The drooling is a nice touch. As is the Constitution in the fire.
In the EotAW thread, Ari points out, rightly, that Eric's reimagining stuck close to the realm of truth vis-a-vis McCain, while the Obama drawing goes for demonstrable falsehood. This cartoon seems to be a kind of halfway point between a political slant on the candidate and a representation of nasty smears.
I think this cover would work well as a counterpoint.
Soo... over-under on the odds of it (or anything similar) getting on any national publication?
I look at this and think, "yep, that's about right".
The counter parody smacks into the problem that there is no smear campaign against John McCain except for the one run by aggrieved POWs. This is not to say that no one makes negative claims about McCain which are too extreme (his current policy positions are McSame, but it's not the case that he's always been), but I haven't heard about any set of wildly false claims circulating about him which could be satired the way The New Yorker attempted to.
See, and I find this cover super-entertaining. Which leads me to believe that the Obama cover is super-entertaining to right-wingers. Which in my book, means it failed.
I like how closely this one follows the original, with the constitution on fire and the Cheney's picture on the mantle.
W/D: what about the black baby thing, the Manchurian Candidate/he-was-driven-mad-in-captivity thing, maybe a Keating 5 thing?
I agree with comment 6 completely.
as for "no smear campaign", there was technically a smear campaign against McCain in 2000, but of course it came from the same people (minus McCain himself) who are now smearing Obama. The effect of this proposed National Review cover would not be enhanced by adding McCAin's mythical pickaninny whelps.
I also like how Cheney is accepted to be the moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden. that's not Hitler, not even Nixon up there, just Cheney.
Manchurian candidate is the one run by aggrieved POWs. Has black baby been revived?
W/D: what about the black baby thing, the Manchurian Candidate/he-was-driven-mad-in-captivity thing, maybe a Keating 5 thing?
Is any of those a currently active smear campaign?
8: The black baby rumor seems dead these days, and the Keating 5 thing is well within the realm of truth.
I bet Unfogged could argue inconclusively for a long time which of Cheney or Bin Laden is actually the lesser of two evils.
Doubly pwned. But I think you'd need a Manchurian Candidate reference to come close to matching the NYer cover.
The black baby rumor seems dead these days
How sad for the baby rumor's mother.
I actually think there's a pretty solid case to be made that being in captivity messed with his head in dangerous ways that make him unfit to lead, but that's neither here nor there.
8: I don't think Obama wants to open up the black baby smear on McCain. I heard a rumor that Obama himself had a couple black babies.
A fat wad of cash in one of his hands would get at Keating 5/lobbyist pandering. Maybe if he was clutching a George W. plushie in one quivering hand.
There's also the anger management issue, which Eric's takeoff included, and which according to former staffers and others is within the realm of truth. Maybe Horsey should have portrayed McCain calling his wife a cunt. Not in the Seattle P-I, though, I guess.
22: what a hilariously awful cartoon that would make. Word balloon: "You are a cunt!" So subtle.
I wish the point of the outrage were to elevate the genre of satire, because the actual response is driving me mcmanus-batty.
because the actual response is driving me mcmanus-batty.
Yes, yes it is.
what a hilariously awful cartoon that would make
I'd immediately take out a subscription to the P-I. Their loss. Anyway, what was the original quote? Ah, yes.
Sifu, I think you should cancel your subscription.
I think this cartoon settles the truth of the complainers. If the National Review ran that cartoon, I would think "that's awesome!" and I would not give a shit that they intended it as satire.
Sorry, I'm a bit slow this morning. Is the cartoon meant to be ironic, with it's langauge about "irony-challenged literalists" implying there's no reason anyone should be upset, while portraying this image on the front of a National Review, which obviously highlights the fact that never in a hundred brazilion years would the National Review run this on their cover, whereas the New Yorker actually did run their cover, so maybe we're right to be outraged after all?
30 is what I was trying to say. Or rather, trying to ask--is that the cartoon's intended interpretation?
If the National Review ran that cartoon
Ah, but there's the rub. The closest NR ever gets to satire is self-parody.
Oh, hell, and it's not even morning anymore.
33: It's the "Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism" that raises that to the level of genius.
I thought the same thing when I looked it up just now.
A Dr. Strangelove theme would work. An old man mumbling about war isn't half as scary as a wild-eyed old man standing in front of a big map, figuring out which country to bomb next.
This whole controversy -- especially the proposed McCain covers -- is an illustration of the asymmetry of parody: mockery of conservatives only requires repeating what they actually say/believe, perhaps with a slight exaggeration; mockery of liberals is based on lies about what they "really secretly believe."
The Obama cover actually illustrates both sides. Taken as a mockery of conservatives, it's clearly just repeating their paranoia. Imagined as a conservative parody of Obama (Jonah Goldberg apparently said he could easily imagine the same cover on the National Review), it's based on lies. This is not to say that it's funny!
37: I just got back from a South Carolina beach. And we had a gay friend down there with us.
I liked Jon Swift's take. It's as if his whole blog was leading up to that one post.
33: In terms of imagery, better examples of National Review self-parody would be this or this.
The NYer cover is being discussed on Talk of the Nation at the moment. I'm surprised that Art Spiegelman, who is one of the guests, is so appalled at the negative reaction.
"The advertisements were timed for London's Gay Pride Week, which ended Saturday. The posters touted the attractions of the state to gay tourists, including its "gay beaches" and its Civil War-era plantations."
But really, is there anything gayer than a Civil War-era plantation?
51 - Sifu, when did your co-blogger endorse the Mittster?
See, these are not equivalent at all to me. McCain really is old. He really did begin to sing "bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys' tune in response to a question, in front of cameras. His wife really did steal drugs from her own medical charity. These are not made-up conspiracy theories; they are fact. Even with the "cunt" word-bubble, it would still be all true.
How does this compare to the gun-totin', terror-lovin' way the Obamas are portrayed? Not even close on the offense-o-meter.
Or, you know, what Adam said in 39.
52: His wife is the art director of the NYer, if that helps.
56 is correct (as are 4 and maybe 6), except that I still maintain that the NYer cover is funny and not offensive.
What's offensive are the rumors that the cover *alludes* to, but that's not the same thing.
His wife is the art director of the NYer, if that helps.
Sure does.
What is missing from this picture? Perhaps there should be a hand entering from stage right passing divorce papers to a woman in a wheelchair. Or perhaps a mustard-laden hotdog taking off from an aircraft carrier while jets on the fight deck burst into flames. Perhaps there should be criss-crossed band aids with the words "Keating Five" and "Czechoslovakia" and "Whiners" written on them. Let us not forget an image of Senator Joe Lieberman's face tattooed on McCain's derriere. And please make sure Lieberman's lips are puckered.
What is missing from this picture?
A Vietnamese flag wrapped Rambo-style around McCain's forehead and a picture of Ho Chi Minh over the fire. Cindy is saying "John, I need some of your meds to get me through the Inaugural Parade!" and McCain is saying "Take your own pills, you cunt!"
But I also like this one.
The artist's other covers have been invoked to say, "Nobody complained when all these provocative covers came out!" That's because they were funnier and more surprising. No one was really talking about Obama and Clinton in bed, or Ahmedinijad getting the benefit of Larry Craig's wide stance.
The current one is actually decent reportage. But there's nothing surprising about it--it doesn't really mock the gutter campaign against Obama, it just writes it down.
Beyond that, its elements are largely defensible as criticism of the Obamas. Barack really did dress up like that. He really isn't as gung-ho about venerating the flag as some people would like him to be. Michelle really did say she'd never before been proud of her country, and that does make her sound like a radical critic of her country. The Osama portrait is the only hing that smacks of utter invention; the rest all hyperbolizes the stuff that people who read the New Yorker are okay with, and the right wing isn't.
Caveat: I don't care. Also, the Lizza article about Obama's political savvy is very good, if you can ignore the shocked-shocked tone of "he was never pure! oh my binded panties!" At least 8 of the Passive-Agressive appetizers are funny, and the E.B. White article brings up my favorite detail about Stuart Little, and what ruined the movie for me: Stuart Little was born a mouse to a human woman, and the movie was squeamish so they made him adopted.
Bill Bramhall's New York Daily News cartoon is similar.
