It has been a rough couple of days for Barack Obama. First Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off, then the New Yorker paints him as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist as they happily burn the flag.
How utterly stupid is this presidential race going to get?
Monday, July 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
oncsm, my brother, i think it's gonna get pretty ugly, and fast.
usually the nasty stuff is saved for the last few weeks, but with this extended election cycle...who knows? i don't think it'll get any better.
incidently, i think jesse jackson's comments help obama by distinguishing him as separate from the old guard in the civil rights movement. that alone will bring him closer to center than any of his overt "tactical maneuvers".
the new yorker cover? bad taste. extremely bad. but hey, it sells magazines, so what's the problem? (/sarcasm)
oncsm?? where did the "on" come from? i don't claim it. ;-)
C'mon csm, you are going to bring up the New Yorker front cover? Doesn't anybody have a satirical bone left in their body? I sure as hell hope humor doesn't become illegal.
Both candiates knew what they were getting into. It is ironice, the media, who played up Obama as the new wonder boy has turned on him just a little. I don't think they have liked all his recents position changes. But then again as Bawdyscot pointed out, the article was satire. Humor has become almost a lost sense in politics.
I doubt CSM had much of a problem with the General betrayUs article just a short time back or the smear article on McCain not so long ago.
And the satire gun wasn't even pointed at Obama but the people who send me all this "Hussein" shit, and the flag pin shit and the Pledge shit.
It reminds me of the story many years ago about a five year old boy who burned down his own trailer after watching Beavis and Butthead play with fire. The know-it-alls were all over the show for the match play, but I kept thinking what the fuck are parents doing letting a five year old watch Beavis and Butthead in the first place. We are really great at displaced anger in this country.
Why Obama(or his organization) even mentioned the cover is beyond me. Are people in general this fucking stupid. On second thought, don't answer that.
it may be just a joke, but it was a bad joke. is it suddenly illegal to say, "hey, that's in poor taste"? would the same magazine get away with a satirical cover depicting mccain cheating on his first wife, berating her AND his new wife? (even if they did, wouldn't it still be in poor taste?)
further, a recent poll over at world nut daily indicates the majority of their readers don't view it as satire, but an accurate reflection of the "threat" obama holds.
This from the people who brought me the "Priest Camp" video awhile back. I got a modicum of flak because of the taste issue(even though I thought the video hilarious)for that. This just goes to prove when it hits close to the bone; the funny bone becomes inoperable. Lastly, if the other side doesn't consider it satire, just be thankful you have the brains to enjoy the humor and can consider yourself intellectually superior.
ya know, if it had been a snl skit lampooning the fearmongering tactics of the right, i prolly would have laughed my ass off. how's that for honesty?
i think maybe it's the format that makes the cover a bad idea. a caricature-type portrait is, well, two-dimensional. no room for flux, or ebb & flow. effective humor needs some room to work.
but what do i know? this is just my opinion, after all.
i saw this over at the huff post. it doesn't work as humor, either. imo, of course.
I was watching The Daily Show last night and Jon had his take and it was pure genius. In essence, the cover was satire, right. The media were all abuzz about this cover and most if not all were mentioning how in bad taste it was. Then a montage of media talking heads were shown hinting at all these myths about Obama, basically on the premise if we show it it is true. Then Jon comes back on and asks the question, "Now who is the two dimensional character here?" Of, course it is television newscasters. Pure genius.
The only thing missing from the mock McCain cover at the Huffington Post link you provided Corey is McCain responding to his wife saying something like "Thanks, you cunt!"
And I think there are several reasons why the Obama cover is offensive. It is supposed to satirize those who think those things about Obama yet the only way to know that for sure is to read the article inside. If the whole picture had been in a thought bubble coming out of a Rush Limbaugh caricature, then it works...
But hell, I support the National Review's right to publish that offensive cover!
right. how can it qualify as satire if the people being satirized (fearmongering conservatives) aren't even on the cover? the mainstream media disappoints, once again.
bawdy, i watched the daily show bit over at comedycentral.com and you were right. it was dead on.
thanks for pointing it out 2 me.
have you guys seen the new jibjab video yet?
Actually, I think a better mock cover would have McCain as a Nazi (he isn't one, but Obama is not a Muslim). And he should be punching his wife in the head while calling her a cunt (he isn't a wife beater, but he has been verbally abusive). At the same time, he should be pushing his crippled ex-wife out a window ("satirizing" how he abandoned her). Cindy should be drunk on beer with cans littered at her feet (she is associated with beer, isn't she?)... now there is a cover that would make some waves, don't ya think?
You should have The New Yorker on speed dial, csm.
Here is an example of why the New Yorker missed its mark on its recent cover:
"It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a 'mad at the world' afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right." -- G. Gordon Liddy.
Hey guys! Obama and McCain action figures! Get yours now! Stage your own political slugfests, or bridge the partisan gap in your own living room!
how frickin cool is that?!
and after the election, i can retire mclame to the balcony with statler and waldorf! he'll fit right in. :)
Yet another reason why this sort of imagery is troublesome... even some Republicans in the Senate seem believe this horse shit.
Perhaps the lesson we should take from this is to remember that our congresscritters are not necessarily any wiser or smarter than we are. They have the advantage of resources unavailable to the rest of us, and the ambition to use them however they see fit.
Kinda scary, huh?
Post a Comment