Michelle and Barack Obama on the cover of the New Yorker

am I the only person who found it funny?

Michelle look particularly fetching in her Angela Davis getup.

I am surprised that what is obviously a joke/satire has gotten so much coverage from the chattering class.  and outrage from the Obama camp.

much of the expressed outrage about the the "tasteless" and "offensive" cover is along the lines of "oh, we get the joke – we worry about "them" – them ignorant fly-over-country bitter rednecks – they are going to think this is an actual portrait"

this is a political cartoon and cartooning has a long history of being mocking and satirical; I think that those moaning and complaining are discounting the ability of the reading public to get a joke

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Michelle and Barack Obama on the cover of the New Yorker

  1. I love how so many people are saying "that's racist", and don't understand that it's great satire–mocking the Republicans' most outrageous claims.

  2. See, I do worry about "them," because they are the majority who voted for George W. Bush, not once, but TWICE! And here's something else, they'd vote him again if he were on the 2008 ballot!

  3. I'm not offended by it, but something about this cover has still struck me askew. I just figured it out. As satire, it works backwards to the premise of most political cartoons. For example, if a politician is known to be a loud, braying, goof, he'd be easily depicted as a donkey in a political cartoon as an exaggeration of existing qualities. But would you depict him as one if he didn't have those qualities? Taking it as straight humor, it's just not working for me.

  4. I wasn't offended by it, but I'm also assuming it takes on a whole new dimension in the US. The fact remains that way too many people still actually believe the non-truths about him, no matter what anyone says, and I doubt the cartoon will do much to quell the doubts. I think it's a great cartoon, but wasted because, as you've seen, the humour is not nearly broad enough to appeal to the masses who will see the cover of such a magazine.

  5. I'm not offended but I think opponent's of less depth will look at it and say, "SEE! Even the New Yorker thinks so."I don't think satire is easily whipped on the public at large. You have to want to see satire in order to appreciate it.

  6. I lack the brainpower to comment on political/important issues. All I want to say is I think it's time to bring back "Cloud Bunny". Your new member image is freakin' me out!

  7. "A satirical cartoon would not be any good if it came with a set of instructions."I didn't really think it was funny. I liked Mrs. Obama's caricature better than Mr. Obama's but while my art may be whimsical and not satirical, I did like, go to university and all…So, I was more interested in the art-proper. Then, I looked at the content and thought it a bit facile but political cartoons often are.Humor and art are so personal, I always think it's weird when people freak out.And of course I'm just a stoopid Hillbilly from the Ozarks, so maybe I only thought I understood.

  8. I did recognize it as satire, but I was still bothered by it: there are still idiots out there who believe that Obama will turn the country over to terrorists and women will all be forced to wear chadoors. Yeah, they don't read The New Yorker and the likelihood that any of them will even see the cover is small, but this sort of thing can hurt if you're target. (I also admit I'm hyper sensitive about anti-Muslim sentiment in the media, since I see Muslims in the US being treated the way Japanese Americans were treated after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.) But: Some years ago The New Yorker published an article poking fun of the idea that the Japanese were taking over New York, back when a Japanese corporation bought Rockefeller Center. There were Japanese stereotypes galore—sushi stands instead of hot dog carts, Japanese tourists ordering green tea at Chock Full O'Nuts and getting their photos taken in front of New York landmarks, Japanese businessmen with the black-framed plastic glasses and impersonal grey suits crowding the subways, etc. I recognized it as satire. But I didn't think it was funny.

  9. The New Yorker isn't what it used to be… and that's too bad. As for the cover, it bothers me a lot.

  10. I second Laurie. It doesn't embrace any actual qualities of the Obamas and if it's supposed to be a parody of a mentality – then where are the folks who have the mentality?On the surface I thought it was funny, so did my roommate. But it's inflammatory. To me The New Yorker is known for it's subtle satire and this strikes me as in-your-face which is obnoxiously out of place for them.

  11. Do the "people" who voted for george bush ever read The New Yorker?
    I wish they would!

    (LOL at M—–I.

    "Marisuuuhhh!", said in Fezzik voice.)

  12. The real fact of the matter is that the joke is not the cover itself, but the reaction. And I, for one, find it hysterical.

  13. I heard the uproar before seeing the cover, so I expected something positively vile. It's not particularly funny – which is a vileness in of itself – and as mad-tante said, the caricature of Michelle is better than the one of Barack. If he's elected, the cartoonists are going to be in trouble.

  14. I fully support the New Yorker's right to print it. I also know some of those "fly-over country rednecks" who have never read a single article from the New Yorker, but have seen the cartoon, and think it was some cartoonist's depiction of what the Obama White House would look like, and they think it's right on. The concept of irony is lost on them. All I can do is shrug my shoulders and sigh. Those are people who wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Comments are closed.