Monday, July 14, 2008

Satire on Obama?

Okay, call me a cynic. The Obama campaign is all a flutter about this depicted cover of The New Yorker magazine. The New Yorker calls it satire, making fun of those who express fears that Obama is a closet Muslim or black radical. Obama is mad. John McCain is mad. I was actually surprised that liberal Alan Colmes didn't express outrage. He thought it was satire (which it might well be).

Sorry, but I am increasingly of the opinion that all of these occasional "flare ups" are a bit too convenient. Such flapdoodle and kerfuffles have been going on since the primaries, but they've been increasing now that we're getting closer to the general election.

One case in point -- the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson contretemps of last week. Jesse's been around a LONG time. He's been in many broadcast studios. He never sees a microphone or camera without salivating. He had a microphone pinned to his lapel -- AT FOX NEWS OF ALL PLACES! Do you really, really think that Jesse was taken by surprise that his statement got circulated?

My suspicion is this. Again, all of this is too convenient. Obama and his acolytes have been trying to make him immune to criticism of any kind since he wrapped up the nomination. Any criticism whatsoever is deemed beyond the pale, and quite possibly racist. It's always unfair and a low blow, in their opinion.

What if all of these "situations" were by design in an effort to gin up a sympathy factor. Americans by and large are so afraid of being called racists that they'll jump like lemmings off of a cliff to prove that they're not.

Think about it a while.

Late update: Another thought, sparked by someone who doubted that Jesse intended to gin up sympathy by enabling Obama to distance himself from the Reverend. My friend might be right, but I still think Jesse Jackson knew full well what he was doing. He was sending a message that he wanted heard. Also, I have little doubt that there is some jealousy as Obama is taking over Jackson's limelight among the black community. In terms of his smooth public image, Obama is everything that Jackson is not. Keep in mind, their politics aren't much different at all. However, Obama comes across as winsome and articulate, while Jackson comes across as an incendiary rabble rouser.


Tim Brown said...


Went over to visit mother today. While I was there we saw CNN's coverage about this. I don't think it was Lou Dobbs. Wolf Blitzer I think.

Anyway, the consensus seemed to be that A. This is common fare for the New Yorker magazine and anyone who reads the New Yorker wouldn't be taken aback by it. B. Anyone who would change their vote over something like this is not that committed to Obama.

I agree, I think too much is being made of it. . .although I'm not too sure it is all that inaccurate.

About Jackson: He's merely sorry he got caught. He did, after all, admit he was going to say that to Obama privately. It's all an act.

THe general principle is "If you wouldn't want it publicized, don't say it in the first place!"

Tim Brown said...

...and yes, you have to wonder if your point isn't valid.

Randy said...

The thing that I'm taking away from this is that John McCain is mad? The more I hear about his sissyfied approach to campaigning the less I am inclined to vote for him. I couldn't care less about what Obama says. He is only doing what his handlers tell him to do.