The Newyorker is...

[goat starer]

nobody hass told me who the lady is yet. Is it his wife?

[Alpaca]

Yes, goat, it's his wife, who is apparently a terrifyingly independent woman/black panther to some folks out there.

[Griffin NoName]

I saw this cartoon, without any attached hints or knowledge of the New Yorker.

My instant response:  satire, cruel satire, racist, unhelpful.

However, I doubt as Darlica said I think, that many Europeans will have "got it". Most of my (educated) friends don't understand half of what I say when it is based on my understanding of all things U.S. which has benefited from being a Toadfish.

[Opsa]

I'm with Darlica and Swato, the art itself is weak. In order to truly spoof, it should have gone over the top.

On second thought, I have a suspicion that the cartoonist may well have liked to go over the top, but may have been timid because of fears of racism, maybe? I mean, if I was asked to do this cover, I would worry about this, too. My first instinct would have been to make Ms. Obama look like  blaxsploitation sensation Foxy Brown, and Barrack to look like Louis Farrakhan. But I would never do that, because it would be too insensitive and controversial.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Actually, it did go way, way over the top....

The New Yorker's audience is liberal, middle-to-upper class readership, highly educated (mostly) and so on. 

I suppose it's akin to a math joke, where there's one coefficient out of place, and math geeks immediately see that, and laugh.  The rest of the "great unwashed" (i.e. not a math geek, i.e. me and most other folks) go, "hunh?"  Or "that's just stupid" or similar.

So, too with the cartoon-- those who already think Obama is evil incarnate, see the cartoon, and just like Dianne in Cheers*, say, "See?" with smug satisfaction.   The actual paid subscribers to the New Yorker, likely get it, and laugh, or else write letters of complaint, or some will cancel.

On the other hand, some non-subscribers will hear about the cartoon, and likely subscribe-- those last two will likely cancel each other out. 

But, the vast majority of Americans, and most non-Americans, not knowing the readership of the New Yorker will likely have mixed responses-- mostly of the "Hunh?" variety.

The breakdown of the cartoon, though, encompasses nearly all the "talking points" the ultra-right have been complaining about, with regards to Obama.   In some ways, it's a beautiful summary of the "criticisms" of the ultra-right.   (which goes to show, that they don't have any REAL criticism of Obama at all.... none that are truly substantial, if they have to make up sh~t like this).

To sum-up the points the picture covers:

The fist-bump was something Obama and his wife did together, when they one one of the critical primaries.  It was a jubilant sign between themselves, celebrating a victory.  Not unlike a "high five" or a hip-to-hip bump.   But the rabid-right tried to spin that into something sinister...

The Muslim headdress on Obama is a reflection that a significant fraction of rabid-right ignorants actually think he's either a secret muslim, a public muslim or at the very least "in bed" with Muslims, i.e. a Muslim sympathizer.   This last-- that he's sympathetic to Muslims is the only one that is likely true.  He converted to Christianity at an early age, and so far as ANYONE can uncover, still claims allegiance to Christianity.   But, in this "all Muslims are automatically Terriers err Turrists" knee-jerk mentality of the rabid right, even being sympathetic is seen as "bad".

The rest of the Muslim gear (robe, picture of Osama on the wall) is just window-dressing to the Muslim theme.

The burning flag in the fireplace, is an oblique reference to the fact that Obama seldom wears a flag pin-- he has said that's pretentious (it is).  And NOT a measure of patriotism (it's not).  But, apparently he's bowed to pressure, and sports one now, I'm told.

His wife's gear (including cammo pants and the AK-47 rifle) is a nod to her activism-- I'm not as familiar with what she's been up to (Chatty might know) but I suspect it's been for causes that the rabid right don't particularly care for, so they tried to paint her as some sort of activist, and in the worst light. 

My response to that is, "so? Don't you think ALL potential and actual First Ladies are/would be activists?  By definition?  In that, unless they are dead to the world, at the least, they are actively supporting their husband's campaign?"   But, apparently, to the non-thinking rabid-right, "activist" translates to "terrier" err "turrist"....

The rest of the cartoon appears to be a room in the White House, thus setting the time-frame for the piece:  after Obama wins the White House.

Hope this helps! 

____________

<sub>* the award-winning episode with John Cleese [nee of Monty Python] as a psychiatrist friend of Frasier's.   Sam and Dianne were engaged, and Frasier as a wedding present purchased a pre-nup session for them, from his friend.  It was pretty much a disaster, with Cleese's character initally counseling them to stay as far away from each other as possible.   Dianne cannot possibly accept that, and the show is about her attempts to convince Cleese that they are a "perfect couple".   At the end, in a fit of frustration, Cleese exclaims, "I was totally wrong.  You are completely right, in fact" he goes to the window, throws open the shutters and shouts, "Don't bother getting married, anyone-- it's been done".

At the end of this long tirade as ONLY Cleese can do, when he finally winds down, and the sarcasm is so thick you could use it to build a bridge, Dianne turns to Sam, and says, "See?"</sub>

[beagle]

I saw this cartoon, without any attached hints or knowledge of the New Yorker.

My instant response:  satire, cruel satire, racist, unhelpful.

However, I doubt as Darlica said I think, that many Europeans will have "got it". Most of my (educated) friends don't understand half of what I say when it is based on my understanding of all things U.S. which has benefited from being a Toadfish.

Even so, don't the pastel shades, the font of the title and the style of the whole thing whisper cosmopolitan liberal irony?  Hard for me to be sure because I knew the magazine's reputation beforehand. 

[Griffin NoName]

Even so, don't the pastel shades, the font of the title and the style of the whole thing whisper cosmopolitan liberal irony?  Hard for me to be sure because I knew the magazine's reputation beforehand. 

Well now you mention it, yes I suppose so. Must have been subliminal. But is the meaningfulness of the style etched into everyone's brain?

In any case, we have now had a pronouncement. Andrew Neil, This Week, tonight, (weekly politics round up) hath saideth: racist; thought New Yorker was liberal. His guests agreed. On the other hand, what percentage of Brits will have watched the program?

[Aggie]

The Muslim headdress on Obama is a reflection that a significant fraction of rabid-right ignorants actually think he's either a secret muslim, a public muslim or at the very least "in bed" with Muslims, i.e. a Muslim sympathizer.   This last-- that he's sympathetic to Muslims is the only one that is likely true.  He converted to Christianity at an early age, and so far as ANYONE can uncover, still claims allegiance to Christianity.   But, in this "all Muslims are automatically Terriers err Turrists" knee-jerk mentality of the rabid right, even being sympathetic is seen as "bad".

Oh, I figured it was spoofing this photo of Barack in Kenya:

[Sibling Chatty]

Mrs. Obama did a paper during her university career (sociology, Princeton) in which she gauged the current 'radicalness' of the earlier 'radicalized' Black graduates of that institution.

From some phrases in that document, discussing the change that maturity and responsibility had made in the early Black 'radical' movement on the Princeton campus, the RWNB (Reich Wing Nut Burgers) deduced that she was a "radical" of the Black Panther-type, prepared to DEESTROY UUHHMURRICUH!!! Michelle Obama is a corporate lawyer with a huge healthcare organization. she's rather firmly entrenched in corporate America, and earns more than double her husband's Senatorial salary.

The fist bump (or "terrrrist fist jab") is a new spin on the high five. Nothing more.

About 45 seconds after the Faux Snooze Morning Morons called it "a terrorist fist jab" somebody came up with a photo of GHW Bush doing the SAME thing at an earlier time, with a blonde female tennis partner.

The New Yorker is often audacious in their covers. The happened to have chose an cover artist for that particular cover that doesn't work as "strong"...and they counted on people reading the title of the cover story.

That is supposed to be the Oval Office, BTW, the "seat" of the Presidency. (The seat of the presidency is wherever the President's ass is.)

[beagle]

In any case, we have now had a pronouncement. Andrew Neil, This Week, tonight, (weekly politics round up) hath saideth: racist; thought New Yorker was liberal. His guests agreed. On the other hand, what percentage of Brits will have watched the program?

That's the way it usually works. As soon as one person says something is racist all the others have to agree or it's proof they are being "institutionally racist" themselves. It's the sort of process that ends up with nursery school teachers being given guidelines on checking out toddlers for thoughtcrime.

Would have thought A.N. would have been smart enough to realize a sophisticated parody of racial stereotyping is not the same as a racist joke though.  Probably he is, but didn't think it worth being quoted out of context on later, or being blasted for in a Guardian editorial.

May I suggest a nice photo of the Brooklyn Bridge for the next issue?

[goat starer]

That is supposed to be the Oval Office,

an oval office? whatever next. that is typical of the western capitalist decadance of america. it is simply a waste of the space in the corners which could otherwise be used for the growing of beetroot.

[Sibling Chatty]

Beetroot??

Nah, it's not worth putting in a crop.

The only thing that can grow in the polluted soil of DC is graft, corruption and maybe, just a little bit of Hope.

[Griffin NoName]

...........It's the sort of process that ends up with nursery school teachers being given guidelines on checking out toddlers for thoughtcrime.

Would have thought A.N. would have been smart enough to realize a sophisticated parody of racial stereotyping is not the same as a racist joke though.  Probably he is, but didn't think it worth being quoted out of context on later, or being blasted for in a Guardian editorial.

I'm sure he is (smart enough). I'm sure he did realize. I'm afraid I wasn't concentrating hard enough to access all the nuances, but they were there in the lilt of his voice, and the "special guest" and the steering of the program towards race relations, knife crime, inner city estates and education on the back of it.......  I need to polish my brain.

That is supposed to be the Oval Office,

an oval office? whatever next. that is typical of the western capitalist decadance of america. it is simply a waste of the space in the corners which could otherwise be used for the growing of beetroot.

At least it isn't a Star Chamber - that really would waste space in the pointy bits.

I'm not so sure a rectangle is that good either. People at one end on one side cannot see people on the other end on their side. Has anyone run an analysis of the effect or the way it may be taken advantage of?  All government should be virtual - discuss!!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

"Good" governments tent to be virtual (they virtually don't do a thing). The ones that do something usually make the wrong choices*.

*I'm sure beagle would be happy with that statement