Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[ghostrunner]

The trouble is that it's the New Yorker, I think. If it were the Onion, or Mad Magazine, it might make some sense. You think New Yorker, you might think "pithy" but not "cutting edge satire." They're even notorious for unfunny cartoons on the inside. Looking over their recent covers it looks like they've tried to grow more daring, but I don't think I've read one in ten years and I wouldn't have known. Not that I'd think they're anti-Obama, but I imagine many people just know it's a respected magazine and little else.

If they're trying to hold a mirror up, the only people seeing it are their own readers. They don't serve a broad audience like USA Today or TIME magazine (which have their own merits), so who are they trying to reach?


Hells bells though, I think I'm voting for Obama. Policy wise I don't think the results end up that far from McCain and there's tradeoffs with both. Just seems like the (sometimes justified) presumption has been that a black person can only get so far, and I have to think there's some benefit to quashing that perception. Whatever the political mood, this country can't progress like it ought to with 15% of the population feeling second class. And clearly there's a group that just doesn't get it yet (haltz' boss' wife) with respect to humankind, and maybe those people need a good old fashioned demographic beatdown. Maybe we can have a good 4 years of clearing the air and evolve a little bit at the end. If I don't like what he does, I can vote against him the next time.

[GatewaySnayke]

Clement, you didn't think there was significance in what Phil Gramm said? I mean, it was distanced pretty quick, but it shows the mindset of Republicans and that's scary.

[Arthur Dent]

It's not The New Yorker's fault that the people that think these things are also too stupid to see obvious satire.

Agreed. If people are so dumb as to not realize this is satire, is the best way to address it to make sure that we keep everything on a third grade level, so no one can get confused? Then again, many people obviously are that dumb, or this issue never would have come up. Satirical covers or not, there's no way we can have meaningful democracy or elections if this is the level of thinking going on.

[clevername]

It's not The New Yorker's fault that the people that think these things are also too stupid to see obvious satire.

Agreed. If people are so dumb as to not realize this is satire, is the best way to address it to make sure that we keep everything on a third grade level, so no one can get confused?

of course not.

but in this current media age the New Yorker knew that putting that on the cover of the magazine was going to get big press. Sure they put it on there to sell magazines, which is their ultimate goal, but putting it there meant the picture would be sent out to tons of people without the meaning behind it explained. Had it simply been included inside the magazine with the article it would have served its purpose just fine.

I love the drawing and what it says. I don't love how snarky it appears to some who may understand it and what it may represent to those who don't understand it. If it was kept on a proper level of publicity it would be just fine.

People aren't going to stop being "so stupid" with bludgeoning like this. The country needs real conversation and plain ole friggin logic to address these rumors and the people who believe them, not inflammatory pictures plastered all over the news. I think it just makes people more defensive so they'll cling to their beliefs even more strongly.

[clement]

Clement, you didn't think there was significance in what Phil Gramm said? I mean, it was distanced pretty quick, but it shows the mindset of Republicans and that's scary.

There was significance to the extent that Phil Gramm works for McCain's campaign and said those things as a representative of his campaign at an event that was about his campaign. And yeah, I agree with you to some extent, that it's a bit of the "it's the economy stupid" all over again. But Phil Gramm isn't the one running for president, so I'd say that it got a lot more press than it warranted. The Jesse Jackson thing even moreso, since he didn't even say it in a public situation.

But mainly I'm just surprised that the press, who are always looking for gaffes to sensationalize, more or less let a McCain doozy slip by.

[GatewaySnayke]

There was significance to the extent that Phil Gramm works for McCain's campaign and said those things as a representative of his campaign at an event that was about his campaign. And yeah, I agree with you to some extent, that it's a bit of the "it's the economy stupid" all over again. But Phil Gramm isn't the one running for president, so I'd say that it got a lot more press than it warranted. The Jesse Jackson thing even moreso, since he didn't even say it in a public situation.

But mainly I'm just surprised that the press, who are always looking for gaffes to sensationalize, more or less let a McCain doozy slip by.

That's true. I just think McCain needed his arm twisted into believing that the economy was a problem. I think back to September at the GOP debates in Michigan when just about all of them declared that the economy was fine, with the exception of Romney who declared it a "one state recession." My cynical side tells me that McCain probably said "thank god someone told the truth" when Gramm's comments came out.

But yeah, surrogate stuff is over-analyzed.

[Arthur Dent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/po ... 6poll.html

[ghostrunner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/po ... 6poll.html

The last two surprise me a bit. White people feel the same about McCain as they do about Obama. I'm surprised to see blacks that strongly against McCain. I wonder how the questions were phrased. Is it favorable as a person, or as president?

Also, only 297 black people were surveyed. Doesn't seem like a great sample.

[GatewaySnayke]

A couple things:

Can someone smarter than me on this stuff (like AD, Clement) show if it's true that the Iraqis want troops out of Iraq soon? The neo-cons keep repeating claims that we must stay until the war is won and that setting a timetable gives "our enemies" an advantage, but I swear I've read a few times that it's time for us to get out. That may have been an acid trip though.

Also, it seems that William Burns will be attending intl talks with Iran. Obama's taken a beating on saying that he'll meet with Mahmoud, but it seems that the Bush administration thinks this is better than a pre-emptive war and Bush can't be wrong because he's Jesus Christ Reincarnated.

Finally, I just read that Obama has led in 30 straight national polls. Pat Buchanan can whine every morning about how the race is neck-and-neck, but when Obama is competing hard in states that Bush won handily in 2004, the race is NOT neck-and-neck.

[Popeye_Card]

Gore seeks pretty aggresive energy goals over next 10 years.

Just throwing this out there, but if Obama wins, should he seriously consider naming Gore Secretary of Energy?