When the cover of The New Yorker first appeared it seemed that everyone in the democrat camp felt dissed. They were all calling for the removal of the issue and an apology from the publisher.
Even the candidate himself called the cover a 'scare tactic', since it portrayed him in Muslim attire and his wife totin' a gun.
The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts (Obama) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.
But, others, like Andrea Mitchell, said that, "dumb Americans might not get the 'sophisticated' cartoon".
Scott Whitlock reported that... journalist Andrea Mitchell and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart discussed whether Americans are not "sophisticated" enough to understand the attempted satire in the cartoon featured on the cover of the current New Yorker magazine. According to Mitchell, "...The only question there is whether [the cover] is too sophisticated to actually be perceived the way it is intended."
You see The New Yorker has long been the bastion of elitist thought and snooty behavior. I once subscribed to the magazine but was constantly appalled at the way the average American was 'talked down to' and regarded as a cretin.
As far as I know the magazine hasn't changed it's editorial style, so I suppose it can be assumed that they still see us regular folks as 'those people'... the servants, the hired help, those low lifes.
Whitlock goes on...
The Post's Capehart suggested that the uneducated voters in Middle America might not comprehend the high minded satire: "...The folks at the New Yorker are very smart, very learned, learned people, but once you get outside of the confines of Manhattan and the Upper West Side, you sort of begin to wonder if anyone-- if there was a conversation around the table about how will this be viewed by people who won't necessarily get the joke."
Mitchell, it needs to be pointed out, has a history with snobbery. This is the same woman who in June was forced to apologize for bashing rural Virginia as "real redneck."
During Monday's "MSNBC News Live," she also asserted that "critics" say the cartoon cover "depicts almost every false stereotype that Republicans have been launching against Barack Obama, plays into all the fears that are being generated on the web."
Of course, one might point out to Capehart and Mitchell that much of Middle America might not read the New Yorker. And that it's the members of the liberal media who seems to be most bothered by the "satire."
So, I guess the cover controversy will surely go away, now that it's common knowledge that neither of the Obamas got the joke.
After all, how could the liberal, elitist magazine continue with their defense of the cover, when it became apparent the candidate and his wife couldn't grasp the intended satire???
And you can bet the liberal mainstream media has recieved their marching orders to 'lay off' the New Yorker story. The candidate shouldn't be made to look stupid!
I guess the candidate is not as sophisticated as he would have us believe?
Maybe he is just a poor black man from the ghetto after all?
Maybe he is black enough? Eh... Jesse? Eh... Rev Al?
I don't think so... He's just as dumb, or dumber than everyone else.
He surely doesn't have the experience nor the 'savvy' to be President!
It's the elitist east coast liberals that believe that they are the enlightened ones. That they alone hold the keys to the vault of knowledge and power in America.
They were hoping for a miracle in Obama, that he was one of them.
That they would have a kindred spirit in the White House.
It's been sooooo long! Not since Jack Kennedy have they enjoyed a rich east coast liberal over their martinis and manhattans!
They were so hopeful!
Instead they're saddled with another 'hick'... and they sure don't like what has happened!
Just another un-sophisticated yokel hoping for a miracle of his own.
Shades of Jimmy Carter!
No comments:
Post a Comment