Has the New Yorker lost its mind?

I totally agree, Rod. The cover is NOT that funny, and it will circulate the internet, bolstering the long-festering fears and prejudices of folks who won't get the joke. The editors at the New Yorker must be even more out of touch with the "great unwashed" than I realized. Is it possible that these editors are SO far removed from the irony-free masses that they simply didn't think about the negative effect this image might have? If this thing ends up hurting Obama's candidacy, it'll take their precious irony to all new heights!

No, the New Yorker has not lost its mind. It has merely acquired something rare in journalism now--a backbone.

Question: might this be something engineered by Clinton-leaning people at the magazine, either annoyed with Obama or hoping against hope for some miracle at the convention?

The longer this campaign goes on, the less clear we are of who (and what) Barack Obama is. His recent and abrupt dash towards the political center creates distrust towards the man. What does he really stand for?

As for Obama's connection to the Islamic faith, the categorical denials on his part have raised more questions about his personal honesty than if had begun his political journey with a more truthful, nuanced accounting.

Historian and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes provides a portrait of Obama's exposure to the Islamic faith in this article, "Was Barack Obama a Muslim," which you can find here: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286

Limbaugh has never supported the idea, and has mentioned it dismissively on only a couple occasions. As Rod has done here. The man's really right wing, but he's neither an idiot nor nefarious.

Yes, yes, Phil, you are absolutely correct of course. As is Rod. And Margaret's point about how this will circulate on the net independent of its origin--sans irony let alone satire. Certainly. (The 'backbone' part I'm filing under 'Happy Hour partisan applause'.)

But despite my thinking it is great fun, this is a perfect example of the New York provincialism...when they are literally on an island detached from alternative realities. If I had a nickel for every friend of my sister (she forwards me their emails) who actually believes that Obama is a Muslim plant......

Of course the New Yorker crew are brilliant satirists. But they think, living in Manhattan, that those who believe such stupidity are mouth-breathing imbeciles. Shockingly, no few of them are actually decent—and inevitably older--- Americans who for whatever reason have an impasse with a black man with the name Obama who lived in the largest Muslim country. It's too much too soon for them to grasp.

And then there are others who are simply stupid and ignorant and need alternative reasons to hate Obama because they cannot admit even to themselves that they are not ready for a black man president.

I can almost tell the age of the people who send my sister these emails or who post these things about Barack Obama. Like rings of a tree, it's a no brainer that the more they believe the anti-Christ/Muslim claptrap, the more rings they reveal.

Yet again making a big deal out of nothing. But that seems par for the course these days by media looking for attention and more advertisers dollars. These sorts of things is exactly what the New Yorker does pro or con, support a particular target or not. Nothing unusual except it brings in Obama and his wife, Islam and Terrorism. All specially shelter topics in today's media.

I've had a subscription to the New Yorker for years. It's one of the world's greatest magazines. BUT, sometimes, I think the cover art of the New Yorker is just too sophisticated for its own good. Anyone who isn't a Nobel laureate won't get the point.

Not only the majority of Americans, but I would be willing to bet at least half of the New Yorker's subscribers are not going to think this cover art is funny.

In my experience, the New Yorker has been more pro-Obama than pro-Clinton.

It's interesting that some are getting bent out of shape by a mere cartoon. I seem to recall a similar international dust-up recently that involved the publication of cartoons (I'm sure the Danes remember). I guess some people think it's sacrilegious to depict Obama without a halo.

Lordy, JLF......the last time someone quoted me that much I was in divorce court.

Mel -

Daniel Pipes is a crackpot, as is that article. There are lots of very good reasons not to vote for Obama. Take your pick. Ditto for McCain. Two-bit politicians both of them.

points Mr. Pipes makes:

1. Oobama was enrolled (as a child by his family) as a Muslim. I, when I was 5, was told I was Catholic (and taken to Mass / told to eat the wafer). Didn't matter that by that point the hypocrisy of telling me what I was had already dawned on me. In the same way, Obama, as a child would have had no say in the matter, and likely very little interest in it anyway. Ask any five year old if they'd rather go to churhc/mosque or go play with their friends. damn near 100% will go play with their friends. I have yet to meet the first grader who is or was serously pondering the theological differences between religions. To children, it's just something that adults think is important, so kids go along with it. For children, it's real simple. Do what your parents say or get punished. I suppose I'l grant that there might be exceptions. I don't know any of them.

2. Obama attended Quran classes/went to mosque for communal events as a child. Ditto that about the parents/adults making him do it. That he made faces during Quran studies (and got in trouble for it) proves that he wasn't in the least interested in studying the Quran as a child. It doens't imply, as Pipes suggests, that Obama was a Muslim.

3. Obama's family was Muslim, so he is/was and is hiding it. he's made mention of on a number of occasions. Here, I have to relate my own story. my entire family is a devoutly practicing Catholic (even my mother, who is currently unaffiliated with any religion) They took me to church with them, and made me go through all sorts of rituals that i neither cared about nor followed. I am Buddhist (by deliberate choice). Does the fact that my family is Catholic make me Catholic? No. from the time I was old enough to understand hypocrisy, I have unfortunately had to connect it to my own family's actions. Especially their religious actions. So from the time I was small, while my family was Catholic, I was not and that was by deliberate choice. It was only later that I would come to embrace Buddhism (much to my family's secret horror, and subsequent estrangement). Even if the church thinks otherwise, I was not and am not Catholic. I respect those who are, and who use the teachings of Christ to benefit, but that's not me.

Let's hope the Moslem fanatics don't believe Obama was ever a Moslem. Cause if they do, that makes Obama an ex-Moslem in their eyes and there's nothing worse you can do in Islam than to leave the faith and convert to another religion.

Amazing how people can be wary of Obama's attending TUCC, and yet at the same time worry about whether or not he's a Muslim Manchurian candidate.

Christopher Mohr,

Your 8:13 comment about kids not being a particular religion is Eurocentric. It doesn't matter how we in the US or in West generally consider the faith of children, it matters how Moslems perceive it. And, particularly, how Moslem extremists perceive it.

Sure the Moslem extremists might be "wrong" from our perspective to say children are Moslem because their parents make them attend mosque and go through the ritualistic motions, but that doesn't matter. How the Moslem fanatics perceive the criteria for whether one is a Moslem is the issue Pipes is addressing

Zach: "Amazing how people can be wary of Obama's attending TUCC, and yet at the same time worry about whether or not he's a Muslim Manchurian candidate."

Nothing ironic or contradictory about this. The TUCC that BO joined, with its Afro-centric approach and racialist pastor, sounded more like the Nation of Islam than a Christian church.

Mel, are you Christian?

The purpose of a magazine cover is to make one buy one off the the newsstand or go to website and read the story. In my book, this is a pretty effective cover.

After looking at today's front page with 9 US soldiers go down in Afghanistan, Dr. DeBakey passing away, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae are shutting down, jalapenos rotting at the Mexican border due to the salmonella scare and no baseball today, I wish a could find some humor too, Rod.

As I can't vote in US elections, the issue is rather academic, but I would preferentially vote for an ex-Muslim, whether Christian, atheist or whatever.

Having said that, I thought the drawing of Obama's wife bordered on racist. I do think that metropolitan-elite-media-intellectual-cultured types (i) think they can get away with saying things that others can't, and (ii) simply DON'T GET the concerns of people outside the big cities and the media circus.

I'm one of the biggest islamophobes on the planet and I don't even think he's a muslim.

But I'm not not sure it matters what Obama (or I) believe; what matters is whether muslims think of Obama as muslim. And given the islamic tendency toward triumphalism - and the fact that if your Dad's a muslim, you really can't NOT be muslim - a lot of folks in the islamic community feel like he's "one of their's" (even if isn't).

I think it's the islamic perspective and understanding of the situation that many people are reacting to, sort of on an instinctual level.

If a candidate for President can't be entirely truthful about religion in his life, why should we trust him on anything else?

Posted by: Mel | July 15, 2008 8:34 AM

Seems like a pertinent question to me, Mel. But sophisticates like Harvey Lacey will brand it bullpucky, and start throwing it around like a frisbee. For grins. Don't you feel silly now?

"Don, if I were to encounter a Christian who was spreading those rumors I'd certainly question that person, and encourage him to do some research. I wouldn't accuse him of spreading "lies" if he sincerely believed those things, but I would point out the inadvisability of believing unsubstantiated and outrageous claims about either candidate."

Erin, are you a Christian? I ask this not to put you on the spot, but to illustrate a simple fact. You cannot prove you are a Christian. All you can do is give a testimony of your personal faith, at this moment, and how you got to that point. It is up to us to accept or reject it. We cannot prove it false since we cannot look into your heart.

Barack Obama gave the following testimony of his religious faith to a correspondent for Christianity Today.

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html

"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

Obama did all that any of us can do...give a testimony of what God has done with his heart. For us to sit in judgment on that is to presume something that is reserved only to God. Billy Graham gave a very concise and Biblical answer to someone who was questioning the sincerity of a co-worker's faith, and it may be appropriate for us to consider that in this context.

seattlepi.nwsource.com/graham/298082_billy123.html

"Only God knows the heart of any person who claims to be a Christian, and it isn't our place to judge them or decide whether or not they actually are a believer. This is what Jesus meant when He told His disciples, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1)."

Those who insist on judging the heart of Obama and the sincerity of his faith, in spite of his REPEATED testimony, are inviting to be scrutinized in the same manner, by the same standards, and with the same intensity.

So, Mel, once again I ask you, are you Christian?

What? What? There's something wrong with being a moslem? There's something wrong with black empowerment? I must have cut goodthink class that particular lecture day.

Mel and Margaret, see what I mean? Without this controversy over the New Yorker cover we wouldn't be talking to freely about religion and our candidates for President, right?

Which brings up naturally McCain and his blatant lying about his service. In his book and in many speeches he's always talked about using the names of the Packer's starting offense when questioned about the names of his fellow flyers. But the other while talking to Steeler fans the story has changed. He didn't quote the names of Packer's offense supposedly. Now he says he named the defensive starters.

This says two things about Rod's choice for President. One, he lies. Two, he's stupid when he lies.

Isn't that more of a worry for the logical mind than Obama's alleged confusion over his early education?

Aren't you glad for the New Yorker cover?

It is bad especially if you only look at the cover as many bloggers did(Rod fortunatly looked further). Its like they told a bad joke and then had to explain it because people didn't get it.

I'm one of the cosmopolitan elites who share the general sensibilities of the New Yorker folks, and thus find the cover hilarious and to be piercing satire. (Satirizing the mouth-breathing ignorance and fearfulness of the Neanderthals constituting too great a percentage of the U.S. population.)

All this bluster as to whether the New Yorker is of its mind, though (curious concept!), and attempts to read the tea leaves as to what political effect it hoped to have, are completely off the mark.

The New Yorker doesn't exist to serve Obama, or McCain, or Clinton. It exists as a place where certain writers and artists can do their work, with the hope that that work will attract readers.

I think it's certain that most of the writers and artists and editorial folks thought the cover was great, and I suppose one would need to take a poll to find out if readers besides myself thought it was great. All other takes on the cover is irrelevant.

O

"Why does Obama continue to deny his past?"

Why does President Bush continue to deny his past? Is he ashamed of what he did? Why not be out with it and explain how his conversion to Christ made him a new creation?

If Obama should do this as a candidate for office, why shouldn't our sitting President do likewise?

By the way...Mel, are you Christian?

"Maybe Obama is sincere and maybe he's not. How can one tell?"

An interesting point, Mel. He's made several statements concerning his faith.

You have yet to answer my simple question about yours. Do you have the same courage of convictions that Obama has?

"Why would Americans be allowing the beliefs of terrorists to dictate who they vote for in this coming election?"

I agree, Don. It's never a good idea to let the reactions and perceptions of other people dictate your decisions. My point was simply to comment on the fact that there's a very nativist undercurrent of "our team" vs. "their team" surrounding Obama, and that the perceptions of many in the islamic world help feed into that undercurrent.

Even so, I can't think of another election in which a major presidential candidate has had to so thoroughly disown his prior positions (and associations) in order to appear 'mainstream.' Honestly, at this point, I have absolutely no idea where the guy stands on much of anything.

Don, of course I'm a Christian. :)

I get your point, too, that all any of us can do is say we are, and then if hard-pressed show such things as baptismal certificates or church membership and level of activity. And all these are fine with me; I don't think Obama's a closet Muslim, nor do I think the *vast majority* of those who oppose him really think this.

Yes, there are people who will believe and forward breathless conspiracy emails, but stop for a moment and consider: do people read these emails and then decide they won't vote for Obama--or are these already people who would never under any circumstances vote for Obama, and are the emails then just a kind of perverse confirmation: "I knew this guy was trouble, Stuart. I'd never vote for a weenie lefty commie pinko Dummicrat anyway, uhcourse, but now just look at this..." etc. And there are people like this: but is everyone, or nearly everyone, who opposes Obama thinking like this caricature? Hardly.

In other words, is the New Yorker's joke missing the mark precisely because there are intelligent and sophisticated conservatives who have rejected Obama because of his rabidly pro-abortion views, his shifting but undoubtedly liberal stance on gay marriage, his sketchy ideas about healthcare, education, and the economy, his foreign policy notions, and so on and so forth--but who could not care less if Obama was "technically" a Muslim in his early childhood or not, who see that as totally irrelevant, and who also shrug over Michelle as yet another iteration of the Hillary Clinton loudmouth "I'm *not* baking cookies" Democratic political wife?

The New Yorker doesn't appear to think so. The cartoon caricature says very plainly: there are two types of people, those who Agree With Us and All Intelligent Bright People that Obama Is the Best Thing Ever, and those stupid Neanderthal types who view him the way we've depicted on our cover. The mere *possibility* of intelligent and ideas-based criticism and even rejection of Barack Obama doesn't appear to have crossed their provincial minds, does it?

Which makes the cover funny in a way the New Yorker never intended it to be.

"The mere *possibility* of intelligent and ideas-based criticism and even rejection of Barack Obama doesn't appear to have crossed their provincial minds, does it?"

The problem is, out in the hustings so to speak, there are a number of folks who take the Obama-is-a-Muslim issue as a serious issue. I've spoken with a number of them, both Democrat and Republican, who are absolutely convinced that he has forged his birth certificate and is hiding his involvement with Muslim schools in his youth. To them his denials simply confirm their suspicions...after all, why would he be SO INTENSE in his denials if there wasn't something to it.

Polling by several agencies consistently show that 10-15% of those polled believe that Obama is a Muslim. And when pinned down these folks respond very much like Mel has here on this blog: well, you can't REALLY know what is in his heart.

You state that people can show baptismal certificates, church membership records, etc. Yet for many evangelicals these pieces of paper do not signify a saving knowledge of Jesus. That is something that only happens in the heart of the believer. A baptismal certificate does not a Christian make, any more than a Midrassa report card makes one a Muslim.

I agree there are many who forward these e-mails more out of the spirit of "I knew he was bad" than "boy, have you seen this". But if you consider that the issue that the FCC still receives the most e-mails and letters about is the effort by Madelyn Murray O'Hare to ban religious broadcasters from the airwaves...in spite of the fact that there never was such an effort according to the FCC and that Ms. O'Hare has been dead for years. People still believe the myth, and still pass it on as genuine...even when confronted with the truth.

There are intelligent and meaningful reasons to oppose Obama, just as there are with any candidate. But for many the Muslim issue remains one of their biggest problems with Barack Obama (and let's not forget his middle name is Hussein).

It's sad how deeply rooted such lies can become.

"My point was simply to comment on the fact that there's a very nativist undercurrent of "our team" vs. "their team" surrounding Obama, and that the perceptions of many in the islamic world help feed into that undercurrent."

That undercurrent has also been present during the administration of the current and immediately former President. Both Clinton and Bush expected a very high threshold of loyalty from their staffers, and cast their policies as an "us vs. them" conflict. With Clinton it was the "vast right wing conspiracy" and with Bush it is the "terrorists and their sympathizers".

To be honest, I have read of the reports that Islamic terrorist leaders in Hamas have gone on record saying that they support Obama over McCain. That disturbs me less than the fact that President Bush received financial support from the Saudi Royal family, and that President Clinton received similar support from Chinese military officers. I really don't give a rip what some enemy leader SAYS about our Presidential candidates, but when they start using their money to influence our elections I start getting a bit angry, and start wondering why we tolerate such influence.

For example, why are the McCains doing so much fundraising in foreign countries? Is anyone else concerned about the monitoring of the sources of these funds that are being contributed in all those trips to Europe and South America that the McCains have made recently?

And I read just yesterday that Obama is planning a fundraising trip to China?

Who is monitoring this to insure that only American citizens are contributing? Are we seeing yet more of the shenanigans that Clinton and Bush pulled with foreign donors?