There is no comparison to Bush or artwork at all. this is a rotoscope. Unless he printed it out and used a micrometer I don't see how he can explain the nose is larger.
No, my point is that if cartoonists are only allowed to use pictures where he looks happy it will be interesting to see the future of political cartoons.
look dude, its just like the monkey topic, yes making a blackman look sinister has whole different connotation, I didn't even get in that monkey argument because it was stupid. maybe this has lot more "sinister" history because its more subtle, now maybe the cartoonist didn't have racist intents, but i'm glad you got off that stupid puffed lip crap
I would put bigtime money on Obama. Dems are over reacting, just like in 2008 when they said the GOP was done as a party.
You actually had a defensible position worth debating on the monkey cartoon. Most people thought the monkey was not supposed to portray Obama but if it was him then it could have been racist. this cartoon is in no way shape or form racist. You are just WAY off.
OK, so in order to not be racist you think all political cartoons of Obama must be ones where he is smiling or made to look good. Maybe your racial bias AND your political bias are colluding together here to see something where there isn't anything to see? And I don't know what monkey topic you are referring to. I must have missed that thread. What does this even mean? I agree. I expect him to win reelection, in large part because I don't think there is a Republican candidate who has the tools to defeat a good campaigner like Obama.
I remember this was a big issue when OJ Simpson was arrested and Time put out a cover with heavier shading on OJ to make him look more sinister. I don't think this is the case here as other posters have noted this just appears to be a poor rotoscope. I think you might be reading more there than is really there.
please stop saying poor rotoscope, the lips, nose, there's no defense of that, even the over grown hairline and the darkness around the eyes is deliberate
that's actually an interesting question. it probably isn't a big deal in the sense this stuff used too be really damaging for black people. especially when the world was big, and people rarely encountered people different from them and all they saw were negative decpictions. now it might not matter in that sense, but its still kind of insulting to see it still around. and please stop with, and this is more directed at casey, i see funny looking depictions of obama all the time. I see funny pictures of him caught in not his best poses, just like bush. but there is a fine line between funny and mean.
I don't think this was meant to make him look funny, I think it was in fact meant to make him look "mean" or "sinister." But isn't that OK in a political cartoon? Politicians are often depicted in ways that make them look villainous by the other side. That he is black should not preclude him from being portrayed that way.
Hey Gabs: You're right to be vigilant about this stuff. There are lots of racist depictions of Obama about. Both in the 'mainstream' as well as the fringes. Many of them are unintentional -- but that doesn't make them OK. To the extent 'nobody notices' that's even worse. So it's good that people point them out. Mean is OK. Sinister is OK. Ugly is OK, Racist is not. And it's sometimes tough for cartoonists to be sensitive to this when their craft usually involves over-emphasizing physical features. But it's critical they are. We just happen to disagree whether this particular cartoon crosses that line...but that doesn't make the discussion unimportant.
you stopped my total point in the middle, you said it doesn't compare to bush, that's where I eventually end at. i does compare to bush, I don't know all this mean stuff you're talking about, like depictions of bush in hitler and stalin garb at tea party events, oh wait
I was replying to justtxyank. He was trying to say "Hey this is not as bad as what they did to Bush etc." I was saying, you don't have to go that far cause this is a rotoscope. Comparing this to something about Bush is off the point. As far as stopping you midpoint, you directed something at me that I didn't even say in this thread. So I was asking wtf.
thanks for at least engaging or understanding its still an important coversation even though you may not see what i see
