at Nation-Building, I make a case for satire.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
at Nation-Building, I make a case for satire.
{ 15 comments }
Hah! Nice try, Aziz. You should have joined the O.J. defense team:)
Yes, there are some fringe elements on the right who view Obama as a secret Muslim, in love with Osama, and his wife, as a black militant.
I don’t.
Nobody on this blog does, either.
You and the New Yorker are focusing on the outliers, not the primary opposition to Obama. That would be like me identifying the fringe of Islam, and extrapolating their views to ALL of Islam.
My main critique of Obama is this:
1. He is not experienced. 4 years in the Senate is not a qualified track record;
2. He was wrong about the surge in Iraq;
3. He tends to support big government solutions (ie, high taxes and high spending). While I am not anti-government, I do think it has become bloated and wasteful. The public schools where I live are awful, due to big government.
4. He is wrong on energy. We need to start drilling tomorrow to reduce gas prices.
He is, however, a very good man, an attractive, articulate candidate, a breath of fresh air for the Democrat party and the Nation. At 46, he has a great future in politics, law — pretty much anything he wants.
But, he’s not ready to be President, and not yet deserving of the office, because of his inexperience. He should run for Governor of Illinois, serve ably, then run for President.
HB
My position precisely.
Hah! Nice try, Aziz.
i am genuinely baffled by this. what exactly was i trying to do?
(and i am pretty sure that i didnt accuse you or anyone else of buying these stereotypes, either, unless you self-identify as the right wing.)
I self-identify as the right wing (proudly so) and even over here we don’t buy into that tripe about Obama. I’d say a fringe super-minority do, but I don’t think there’s even that many.
Of course, since when did the left ever need more than one white guy owning a gun to paint the entire right in a single stroke?
The right buying in to stereotypes about Obama? How about the left buying into stereotypes about the right? Let’s start there!
But not right now. NASCAR is about to come back on and I gotta beat my wife for not properly cleaning my shotgun before it starts.
kevin, you arent right wing. you might think you are, just like i think im a lefty moonbat sometimes. but unfirtunately we are both much too reasonable to delude urselves with the glory of extremism. at the end of the day, its all meh to us.
btw i was pleasantly surprised that for oce, i didnt have my ass handed to me when i crossposted this to dkos. seems opinions are pretty evenly split .
Wouldn’t the magazine on which this was printed give some hint about whether it’s satire? I mean, it’s the New Yorker. Does anyone thing that anyone publishing the magazine might vote for anyone but Obama? Since it’s a safe assumption that they love the guy, isn’t the obvious conclusion that this is satire?
Aziz, are you saying that Larry Johnson is a right-winger and I’m not??
I’m really confused.
… or maybe you need to step away from the caricature and actually look at the right-wingers.
i am genuinely baffled by this. what exactly was i trying to do?
Defending the indefensible New Yorker magazine cover (the actual article, though, Â is pretty good).
Can you imagine if that exact cover graced the front of, say, National Review? Daily Kos and the left and center and the media would be outraged at the slander/defamation of Obama (and rightfully so).
So, the East Coast liberals at the New Yorker get a free pass at slandering the opponents of Obama with a false characture that nobody made?!!?
The irony, of course, is that most folks won’t get the "in joke" and think that the New Yorker is, in fact, portraying Obama as a flag-burning, Osama-loving Muslim. (Obama’s campaign has asserted this.)
Again, returning to first principles: Most people who oppose Obama don’t do so, because he’s black, or has a funny name, or has a Muslim father.
Most people that I know who oppose Obama think he’s:
1) Â inexperienced
2) weak on defense and foreign policy
3)Â Â a conventional liberal, despite an attractive veneer
4) gonna raise taxes, which always, always, always, hurts the middle class earner, even if targeted against the rich, because the rich HIRE us and when they are taxed, they pass on the increased costs downstream. (But, that’s a separate issue, forgive me for straying).
Bottom Line: The coy, coquettish, infinitely wise, latte’ drinking, Gucci-loafer wearing, erudite, pointy-heads at the New Yorker probably just caused a net hit on the Obama campaign, by clumsily and falsely trying to smear his critics. How clever:)
HB
I don’t think it’s wrong to mock people for silly ideas and preconceptions, if done gently and with a little humility. Personally, I just found the cover funny, period.
The outrage to it seems to be coming from two camps:
1) Lefties who are outraged that their guy is being stereotyped.
2) Righties who feel it’s them who’re being stereotyped.
Check yourself, if you’re outraged, which one are you?
I guess I’m neither, because I’m not outraged. As far as the (serious) case against Obama, I’m not in the mood for Washington beltway "experience" anymore. In fact the last thing I want is "experience". We need a fresh approach to politics and I like Obama’s fundamentally purple political philosophy. The anger of the lefties over FISA and Iraq is just proof that Obama won’t toe the progressive line, or any line. You can disagree with him on an issue but he takes a position based on what he believes. All of you rolling your eyes now were saying teh same thing about George Bush 8 years ago, I am sure, and I think i agree with the assessment of both as people who formulate their own opinions irrespective of political posturing – unlike John Kerry, or John Flip-Flop McCain.
Since Obama is excatly right on Afghanistan, and has basiclaly given himself cover to stay in Iraq or withdraw based on hs judgement rather than rush to a decision (and in fact demonstrated his independence from the netroots already numerous times), and above all strikes exactly the right pose towards Iran (diplomacy first, nothing off the table), from where I sit he is the striongest candidate on foreign policy by far. Again, ya’ll can disagree, but we tried it your way and got a grade-A clusterfrack. And I say that as someone who is largely against withdrawal.
a conventional liberal? yes, and about time. A liberal, not a progressive or a Third Way-er or a Republican Lite. Liberal, capital L, is exactly what we need now and we are going to get it. You can move to Canada if you don’t like it.
as far as raising taxes goes, i dont think mccain’s promise the moon strategy is exactly viable. anyway the dems have a far better record of fiscal restraint than the GOP does – its the Blue Dogs who you shoudl be cheering on here. Its a congressional issue, not a presidential one.
Aziz,
Bastard.
Nah, I’m not in either camp. No outrage. Just bad journalism. I just think the "stated reasons" of the New Yorker shows extremely flawed thinking. I totally agree with Obama’s response:
"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
It would be good if both sides learned to stop distorting their opponents’s claims and motives.
Clearly, if you think the War in Iraq is a mistake, Obama is your man.
Clearly, if you think the War in Iraq is a necessary thing, McCain is your man.Â
Myself, No, I don’t think Obama is a secret Muslim. I think he is a Patriot, who loves his country, and approaches problems from a left of center point of view.Â
 conventional liberal? yes, and about time. A liberal, not a progressive or a Third Way-er or a Republican Lite. Liberal, capital L, is exactly what we need now and we are going to get it. You can move to Canada if you don’t like it.
Hah! There is nothing wrong with being a conventional liberal — it’s a valid point of view. Of course, conventional liberals rarely, if ever, run as "conventional liberals," because it alienates people in the middle.
I think the cover was good sarcasm.
In regards to Hank’s comment "Clearly, if you think the War in Iraq is a mistake, Obama is your man.’
Less and less do Obama’s own statements support that contention Hank.
Of course, more and more I am not sure where Obama stands nor where he will end up.
From Reuters: " Obama says he would begin a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq shortly after taking office. His plan calls for the removal of one or two brigades a month which would allow a pullout of combat troops to be completed within 16 months.The first-term Illinois senator said he told Zebari that if he wins the White House, "an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that’s been made in Iraq, that we won’t act precipitously."
So he is not stuck on a 16 month timetable….or is he?
In regards to Hank’s comment "Clearly, if you think the War in Iraq is a mistake, Obama is your man.’
Even if you did think Gulf War II was a mistake, it’s sort of like thinking purchasing your house was a mistake. Now you’re losing money on it so do you ride it out until the market picks back up or do you foreclose on it and abandon it to cut your losses?
The point is, it is written and it is done. The situation now is do we see what happens and try to help the Iraqis a little more, or do we just pull out and leave them to their own devices? Thinking it was a mistake is now a perspective and an opinion on history because it has already happened and is happening.
Comments on this entry are closed.