While true, unfortunately it also is vindication of the rumors in the minds of the more politically lazy among us. There will be those that won’t get the satire and see it at its face value; proof of their suspicions. And that's just how the TJs of the world likes it.
Satire can work even when the audience doesn't understand that it's satire. It's dangerous to appear too serious when the viewers aren't prefaced to the joke. Like when Andy Kaufman first came on the scene, his audiences sometimes spent the whole set agog and confused. But once it hits them, maybe later at home, maybe never, it elicits a maximum response....love or hate (like any press is good press). Sometimes a smug, conceited, smarter-than-you artist will just interject something outrageous just to watch the effect. I know I do it, particularly to our Chinese posters It gets people thinking. This cover works as satire for regular New Yorker readers, it works to raise awareness about the outrageousness of Karl Rove, Swiftboat type tactics. And if repeated enough eventually desensitizes rational people so that they dismiss the these types of claims out of hand. The r****ds are going to be r****ds no matter anyway. Thanks for posting it TJ.
I had an Obama supporter call me at 6:30 this morning about it. He was pretty angry. I'm thinking there might be a huge reaction to this cover. Give it a couple of days. Just because something is printed under the banner of satire and a free press doesn't mean there won't be consequences of some sort.
I think it's tasetless and over the line ... but I would defend the New Yorker's right to print it, just as I would defend subscribers rights to cancel their subscription.
I'm really offended by Michelle Obama carrying what appears to be an SKS. Doesn't she know that this is America? If you're going to take the White House in a coup, you damn sure better not use a Com-Block rifle.
I guess it's a good thing the New Yorker didn't include a drawing of mohammed standing there with them, or half of the world would be in flames right now..
who wouldn't want to be depicted as rambo? seriously, you're comparing being depicted as an american warrior to beind depicted as a terrorist with a portrait of bin laden hanging in your backgroud?
That would make sense if the target didn't understand the satire. I don't think the portrayals of Reagan as Rambo were meant to be complementary.
Of course it's tasteless and offensive. But this is a free country, so they have a right to print whatever they want.
I've never understood comments like this. Has anyone here (or anywhere) argued that they don't have the legal right to print it?
One other thing. Is it just me, or does the artist's depiction of Michelle Obama look more like CNN Republican Hottie Amy Holmes?
Maybe not anyone here, but Obama and his campaign have said they don't want anyone commenting on his ears(he took offense to a reporter making fun of how large they were), his wife's remarks on the campaign trail, his middle name, or Rev. Wright. As far as I can tell, the media has obliged.
