818]

How many people read the New Yorker? Wouldn't it have been better to not make a big deal about it, so 90% of the population wouldn't see it? Not to mention, those that regularly read the New Yorker know the magazine does satire. By calling attention to it now you have the whole country and many who don't understand satire seeing this image???? WTF?

On the other hand, perhaps they decided this would be a good time to beat the shit out of someone that seemed to be putting this kind of stuff forward to scare Republicans from pulling this kind of thing later?

My impression is that Obama's people are smart and Obama and everyone got together and decided for some good reason to attack this. Perhaps just to get it out and over now rather than later?

One thing is for sure! The New Yorker is going to sell one shit load of magazines now.

Thoughts?

Please note that I haven't been on DU for several days, so if this topic has been discussed more than Terri Schiavo and the "snub", forgive me for adding another thread.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I pretty sure the issue came to him, they were faced with a choice.

And handled it well, I think.

Obama himself said nothing; in what I saw on video, when asked by a reporter about it he shook his head and with a slight smile just let them know that they weren't even going to get a response. That was perfect.

His campaign responded curtly. I don't think saying "we have no comment" would have been effective.

I hope this helps.

[Speck Tater]

2. I think a LOT of people not connected to the campaign

were already calling attention to the cover. It's not as if it would have gone unnoticed without some response from the Obama campaign.

[VADem11]

3. It was going tro get attention anyway

It was flying around the internet yesterday and the MSM picked it up today. It was going to own the newscycle no matter what. Obama's campaign had to respond in some way and I think what they did was fine. Obama's own response was good too.

[snowbear]

4. He was asked about it ... and he had to respond.

If he completely ignored responding to any questions about it, he'd be taking all kinds of heat.

Why do you think the Obama campaign called attention to it?

They were asked.......

They responded...

[saracat]

10. He should have made a joke out of it and said he was "honored" to be satired by the New Yorker.

That would have diffused it and it would have been treated as the joke it is.All the Obama folks did was give this legs and a validity it doesn't possess. Now the RWers will question "Why" the Obama folks were so upset. Sheesh. This isn't SBVT . This was a truly boneheaded response from team Obama.

[JoFerret]

23. He wasn't satired

he was portrayed.
And yes - it may have been a lost opportunity to condemn r/w distortions.
But maybe that is stage two.

Also - the cartoon certainly draws attention away from the rather less than flattering portrayal in the article.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. I thought the cover was satirizing something else.

Make up your mind.

[Laelth]

5. They had to, I think. In fact, I'd like to see Obama respond personally.

Here's why:

I don't believe for a second that The New Yorker intentionally accused Obama of treason. But that picture does, and it is foolish for us not to recognize it. I truly believe that the picture's intent was satirical. I firmly believe that The New Yorker intended to show that the RW noise machine regularly paints Obama and Democrats, generally, as traitors. Nevertheless, I am concerned because we Democrats have become so accustomed to being called traitors that we fail to respond appropriately when the accusation is made. We should be angry and insulted. We should respond forcefully, and not make John Kerry's mistake (refusing to respond). Silence can be (and often is) interpreted as an admission.

The picture in question depicts the Obamas as enemies of the state. It depicts them as traitors. The subtle point that The New Yorker was trying to make is not apparent from the picture, itself. I feel it is unwise to dismiss an accusation of this magnitude. I hope that Obama will recognize it for what it is and respond appropriately.

-Laelth


Parts of this post are reposted from another DU thread. More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6501814&mesg_id=6501814

[saracat]

9. What a crock. Pathetic. Then Colbert and all the otther comics are guilty as well

Colbert was talking to day about how he calls Obama a "secret muslim" and Bill maher has defended this satire as has Jon Stewart.Just grow up.

Everyone is so "freaking afraid to say "anything" and everything is viewed as "racist". Now we have the comedians interviwed in the NYTimes saying thaey are "afraid " to make Obama jokes for fear of being classified "racist" This is just NUTZ.

[Laelth]

14. Thank you for an intelligent and respectful reply.

I didn't say anything about racism. Perhaps I should have.

Vent on someone else, please.

-Laelth

[Divine Discontent]

15. a bit much, I agree

your feelings on this issue mirror nearly all people's...

[saracat]

40. Sorry. I misdirected my response. I apologize . But it is too late to edit.

Mea culpa.

[Laelth]

44. Smile.

I was in a bit of a snit too. Peace.

-Laelth

[Garbo 2004]

6. A CBS reporter showed a pic of the cover to Obama and asked him if he had a response.

It didn't appear he had been aware of it until the reporter showed him and he had no response at that time. The press had the pic since the New Yorker had released it and it rapidly hit the internet news sites. Subsequently the Obama campaign issued a comment.

It wasn't the Obama campaign that called attention to the mag cover, the media was already doing so.

Edited to clarify: the reporter told him about the cover & offered to show it to him. I don't know if he actually saw it at that time. I read an article regarding the exhange with the reporter, didn't see the actual event where the exchange took place. At any rate, it wasn't the Obama campaign that raised the issue, the media did.

[Bobbieo]

7. Brian Williams featuured it tonight on NBC Evening News - Yes it is out there

[jobycom]

8. Yeah, he was blindsided on that one. Not his fault.

[snowbear]

11. Quixote... Who are you suggesting "called attention" to the cover??

..
Maybe I read your thread wrong.

If you think the media made a huge deal of the New Yorker cover, you'd be correct.

If you're suggesting that Senator Obama or his campaign made it an issue even in the slightest.. I'd have to disagree.

In fact- the only comments out of his campaign today from either him, or from his spokesman, were in direct response to questions about the cover.

I'm confused by your post title...

[Quixote1818]

37. Every news item I have seen on this is titled: "Obama camp furious about mag cover"

What makes the news is how a camp reacts to an issue. If they hadn't reacted it would have had a lot less traction. I haven't seen anything else on this, period. The camps reaction to it put it on the front page of Yahoo, AOL, Rutter's etc. etc. Before their reaction I didn't see anything on the topic.

[pnorman]

12. It may or not have ben the best move. I'm far from sure on that at thuis moment.

But a measured response IN REAL TIME, to what a reasonable person would regard as a SLAM, is how Team Obama distinguishes itself from that of Kerry's. Do we all remember how that one worked out?

Let it play out by itself, and avoid all this obsessive hand-wringing. Just four more month's to go!

pnorman

[Fleshdancer]

13. drudge posted the picture last night and the MSM has been on it ever since

If I recall correctly, Obama said he had no comment on it. I honestly don't understand how he could be blamed for calling attention to this.

[snowbear]

16. I know.. I'm still waiting for the OP to come back and explain his thread title..

~
~
~
~

Unless I read it wrong, he suggested that Senator Obama's campaign made a big deal of it.

Yet they barely commented on it and only did so when confronted by the media.

VERY confusing thread title!

[pnwmom]

17. I'm in Seattle and it's in newsstands here. And it's a COVER. You almost can't avoid

seeing it, if you're at a newsstand.

So millions of people who never read the magazine are going to see it -- and possibly be influenced by it. And people who don't know that the New Yorker is a "liberal" publication, who aren't familiar with it at all, are the most likely not to understand that this "artwork" is supposed to be "satire."

[rox63]

24. I see the New Yorker all the time with the magazines in the doctor/dentist waiting room

Lots of people who would never buy the magazine would see the cover and draw their own conclusions based on it.

[w4rma]

18. Haven't you learned that once it hits Drudge its all over the MSM no matter what anyone does? (nt)

[crickets]

19. Short answer: the Obama campaign didn't call attention to it.

Others did. Obama responded to them, briefly and quite well.

[Blondiegrrl]

42. Exactly. Thank you for pointing that out. n/t

[Onlooker]

20. I doubt they did

The New Yorker is a liberal magazine and can be credited with exposing Abu Ghraib. They will undoubtedly back Obama. I'm not sure whose responsible for this story getting legs. That would be interesting to find out. My guess is it might have started because some pro-Obama folk saw the cartoon on anti-Obama sites, but I don't know if that's true.

I think their cover was just a failure at satire. It would have worked if Republicans were going around calling Obama and his wife terrorists, but that's not the case.

[Bucky]

21. Good question. I'm guessing it's for the free publicity.

Now that they're not getting public financing, they need to get all the free advertising they can.

[annabanana]

22. I'm trying to understand why we're still talking about it Tuesday...

Have we succumbed to one of the more insidious "distractions" thrown our way this month??

(reply hazy ask later)

[u2spirit]

25. This is like asking why Kerry didn't ignore the Swiftliars

ou see how that turned out

[Goblinmonger]

35. Yes

because The New Yorker = Swiftboaters.

[saracat]

41. There is no comparison with SBVT and this cartoon.

There was nothing "satirical" or "cartoonish" about the SBVT and that should have been answered more forcefully. This should have been taken as the satire it is and Obama should have gotten the "joke" . I guarantee there are going to be a lot of political cartoons that aren't flattering to him. that is the nature of politics. Is he going to respond to them all. Where was the outrage at the cartoons depicting our other candidates in less than appropriate manners?

[Skwmom]

26. You've got to be kidding me. Do you think the media was going

to ignore that cover?

But I'm sure the Republicans are happy. They've been courting the black vote for years. Nothing like a "liberal" mag attacking Obama to help their cause. Why do you think Bennett was smart enough to attack the New Yorker while Carville, the fool, argued in support of the New Yorker? Wow James, you're doing one heck of a job in winning back black voter support for the Clintons. Without that support the Clintons never would have been in the Whitehouse, and won't again without that support.


To those Clinton supporters who want to be "wooed" and refuse to support Obama. You are not only hurting the future of the Democratic Party, you are damaging the political future of the Clintons. Great strategy you have there. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I saw Harold Ford on MSNBC trying to paint Obama as DLC (hey, maybe if we piss off his base they'll stay home and we can run a REAL DLC candidate in 2008, hmm... wonder who that could be). Only if they get called on their antics will they stop.

On edit: This is more of the "we want Obama to lose" but we want to be able to point the finger at his campaign.

[Barack_America]

27. Only FISA has been discussed more...

Speaking of, whatever happened to FISA? ;) (hint, hint)

[Skwmom]

28. Great idea. Let's focus all of our energies on that issue instead of defeating McCain.

I'm so sick of the grade school level manipulation.

[Barack_America]

29. ??

When did I say to focus on FISA? I guess I must be a flip-flopper considering I've posted numerous OPs requesting that others stop focusing on it.

I'm just glad that the Obama campaign is using that bullshit New Yorker cover, in part, to unite the base again.

[Vinca]

30. Should they have ignored it until the t-shirts showed up?

Remember what brought Kerry down - ignoring the Swifties.

[EstimatedProphet]

31. Because it was smart for them to

You can't denounce a whisper campaign, because it's secret. The cover made the secret public, so that they can officially talk about it. This allows them to now denounce the whisper campaign every time it comes up.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Gee, you don't the The NYer was smart enough to think of that, do you?

Nah.

Sometimes I am dumbfounded at people on DU.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. Because it helps him. Look what people are talking about instead of issues.

Not about FISA. Not about Campaign Finance. Not about abortion and the health of the mother. Not about Iraq.

Obama is now a victim. And his movement away from this campaign promises are not being discussed while we all talk about racism in America and how poor Obama is attacked in the media.


And of course, no one is talking about the contents of the article--Distraction.

[barack the house]

33. The discussion on the NY mag is more for the undecideds than us really.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I wonder if he will react

in a similar "stick up his ass" manner if and when SNL makes fun of him. Or the Daily Show. 'Cause both are coming (Daily Show already has).

[LisaM]

38. I agree that they decided to call attention to it. I don't even have my copy yet.

I don't know if it's hit newsstands yet because most don't even carry it.

The New Yorker appeals to a certain demographic that will get the cover easily.

[Lord Helmet]

39. asked for comment he had to say something