Another faux controversy designed to let Obama play victim.

See also "Nutsgate."

Typical New Yorker cover. Wouldn't have thought even once about it if the whole world hadn't gotten outraged. Turns out the whole world is pretty stupid and has no sense of humor.

Obama's complaining has only made this worse for him. Now people who never would have seen the cover will see it.

1. How many people would have seen the New Yorker if there was no controversy?

Not many. Just New Yorker subscribers.

2. How many of those people (New Yorker subscribers) are Greenpeace supporting, Prius driving, arugula eating Obama voters?

95 percent.

I guess Obama lets his wife hold the AK-47 post-Heller.

If the potential POTUS cannot take aggressive criticism, go back to the Senate.

I heard that if given the opportunity, Jesse Jackson wouldn't have even cut Obama's nuts off. Pfff. Weaksauce.

Wait, the depictions on the cover aren't true?

"Lest you think we're getting into political coverage here at ATL, we'll point out that both Obamas are lawyers and HLS grads."

If that's the case, let's discuss evolution (lawyers are human beings), space exploration (GULC has a SPACE LAW moot court program), and AIDS (Philadelphia took place in a courtroom).

Most politicians are also attorneys; the Obama's JDs are a poor excuse for delving into political coverage.

ATL = scope creep

way to get the point of the cover, 9:31.

Why can't it just be funny. I liked the retort found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080715/cartoon20080715.gif

Here is a legal angle: Can a cartoon be defamatory?

Remember when Obama was speaking to the farmers in Iowa(?) about how much arugula costs at Whole Foods? Oh man, he's funny.

"So if you're a left-leaning news mag, can't you make fun of the leading liberal candidate?"

What? You quote the New Yorker editor as saying the point is "to attack lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obamas and their background and their politics."

Kash, in what way would the cover be an appropriate way to "make fun of" Obama?

9:37(2) - LOL, that retort is good (and frighteningly true).

"9:37(2) - LOL, that retort is good (and frighteningly true)."

I love it. Satire of Obama: obviously comical, borderline libelous. Satire of McCain: hilarious, and frighteningly true.

"9:37(2) - LOL, that retort is good (and frighteningly true)."

I love it. Satire of Obama: obviously comical, borderline libelous. Satire of McCain: hilarious, and frighteningly true.

Who gives a hoot whether it's fair or not? Barack says crap like this (assessing our war effort in Afghanistan):

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

which is blatantly unfair to the guys in Afghanistan (who by the way cannot really defend themselves), and we're supposed to get worked up because of a caricature of him. Yeah, right.

That picture makes me proud of my country for the first time in my adult life.

I loved the cover. seriously, what was BHO supposed to say? Talking about how funny it is could easily come off poorly in a soundbite.

"...borderline libelous"

He's a public figure - not a chance in hell of proving anything. Get Over It Dali OBama.

I don't recall an uproar near this when Colin Powell was drawn as a monkey w/ GW holding a music box.

The love it when the Left ciotinually demonstrates that free speech applies only as long as you agree with them.

I think pointing out the fact that they are HLS grads is a weak excuse to report on something that is basically a political, and not legal, issue. They may be HLS grads, but it's obvious to anyone that you reported on the issue because Obama is running for president, not because he is an HLS grad.

Broke Obama should get used to it, particularly when he returns to the Senate in mid-November all bitter and aloof like John Kerry.

liberal guys in my high school used to get worked up about obviously comical, borderline libelous cartoons and then retort with hilarious, frightingly true criticisms of old white conservatives all the time. It was no big deal.

The retort featuring a senile, war-mongerring McCain with his drug-crazed wife is funny, but it's certainly not insinuating an equally politically damaging theme.

What's worse (i.e., more politically damaging) in this country: (i) being old and taking prescription drugs to deal with life's every challenge (a description that fits a big share of the electorate), or (ii) being a black militant or Islamic terrorist?

There are actually millions of people in this country who believe that Obama is actually a member of a sleeper cell. Most, of course, are complete morons (and are the same rednecks who, against their own economic interests, voted for Bush, especially in 04'). Yet there is also an bizarre, pervasive bias against Obama lurking around in some of this country's largest cities (and in FL). Despite being (for the most part) a very liberal and highly educated segment of society, it views Obama's positions on the Mideast with great suspicion (because of Rev. Wright, Farakhan, etc.), and verges on accepting the trite insinuation that he is a Muslim. (I too would like a stronger pronouncement from Obama as to his support for Israel, but I also don't think he's going to let it fend for itself once he's elected.)

The retort featuring a senile, war-mongerring McCain with his drug-crazed wife is funny, but it's certainly not insinuating an equally politically damaging theme.

What's worse (i.e., more politically damaging) in this country: (i) being old and taking prescription drugs to deal with life's every challenge (a description that fits a big share of the electorate), or (ii) being a black militant or Islamic terrorist?

There are actually millions of people in this country who believe that Obama is actually a member of a sleeper cell. Most, of course, are complete morons (and are the same rednecks who, against their own economic interests, voted for Bush, especially in 04'). Yet there is also an bizarre, pervasive bias against Obama lurking around in some of this country's largest cities (and in FL). Despite being (for the most part) a very liberal and highly educated segment of society, it views Obama's positions on the Mideast with great suspicion (because of Rev. Wright, Farakhan, etc.), and verges on accepting the trite insinuation that he is a Muslim. (I too would like a stronger pronouncement from Obama as to his support for Israel, but I also don't think he's going to let it fend for itself once he's elected.)

BHO is no extremist. He is the same sort of silver-tongued middle-of-road whore who ends up in office 9 times out of 10.

McCain might be principled, but many of his principles suck, (which I say as a registered Republican). Obama makes me comfortable precisely because he is a sell-out - he can do some SCOTUS appointment damage - but that's about it.

Why is there a burning American flag in the fireplace? Did Obama take a position on flag-burning? Has TX v. Johnson become a campaign issue?

"...The conclusion seems to be that he's just too perfect."

They mean "...just too Black."

Obama-ites sound more and more like members of the Peoples Temple - ooh, maybe they'll all move to Guyana also

10:04, it's b/c along with beiong a secret gay muslim space alien, BHO also hates Amurrica.

i'm a BHO supporter, and I think the cover is funny. problem is, most people won't get it (including seemingly-intelligent people like Kash, apparently).

Perhaps there is so much outrage precisely because B.O. doesn't expect his good friends in the media to do anything but sing his praises. In reality, the New Yorker was trying to draw people in, it seems, in order to then debunk what it sees as misconceptions. But, B.O. will have none of it. I agree with the poster that horrible cartoons have been drawn about Bush and his appointees (Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) and they haven't expressed the same outrage, with the support of the media. This is life, he's a politician, and he wants to run the country, so he'd better grow a pair and hope Jesse doesn't cut them off.

McCain may be a lot of things, but "principled" he is not.

"The New York Times did an article on the difficulties late-night comics are having coming up with Obama jokes. The conclusion seems to be that he's just too perfect."

What a load of crap. People are terrified of lampooning him or his wife becaues they are terrified of being called racist. Rest assured that if HRC or Edwards or was the candidate, ridiculous caricatures would abound. I think there should be caricatures of candidates, but I sense that the Obama campaign will continue to be humorless and thin-skinned.

10:24: Agreed. Even Letterman had the pant suit jokes about HRC. No one wants to touch a nerve with BHO for some reason. And, I think we know what that reason is.

If they "satirized" Hillary, would everyone say "It's a joke, just get over it"? No, they would scream sexism, sexism, sexism, the media is beating up on ol' Hillary again. If we took all the sexist and false rumors about Hillary and put them on the cover of The New Yorker what would it look like?

A picture is worth a thousand words; which, sadly, is much further than the average American could get into the New Yorker.

This is simply another pathetic display of a lack of humility and a lack of any sense of humor by BHO and his entourage.

He needs to get over himself. All he's managed to do thus far is shore up black votes (shocker!) and drum up enough white guilt among white voters to raise massive amounts of money and fool people that he 1) has accomplished anything with his life, and 2) will not implement far left-wing, anti-growth economic policies.

This man is a caricature of a real politician - when will people wake up and see this? There is so much to make fun of when it comes to BHO: his self-importance, his shameless pandering, his lack of any substance, his lack of any principles, his hyperbolic and hateful wife, his condescending attitude, etc.

10:29: HRC supporters would probably get that the cover was on HER side, not her detractors' side. Those sexist and false rumors would far exceed the margins of a New Yorker cover, I might add.

And, yes, everybody would just say "It's a joke, just get over it."

10:33

Tell us how you really feel. Don't sugarcoat it, dude.

I agree.

For those of you who "observe" that BHO needs to toughen up to this sort of satire, do you really believe that Obama is deeply offended by this cover? 9:51 is dead on. Obama's campaign was making what it felt was the most appropriate response to the cover - whether it was the best response (i.e., drawing more attention to it) is another issue. My guess is that BHO can appreciate the absurdity of the image.

Political cartoons are the price you pay for politics - look at the crud that has been drawn about McCain, Bush, both Clintons, Rice.... etc. Check out Michelle Malkan - she had it right - Obama needs to grow a pair. The dude just plain whines too much - sounds like a spoiled 2 year old!

10:33, I agree. No one stood up for Hillary when she was being attacked, because it comes with the territory. Critics were (rightfully so, imo) bringing up issues of her sex, her flip-flopping, her record. And, at least to me, it helped her because many people realized that she actually has a pretty strong record of doing what BHO claims to do which is work in a bi-partisan manner to get things accomplished. She lost because white guilt is an overpowering force.

10:33

I think your analysis is quite flawed. Clinton supporters screamed sexism at every turn, especially when she was losing. By the way, it's nonsensical to claim that sexism and false rumors go far beyond the New Yorker when we are talking about the New Yorker, not what goes beyond it. And no, her supporters would scream sexism. Obviously, this can't be tested but given what occured during the primaries, it seems obvious that any opportunity to claim she is being mistreated is always taken regardless of whether such a statement is grounded in fact.

10:37: I couldn't agree more, especially with your last sentence.

I thought the media was very tough on Hillary but also couldn't deny that being treated as harshly as the established white guys is, ultimately, a sign that one's arrived in politics.

Its amazing that when faced with issue of being Muslim, Obama doesn't point out the fact that those who use it as an insult are bigots.

The mainstream news media doesn't either. Where is the discussion of how bigotry is what makes calling him a Muslim, a liability.

10:37

You are wrong. Many commentators on both CNN and MSNBC stood up for Hillary when she was being attacked. For goodness sake, it was highlighted as a central issue of the campaign on Saturday Night Live. By the way, she lost because the Amercian people chose Obama over Hillary. Perhaps whites have a lot to be guilty about. Go figure.

10:46 -- My thoughts exactly. I'm not a Muslim, but if I were, I'd be pretty peeved with that whole situation. He should acknowledge and be proud of his heritage...not pander.

Irresponsible journalism. Stereotypes are never funny.

10:46

SNL did stand up for Hillary. But they were the first to do so (and the mainstream media followed their lead for a whole two weeks), and it was mainly in response to the ludicrous and unfair debate questions and format. They didn't directly take on all the hits she was receiving in media coverage - more the fact that the debates were a disgusting display of bias and a lack of journalistic integrity.

10:48: Well, he has already written two memoirs, so I'd say he's pretty proud of his heritage.

10:46

He didn't pander. He didn't do anything. Some people are deeply ignorant, and the New Yorker staff was quite irresponsible. The people they are making fun of don't read the New Yorker. The people who understand that Obama is not a Muslim don't need to be preached to about what they already know.

10:46

Saturday night live mad fun of the fact that the left-wing media continually attacked HRC while their legs tingled evertime the MessiaBama spoke.

If we (whites) really do feel guilty about something (not sure what), you would think that we would pick someone who actually represents why we are guilty.

I for one feel no guilt because the MessiaBama attended exclusive private schools throughout his entire life.

10:46.

I'm glad you acknowledged the point. It goes to the refutation of the fallacious reasoning of an earlier post.

The New Yorker doesn't aim its journalism at the lowest common denominator - thank God.

The whole problem with thi is that it's just not very funny or intelligent. Also, I guess, if and when Obama wins the election, the New Yorker will forever have an issue cover showing the commander-in-chief burning an American flag, which is kinda not cool. But the main problem is not being funny. The punchline isn't worth the tastelessness and lack of imagination that it took to get there.

So the Obama campaign says "dude, that's not cool" not in so many words - because it has to. And the McCain campaign lazily springs to Obama's defense - because it has to. This is a non-story. Move along.

10:46

With your "maybe whites should feel guilty" comment, you expose your ignorance. People should feel guilt for their own actions, not those of their parents, their friends, their siblings, their spouses. You can admonish what someone close to you has done, but you should never feel guilty about it. We are each directly responsible for ourselves and our own actions. I have never had slaves, nor did I vote for LBJ (whose "war on poverty" had horrifying consequences for black communities), and I have always treated all races as equals. And I look forward to the day when everyone else does too.

I'll admit I didn't read his memoirs, but he could have at least acknowledged something on his 'fight the smears' website. "Pandering" was the wrong word to use.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/christian

- 10:48

"Perhaps whites have a lot to be guilty about. Go figure."

Oh, kindly go fuck yourself. This is precisely the sort of collectivist nonsense that my family came here to escape. Why in the world should Peter have to atone for the misdeeds of Paul, you f-ing schmuck?

10:58

It seems you are the one who is quite ignorant. There's a causal relationship between (a) guilt and (b) privilege. Anyone who has done a cursory reading of American history knows that whites (including white immigrants) have benefitted from slave labor. Slaves built this country. You are a beneficiary of that system. Go read a book. The guilt is a direct result of the privilege you receive as a white male or female. How much history have you read? Not much it seems.

11:05

The good gentleman resorts to profanity when he cannot competently make an argument. Checkmate.

I resort to profanity when I cannot straighten out my slice.

11:05, Thank you kindly for using (a) and (b) to help me understand that guilt and privilege were two items in a list. It assisted me in understanding the point of your comment, i.e. to announce that you are stuck in 1964.

Douchetard.

How sad.

Broke Obama, MessiaObama, Dali OBama,

"...Obama needs to grow a pair."

"Obama-ites sound more and more like members of the Peoples Temple..."

"This man is a caricature of a real politician..."
---------------------------------------

Dear Lord, Sean Hannity, stop posting already. Don't you have a show to tape?

When you have to resort to ad hominem, it means you have lost the battle and the war. Checkmate.

This New Yorker cover art, and this comment string, are proof that white people still aren't ready to own up to how good and easy they have it in this world...

Either that or they fully well know it, and are just being bastards about it.

"The good gentleman resorts to profanity when he cannot competently make an argument. Checkmate."

The good gentleman resorts to profanity when the contempt he feels toward his adversary is coupled with the understanding that such adversary is profoundly and irreparably ignorant, capable of no more than spouting Marxist bullshit, haphazardly adapted to current political issues. The good gentleman recognizes that any attempt at discourse with such an adversary will lead only to frustration.

Therefore, kindly go fuck yourself.

Cheers,
11:05

11:12

Does it frighten you when you are no longer surrounded by your ultra-PC far left friends?

"Stereotypes are never funny. "

Clearly you haven't heard the right stereotypes.

The anti-Muslim bigotry is open and notorious. Nobody cares. No politician and no news source would discuss another major religion in such a defensive context. Why can't they say "The whole discussion of Obama being a Muslim is pure bigotry and in a free society his religion shouldn't matter."

10:01-

"There are actually millions of people in this country who believe that Obama is actually a member of a sleeper cell. "

Citation? Or just speculation based on the obvious inferior intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you.

"Most, of course, are complete morons (and are the same rednecks who, against their own economic interests, voted for Bush, especially in 04'). "

It's the latter. Never mind.

11:15-
Maybe because Muslims have a reason to be criticized.

11:14

You signed "Cheers". I hope you aren't English, because Bertrand Russell would be ashamed of your reasoning skills.

So not only do you resort to profanity but also the ad hominem attack. Checkmate. You really can't make an argument to save your life. I'm the blood that pumps through your ventricles.

"Slaves built this country. You are a beneficiary of that system."

umm, did not the Dali OBama also benefit from that system then?

My ancestors from Ireland didn't see many benefits of that system unless you count being allowed in this country provided you joined the union army. And oh yeah, my ancestors that came later couldn't get jobs because of their religion.

Apparently you selectively read, if at all.

11:12 --

Oops, you're right! Must be off now. Sorry to clog up the board.

- Sean

P.S. - I'm gay.

11:05, since I'm living out here in Oregon, how exactly have I (white person) benefited more than equivalent black Oregonians from "slave labor"?

"I'm the blood that pumps through your ventricles."

Who even says garbage like this? How pretentious...

- No dog in this fight

Does spell check turn Obama into Osama for anyone else in Outlook?

Whoa conspiracy!

11:21-

Why the hell was "I'm gay" thrown in there? Are you making fun of Sean Hannity. If so, he's not gay, and why is using the word gay OK as an insult but ridiculing Obama's idiotic speeches is off limits?

11:18

Obama was not a painter named Salvador (wink, wink).

Yes, we can see how he benefitted. The front cover of the New Yorker is a prime example. Did you really need a lesson on the racism during the primaries? Hopefully, you've been paying attention to the candidates, their underlings, and the media.

You are right, they were religiously persecuted. True. However, did they have to contend with the Black Codes, Jim and Jane Crow, and the psychological, financial, and moral destruction of their humanity? If so, name the laws to which you refer and the 400 year institution that prevented them from achieving their goals.

Bah.

The whole point of political satire and many other rhetorical tools is that anything taken to the extreme becomes ridiculous. This was ostenisbly the New Yorker's point. The problem is their cartoonist failed - the cover came off looking more like a racial insult (although the couple giving each other a "pound" is quite funny) than a jibe at the extreme right.

11:29, I just wanted to reiterate my previous plea that you go and fuck yourself. ktks bye.

If some people spread rumors that Abraham Lincoln was Jewish (because of his first name), and liberals countered that it was a nasty smear against Lincoln, people would rightly agree that the liberals are anti-Semites. For most open-minded people, there is nothing actually harmful about being inaccurately perceived as Jewish.

Yet there is something wrong with being inaccurately perceived as Muslim. Why are liberals such anti-Muslim bigots?

11:29

I strongly and politely suggest Copi's "Introduction to Logic" and Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning". They are a lot better than profanity and ad hominem attacks. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not a lawyer with such argumentative skills.

11:31,

Exactley. Being Anti-Muslim is OK.

11:29, so only one racial group, the one that was persecuted the most, gets special treatment and immunity from criticism? If the Irish were persecuted and the blacks were more persecuted, the Irish deserve zero special treatment?

Okay then. The Native Americans were way more persecuted than blacks. Therefore, by your logic that only one racial group gets special consideration for past injustices, blacks deserve zero special treatment. QED.

Scope creep, indeed. ATL's silly attempt at Monday morning quarterbacking. Now posts that don't concern the law. Had the column been an article on whether or not the New Yorker cover was legally actionable as defamatory--- sure, that would have fit. But the poster who said scope creep is absolutely on point. Clearly, the heyday of ATL has passed.

11:31,

Exactley. Being Anti-Muslim is OK.

11:35,

Your magnanimity is appreciated, but I'm actually a V10 associate. As I mentioned earlier, I just don't care to actually "argue" with you. Can't argue with communists, that much I know.

I think that Hillary had more balls under that pantsuit than Obama!

The cover of the New Yorker is actually Anti-Muslim. The irony of their own bigotry is lost on them.

Posted by guest | 10:54 AM

I for one feel no guilt because the MessiaBama attended exclusive private schools throughout his entire life.

****
yeah, he had it pretty easy. it's not as if he attended those schools on scholarships or anything. just another country-club kid.

NY Times - conclusion seems to be that he's just too perfect.

uh as has been mentioned many times in this post, i think we all know the reason for the difficulties late-night comics are having.

just another time where the "All The News That's Fit To Print," paper of record has distorted information to fit its own agenda. people you need to read the journal!!

That was not my reasoning sir/ma'am.

Actually, Native Americans and African Americans both suffered at the hands of whites. Your comparison of the persecution of all three groups is disanalogous. The degree of suffering of a people certainly does matter. This is why it's taboo to say anything negative about Jews lest you be accused of being an anti-Semite (see Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby). This is due to the degree and magnitude of what Hitler did to the Jews.

Secondly, the original point is that whites are the beneficiaries of racism toward African Americans in particular in virtue of simply being white. That is, immigrants receive the privileges of whiteness when they arrived on the shores of the Newfoundland. These privileges before they arrived and they certainly took advantage of them as anyone would. Thus, as a direct descendant, you are beneficiary of such privilege.

I understand your resistance to this argument. I just want us to have a healthy dialogue.

Dow under 11,000. Thanks, Bush!!

correction

"That is, immigrants received the privileges of being white, which were already in place, when they arrived on the shore of the Newfoundland. As such, they took advantage of them as anyone would."

11:47, and both blacks and whites are beneficiaries of racism toward Native Americans in particular in virtue of simply not being a Native American. Thus, as a direct descendant, you are a beneficiary of such privilege, such as the ability to own land long-ago forcibly taken from Indians.

Therefore, just like you argue that the Irish cannot complain about past injustices because they benefited from the blacks having had it worse, blacks cannot complain about past injustices because they benefited from Native Americans having had it worse. QED.

You know what would bring the Dow up? More corporate taxation. Hooooah

11:46, the race issue was discussed pretty heavily in the NYT article. maybe you should read the article before accepting someone else's tongue-in-cheek characterization of it.

my favorite quote, by Bill Maher:
"'There’s been this question about whether he’s black enough,' Mr. Maher said. 'I have this joke: What does he have to do? Dunk? He bowled a 37 — to me, that’s black enough.'"

my own correction:
blacks received the privileges of being not a Native American, privileges which were already in place, when they arrived in America.

Republicans former joke candidate is now their last hope. Thanks, Bush!

11:54 thats the point. they discussed and dismissed like in no way is that possibly the reason. and dont say that the comics themselves said that because the timea did not quote anyone on that.

though i will vote for mccain because of defense reasons for which you can call me crazy etc. i like obama and i just think that the times is just doing what they always do

You need to reread the first paragraph of my statement.

(1) You haven't addressed or disproven the disanalogy hypothesis. That is, the claim that whites far and above any other group are the beneficiaries of their own actions against such groups. If you truly disagree with this, you need substantive argument to back it up.

(2) You never responded to my question:name the laws to which you refer and the 400 year institution that prevented them from achieving their goals.

(3) How exactly were blacks the beneficiaries of the systematic destruction of the Native American population? Please refer specifically to the way in which blacks were the beneficiaries when they were enslaved for 400 years, no 40 acres-no mule (i.e., no reconstruction), the Black Codes, Lynch Law, Jim crow law, et cetera.

(4) Also, is it not the case that those who murdered and enslaved were the beneficiaries of murdering and enslaving? Please explain why this is not the case.

You need to reread the first paragraph of my statement.

(1) You haven't addressed or disproven the disanalogy hypothesis. That is, the claim that whites far and above any other group are the beneficiaries of their own actions against such groups. If you truly disagree with this, you need substantive argument to back it up.

(2) You never responded to my question:name the laws to which you refer and the 400 year institution that prevented them from achieving their goals.

(3) How exactly were blacks the beneficiaries of the systematic destruction of the Native American population? Please refer specifically to the way in which blacks were the beneficiaries when they were enslaved for 400 years, no 40 acres-no mule (i.e., no reconstruction), the Black Codes, Lynch Law, Jim crow law, et cetera.

(4) Also, is it not the case that those who murdered and enslaved were the beneficiaries of murdering and enslaving? Please explain why this is not the case.

Can the Irish guy please stop comparing the persecution that the Irish faced in this country with the persecution that blacks have faced (and continue to face). Any group other than white protestant males have been persecuted at some point in American history, some much worse than others. But unless you are descended of a Native American, your ancestors' persecution can't hold a candle to what blacks dealt with.

Some have to be led to the precipice of their own fallacious reasoning and then pushed off, while others willingly commit intellectual suicide. So let him bring his Thrasymachus-like powers of persuasion, because I like to watch them jump.

Obama is perfect...perfectly delusional. He'll solve eveyone's problems and give a pony and free ice cream to every American child (and every illegal as well).

The New Yorker cover isn't funny for the following reason:

Political cartoons (and all charactures for that matter) are funny because they are exaggerations of the truth. Take the McCain cover: old drooling McCain, in his wheelchair, singing "bomb Iran." That is an exaggeration of 1) McCain's age, and 2) his hawkish position (at least compared to Obama's) toward Iran. The problem with the New Yorker cover is that it suggests that there is at least a modicum of truth to the things that it depicts. Of course, there is no truth, and thus, the New Yorker cover winds up being offensive, rather than witty. We all know what the New Yorker was trying to do, they just didn't do it.

Then again, the New Yorker's cartoons always suck and make no sense, so is anyone really surprised about this?

12:04, look it's very simple. You're arguing that even though the post-1865 Irish were not slaveowners, they benefited from the privileges created by previous (non-Irish) slaveowners. You lump the Irish with earlier whites in a larger category of "whites" who benefited from the privilege of slavery. The fact that the Irish also suffered greatly is irrelevant to the fact that they benefited from blacks.

By your reasoning, even though the blacks were not Indian-killers, they benefited from the privileges created by previous (black and white) Indian-killers. One example is the ability to own land formerly held by Indians, but taken away from them without compensation. The fact that blacks also suffered is irrelevant to the fact that blacks benefited from Indians. I lump blacks and whites in a larger category of "non-Indians" who benefited from Indian eviction and massacres. Or are you saying that no blacks today own land forcibly taken from Indians without compensation?

12:04, you are my hero.

10:37 I really don't see how Hilary's sex was a legitimate issue. As even young Obama supporters noticed, she was treated more harshly than McCain or Obama.

Anyone who thinks Obama is getting a free pass has their head in the sand. Everyone keeps talking about whether he is: 1) black enough; 2) too black; 3) fatherless (this was early on in the campaign); 4) 'playing the race card'; 5) winning based on 'white guilt'; 6) "elitist"; 7) a pansy; 8) dumb (the 110 IQ 2.1 UG rumors); 9) un-american; 10) a "crypto-muslim"; 11) a member of an extremist Christian Church.

McCain has gotten no similar scrutiny despite: 1) leaving his first wife after she was disfigured in a car crash to marry an heiress who he was dating while they were still married (adultery in the party of morals, how shocking); 2) the "bomb Iran" gaffe which got polite chuckles; 3) publicly calling his wife the c-word (although, granted, that was a long time ago); 4) opposing the new GI bill and then not voting on it; 5) no scrutiny whatsoever of the ministers who he accepted as "spiritual advisors" (google Rob Parsley or John Hagee or just read this link http://www.236.com/blog/w/katie_halper/top_10_outrageous_quotes_from_6125.php).

And most importantly, if Obama's blackness is important, why isn't McCain's whiteness and insularity? If we want to talk about elitists, who do you think has more money? Any guesses?

truth is that the new yorker had an excellent marketing idea which has obviously worked maybe even beyond their dreams

It seems you asked me a question, which is fair, but you failed to answer the ones I asked you above. I think it only fair that you respond directly and substantively to my queries and then I will do the same to yours. Now if this discussion ends here because you refuse to respond, I can only assume that you were unable to. Be that as it may, I doubt you will respond in manner suggested. That's fine, I've enjoyed this back and forth. It would have been much more interesting to break bread over this topic, but i guess this will have to do. I will suggest reading Franklin's From Slavery to Freedom, Mills's The Racial Contract, and, more recently, Rediker's The Slave Ship. If you have reading suggestions for me, please pass them along. Thanks.

6) Reversing course on torture. Which I cannot forgive him for.

11:50 if you are an attorney, i hope you dont practice corporate because you obviously have no idea about business etc!!

The New Yorker crucified the Easter Bunny on a cover a few years back -- and the crowd that's now howling was applauding. What goes around, comes around.

OK, someone please settle this for me once and for all. Is he or is he not in fact a Muslim?

My favorite quote by McCain's former spiritual advisor, John Hagee:

Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with "fierce features." He will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual," the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, "There's a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/325628

This didn't get into any MSM, unlike Jeremiah Wright. Interesting.

Famous funny (but tasteless) magazine political satire:

Hustler/Falwell:

http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:70688

Ted Kennedy/National Lampoon

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/Media/Images/tedvwsmall.jpg

Hillary Clinton/Spy

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hillary20clinton20su20spy.jpg

Umm, 12:24, I answered part (3). Part (4) is irrelevant because the post-slavery Irish did not do the murdering and enslaving. Parts (1) and (2) basically say that blacks suffered a lot. Well duh, but that does not excuse the suffering of the Irish, just like the great suffering of Indians does not excuse the suffering of blacks.

If we follow from your reasoning that the Irish benefiting from black suffering means that we can ignore NINA, paddywagons and other anti-Irish measures, then Indian evictions means we can ignore anti-black laws. QED.

If this discussion ends here because you refuse to respond, I will magnanimously assume that you were unable to.

Well...
Islam and western style democracy aren't exactly super-compatible. See Denmark, Holland, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, France (ok ok democracy in france? it is a push)... and so on.

It is difficult to take claims to be compatible with democratic values seriously when the response to cartoons or movies is violence. See Danish Cartoons and the Murder of Van Gogh.

Alas, we are at an impasse.

We both think that we are correct, and this forum will not prove fruitful for setting the metaphilosophical parameters for addressing these issues--no harm, no foul.

Any book suggestion? I gave you mine without sarcasm or hatred. I hope you might do me the same favor. Perhaps you can point me to certain texts that you think are particularly enlightening about our discussion. Thanks.

12:27 - nobody is "howling" at this. Some people, including McCain, are calling the cover tasteless and offensive. Which it is. But from what I can tell, the mainstream is media perpetuating some militant reaction that just isn't there.

I heard BHO is a moslem.

It seems there's a distinction between receipt of benefit (all "whites", a category that's changed over time) and perpetration (pre-1865 slaveowning whites, post-1865 Southerners who benefited from Jim Crow laws). Sure, one can argue that all whites have benefited from centuries of racism against blacks, but it's historically inaccurate to equate the benefit with perpetration.

It's equally historically inaccurate to lump all black people together - some come from ancestors who were always free, some come from enslaved ancestors, some come from families who were originally enslaved and then moved North and were never subjected directly to Jim Crow laws, etc.

12:28,

See David Koresh, Church of the latter day saints, abortion clinic bombings, necons who use religious prophesy to justify killing people...Okhlahoma city...None of these people are Muslim, are they?

When we were fighting Japan we rounded up all the Japanese and threw them in concentration camps. No we are fighting the Muslims and we are about to elect one President. FDR is spinning in his grave.

12:47pm,

Do you propose throwing all Muslim Americans into concentration camps?

It's wrong-headed to think for a second that this cartoon would fuel the fire for those who think that Obama is Muslim or that he's possibly a terrorist. Those kinds of people simply don't read the New Yorker, really does anyone?

Here's the Republican equivalent fresh off the cartoon press:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1792

Clearly no prejudice against BHO. Which is why people on this thread keep throwing down with the whole Muslim thing.

Is Barack a Moor......

....or is he....a Moop?

IT'S NOT A LEFT-LEANING MAGAZINE MAKING FUN OF ONE OF THEIR OWN. IT'S A LEFT-LEANING MAGAZINE MAKING FUN OF IGNORANT PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO BELIEVE THIS ABOUT OBAMA.

WHILE IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE IN NORMAL, EDUCATED BLUE STATES TO BELIEVE, THERE ARE VERY IGNORANT PEOPLE IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THIS COUNTRY WHO LITERALLY ARE SCARED BY OBAMA'S NAME AND THINK HE'S A MUSLIM.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE IGNORANT PEOPLE (WHO ARE WRECKING ARE NATION) WILL SEE THIS COVER AND SAY WITH THEIR BARELY UNDERSTANDABLE TWANGS "SEE I TOLD YA SO. I KNEW HE WAS ONE OF THEM MUSLIMS AND SHE WAS A COMMIE.

Not funny and not worthy of the New Yorker. What were they thinking?

Version for McCain (except this has more truth to it) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?ID=1792

So the cover is offensive in part, because it shows Obama as a Muslim? And of course being Muslim is linked to all those bad images the cover shows as well. Imagine this happening to another religion.

uh where's the lib outrage on the seattle cartoon. oh i forgot its on mccain and so its ok. libs are very liberal if you see things their way, otherwise get the hell out of the way

just another case of new yorkers being ingonorant and bigoted. yawn . . . nothing new here.

12:16 wins this round of commenting. well put.

1:57, see 12:16's post. that explains it perfectly. of course, you're free to stick with your knee-jerk reaction.

the perception of "Obama is a Muslim!" as a smear comes from the fact that that statement is being used as one, i..e., that being Muslim is a bad thing. and of course, that's exactly how it's intended. so there is no bigotry in recognizing an attempt to brand Obama as something considered negative in the context in which it's used.

"he's a Muslim" in the abstract is not derogatory. when used to paint someone in a derogatory light, it becomes so, and denials of that trait don't reflect bigotry. but nice try.

1:57 - it's not only liberals who have spoken out against the cartoon. McCain even said that it was offensive!

Also, there's not the same degree of outrage because the McCain cartoon is an exaggeration of the truth (he's old, he's militant). The Obama cartoon wasn't an exaggeration of the truth - it was a depiction of every baseless rumor and misconception that has been spread about Obama and his wife.

Rejected New Yorker Obama Covers:

http://www.collegeotr.com/georgetown_university/rejected_new_yorker_covers_9944

Of course McCain said it was offensive - what the hell else is he supposed to say?

12:29 (1), the guy you're quoting wasn't McCain's pastor for 20 years. O'Bama chose Jerry Wright as a mentor and contributed to him, of all of the black churches in Chicago, and raised his family in Wright's church. That's a big deal. It ain't the same as if Barry had just swung by for a graduation speech every couple of years but otherwise kept to himself. Protestant Christians can choose which church they go to, and Barry and Michelle chose Jerry Wright's.

1:14, you don't sound elitist at all . . .

You guys make McCain's case for him.

NY to 60% tax bracket.

Obama is a Muslim!!!!

Obama's is un-American because his Christian pastor said horrible, un-American things!!!

Wait a minute. I'm a right-winger who wants to hate Obama, but how can I reconcile the two statements above??? Which one is more damaging?? Please tell me and I'll elimiate the other one, as they are inconsistent to each other.

"Dumb, poor white people who bitterly cling to guns and religion won't vote for Obama because of this, so the magazine cover is terrible and not funny."

- Well educated Obama support who knows better than you

2:29 how right you are. no obama is not a muslim, its alot worse than that. he's an american who sat through many years of us bashing from his pastor and who happens to be the the man who married him to his wife and said nothing! and dont tell me he did say something, because obviously he was not listened to and then he should have left that church. no wonder michelle claims never to be a proud american ...

"THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE IGNORANT PEOPLE (WHO ARE WRECKING ARE NATION) WILL SEE THIS COVER AND SAY WITH THEIR BARELY UNDERSTANDABLE TWANGS "SEE I TOLD YA SO. I KNEW HE WAS ONE OF THEM MUSLIMS AND SHE WAS A COMMIE."

Hardly.

The "ignorant masses" do not subscribe to, nor are they aware of, the New Yorker.

Rather, New Yorker readership is confined to those who are voting for Obama anyway, and the few New Yorker readers who are not, do not believe that Obama is a Muslem.

The end.

Hey for all of you people who state that this assumption that portraying Obama as a Muslim is bigoted.

You are correct. However, wake up and realize what kind of nation we live in. Get your head out of your asses. By having this position, you are likely progressive people who tend to vote Democratic.

If Obama supporters had the attitude, upon hearing people state "Obama is a Muslim," "Oh, I'll just igmore that. I know Obama's not a Muslim, there's nothing wrong with it, so I won't respond with a quick, emphatic rebuke," OBAMA WOULD LOSE THE ELECTION.

There is no way that this ignorant, red state-filled uneducated country would give someone they knew was a Muslim even 20 percent of the vote. I dare anyone to argue otherwise.

Thus, this strategy of "there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim" is election suicide, and would lead to having another horrible Republican as president.

I GOT DA BOOTAY JUICE!!1!

yo booty juice - one of these days, one a these days

"Posted by guest | Permalink
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:46 PM

"THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE IGNORANT PEOPLE (WHO ARE WRECKING ARE NATION) WILL SEE THIS COVER AND SAY WITH THEIR BARELY UNDERSTANDABLE TWANGS "SEE I TOLD YA SO. I KNEW HE WAS ONE OF THEM MUSLIMS AND SHE WAS A COMMIE."

Hardly.

The "ignorant masses" do not subscribe to, nor are they aware of, the New Yorker.

Rather, New Yorker readership is confined to those who are voting for Obama anyway, and the few New Yorker readers who are not, do not believe that Obama is a Muslem.

The end."

2:46: You are correct that these people do not read the New Yorker. You are incorrect that these people will not see this cartoon, as Fox News and other conservative media are, shockingly, making every effort to show it.

2:50 is absolutely correct. What some conservatives posting on this board fail to realize is that one can acknowledge - OBJECTIVELY - that falsely portraying Obama as a Muslim has a negative impact on his campaign, while at the same time SUBJECTIVELY not view being Muslim as something negative.

But then again, conservatives have never quite been able to grasp the concept of objective thought....

BHO's campaign simply had to join the ignorant masses who would never understand satire, let alone The New Yorker.

Whoopi Goldberg -- a clever and sophisticated professional comic icon -- did a stand-up job (pun intended) on The View on 7/14 defending the cover's satire, explaining what satire is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5379254

2:50 and 3:03, everything you say just goes to show what you think of the voters whose votes you need.

That's why you'll lose. We know what you think of us. We don't like you either. Luckily we outnumber you (at least outside of DC, NYC & San Fran).

Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?

Conclusion

Yes.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse.

http://boingboing.net/images/falwell-hustler-first-time.jpg

3:08 - I don't like ignorant bigots. Unfortunately, there are many of those in this country. If you're not an ignorant bigot - and you are still voting for McCain - then you're either 1) a rich selfish person who doesn't want to pay taxes, or 2) a gullible person who votes against their own interest. Because the complete set of people who plan on voting for MCain is: ignorant bigots, selfish people who don't want to pay taxes, and gullible people who vote against their own interests.

-3:03

“If you're not an ignorant bigot - and you are still voting for McCain - then you're either 1) a rich selfish person who doesn't want to pay taxes, or 2) a gullible person who votes against their own interest. Because the complete set of people who plan on voting for MCain is: ignorant bigots, selfish people who don't want to pay taxes, and gullible people who vote against their own interests.”

Dear 3:03:

Please allow me to posit some additional alternatives:

1. You're afraid that if Obama’s tax plan [including ending the 28% capital gains tax rate, and raising the effective tax rate on entrepreneurs (who create most new jobs) to over 50%] succeeds, it will kill an already staled economy and you will lose your job too;

2. You're afraid that an inexperienced Barack Obama will do as much damage to this country (or worse) than a inexperienced George Bush did;

3. You're afraid that Barack Obama has not been forthcoming about is true policies and intentions, but is instead saying what he needs to say to get elected, with the possibility that he (in the name of good intentions) will run amok with elected;

4. All of the above.

see 3:14, that's going to get 3:08's panties in a bunch, even though he knows that the only people who will vote for Obama are: 1) limo liberals out of touch with reality; 2) lazy poor people who want a handout; or 3) naive college kids who don't know how the world really works.

see how those sort of garbage generalizations work both ways? i'm voting for Obama, and i'll ask you to kindly to not speak any more. you're not helping.

3:26, allow me to classify your reasons for voting for McCain:

#1 = selfish rich guy who doesn't want to pay taxes,

#2 = gullible,

#3 = GULLIBLE (if you think that ANY candidate doesn't say "what he needs to get elected" that you are EXTREMELY naive)

3:26 its 4 and some more as well

5. You are not rich today but understand that this is really the only country in the world where you and/or your kids actually have a chance to move up in life and build some wealth, and you don't want Obama's crazy tax schemes to take that away from you and make you a ward of the nanny state.

If you're voting for Obama, you:
1) are a Hippie
2) have a 5th grade understanding of geopolitics that leads you to believe that all we need for peace is someone "who could just get through" to all these evil people and make them understand that we're not so bad
3) own a prius
4) want a black friend
5) are really impressed by how he gives speeches written by someone else

3:39 sorry for getting in the way of continuing 3:26's post - 3:39

I love how in the liberal world someone who's rich and wants to keep his money is "greedy" but someone who's not rich and wants to used government coersion to soak the rich for his own benefit is simply "voting for his interests".

and in the conservative world, anyone who's rich "earned it himself" and anyone who's not "wants a handout."

3:40 - if you are voting for Obama, yes, you MAY be one of those people. However, there are reasons independent of those to vote for Obama. But if you are voting for McCain, you are either ignorant, selfish, or gullible. No exceptions.

@ 3:48 --- ITA with your last statement.

3:03/3:48- ok, and those independent reasons are...
let me guess: his voluminous record of legislative achievements? his work as a "community organizer" (whatever that means)? his support of campaign finance reform (scratch that one)? his categorical promise to bring hope all combat troops within 16 months (scratch that one, too)?

oh wait, i know: it's because he is "post-partisan" and will "bring folks together" for "change."

3:43 - the problem with your kind is that you want to "keep your money" no matter how badly this country is going to hell. Yeah, everyone wants to keep their money. We liberals don't WANT to pay taxes. However, we understand that there are problems in this country that need fixing and those that have the most money are going to have to pay to fix it. There are a lot of poor people who need help. Granted, some, or even many, of those people might not be deserving of our help, but we liberals can't just ignore things like "45 million Americans don't have health insurance." Therefore, we will pay more taxes if it means that those problems will get fixed. YOU, on the other hand, are happy to let things fall apart, just as long as you get to "keep your money." You will still be rich under Obama's presidency, but you would rather be "more rich" at the expense of everyone else. And that is why you are selfish.

4:01 totally agree. we need a media person to ask obama or someone on his staff - what exactly is this guy's track record? and when there is no answer coming then force them to answer, this should lead to something interesting

4:01 - yeah, you probably WOULDN'T know what "community organizer" means, you spoonfed prick.

4:07 -- are you serious? The problem with your kind is that you think there is always an easy fix to societal problems, and that fix is the govt. My kind understand that most of the problems that need fixing in this country cannot be solved by the govt and indeed, govt intervention will simply make things worse.
How much money does it take to convince people to get married before they have children?
This is the single biggest problem in America that spawns many other symptoms (poverty, drug abuse, crime). My kind understands that leaving money in the private sector and allowing "we the people" to help others will solve these problems quicker than giving more money and power to the govt to waste.

I am sick of liberals acting holier than thou and accusing conservatives of being selfish when the facts show it to be the reverse:

"Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood. "

By the way, the book "Who Really Cares" is well-researched and you ought to read it before spouting anymore falsehoods.

4:17 why the name calling? is it because you have nothing else to say to 4:01 who happens to make lots of sense.
am i the only one who sees that libs cannot agree to anything and when things do not seem to go their way they just resort to old school reactions. i.e. name calling and that red states are uneducated etc. isnt obama running on some plank that no more old school... this is obviously lost on his supporters!

Someone please tell me about McCain's accomplishments that don't have the words "campaign finance reform" or "P.O.W." in them. What has he done in his years in Congress that has shown that he'd be a great leader?

4:23, why do you have to bag on our troops like that? why do you hate them so much? how dare you ask how being a P.O.W. qualifies someone to be President? it's obvious to every REAL American.

4:23 besides those two things which are not at all to be overlooked try this:

1) he worked towards restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam in the 1990s,
2) McCain has chaired the powerful Senate Commerce Committee,
3) and has been a leader in seeking to rein in both pork barrel spending as well as Senate filibusters of judicial nominations.
4) Upon entering the Senate, McCain became a member of the Senate Armed Services
5) he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee, and continued to support the Native American agenda.
6) As first a House member and then senator,McCain was one of the main writers of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which codified rules regarding Native American gambling enterprises and established the balance between Indian tribal sovereignty and regulatory oversight by the states of such activity. McCain was a strong supporter of the Gramm-Rudman legislation that enforced automatic spending cuts in the case of budget deficits.

this is just some of it!

"most of the problems that need fixing in this country cannot be solved by the govt and indeed, govt intervention will simply make things worse."

Yeah, THIS adminstration makes everything worse. But a COMPETENT government can actually solve problems. History has shown this to be the case (e.g., the Great Depression). To simply say "government can't solve anything" is an easy way to justify not paying taxes. Problem is, it's simply not true.

plus he was a POW.

Hey 4:32, I can read wikipedia also. Wikipedia also lists a bunch of stuff that Obama did in the Senate. So if that's all of his "experience," then I really don't see what he has on Obama, who has done things just as equally irrelevant to the role of President.

4:23/4:40- don't forget:

1) Co-sponsored bill to strengthen airport security after 9-11
2) Co-sponsored (i think) Line Item Veto- signed into law by clinton, but struck by SCOTUS in a decision widely criticized for prizing form over substance
3) Member of "gang of 14" senators who kept republican majority from imposing "nuclear option" of preventing democrats from using a filibuster to prevent votes for judicial nominees.

These, along with McCain-Feingold and chairing the Select Committee investigating whereabouts of POWs (which i'm not allowed to mention, per your question), were bi-partisan achievements of remarkable scope and significance.

I'm still waiting for Obama's resume.

-4:01/3:40

Dear July 15, 2008 3:37 PM:

EXCEPT THAT:

1. Obama's primary pitch is that he is "different"--no politics as usual;

2. McCain has a track record of saying what he really believes--to his detriment;

3. Obama’s tax proposals, combined with an unwillingness to even promise to reduce spending or make balancing the budget a priority are going to ruin this economy;

4. You argument, that every candidate lies so who gives a shit what they say or whether they are consistent, you are “gullible” if you believe in a candidate, is hardly a principled reason to vote for Obama.

Holy crap McCain graduated 894 out of 899 at the Naval Academy! This guy is even dumber than Bush!!

In the words of Chris Rock (I'm paraphrasing here). I don't want my president to be someone who was shot down and locked up. I want somebody who kicked some ass.

In the words of Chris Rock (I'm paraphrasing here):

I don't want my president to be someone who was shot down and locked up. I want somebody who kicked some ass.

4:34,

The problem with your argument is that government, by definition, is incompetent, primarily because it is 100% incentivised to waste money. Government has been corrupt and inefficient since the begining of time, and yet you liberals, who live in Candyland, think it is the answer to all problems. Incidently, the Great Depression was created by government meddling in the market, it would have been a mild recession if government had stayed out of it. Socialism solves with great difficulty problems that it created.

4:46 -

1. That is Obama's pitch, but intelligent voters don't listen to a candidate's "pitch," they look at their positions on the issues. McCain's "pitch" is that he's a "straight talker" and a "maverick," which might have been true in 2000, but he has long ago abandoned that attitude and now panders to the republican base.

2. as stated above, not true anymore. That John McCain - who Democrats respected eight years ago - is gone.

3. a baseless presumption

4. if you are voting for McCain based on the perception that he's a "straight talker," then you are gullible. You are also gullible if you vote for Obama based on his "change" rhetoric.

"But a COMPETENT government can actually solve problems. History has shown this to be the case (e.g., the Great Depression). "

HAHAHAHAH LOL. Are you serious? Have you read any history or did you just take your high school teacher's word for it?

Have you read any of the increasing number of economists and historians that have conluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression?

Take Obama's idea (actually, I have no idea where he currently stands on this, but at one point he was in favor of these measures) of putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs?

That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

Seriously, the fact that you took American History in high school (and watched American History X last year) does not qualify you to pronounce what history has "proven."

I could go on with ostensibly reasonable liberal policies that have completely backfired: rent control, AA etc.

I'd also like to point out that you never agreed that I completely tore up your argument that conservatives were selfish, but instead tried to change the subject to the efficacy of govt.

Still waiting for one good reason to vote for Obama.

-4:01/3:40

Can a Republican please, please help me out? I am a true patriot and Republic, and I want to Swift Boat Obama. What is the more effective way of smearing Obama: linking him to his bigoted, un-American Christian pastor, or calling Obama the dirty Muslin that he is? I can't do both because that would be inconsistent.

Please, onlu true god-fearing Republian Americans respond. If you are an unAmerican liberal commie, do not respond to this. I do not speak to your kind.

5:06 the first way, as the second idea too many people will not believe. and in truth the first idea i believe is worse

5:06. Link him to his bigoted, un-American Christian pastor. Hands down the best approach for the following reasons:

1) In his two memoirs (always point out that Obama has written two memoris before accomplishing anything of significance in his life) he credited his bigoted, un-American pastor with bringing him religion. You can even hear Obama read his books on cd when he talks about tears streaming down his face as he listened to said pastor.

2) You can then show his bigoted, un-American pastor shouting all sorts of bigoted, un-American things as his congregation wildly applauds.

3) You can then show Obama analogizing said preacher to his "typical white person" grandmother's fear of young black men and saying that he cannot abandon said preacher.

4) You can then show Obama abandon said pastor after the pastor simply reiterated earlier remarks.

You can then ask the following questions of the audience:

1) Did the congregants seem surprised by the rhetoric coming from Obama's bigoted, un-American pastor?

2) How long did Obama call this man his "spiritual advisor"

3) Why did Obama finally leave the church when all his pastor did was say the same exact things that he'd been shown on camera saying?

4) Is it reasonable to believe that Obama shares the views of his so-called "spiritual advisor"?

Such a course can have a tremendous effect on all reasonable persons and can be adopted by someone like yourself quite effectively.

Please let me know if you need further guidance.

Sincerely,

A "onu true god-fearing Republican Americans"

5:00 - the Hawley-Smoot tariff may have been ONE of the things that caused the depression (and it was an example of government screwing up), but another cause - and most obvious - was the total lack of regulation in the markets!

Hey 5:15, who is advising McCain these days? Oh I know, Ross Parsley and John Hagee! McCain has no problem with those guys, despite the disgusting things that they say.

I grew up with a girl named Holly Smoot. I always thought it was a horribly-fraught name.

5:19/5:00 -

The liberals' king Joe Kennedy had a hand in the unregulated market collapse, and helped prompt this little act in 1933. Some people have heard of it. It's kind of a big deal.

Some government regulation will always be necessary to protect people in the short term. The problem is that most people in government are not smart (mostly those appointed folks), and can't see that knee-jerk reactions have long-term consequences.

5:19

Let's recap:

You assert that conservatives are selfish

- I rebut that with evidence that in fact liberals are more selfish

You assert that govt is needed to fix societal ills and specifically mention the Great Depression as an example.

- I rebut that with evidence that the Hawley-Smoot tariff in fact spurred on the Depression.

You agree that this govt intervention was ONE of the things that caused the depression and assert that the biggest was "the total lack of regulation in the markets"

I respond: I have not argued for no regulation. Regulation in moderation has proved to be a good thing for investor confidence and market efficiency. On that we agree.

Obama is not talking about regulation. He is talking about huge govt involvment in the market:

i.e.,

- govt provided (and txpayr funded) "free" health care (he includes illegal immigrants as those deserving "free" health care) etc.

People like me recognize the need for a "limited govt" (you know, like the founder's desired). Is the phrase "limited" a balancing act? Of course. Do people like me recognize the need for some tax? of course. BUT, given the levels of govt involvment at the current time, any politician promising less involvement is better than any promising more.

Thus, McCain is the choice. While he's not the perfect choice, he is far better than Obama.

How can anyone argue against Barack Obama? He will take care of all our problems! He said he will! Why don't you people believe him!? Is it because he's black?

Did someone actually say that the government "solved" the Great Depression? Try reading a history/economics book. The government CAUSED the Great Depression and continued to exascerbate it until it got us into WWII, which actually did something to get us out of it.

At 4:01, I expressly asked for one good reason to vote for obama. I have yet to hear one. I can only assume that if you are voting for obama, you are one of the five classes of people mentioned in my 3:40 post.

I will now kick my feet up, bludgeon a baby seal, empty a canister of aquanet into the ozone, and throw my plastic water bottle in the trash... another small victory for the good guys.

(playing with my suspenders and smirking... oh, am i smirking)

-4:01/3:40

http://getdrunkandvote4mccain.com/

Setting aside the question of what Obama (in view of his recent flip-flops, a scanty track record as a Illinois State Senator ) and as a first term freshman US Senator) of what Obama really stands for:

1. Obama has not promised to reduce spending or balance the budget;

2. Obama is inexperienced.

3. Obama will exacerbate the crappy economy by taxing the new jobs engine (new capital investments and self-employed entrepreneurs).

McCain has not only promised to reduce spending, he has a track record of doing so.

Would you turn over your mother's life savings to a money manager with no track record simply because he had a good line of BS?

Our country and economy are at least that important, especially now.

Holy crap - it turns out Obama IS a Muslim!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/02/24/obama_muslim_garb.jpg

5:43- i'm voting for Obama b/c I generally prefer Obama's policies to McCain's. Many of the things he wants to do (e.g., universal healthcare) are things we pay for already, and are, IMO, wise investments.

But more importantly: in the end, I trust him more than I trust McCain.

perhaps that doesn't qualify as a "good" reason in your book, but there it is.

6:00

How has he "earned" your trust?

Has he done anything that indicates that he cannot be trusted?

In regards to "universal healthcare" (I love the catch-phrase by the way). Do you really think a federally mandated/controlled program is superior to those that can be implemented by states relying on the ideas of competition and choice?

Look to Gov. Romney's program in Mass for example. While too early to tell if it will be a complete success, the early reports are positive.

This, I remind you, was done w/out new taxes. These are the types of solutions I think everyone would favor.

Please explain to me how Universal Health Care is a good investment. It has been a miserable failure in every country where it has been attempted. In France, e.g., it takes, on average, six weeks to get an appointment to see a primary care physician. How can anyone argue for that? I guess because our government will be much more "competent" than France's...you people live in Candyland.

Problem with McCain is he is too old. I need to see who his running mate is to decide if I will vote for him or not vote at all (for president) this year. If I like the running mate, I can vote for McCain and then hope that he dies.

how does anyone "earn" trust of those who don't know him personally? i said i trust him more than i trust McCain, who has done plenty to lose the trust i once had in him.

i don't think anyone has proposed a system like France's. in Finland, the system works wonderfully. it's a different system from France. "universal health care" isn't an either/or proposition, no matter how much its opponents wish to paint it as such. everyone should have access to health care because it make financial sense. there are a lot of pros and cons for various models and methods of implementation, but that basic truth remains. the MA model seems to work well...is there something special about MA that tells you it wouldn't work well on a larger scale? if it's OK for a state gov't to do, why is it horrible for the federal gov't to try it?

people are getting health care anyway. when someone w/out insurance is sick, they go to the emergency room. they take up resources that should be allocated more efficiently, and by the time they are there, solving the problem is usually a lot tougher than if they had simply had access to healthcare int he first place. they can't pay for that care (and can't be denied it), so the rest of us with insurance pay for it.

when somenoe with a job but not health benefits gets sick or hurt (or has to care for a sick family member), they risk losing their job. these workers are generally less educated and less skilled, so have a tougher time than others finding more work. what happens? we end up supporting them, when it would have been cheaper to find a way to keep them at work in the first place.

preventive measures are almost always more effective and efficient than remedial measures. dealing with a cause of a problem is always more effective than dealing with its symptoms. right now, we deal with symptoms in a remedial manner, b/c it requires less thought and planning. the bottom line is, we pay more for less than most other countries do.

-6:00

Yup, clearly no one knows what's going on with this cover, luckily we have some New Yorker captioning expert to give an insight:
http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/14/an_insiders_response_to_the_ne_7716.php
Deep interview that.

Try again 6:00,

The Scandinavian health care systems suck too. The waiting periods for routine procedures are enormous. The problem with your argument is that you neglect to consider that, when a service is made "free" (even though anyone with half a brain knows that nothing is free), demand skyrockets. This can be seen in our current system of charity care, wherein there have been notable examples of people using the emergency room 30-40 times a month in some cases, because they do not have to pay anything. I think people should always have to pay something for healthcare, otherwise demand will shoot to pluto and supply will shrink as government regulation lowers the return on investment that doctors obtain. That is why the idiot European countries have enormous shortages of heath care. Make it free, demand rockets. Regulations that limit what doctors can earn, supply shrinks. Get it? Good. The solution is to encourage competition among healthcare providers and make everyone pay, just like with any other service.

McCain also was the one who got Rumsfeld tossed and got Petraeus put in charge, and got the surge to work. Do you think W would have listened to any Democrat on that? Hell no. And good thing, since they would have pulled out in disorder and lost the whole thing.

Doing what McCain did on Rummy and the Surge took balls and judgment. Clinton and Obama skip every potentially significant vote- Obama even did it in Illinois by voting "present." With the exceptions of Hillary's healthcare plan in the 90's, no democratic candidate for president has ever actually led any successful effort or taken any meaningful risk for the good of the country.

And whoever's knocking McCain's class rank at Navy has obviously never 1. gone to a school that actually fails people or 2. served in uniform. Back in 1954-1958 everybody wasn't entitled to graduate from college; people actually failed for sucking (USNA is still that way). McCain couldn't take Womens' Studies or other bullsh*t classes. USNA only had engineering degrees- yeah, he, unlike 99% of the dumbasses in law school, earned a no-kidding engineering degree.

Finally, class rank at Navy weighted "conduct" quite heavily. McCain was, admittedly, a hellraiser. No he didn't do coke like Barry Obama but he did sneak out at night and do other things that are okay everywhere except for the military academies (where they're criminalized). For his acting out he got nailed with demerits, almost enough to get kicked out. That killed his class rank. Otherwise he'd have been middle of the pack. (Top of the class back then would have been a Jimmy Carter or Ross Perot.)

And his hellraising really was a long time ago- before Barry was even born, so it's fair to discount it. Further, whatever McCain messed up at Navy he had 20 more years in uniform to mature, which he did.

Obama people need to make a case for Obama, not knock McCain. He's a hero, the kind we tell our kids about. When you put him down you sound like you hate America and American virtues. So don't do it. Just try to persuade people that Barack's worth a vote. You'll have much better odds of succeeding that way.

I agree.

Now that Obama has been revealed to be not the cantidate from hope and change but a cynical politician like the rest, what is the affirmative case for voting for Obama?

Liberals, as a voter, am I supposed to vote for my own (economic) interest?

Because when I don't vote for my self-interest, you say that I did the wrong thing, that I am an idiot bamboozled by FoxNews (like What's the Matter With Kansas).

But when I do vote for my own self-interest, you accuse me of being selfish and not wanting to pay taxes. Well yeah, that's the whole point of voting my self-interest.

Or should only poor people vote their economic self-interest, but the wealthier taxpaying voters should vote against their economic self-interest? At what point does that dichotomy flip over?
I might ask for a raise soon, so I want to know if I will accidentally put myself over the threshold where I should vote against my own self-interest (and higher taxes).

Thanks.

"Obama people need to make a case for Obama, not knock McCain. He's a hero, the kind we tell our kids about."

Frankly, I don't see that he did anything heroic. What's so heroic about being a POW? It's only heroism by virtue of circumstance. In the same way, a large portion of the world will say the GITMO detainees are heros. I presume you would disagree. They've been every bit as "heroic" as McCain was (i.e., most of them have not died in captivity, although they too have presumably spilled their guts in response to torture). htfh.

A Moslem.

7:21, McCain is a hero because as a POW, he was offered release after about a year because of his serious injuries and his father being an Admiral. McCain refused to be released until all POWs captured before him were first released. This was a wholly voluntary choice he made. He passed over the chance to get some much better medical treatment, which is why he cannot raise his arm above his shoulder. John McCain stayed on as a POW for an additional four years, until near the end of the war.

To analogize John McCain to the GITMO detainees shows that you, sir, are an ignorant buffoon and pathetic hack.

There the pro Obama posters go again attacking McCain--but not offering an affirmative case for Obama.

6:42- good call on Rummy and the surge. can't believe i left that out.

6:00- universal health care is a fine reason. at least that's something people can have a reasonable disagreement about. the fact that it took 1.5 hours for someone to post anything resembling rational support for the man who (sadly) will likely be president speaks volumes. yeah, yeah, i have a real job too.

6:23, if people are abusing the emergency room medical care, the solution is to clamp down on abuse of that. For example, garnish their wages and file a tax lien for the ER bills every time they use the ER, or when they go to the ER for diseases treatable during the day at the local free clinic. The solution is not to give these people even more free access to expensive medical care, which everyone else will end up paying even more for.

7:34

The NVA set up his potential release purely as a propaganda ploy, in hopes that he'd take it. If he had, he'd have been reviled as a coward.

Not doing the cowardly thing =/= heroism.

Please try to find the weakness in my analogy to the Guantanamo detainees. I'll only accept *logical* reasoning, so don't try something like, "cuz there terrists!!"

htfh

7:21

6:34, again you're leaping to assumptions about implementation details, and using them to support a policy position. from what i've read, Scandanavians are generally pretty happy with their health care.

7:34-

you're right; as a young man, McCain did a brave and heoic thing. i admire it, and hope i would have the same guts if i were in that situation.

that said:

1. being a POW does not make you more qualified to be president.
2. if people can make excuses for McCain's behavior and poor judgment as a young man b/c "it was a long time ago," and people can presumably change, isn't it fair to question whether "old McCain" has the same sort of brave innocnce that "young McCain" displayed? it seems to me that it's fair to assume that works both ways. plenty of people who were idealistic and admirable in youth have changed into something different as they've aged and acquired wealth and power. I've seen a lot of things out of McCain since 2000 that tell me he might be one of those people.

Tell it, 7:34.

8:31, what a McCain supporter will say about McCain's pow exerience is that it tells us a lot about the real John McCain. He didn't know he was going to live to tell stories about his time in captivity. When he was in solitary confinement he didn't even know whether other Americans would be able to tell his stories (if any of them made it out alive). When nobody was watching, John McCain showed what he was made of.

Nobody's perfect, but that tells me enough about McCain's character to trust him.

More recently, though, politician McCain, now with something to lose (the nomination), stuck to his guns on the Surge when everyone except Petraeus and maybe Bush had quit on it. That also told me a lot about him. He did what he thought was best for the country, and he gave our military a chance to win (which I can tell you means a lot to them). If he had been wrong he'd have been run right out of the nomination race. His democratic opponents spent the whole time predicting failure and calling it a waste (Obama) or triangulating by sitting on every fence she could find (Clinton). McCain showed real courage. That's what we need.

8:31, being a POW does better qualify a person to be president. A former POW will understand the consequences of engaging in armed conflict like almost no other commander in chief, and he'll understand what it's like to be a detainee (a big issue of late). He'll have lived abroad, as an adult, in another culture (and not just as a tourist). He'll have experienced the consequences of failed foreign policy.

Also, I can't think of any other job not involving a political election or appointment that would be better preparation for a future commander in chief than military officer.

I'd say that almost any job/occupation could prepare a person for the presidency, provided they do it well. McCain was a model POW and represented America well in Vietnam. He also served ably in the House and Senate.

I guess I'd ask you, 8:31, what Barack Obama has done, in terms of substantive work experience, that John McCain hasn't? They've both been legislators for some time now.

7:21/8:25, you're right. There is no difference between McCain as a POW and the Gitmo detainees. They are exactly the same. Your analogy and logical reasoning is ingenious.

You should tell the entire world about your brilliant analogy. You should also emphasize to these people your real name so that they will remember your genius for posterity, and also tell them the fact that you are an ardent Obama supporter and that this is your side's best argument against McCain.

Questioning whether old McCain will have the same courage as young McCain is fair, I guess, but consider this, 8:31:

Youthful crazy Naval Academy McCain was 19 and 20. Fighter pilot POW McCain was 31-37. I think it's fair to disavor college-age behavior and still take credit for work you did in your 30s. I'll bet you're not even 31 yet, 8:31, so we could not count your whole life to this point, start counting tomorrow, and we'd still be able to give McCain credit for what he did in Vietnam. He wasn't an idealistic teenager jumping on a grenade. He was a fully grown man, an officer and father, making a choice, every day, to forego early release, to resist his captors, with no promise that he'd survive if he stayed. That's hard core. And if you do that in your mid-30s I'll give you credit for it when you're 70.

Also qualifying McCain to be commander in chief over Obama: McCain's two children on active duty (one Navy, one Marines). I don't judge a candidate just by his children, or expect the kids to not live their own lives, but since his kids did choose to serve, McCain has a personal investment in today's military in a way that no other current candidate for president does.

9:05 said "7:21/8:25, you're right. There is no difference between McCain as a POW and the Gitmo detainees. They are exactly the same. Your analogy and logical reasoning is ingenious."

This is just giving up, dawg. Come on, try to think up some logical distinctions between the two sets of POWs. Put that big brain to work!

Here, I'll start with some distinctions: John McCain was actively blowing up his captors' countrymen when he was taken POW and mistreated; most of the Guantanamo detainees were not. Take it away!

9:01-

taking your statement that almost any job qualifies a sperson to be president, as long as he does it well (with which I agree), i'd submit that Obama seems to have excelled at everything he's done in life (one could argue that the one thing at which he's been mediocre is "being a politician"). He was a poor kid who got into prep schools on scholarship. He got himself through college and HLS, where he was elected president of the law review. Right there, that's pretty good for a (half) black kid raised by a single mom. Based on what i've read, he was widely admired and had his pick of prestigious clerkships and firm jobs. That he turned them down for a low-paying job in Chicago tells me something about his character, and about what he believes. From all accounts, his leadership style is what I'd want in a leader: inclusive and thoughtful. For all the "most liberal senator" nonsense, keep in mind that the job of Senator is primarily one of an advocate, and is fundamentally different from the job of President, which is an executive role. He seems to get that difference in a way that many (including, and especially, our current CIC) do not.

Has he made some missteps along the way? Absolutely, and if he hadn't, I'd be worried. But pretty much everything he's done so far has been based on principle--the Jeremiah Wright thing included, and in particular. It wasn't until Wright began insinuating that Obama was being dishonest (i.e., "a politician") that Obama cut loose from him; the truly politically expedient thing would have been to cut Wright loose immediately, rather than try to use the situation as an opportunity to illustrate one of the major issues facing our country. The only thing that doens't fit is the campaign finance issue, and I'm OK with that; he in this thing to win, and foregoing public financing gives him the best chance.

9:09-

fair enough, and well said. (actually, i am 31, so McCain's experience is something that's really hit a nerve.) he's a brave man, and did an admirable thing almost 40 years ago. but the way he reversed course after the 2000 campaign when faced with the "wrath" of the Bush White House really gives me pause. He covered his ass to ensure his politicial efficacy, which I suppose is part and parcel of being a Senator...and one of the reasons it's so difficult (and rare) for a Senator to be elected President (wasn't JFK the last one?).

So I was a big McCain fan, but I think he's become someone more interested in maintaining his power than in really doing some good. That might be why Obama interests me so much; he's relatively new to power, and doesn't have as much to lose. I wasn't a bg Hillary fan for that reason, but at least I agreed with her politics. Obama's not particularly rich or entrenched. If others disagree, or see things differently, that's fine.

-8:31

10:35, you're hilarious. Barack Obama was not some stereotypical kid raised by a single mom. When he and his mom moved to Indonesia after his real father ditched them, he lived with his mother and his Indonesian STEPFATHER, who was an oil executive. When he wasn't living with his mom, he was living with his grandparents in Hawaii, who were bank executives. His grandmother was one of the first female VPs of a major bank. He went to Occidental College, tuition paid for by his family. At no time was his surroundings ever poor.

I know it's fashionable among liberals to equate "black" automatically with being raised dirt poor in the ghetto, but let's not lie about real facts, shall we.

8:31 again. To be honest, Obama might be idelistic, and he might be a little naive. i'm OK with that. I believe he has the wisdom to surround himself with people who will provide good counsel, and the intelligence and integrity to heed that advice. that's all i ask for in a president: wisdom, intelligence, and integrity. IMO, Obama's got that; the fact that I agree with a lot (not all) of his policy positions is a bonus.

10:44, his being (half) black has nothing to do with it. i based my statement on what i've read and heard BHO talk about...i'm assuming "food stamps" doesn't reflect a privilieged upbringing. please feel free to back up your statements of BHO's privileged life...i'd be interested to read them.

i'm glad i could bring some humor into your life, though.

8:31 at 10:35, I'm going to do something for the first time on ATL: acknowledge you might be a decent person even if you disagree with me.

Good points. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate that you tried to highlight the good in Obama and compare him to McCain without putting McCain down.

Luckily for me, these posts are anonymous or I could later be accused of civility or even comity.

Good night, may the best candidate win.

9:01/9:09

11:24, BHO's claim that his mother lived on food stamps is a lie.
See, for example:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-was-obamas-mom-on-food-stamps

When he was young with his mother, Hawaii did not have food stamps. By the time Hawaii had them, BHO was living with his wealthy bank executive grandparents.
Do you also believe that his claim that the 1965 March on Selma had anything to do with him being born (in 1961)?

My favorite line is the one about Barry being disadvantaged even though his father was a Harvard grad. I didn't know about the food stamps.

My second favorite line is the one about how he didn't write anything while he was on HLR. Total b.s. He wrote some bomb-throwing thing about redistribution of wealth and won't own up to it.

From now on, when some Republican Nazi makes some false accusation about Obama or his wife (like he's a Muslim/she's a radichal who hates America/he took his oath on the Koran/He advocates redistributing wealth), do what I do: Literally beat the truth into the person. I mean, have a basebball bat on hand and beat the truth into the person with that bat. I know it's harsh, but what's at stake is too important--there may have to be some blood to save this country.

Republicans have screwed up horribly in the last 8 years: Endless & unwinable war entered into under false pretenses, horrible economy, end of the middle class, TTT global status, broken health care system, complete failure to take any steps to wean ourselves from Middle Eastern energy dependence, general ambivalence towards the environment.

The Democrats deserve a shot to try to fix things.

Republicans have screwed up horribly in the last 8 years: Endless & unwinable war entered into under false pretenses, horrible economy, end of the middle class, TTT global status, broken health care system, complete failure to take any steps to wean ourselves from Middle Eastern energy dependence, general ambivalence towards the environment.

The Democrats deserve a shot to try to fix things.

the new yorker cover was neither clever nor funny, and looks as if drawn by a fifth grader.

face it - the new yorker sucks and not because its humor is too subtle or highbrow - its just not funny.

2:07, I hope you're joking. Otherwise you're exhibit A for why I will not trust Dems (it would put people like you in power) and why I will insist on "shall issue" concealed-carry laws. You'll only get to swing that bat once.

Please don't make flippant Nazi references, 2:07. It's shameful and unbecoming.

Ah yes, I follow 2:07. never ever say Barack Obama may be a Muslim (even though his father and stepfather were once Muslims) or call Michelle Obama a "radical" (let's ignore her HLS political demonstrations).
But let's call Republicans "Nazis" and threaten physical violence against them.

Why are Obamas immune from criticism? Because they're BLACK, of course.

3:26:

You are a racist. In fact, the more I read what you wrote, you are a blatant racist. You are a waste of a human being. Please go on a time machine back to 1930s Germany.

Also? Obama DOES advocate redistributing wealth. If you aren't comfortable with that idea, don't support him.

uh no observations on obama's larry king comments!

uh no observations on obama's larry king comments!