DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 13, 2008, 09:58:34 PM
-
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/29987/thumbs/r-OBAMA-SECOND-TOP-huge.jpg)
-
No- Just simple minded & stupid like most of the crap RW dimwits think is funny.
-
No- Just simple minded & stupid like most of the crap RW dimwits think is funny.
Who suggested it is funny?
-
No- Just simple minded & stupid like most of the crap RW dimwits think is funny.
Who suggested it is funny?
I only said that it is typical of what you lamebrains think is funny. It is like Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton ugly. Stupid & shallow.
-
<<Who suggested it is funny?>>
Ooops, sorry, didn't realize this was meant to be taken as serious intellectual commentary.
-
I only said that it is typical of what you lamebrains think is funny. It is like Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton ugly. Stupid & shallow.
Was the artist baiting the RW, tweaking the LW or do you think they had a message to convey?
-
They had a message to convey to the left wing. The same message the average chimp sends when he flings a handful of his own shit your way.
-
I did not know the New Yorker was considered a right wing rag in some circles.
Are liberals off limits to political cartoonery?
-
<<Who suggested it is funny?>>
Ooops, sorry, didn't realize this was meant to be taken as serious intellectual commentary.
I think the usual rule applies , say what you wish to say about it.
Was this cover a bad idea?
Does it portray an insult or lampoon a fallacy?
-
It looks to me like the cartoonist is trying to lampoon the view that some rightwingers are trying to pin on Obama. Not a terribly successful cartoon. The New Yorker has done far better.
It is neither mean nor sarcastic. It is satirical.
-
Barry Blitt is the artist behind this week's very controversial New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama. Via email, I asked him to respond to those who feel that his work was offensive, and to explain his own personal feelings about the Obamas. Here's what he wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html)
-
The article behind the cartoon:
The Political Scene
Making It
How Chicago shaped Obama.
by Ryan Lizza July 21, 2008
Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text
Print E-Mail Feeds
Barack Obama on the South Side during his first campaign, for the State Senate. An outsider in Chicago?s system, he was meticulous about constructing his own political identity and coalition. Photograph by Marc PoKempner.
Barack Obama on the South Side during his first campaign, for the State Senate. An outsider in Chicago?s system, he was meticulous about constructing his own political identity and coalition. Photograph by Marc PoKempner.
Related Links
Ask the Author: Submit questions for Ryan Lizza about Obama and the election.
Keywords
Obama, Barack (Sen.);
Chicago, Illinois;
Politicians;
Politics;
2008 Election;
Presidential Candidates;
Axelrod, David
One day in 1995, Barack Obama went to see his alderman, an influential politician named Toni Preckwinkle, on Chicago?s South Side, where politics had been upended by scandal. Mel Reynolds, a local congressman, was facing charges of sexual assault of a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer. (He eventually resigned his seat.) The looming vacancy set off a fury of ambition and hustle; several politicians, including a state senator named Alice Palmer, an education expert of modest political skills, prepared to enter the congressional race. Palmer represented Hyde Park?Obama?s neighborhood, a racially integrated, liberal sanctuary?and, if she ran for Congress, she would need a replacement in Springfield, the state capital. Obama at the time was a thirty-three-year-old lawyer, university lecturer, and aspiring office-seeker, and the Palmer seat was what he had in mind when he visited Alderman Preckwinkle.
?Barack came to me and said, ?If Alice decides she wants to run, I want to run for her State Senate seat,? ? Preckwinkle told me. We were in her district office, above a bank on a street of check-cashing shops and vacant lots north of Hyde Park. Preckwinkle soon became an Obama loyalist, and she stuck with him in a State Senate campaign that strained or ruptured many friendships but was ultimately successful. Four years later, in 2000, she backed Obama in a doomed congressional campaign against a local icon, the former Black Panther Bobby Rush. And in 2004 Preckwinkle supported Obama during his improbable, successful run for the United States Senate. So it was startling to learn that Toni Preckwinkle had become disenchanted with Barack Obama.
Preckwinkle is a tall, commanding woman with a clipped gray Afro. She has represented her slice of the South Side for seventeen years and expresses no interest in higher office. On Chicago?s City Council, she is often a dissenter against the wishes of Mayor Richard M. Daley. For anyone trying to understand Obama?s breathtakingly rapid political ascent, Preckwinkle is an indispensable witness?a close observer, friend, and confidante during a period of Obama?s life to which he rarely calls attention.
Although many of Obama?s recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn?t. ?I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors,? she told me. ?I spent ten years of my adult life working to be alderman. I finally got elected. This is a job I love. And I?m perfectly happy with it. I?m not sure that?s the way that he approached his public life?that he was going to try for a job and stay there for one period of time. In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have.?
On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics. She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright?s Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. ?It?s a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners,? she said. ?It?s a good place for a politician to be a member.? Preckwinkle was unsparing on the subject of the Chicago real-estate developer Antoin (Tony) Rezko, a friend of Obama?s and one of his top fund-raisers, who was recently convicted of fraud, bribery, and money laundering: ?Who you take money from is a reflection of your knowledge at the time and your principles.? As we talked, it became increasingly clear that loyalty was the issue that drove Preckwinkle?s current view of her onetime prot?g?. ?I don?t think you should forget who your friends are,? she said.
Others told me that Preckwinkle?s grievances against Obama included specific complaints, such as his refusal to endorse a former aide and longtime friend, Will Burns, in a State Senate primary?a contest that Burns won anyway. There was also a more general belief that, after Obama won the 2004 United States Senate primary, he ignored his South Side base. Preckwinkle said, ?My view is you have to bring your constituency along with you. Granted, you have to make some tough decisions. Granted, sometimes you have to make decisions that people won?t understand or like. But it?s your obligation to explain yourself and try to do your supporters the courtesy of treating them with respect.? Ivory Mitchell, who for twenty years has been the chairman of the local ward organization in Obama?s neighborhood?considered the most important Democratic organization on the South Side?was one of Obama?s earliest backers. Today, he says, ?All the work we did to help him get where he finally ended up, he didn?t seem too appreciative.? A year ago, Mitchell became a delegate for Hillary Clinton.
The same month Mitchell endorsed Clinton, the Obama campaign reached out to Preckwinkle, and eventually she signed on as an Obama delegate. I asked her if what she considered slights or betrayals were simply the necessary accommodations and maneuvering of a politician making a lightning transition from Hyde Park legislator to Presidential nominee. ?Can you get where he is and maintain your personal integrity?? she said. ?Is that the question?? She stared at me and grimaced. ?I?m going to pass on that.?
?WHO SENT YOU??
Obama likes to discuss his unusual childhood?his abandonment by his father and his upbringing by a sometimes single mother and his grandparents in Indonesia and Hawaii?and the three years in the nineteen-eighties when he worked as a community organizer in Chicago, periods of his life chronicled at length in his first memoir, ?Dreams from My Father.? He occasionally refers to his time in the United States Senate, which he wrote about in his second memoir, ?The Audacity of Hope.? But his life in Chicago from 1991 until his victorious Senate campaign is a lacuna in his autobiography. It is also the period that formed him as a politician. Some Obama supporters professed shock when, recently, he abandoned a pledge to stay within the public campaign-finance system if the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, agreed to do the same. Preckwinkle?s concern about Obama?that he is a pure political animal?suddenly became more widespread; commentators abruptly stopped using the words ?callow? and ?na?ve.?
Chicago is not Obama?s home town, but it?s where he chose to forge his identity. Several weeks ago, he moved many of the Democratic National Committee?s operations from Washington to Chicago, making the city the unofficial capital of the Democratic Party; his campaign headquarters are in an office building in the Loop, Chicago?s downtown business district. But Chicago, with its reputation as a center of vicious and corrupt politics, may also be the place that Obama needs to leave behind.
Simply moving there, as he did after graduating from Harvard Law School, was a bold decision. Chicago, where the late mayor Richard J. Daley and his son, the current mayor, have governed for forty out of the past fiftythree years, is not hospitable to political carpetbaggers. Abner Mikva, who was a congressman from Hyde Park and later the chief judge on the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court, was one of the first Chicago politicians to successfully challenge the Daley machine, and it took him years to overcome people?s skepticism about his Wisconsin roots. Mikva, who is now eighty-two, tried to recruit Obama to work for him in Washington as a law clerk. Obama turned him down, replying that he was returning to Chicago to run for office. ?I thought, Boy, does he got something to learn,? Mikva told me recently. ?You just don?t come to Chicago and plant your flag.?
I met Mikva at the Cliff Dwellers, a private dining club atop a downtown office building. As we looked out over Lake Michigan, he told me a story that has often been repeated by others to capture the essence of politics in the city. ?When I first came to Chicago, Adlai Stevenson and Paul Douglas were running for governor and senator,? he said. ?I had heard about the closed Party, closed machine, but they sounded like such great candidates, so I stopped in to volunteer in the Eighth Ward Regular Democratic headquarters. I said, ?I?m here for Douglas and Stevenson.? The ward boss came in and pulled the cigar out of his mouth and said, ?Who sent you?? And I said, ?Nobody sent me.? He put the cigar back in his mouth and said, ?We don?t want nobody nobody sent.? ?
There was another tradition in Chicago politics, the so-called Independents, which grew up in opposition to Richard J. Daley?Boss Daley?whose reign lasted from 1955 to 1976. Anchored in Hyde Park and nurtured by the University of Chicago community, the Independents brought together African-Americans and white liberals in coalitions that became the city?s main alternative to the Democratic machine. The Independents arose after the Second World War to challenge the closed patronage system that controlled the city, and became a serious political force in the mid-nineteen-fifties. Their numbers increased with a new wave of black activists energized by Martin Luther King, Jr.,?s Chicago organizing in 1966, and with white liberals outraged when antiwar protesters were beaten and teargassed by Chicago police during the Democratic National Convention in 1968.
Mayor Daley died in office in 1976, at the age of seventy-four. He was replaced by a reliable and ineffectual machine candidate, Michael Bilandic, whose appointment marked the beginning of twelve years of chaotic, balkanized politics, sometimes called the ?inter-Daley period.? David Axelrod, who has been Obama?s chief strategist since 2002 and is the foremost political consultant in Chicago, was a witness to all of it, first as a political reporter for the Chicago Tribune and later as the chief consultant to two mayors: Harold Washington, Chicago?s first black mayor and a hero of the Independents, and the current Mayor Daley, whose last name still carries negative connotations in the precincts of Hyde Park. Axelrod, who is fifty-three, is by nature subdued. He wears a mustache that curls down the sides of his upper lip in a permanent expression of melancholy. We met in a Houlihan?s, off the lobby of the building that houses the Obama campaign headquarters.
Axelrod recalled the election, in 1979, of Jane Byrne, Chicago?s first female mayor, which he wrote about for the Tribune. Byrne?s campaign, assisted by snowstorms that shut down the city and showcased Bilandic?s incompetence, was the first successful insurgency in modern Chicago history. ?It was a great reform campaign,? Axelrod said. ?I then chronicled, for the next four years, her systematic abrogation of every commitment she had made to reform. She became sort of a parody of a machine mayor.? In office, Byrne aligned herself with City Council officials who were hostile to the city?s black leadership, pandered to the voters of the most racist wards of the city, and purged African-Americans from key positions. On the South Side, there was a backlash; Washington, who had run a spirited campaign for mayor in 1977, was elected to Congress in 1980. In 1983, he was essentially drafted by a Hyde Park-based coalition desperate to unseat the disappointing Byrne. Washington won a three-way primary, with thirty-six per cent of the vote, and went on in the general election to defeat a white Republican who ran, briefly, on the implicitly racist slogan ?Before it?s too late.? Washington?s first term was dominated by warfare with a City Council controlled by white aldermen determined to stymie every proposal. But in 1986 he took control of the council and the following year was re?lected. Seven months after his victory, he collapsed at his desk, dead of a heart attack at the age of sixty-five. Axelrod saw much of this history from the inside, as Washington?s strategist; Obama saw it from the perspective of an organizer who occasionally had brushes with the powerful at political events or meetings at City Hall. ?He saw the jagged edges of Chicago politics and urban politics pretty close up,? Axelrod said.
Obama spent three years in the city, from 1985, after he graduated from Columbia University, to the end of the Washington era. As a community organizer, he tried to turn a partnership of churches into a political force on the South Side. But the work accomplished very little.
?When I started organizing, I understood the idea of social change in a very abstract way,? Obama told me last year. ?It was to some extent informed by my years in Indonesia, seeing extreme poverty and disparities of wealth and understanding sort of in a dim way that life wasn?t fair and government had something to do with it. I understood the role that issues like race played and took inspiration from the civil-rights movement and what the student sit-ins had accomplished and the freedom rides.
?But I didn?t come out of a political family, didn?t have a history of activism in my family. So I understood these things in the abstract. When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I would say I wasn?t wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people put in place.?
CONSTRUCTING A NETWORK
In 1988, Obama left for Harvard Law School, returning to Chicago twice for summer stints at ?lite law firms, including, after his first year, Sidley Austin. (Sidley Austin is where he met Michelle Robinson, whom he married in 1992.) He returned to Chicago permanently when he graduated, in 1991. In a short period, he built a notable r?sum? and a network of connections. During the 1992 Presidential campaign, he ran a voter-registration drive that placed him at the center of the city?s politics. That year, Illinois elected the first African-American woman to the U.S. Senate, Carol Moseley Braun, and Bill Clinton became the first Democratic Presidential candidate to carry Illinois since Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. Meanwhile, Obama practiced civil-rights law at a firm admired in the city?s progressive circles, and became a popular lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago. He was on the board of two liberal foundations that spread grant money around Chicago, and he settled in Hyde Park.
It was a neighborhood in transition when Obama arrived. The Hyde Park Herald serves as a sort of time capsule. It reported that crime was rising; a series of violent robberies was another reminder that Hyde Park existed as a middle-class island in a sea of high-crime urban poverty. New data showed that white enrollment was steeply declining at one local school. During the Martin Luther King, Jr., celebrations, the newspaper noted in passing that Jeremiah Wright was scheduled to give a speech at the University of Chicago. Considerable coverage was given to two institutions: the local food co-op, where Obama shopped every Saturday, and the Independent Voters of Illinois?Independent Precinct Organization, or I.V.I.-I.P.O., one of the neighborhood?s most influential political groups. There was a new political force in Hyde Park as well. Real-estate developers were swooping in to rehabilitate low-income housing. On more than one occasion, the Hyde Park Herald reported on the rise in campaign donations from these developers to South Side politicians; in 1995, it ran a front-page article about Tony Rezko, who was then a very active new donor on the scene.
While it?s true that nobody sent Obama in the sense that Abner Mikva meant it, one of Obama?s underappreciated assets, as he looked for a political race in the early nineties, was the web of connections that he had established. ?He understands how you network,? Mikva said. ?I remember our first few meetings. He would say, ?Do you know So-and-So?? And I?d say yes. ?How well do you know him? I?d really like to meet him.? I would set up some lunches.?
The 1992 voter-registration drive, Project Vote, introduced him to much of the city?s black leadership. ?If you want to look at the means of ascent, if you will, look at Project Vote,? Will Burns, the former Obama aide, said. In Chicago progressive circles, Burns, who is thirty-four, is described as an up-and-coming African-American legislator in the Obama tradition. Obama?s refusal to endorse Burns in his primary earlier this year infuriated and mystified a number of Chicago Democrats, though Burns himself displays no bitterness and is now an adviser to the Obama campaign.
At Project Vote, Burns said, Obama ?was making connections at the grassroots level and was working with elected officials. That?s when he first got a scan of the broader black political infrastructure.? It was also the beginning of a dynamic that stood out in Obama?s early career: his uneasy relationship with an older generation of black Chicago politicians. Project Vote ?is where a lot of the divisional rivalries popped up,? Burns said.
In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year?s long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, ?Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn?t respect their role??Burns imitated a self-righteous activist??in the struggle and the movement. He didn?t engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack?s cheap, too. If you can?t do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you?re not going to work with him.? Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama?s neighborhood, says of Obama that ?he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered?that ?I can do anything and I?m willing to do it overnight.? ?
During Project Vote, Obama also began to understand the larger world of Chicago?s liberal fund-raisers. ?He met people not just in the African-American community but in the progressive white community,? David Axelrod said. ?The folks who funded Project Vote were some of the key progressive leaders.? Obama met Axelrod through one of Project Vote?s supporters, Bettylu Saltzman, whose father, Philip M. Klutznick, was a Chicago shopping-mall tycoon, a part owner of the Bulls, and a former Commerce Secretary in the Carter Administration. Saltzman, a soft-spoken activist who worked for Senators Adlai E. Stevenson III and Paul Simon, took an immediate interest in Obama. ?I honestly don?t remember what it was about him, but I was absolutely blown away,? Saltzman says. ?I said to several people that this guy, who is now thirty years old, is someday going to be President. He will be our first black President.?
Obama?s legal career helped bring him into Chicago?s liberal reform community. In 1993, after he finished his work with Project Vote and was seeking to join a law firm, instead of returning to Sidley Austin he took a job at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a boutique civil-rights firm led by Harold Washington?s former counsel, Judson Miner. Miner had perfect anti-Daley credentials, routinely filing lawsuits against the city, and was a founding member of the Chicago Council of Lawyers, which was to Chicago?s legal ?lite what the Independents were to the Democratic machine.
Working at Davis, Miner enhanced Obama?s profile. ?When you go work for Judd Miner?s law firm, that?s another kind of political statement,? Don Rose, a longtime Chicago political consultant, who ran Jane Byrne?s campaign, told me. Will Burns said, ?I think it might have been helpful with a certain group of people that Barack may have wanted to have at his back at the outset. So you get the support of the liberals and the progressives and the reformers, and then that gives you a base to then expand to pick up other folks. And then folks would be willing to give money to the bright, shiny new candidate.? Joining Miner?s firm, like living in Hyde Park, was a way of choosing sides in the city?s long-running political battle between the machine and the Independents. Toni Preckwinkle explained Miner?s legal work this way: ?They?ve shown a remarkable willingness to take on the Democratic organization and the Democratic establishment in this city and win. Which is why I like them and a lot of people hate them.?
If Project Vote and Miner?s firm introduced Obama to the city?s lakefront liberals and South Side politicians, it was his wife who helped connect him to Chicago?s black ?lite. One of Michelle?s best friends was Jesse Jackson?s daughter Santita, who became the godmother of the Obamas? first child. Michelle had worked as an aide to the younger Daley?hired by Valerie Jarrett, who is now one of Obama?s closest advisers. (Jarrett, an African-American, was born in Iran, where her father, a doctor, helped run a hospital; she and Obama formed a bond over their unusual biographies.) It was also through Michelle that Obama met Marty Nesbitt, a successful young black entrepreneur who happened to play basketball with Michelle?s brother, Craig. (Nesbitt?s wife, Anita Blanchard, an obstetrician, delivered the Obamas? two daughters.) Nesbitt became Obama?s closest friend and a bridge to the city?s African-American business class.
Obama seems to have been meticulous about constructing a political identity for himself. He visited churches on the South Side, considered the politics and reputations of each one, and received advice from older pastors. Before deciding on Trinity United Church of Christ, he asked the Reverend Wright about critics who complained that the church was too ?upwardly mobile,? a place for buppies. Though he admired Judson Miner, he was similarly cautious about joining his law firm. Miner once told me that it took ?a series of lunches? and hours of discussion before Obama made his decision. At the time, Obama was working on ?Dreams from My Father.?
Many have said that part of the appeal of ?Dreams? is its honesty, pointing out that it was written at a time when Obama had no idea that he would run for office. In fact, Obama had been talking about a political career for years, musing about becoming mayor or governor. According to a recent biography of Obama by the Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, he even told his future brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, that he might run for President one day. (Robinson teased him, saying, ?Yeah, yeah, okay, come over and meet my Aunt Gracie?and don?t tell anybody that!?) Obama was writing ?Dreams? at the moment that he was preparing for a life in politics, and he launched his book and his first political campaign simultaneously, in the summer of 1995, when he saw his first chance of winning.
Many people who knew Obama then remember him for his cockiness. He had good reason to be self-assured. A number of his accomplishments had been accompanied by adoring press coverage. When he was named president of the Harvard Law Review, in 1990, he was profiled by, among others, the Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Vanity Fair, and the Associated Press. Even then, the essential elements of Obama-mania were present: the fascination with his early life, the adulatory quotes from friends who thought that he would be President one day, and Obama?s frank, though sometimes ostentatious, capacity for self-reflection. (?To some extent, I?m a symbolic stand-in for a lot of the changes that have been made,? he told the Boston Globe in 1990.)
His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded. In 1993, Crain?s Chicago Business reported that Obama had ?galvanized Chicago?s political community, as no seasoned politico had before,? and an alderman told Crain?s, ?Under Barack?s leadership, we had the most successful, cost-effective and orderly voter registration drive I?ve ever been involved with.? When ?Dreams from My Father? was published, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive; Booklist included the memoir in a ?guide to some of the best books of 1995.?
Obama knew that Hyde Park, despite its reputation as the center of anti-machine progressives, was not exempt from other Chicago political traditions. During the first half of 1995, when he was preparing for his campaign for the State Senate, a big story in the neighborhood was a race for alderman marked by accusations of dirty tricks (endorsement flyers from a phony group of gay African-Americans were distributed the day before the election, apparently in an effort to stoke homophobia) and anti-Semitism (the campaign of one of the candidates was accused of being run by ?Jewish overseers?).
THE SOUTH SIDE CHOOSES
Obama?s campaign began without much excitement. He had ties to so many of the city?s ?lite factions that the local press described him as ?a well-connected attorney.? In August, the Chicago Sun-Times noted that Valerie Jarrett was hosting ?a private autograph party? for Obama. His memoir was turning him into a figure of some acclaim. The same month, the Hyde Park Herald, which later called the book ?a local indie hit,? ran a flattering profile that highlighted a theme from ?Dreams?: how Chicago helped Obama end a long journey of self-discovery, a narrative that helped defuse any notion that Obama was a carpetbagger. ?I came home in Chicago,? he told the newspaper. ?I began to see my identity and my individual struggles were one with the struggles that folks face in Chicago.?
A month later, on September 19th, Obama invited some two hundred supporters to a lakefront Ramada Inn to announce his candidacy for the State Senate, and some of what he said sounded very much like the Obama of recent months. ?Politicians are not held to highest esteem these days,? he told the crowd. ?They fall somewhere lower than lawyers. . . . I want to inspire a renewal of morality in politics. I will work as hard as I can, as long as I can, on your behalf.? Alice Palmer introduced Obama, and an account in the Hyde Park Herald quoted more from her speech than from his; it was, after all, chiefly her endorsement that certified him as a plausible candidate. ?In this room, Harold Washington announced for mayor,? Palmer said. ?Barack Obama carries on the tradition of independence in this district. . . . His candidacy is a passing of the torch.?
Also in attendance that day were Toni Preckwinkle and Will Burns, who was then a recent University of Chicago graduate. (He went on to get a master?s in social sciences; Obama helped persuade him to leave the university before he got a Ph.D., telling him, ?You shouldn?t be too academic.?) Obama?s talk of a ?renewal of morality in politics,? which previewed themes that emerged in this year?s campaign, also tapped into a desire for generational change?similarly consistent with his current rhetoric. He was able to capture the imagination of some young African-Americans frustrated by their local leadership. Burns said, ?You have to understand, it?s 1995. It?s the year after the Republicans have taken over control of Congress, and in Illinois all three branches of government were also controlled by the Republicans. So it was a really dark point. I was looking to be engaged in something that would mean something, that would actually get something done and that was beyond symbols. Around the same time that I started up with Barack, volunteering on his campaign, I had gone to some of the old community groups and nationalist organizations. I respected what they had done, but I didn?t feel like that was really where I wanted to be.?
However, the campaign was no insurgency. Obama abided by the local way of doing things. He had lined up support from Preckwinkle, his alderman, and Ivory Mitchell, the local ward chairman, and Palmer?s endorsement brought with it two organizational assets: local operators and local activists. The operators helped Obama get on the ballot and handled the mechanics of his election. Two key operators were Alan Dobry and his wife, Lois Friedberg-Dobry, then in their late sixties and leaders of the Independent movement. ?When you go to a political meeting, and you see a couple of guys or girls at the back of the room, and they aren?t glad-handing or anything, those are the operators,? Alan Dobry told me recently. There was a machinelike quality to the way the campaign unfolded. Palmer?s endorsement was the only signal that the Dobrys needed to start the slow, detailed organizing necessary to win a State Senate seat for Obama, whom they had never met, though they lived in his neighborhood.
Palmer?s imprimatur was also helpful with a small group of Hyde Park activists, some of whom she asked to hold fund-raising coffees for Obama. At her suggestion, Sam and Martha Ackerman, who were leaders of Independent Voters of Illinois, hosted a coffee at their home. Unlike the Dobrys, they insisted on a meeting with Obama before backing him, and their support was important enough for him to spend an hour with them in their dining room, submitting to an interview. Their reaction to him was a common one. ?I don?t think he said he wanted to run for President, but he indicated that he was into public service for the long haul,? Martha Ackerman told me. ?I remember very clearly I said to Sam, ?If this guy is for real, he could be the first African-American President of the United States.? ?
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, another activist Hyde Park couple, also held an event for Obama. Forty years ago, Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of the Weathermen, the militant antiwar group that bombed the Pentagon and the United States Capitol. By the time Obama met Ayers, the former radical and onetime fugitive had been accepted into polite Chicago society and had been reborn as an education expert, eventually working as an informal adviser to Mayor Daley. (Those ties remain intact in the jumbled culture of Chicago politics. When Obama?s association with Ayers first became a campaign issue, Daley, whose father, in 1968, sent his police force into the streets to combat Ayers?s fellow-radicals, issued a statement praising Ayers as ?a valued member of the Chicago community.?)
Obama seemed sure enough that he would win the State Senate primary, to be held in March, 1996?in Chicago, winning the primary is tantamount to winning the seat?to take time, late that summer, for a brief book tour, which started in Hyde Park and carried him as far as California. In October, he was one of the thousands of African-Americans from Chicago who travelled to Washington for the Million Man March. (Obama criticized the march, telling a local alternative newspaper that it was a waste of energy.) When he returned home, he had more immediate problems. In December, 1995, the South Side coalition that he had cobbled together began to fall apart. Palmer?s congressional campaign was eclipsed by her Democratic-primary opponents?Jesse Jackson, Jr., who had star power, and Emil Jones, a longtime leader in the State Senate. Several weeks before the primary, a group of her supporters?mostly older black activists, not unlike those Obama had tangled with when he was running Project Vote?realized that Palmer was destined for defeat and summoned him to a meeting. The Chicago Defender reported that Obama was asked ?to step aside like other African Americans have done in other races for the sake of unity and to release Palmer from her commitment??so that she could reclaim her State Senate seat. Obama left the meeting noncommittal.
Palmer was soundly defeated by Jackson?she got only ten per cent of the vote?and there were more insistent demands that Obama withdraw. He refused, which angered Palmer and her husband, Buzz. Buzz Palmer was a founder of the Afro-American Patrolman?s League, a reform group within the Chicago police department, and the couple had many ties to the city?s black leadership. Palmer, announcing that she had been drafted back into the State Senate race, went from being Obama?s most important supporter to his chief challenger; the woman who had launched his political career now threatened to end it. ?That?s Chicago politics,? Obama told a reporter?with a sigh, the account said.
The South Side political community was forced to choose. The Ackermans went with Palmer, the Dobrys with Obama. Emil Jones announced his support for Palmer. Alderman Preckwinkle stayed with Obama. ?I had given him my word I would support him,? she told me. ?Alice didn?t forgive me, and she?s never going to forgive me.?
?These old nationalist guys start beating a drum?probably not the right metaphor?about how Barack should let this elder back in and how seniority?s important,? Burns said. ?And they?re writing essays in the Defender and N?Digo??another local paper covering Chicago?s black community. A comment in the Defender by Robert Starks, a professor of political science at Chicago?s Northeastern Illinois University and one of Palmer?s chief supporters, was typical: ?If she doesn?t run, that seat will go to a Daley supporter. We have asked her to reconsider not running because we don?t think Obama can win. He hasn?t been in town long enough. . . . Nobody knows who he is . . . We need someone with experience.?
But, almost as fast as the threat to his campaign appeared, Obama stamped it out. The Dobrys were surprised that Palmer had so quickly gathered the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. They went to the Chicago board of elections and reviewed her petitions; as they suspected, they were filled with irregularities. One skill that the Independents had mastered in the years of fighting the first Mayor Daley was the machine?s tactic of challenging ballot petitions, and the Dobrys were experts at this Chicago ritual. Publicly, Obama was conciliatory about the awkward political situation, telling the Hyde Park Herald that he understood that some people were upset about the ?conflict between old loyalties and new enthusiasms.? Privately, however, he unleashed his operators. With the help of the Dobrys, he was able to remove not just Palmer?s name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well. ?He ran unopposed, which is a good way to win,? Mikva said, laughing at the recollection. And Palmer said last week, ?Anyone who enters Chicago politics and can?t take the rough and tumble shouldn?t be there. Losing the seat was just that?not the end of the world.?
Instead of arriving in Springfield as the consensus candidate of his district, Obama was regarded as a troublemaker. ?He had created some enemies,? Emil Jones, who in 2003 became president of the Illinois Senate, said. Burns described the fallout of the Obama-Palmer race this way: ?It established a reputation that ?you?re not going to punk me, you?re not going to roll me over, you?re not going to jam me.? I think it established him as a threat. You have his independence with Project Vote, you have his refusal to knuckle under during the Alice Palmer thing, and so now you have a series of data points that have some established leaders in the black community feeling disrespected. And so the stage is now set for the comeuppance during the congressional race. That was their payback.?
ILLINOIS TURNS BLUE
In the political culture of 1996, two years after the ascendancy of the Gingrich Republicans, many Democrats ran as chastened and cautious politicians; among them was Bill Clinton, who turned his re?lection-campaign strategy over to Dick Morris (who had worked for Jesse Helms and Trent Lott, as well as Democrats) and the militantly centrist pollster Mark Penn (the Morris prot?g? who helped run Hillary Clinton?s primary campaign). By then, Bill Clinton had abandoned his effort for universal health care and was about to sign into law a welfare-reform bill that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had denounced, saying, ?For the first time since it was enacted in 1935, we are about to repeal a core provision of the Social Security Act.? The bill was one of the most important factors in securing Clinton?s re?lection.
Had Obama not been running for office in one of the most liberal districts in Illinois, he would have drawn notice as a fairly bold Democrat. To judge by his public comments, he seemed both appalled and impressed by President Clinton?s political skill. In an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, published a few days after Clinton said that he would sign the welfare-reform bill, Obama talked about the Presidential campaign, saying that Bob Dole ?seems to me to be a classic example of somebody who had no reason to run. You?re seventy-three years old, you?re already the third-most-powerful man in the country. So why? . . . And Bill Clinton? Well, his campaign?s fascinating to a student of politics. It?s disturbing to someone who cares about certain issues. But politically it seems to be working.?
Soon, Obama began writing a regular column??Springfield Report??for the Hyde Park Herald. In the first one, on February 19, 1997, he wrote, ?Last year, President Clinton signed a bill that, for the first time in 60 years, eliminates the federal guarantee of support for poor families and their children.? The column was earnest and wonky. It betrayed no hint of liberal piety about the new law, but emphasized that there weren?t enough entry-level jobs in Chicago to absorb all the welfare recipients who would soon be leaving the system.
In effect, while President Clinton and the national Democratic Party were drifting to the right, State Senator Obama pushed in the opposite direction. The new welfare law was one of the first issues that Obama faced as a legislator. ?I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare,? he said, choosing his words with care during debate on the Illinois Senate floor. ?Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems. But I?m a strong believer in making lemonade out of lemons.? Perhaps the law?s most punitive aspect was that it cut off aid to poor legal immigrants, a provision that Clinton, in his 2004 memoir, called ?particularly harsh? and ?unjustifiable.? The law that Obama helped pass in Illinois restored benefits to this group. (In a continuing effort to produce lemonade, Obama?s first ad of the 2008 general-election campaign says that he ?passed laws moving people from welfare to work.?) Obama resisted the national rightward trend of the mid-nineties in other small ways. He sponsored an amendment to the state constitution that would have made health care a universal right in Illinois and helped pass an ethics bill that reformed Illinois?s antiquated campaign-finance system.
In hindsight, little of his legislative record seems controversial. Some of the bills that he sponsored, statements that he made, and votes that he cast could be caricatured in a Presidential campaign. (In one 1997 column, he said, ?I supported Governor Edgar?s plan to raise the income tax,? and in a 1999 debate, speaking of himself and his two opponents, he noted that ?we?re all on the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.?) But 2008 is not 1988, and Republican attacks on tax hikes and calling an opponent a liberal lack much of their formerly compelling electoral power.
Obama has benefitted from impeccable timing. As the national Party entered a period of ideological timidity, he was at the vanguard of a Democratic revival in Illinois that had begun in 1992, when Clinton and Braun won the state, and grew stronger when, four years later, Democrats took over the Illinois House of Representatives. It continued through 2002, when Democrats won the State Senate and the governor?s office. By 2004, when Obama ran for the United States Senate, Illinois was a solidly blue state.
Not all of this was due to Democratic ingenuity; during this period the state Republican Party collapsed under the weight of corruption scandals. That is something of an Illinois tradition: four of the last nine governors have been indicted on charges of corruption, and three were convicted. As Saul Bellow once remarked, ?Politics are politics, crime is crime, but in Chicago they occasionally overlap. The line between virtue and vice meanders madly?effective government on one side, connections on the other.?
There were further changes under way in Chicago. Obama had won his first campaign by using old-fashioned Chicago machine tactics at a time when the notion of machine politics was increasingly anachronistic. As the political consultant Don Rose and his colleague James Andrews explain in a chapter for a book about the current Mayor Daley?s first victory, the machine literally provided voters with access to food, health care, and a job. In most American cities, that model vanished after the Second World War; by then, the blue-collar base was leaving for the suburbs and reform movements were challenging machine politics. In Chicago, Rose and Andrews say, the elder Daley updated and preserved the system by creating a modern machine that combined ?big labor and big capital, blue and white collars, and minorities??a hybrid model that died with him.
Gradually, Chicago caught up with the rest of the country and media-driven politics eclipsed machine-driven politics. ?It became increasingly difficult to get into homes and apartments to talk about candidates,? Rose said. ?High-rises were tough if not impossible to crack, and other parts of the city had become too dangerous to walk around in for hours at a time. And people didn?t want to answer their doors. Thus the increasing dependence on TV, radio, direct mail, phone-banking, robocalls, et cetera?all things that cost a hell of a lot more money than patronage workers, who were themselves in decline, anyway, because of anti-patronage court rulings.? Instead of a large army of ward heelers dragging people to the polls, candidates needed a small army of donors to pay for commercials. Money replaced bodies as the currency of Chicago politics. This new system became known as ?pinstripe patronage,? because the key to winning was not rewarding voters with jobs but rewarding donors with government contracts.
E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was re?lected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for re?lection. ?They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest,? Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.
At the time, Obama was growing closer to Tony Rezko, who eventually turned pinstripe patronage into an extremely lucrative way of life. Rezko?s rise in Illinois was intertwined with Obama?s. Like Abner Mikva and Judson Miner, he had tried to recruit Obama to work for him. Chicago had been at the forefront of an urban policy to lure developers into low-income neighborhoods with tax credits, and Rezko was an early beneficiary of the program. Miner?s law firm was eager to do the legal work on the tax-credit deals, which seemed consistent with the firm?s over-all civil-rights mission. A residual benefit was that the new developers became major donors to aldermen, state senators, and other South Side politicians who represented the poor neighborhoods in which Rezko and others operated. ?Our relationship deepened when I started my first political campaign for the State Senate,? Obama said earlier this year, in an interview with Chicago reporters.
Rezko was one of the people Obama consulted when he considered running to replace Palmer, and Rezko eventually raised about ten per cent of Obama?s funds for that first campaign. As a state senator, Obama became an advocate of the tax-credit program. ?That?s an example of a smart policy,? he told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin in 1997. ?The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace; but at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts.? Obama and Rezko?s friendship grew stronger. They dined together regularly and even, on at least one occasion, retreated to Rezko?s vacation home, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.
?WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS?
Obama?s subtle understanding of the way the city?s politics had changed?with fund-raising replacing organization as the key to victory?surely encouraged him in his next campaign. Almost as soon as he got to Springfield, he was planning another move. He was bored there?once, he appeared to doze off during a caucus meeting?and frustrated by the Republicans? total control over the legislature. He seemed to believe, according to colleagues at the time, that he was destined for better things than being trapped in one of America?s more notoriously corrupt state capitals. Obama spent little time socializing with ?the guys basically from Chicago,? the veteran senator Emil Jones said. ?He hung around a lot of the downstaters. They became good friends.?
Obama?s relations with some of his black colleagues from Chicago were dreadful from the beginning. On March 13, 1997, Obama introduced one of his first pieces of legislation, a modest bill to make a directory of community-college graduates available to local employers. There was a response from Rickey Hendon, a state senator from the West Side of Chicago who had been close to Alice Palmer. After Obama explained his bill, Hendon, who has dabbled in film and television work, earning him the nickname Hollywood, rose to ask a question, and the following exchange occurred:
HENDON: Senator, could you correctly pronounce your name for me? I?m having a little trouble with it.
OBAMA: Obama.
HENDON: Is that Irish?
OBAMA: It will be when I run countywide.
HENDON: That was a good joke, but this bill?s still going to die. This directory, would that have those 1-800 sex line numbers in this directory?
OBAMA: I apologize. I wasn?t paying Senator Hendon any attention.
HENDON: Well, clearly, as poorly as this legislation is drafted, you didn?t pay it much attention either. My question was: Are the 1-800 sex line numbers going to be in this directory?
OBAMA: Not?not?basically this idea comes out of the South Side community colleges. I don?t know what you?re doing on the West Side community colleges. But we probably won?t be including that in our directory for the students.
HENDON: . . . Let me just say this, and to the bill: I seem to remember a very lovely Senator by the name of Palmer?much easier to pronounce than Obama?and she always had cookies and nice things to say, and you don?t have anything to give us around your desk. How do you expect to get votes? And?and you don?t even wear nice perfume like Senator Palmer did. . . . I?m missing Senator Palmer because of these weak replacements with these tired bills that makes absolutely no sense. I . . . I definitely urge a No vote. Whatever your name is.
Although the exchange was part of a longstanding tradition of hazing new legislators, the tensions between Hendon and Obama were real. On another occasion, Obama voted?a parliamentary error, Obama says?to block funding for a child-welfare facility in Hendon?s district. Hendon rose and criticized Obama for the vote. The two men became embroiled in a yelling match on the Senate floor that looked as if it might become physical; they were separated by Courtney Nottage, then the chief of staff for Emil Jones. Nottage led Obama off the floor to a room that legislators used to make telephone calls. ?It looked like two men that were having a serious disagreement and they had walked up to one another really close,? Nottage told me. ?I didn?t think anything good could come of that.?
Hendon told me, ?He?s the one that got mad, because he said I embarrassed him on the Senate floor. That?s when he came over to my desk.? Before Nottage broke them up, Obama, who had learned to box from his Indonesian stepfather, supposedly told Hendon, ?I?m going to kick your ass!? Hendon said, ?He said something like that.? He added that more details will appear in a book that he?s written, entitled ?Black Enough, White Enough: The Obama Dilemma.?
Obama?s friends were not surprised when, in 1999, he decided to challenge Bobby Rush, who has represented the South Side in Congress since 1992. Rush had run against Daley in the 1999 mayoral primary, and Obama interpreted Rush?s defeat in that citywide race as a harbinger of his declining popularity in his congressional district.
The race against Rush was the turning point in Obama?s political career. It started with a brilliant bit of oratory that alluded to Abner Mikva?s story about the insularity of Chicago politics and sought to turn Obama?s disadvantages into strengths. ?Nobody sent me,? Obama said at his campaign kickoff, on September 26, 1999. ?I?m not part of some long-standing political organization. I have no fancy sponsors. I?m not even from Chicago. My name is Obama. Despite that fact, somebody sent me. . . . The men on the corner in Woodlawn drowning their sorrows in alcohol . . . the women working two jobs. . . . They?re all telling me we can?t wait.? It was the best moment of his campaign.
Obama was financially outmatched. Although he raised about six hundred thousand dollars, sustained television advertising in Chicago cost between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand dollars a week, according to Dan Shomon, Obama?s campaign manager at the time. A series of unusual events defined the race. A few months before the election, Rush?s twenty-nine-year-old son, Huey Rich, was shot and killed, which made the incumbent a figure of sympathy, and in the final weeks of the campaign Rush?s father died. Obama made a serious misstep when, visiting his grandmother in Hawaii, he missed a crucial vote on gun-control legislation in Springfield. Even worse, on the day of the vote a column by Obama about how the gun bill was ?sorely needed? appeared in the Hyde Park Herald, under the headline ?IDEOLOGUES FRUSTRATE GUN LAW.? Obama protested that his daughter was ill and unable to travel, and that he saw his grandmother, who lived alone, only once a year, but the press treated the trip as a tropical vacation.
Obama lost by thirty-one points?a humiliating defeat. On Election Night, at the Ramada Inn where he had begun his political career, he sounded dejected, hinting that he might leave politics. ?I?ve got to make assessments about where we go from here,? he said. ?We need a new style of politics to deal with the issues that are important to the people. What?s not clear to me is whether I should do that as an elected official or by influencing government in ways that actually improve people?s lives.? The defeat marked not so much the beginning of a new style of politics for Obama as the beginning of Obama?s mastery of the old style of politics.
Obama had misread the political dynamics of Rush?s unsuccessful mayoral campaign. ?He thought he would get some help from Daley because Rush had run against Daley for mayor,? Mikva said. ?He thought that Daley might use the opportunity to get even. That?s not the way the Daleys work. It?s not the way the machine works. When Barack went in to see the Mayor, whom he knew slightly, Daley said what his old man used to say: ?Good luck!? ?
Mayor Daley concurred. ?Bobby Rush was very strong,? he said. ?When you lose a race, you can be strong in another avenue, and he was always strong in his congressional district. It was a learning experience when I lost to Harold Washington. The next day, I endorsed him.? He added, ?You learn from defeat. If you don?t learn from defeat, then you go away as a sour politician?you think that people turned on you. Barack Obama understood that. The lesson from that campaign is you can?t just run for any office saying you thought someone lost an election and you thought they were weak. He realized that and he rededicated himself.?
THE INNER SANCTUM
Obama learned the exact nature of his appeal, as well as his handicaps. Unlike Obama?s State Senate district, where the University of Chicago and the multicultural Hyde Park produced most of the votes, Rush?s congressional district extended deep into black neighborhoods where Obama was unknown. His academic background was a burden, too. Will Burns explained, ?Even though the University of Chicago is one of the largest employers on the South Side of Chicago, it is seen by some, particularly black nationalists, as a bastion of white political power, as a huge entity that doesn?t take into account the interests of the community, that doesn?t have a full democratic partnership with the community, and does what it wants to the community in maintaining clear boundaries about where black people are. It?s seen as an expansive force, trying to expand into Bronzeville and into Woodlawn??historically black neighborhoods adjacent to Hyde Park??and put poor blacks out of the area. The University of Chicago is not a brand that helps you if you?re trying to get votes on the South Side of Chicago.?
Obama?s fund-raising success and his professional networks were also viewed with suspicion. Chicago is still a city of villages, and Obama was adept at gliding back and forth between the South Side, where he campaigned for votes, and the wealthy Gold Coast, the lakefront neighborhood of high-rise condominiums and deluxe shopping, where he raised money. One day in Hyde Park, I mentioned the name Bettylu Saltzman (the Project Vote supporter and daughter of a Bulls owner) to Lois Friedberg-Dobry (the South Side operator). ?I don?t run in those circles,? she said. Later, over lunch with Saltzman at a caf? in a gourmet supermarket on the Gold Coast, I mentioned the Dobrys and Obama?s Independent Voters of Illinois friends, and she said, ?You know, the North Side and the South Side of Chicago?it?s like two different worlds.?
A South Side operator named Al Kindle, a large man with a booming voice, was a field operator for Obama?s race against Rush. He had helped elect Harold Washington, and he saw Obama?s congressional campaign from the street level. We met one evening at Calypso Caf?, a Caribbean restaurant that Obama has said is his favorite place to eat in Hyde Park, and Kindle described some of the worst moments in the campaign. ?The accusations were that Obama was sent here and owned by the Jews,? Kindle said. ?That he was here to steal the black vote and steal black land and that he was represented by the?as they were called??the white man.? And that Obama wasn?t black enough and didn?t know the black experience, the black community. It was quite deafening in terms of how they went after Alderman Preckwinkle and myself. People would say, ?Oh, Kindle, man, we trust you, you being fooled. Obama?s got you fooled.? And some people called me a traitor.?
The loss taught Obama a great deal about the components of his natural coalition. According to Dan Shomon, the first poll that Obama conducted revealed that the demographic he could win over most easily was white voters. Obama, who hadn?t shown any particular gift for oratory in the race, now learned to shed his stiff approach to campaigning?described by Preckwinkle as that of an ?arrogant academic.? Mikva told me, ?The first time I heard him talk to a black church, he was very professorial, more so even than he was in the white community. There was no joking, no self-deprecation, no style. It didn?t go over well at all.?
But, as he had in his 1996 campaign, Obama had attracted a young and zealous corps of campaign workers. ?I remember one of the candidates in the race used to talk about how crazed our volunteers were, because they were passionate, energized,? Will Burns said. ?You?d come by the office on Eighty-seventh Street and there?d be a bunch of guys with no teeth waiting to get their next Old Grand-dad and then these Shiraz-drinking, Nation-reading, T.N.R.-quoting young black folk. It was a random-ass mix. It was beautiful, though. When I see the crowds now, they?re very reminiscent of what was happening then.?
Emil Jones told me that, after 2000, Obama moved decisively away from being pigeonholed as an inner-city pol. During one debate with Rush, he noted that he and the other candidates were all ?progressive, urban Democrats.? Even though he lost, that primary taught him that he might be something more than that. ?He learned that for Barack Obama it was not the type of district that he was well suited for,? Jones said. ?The type of campaign that he had to run to win that district is not Barack Obama. It was a predominantly African-American district. It was a district where you had to campaign solely on those issues. And Barack did not campaign that way, and so as a result he lost. Which was good.? Meaning, it was good for Barack Obama.
One day in the spring of 2001, about a year after the loss to Rush, Obama walked into the Stratton Office Building, in Springfield, a shabby nineteen-fifties government workspace for state officials next to the regal state capitol. He went upstairs to a room that Democrats in Springfield called ?the inner sanctum.? Only about ten Democratic staffers had access; entry required an elaborate ritual?fingerprint scanners and codes punched into a keypad. The room was large, and unremarkable except for an enormous printer and an array of computers with big double monitors. On the screens that spring day were detailed maps of Chicago, and Obama and a Democratic consultant named John Corrigan sat in front of a terminal to draw Obama a new district. Corrigan was the Democrat in charge of drawing all Chicago districts, and he also happened to have volunteered for Obama in the campaign against Rush.
Obama?s former district had been drawn by Republicans after the 1990 census. But, after 2000, Illinois Democrats won the right to redistrict the state. Partisan redistricting remains common in American politics, and, while it outrages a losing party, it has so far survived every legal challenge. In the new century, mapping technology has become so precise and the available demographic data so rich that politicians are able to choose the kinds of voter they want to represent, right down to individual homes. A close look at the post-2000 congressional map of Bobby Rush?s district reveals that it tears through Hyde Park in a curious series of irregular turns. One of those lines bypasses Obama?s address by two blocks. Rush, or someone looking out for his interests, had carved the upstart Obama out of Rush?s congressional district.
In truth, Rush had little to worry about; Obama was already on a different political path. Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his ?ideal map.? Corrigan remembers two things about the district that he and Obama drew. First, it retained Obama?s Hyde Park base?he had managed to beat Rush in Hyde Park?then swooped upward along the lakefront and toward downtown. By the end of the final redistricting process, his new district bore little resemblance to his old one. Rather than jutting far to the west, like a long thin dagger, into a swath of poor black neighborhoods of bungalow homes, Obama?s map now shot north, encompassing about half of the Loop, whose southern portion was beginning to be transformed by developers like Tony Rezko, and stretched far up Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast, covering much of the city?s economic heart, its main retail thoroughfares, and its finest museums, parks, skyscrapers, and lakefront apartment buildings. African-Americans still were a majority, and the map contained some of the poorest sections of Chicago, but Obama?s new district was wealthier, whiter, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and better educated. It also included one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in Chicago.
?It was a radical change,? Corrigan said. The new district was a natural fit for the candidate that Obama was in the process of becoming. ?He saw that when we were doing fund-raisers in the Rush campaign his appeal to, quite frankly, young white professionals was dramatic.?
Obama?s personal political concerns were not the only factor driving the process. During the previous round of remapping, in 1991, Republicans had created Chicago districts where African-Americans were the overwhelming majority, packing the greatest number of loyal Democrats into the fewest districts. A decade later, Democrats tried to spread the African-American vote among more districts. The idea was to create enough Democratic-leaning districts so that the Party could take control of the state legislature. That goal was fine with Obama; his new district offered promising, untapped constituencies for him as he considered his next political move. ?The exposure he would get to some of the folks that were on boards of the museums and C.E.O.s of some of the companies that he would represent would certainly help him in the long run,? Corrigan said.
In the end, Obama?s North Side fund-raising base and his South Side political base were united in one district. He now represented Hyde Park operators like Lois Friedberg-Dobry as well as Gold Coast doyennes like Bettylu Saltzman, and his old South Side street operative Al Kindle as well as his future consultant David Axelrod. In an article in the Hyde Park Herald about how ?partisan? and ?undemocratic? Illinois redistricting had become, Obama was asked for his views. As usual, he was candid. ?There is a conflict of interest built into the process,? he said. ?Incumbents drawing their own maps will inevitably try to advantage themselves.?
The partisan redistricting of Illinois may have been the most important event in Obama?s early political life. It immediately gave him the two things he needed to run for the Senate in 2004: money and power. He needed to have several times as much cash as he?d raised for his losing congressional race in 2000, and many of the state?s top donors now lived or worked in his district. More important, the statewide gerrymandering made it likely that Obama?s party would take over the State Senate in 2002, an event that would provide him with a platform from which to craft a legislative record in time for the campaign.
Obama?s political activity from 2001 to 2004 reveals a man transformed. The loss to Rush drained him of much of the na?vet? he once exuded. For instance, when Obama arrived in Springfield, in 1996, he was still enamored of the spirit of community organizing and determined to apply its principles as a legislator. In an interview with the Chicago Reader in 1995, he laid out this vision:
People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change. What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an
-
Barry Blitt is the artist behind this week's very controversial New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama. Via email, I asked him to respond to those who feel that his work was offensive, and to explain his own personal feelings about the Obamas. Here's what he wrote:
I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.
===========================================
This is the impression that it gave me.
It is absurd to portray Obama as a Muslim and his wife as some sort of pistol-packing Black Panther. But this is the current main thrust of the Swiftboat attacks against him.
The caricature of Michelle is likely to confuse a lot of people, because that is not her usual hair style, and it is just not a very recognizable drawing of her.
But it is an attempt at a satirical attack on Obama's attackers, not on Obama himself.
Blitt's other cartoons have been more effective.
-
It is like Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton ugly.
As much as I dislike Limburger, I had to agree with him. She was one homely gal.
-
<<The article behind the cartoon:
<<The Political Scene
<<Making It
<<How Chicago shaped Obama.
<<by Ryan Lizza July 21, 2008>>
WhoaH!!! TMI. TMI. Time out. I just don't have the time to read that post. It's huge. However (and standing to be corrected by anything said by the artist in the post) - -
I want to revise my earlier opinion, simply because I did not realize this was an actual New Yorker cover. That being the case, it's obviously a left-wing satire of the right wing's smears against Obama - - he embraces Angela Davis, who is still promoting armed revolution in the U.S.A. and they both venerate OBL and burn American flags. It's a joke at the expense of the right-wing, crypto-fascist movement in America.
-
Meanwhile the controversy rages on at the HuffPo:
This is the print preview: Back to normal view ?
Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama
Huffington Post | Rachel Sklar | July 13, 2008 06:20 PM
Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.
The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?
Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign ? all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism? well, here's your image.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."
The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:
"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html?view=print (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html?view=print)
-
<<The article behind the cartoon:
<<The Political Scene
<<Making It
<<How Chicago shaped Obama.
<<by Ryan Lizza July 21, 2008>>
WhoaH!!! TMI. TMI. Time out. I just don't have the time to read that post. It's huge. However (and standing to be corrected by anything said by the artist in the post) - -
I want to revise my earlier opinion, simply because I did not realize this was an actual New Yorker cover. That being the case, it's obviously a left-wing satire of the right wing's smears against Obama - - he embraces Angela Davis, who is still promoting armed revolution in the U.S.A. and they both venerate OBL and burn American flags. It's a joke at the expense of the right-wing, crypto-fascist movement in America.
Hahahahahahahaha!
It is absurd to portray Obama as a Muslim and his wife as some sort of pistol-packing Black Panther. But this is the current main thrust of the Swiftboat attacks against him.
Hahahahahahahahah!
That is so funny !
I guess I can now suggest that the New Yorker cover is funny , since it is a leftist lampoon , the same cartoon would have been flung fecees if drawn by a right hand.
-
<<I guess I can now suggest that the New Yorker cover is funny , since it is a leftist lampoon , the same cartoon would have been flung fecees if drawn by a right hand.>>
So I guess at this stage in your life, you are finally discovering the idea of parody. A little late, IMHO, but better late than never.
Yes, plane, the idea of parody, the idea behind such things as the Colbert Report, where ludicrous ideas held in all seriousness by right-wing idiots are turned into comedy when repeated straight-faced by a mock-RW commentator, Stephen Colbert. The same words that in the mouth of Rush Limbaugh are merely ignorant and infuriating are comic in the mouth of Stephen Colbert.
Once you grasp the basic concept, plane, you can graduate to literary parodies. You can try Woody Allen's "No Kaddish for Weinstein," first published in, of all places, The New Yorker, or if you can still find a copy, look for Max Shulman's hilarious parody of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" as told or re-enacted by a drunken G.I. in "The Feather Merchants."
-
<<I guess I can now suggest that the New Yorker cover is funny , since it is a leftist lampoon , the same cartoon would have been flung fecees if drawn by a right hand.>>
So I guess at this stage in your life, you are finally discovering the idea of parody. A little late, IMHO, but better late than never.
Yes, plane, the idea of parody, the idea behind such things as the Colbert Report, where ludicrous ideas held in all seriousness by right-wing idiots are turned into comedy when repeated straight-faced by a mock-RW commentator, Stephen Colbert. The same words that in the mouth of Rush Limbaugh are merely ignorant and infuriating are comic in the mouth of Stephen Colbert.
Once you grasp the basic concept, plane, you can graduate to literary parodies. You can try Woody Allen's "No Kaddish for Weinstein," first published in, of all places, The New Yorker, or if you can still find a copy, look for Max Shulman's hilarious parody of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" as told or re-enacted by a drunken G.I. in "The Feather Merchants."
Was it I ,who could not discern the diffrence between meanness and parody, or you?
-
" He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html?view=print (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html?view=print)
This strikes me as true , meaning that what he really thinks , wants and will do is an enigma.
A guide to what to expect from Barak Obama ,might be ,what he has done rather than what he has said.
-
<<Was it I ,who could not discern the diffrence between meanness and parody, or you?>>
I don't know what you "discerned," but it boils down to this: if you or anyone else knew the drawing was a genuine New Yorker cover, then pegging it as parody was a no-brainer. To anyone who just assumed, as I did, that we were looking at a fake New Yorker cover, then based on that false assumption, it was a no-brainer to assume that we were being treated to unvarnished right-wing, crypto-fascist propaganda targeting primarily Obama but also the liberal media that allegedly "worships" him.
My error, which in all modesty I have to say was a very small one, was merely in jumping to a hasty conclusion as to the origin of the material. Your laughter, OTOH, was - - or seemed to be - - based on the concept that the cover could be one thing or the other, based solely on the origin of the material. In other words, it seemed to me that you were unaware of the basic idea of parody and perhaps of parody itself, and were laughing at the very concept that makes parody work.
-
<<Was it I ,who could not discern the diffrence between meanness and parody, or you?>>
I don't know what you "discerned," but it boils down to this: if you or anyone else knew the drawing was a genuine New Yorker cover, then pegging it as parody was a no-brainer. To anyone who just assumed, as I did, that we were looking at a fake New Yorker cover, then based on that false assumption, it was a no-brainer to assume that we were being treated to unvarnished right-wing, crypto-fascist propaganda targeting primarily Obama but also the liberal media that allegedly "worships" him.
My error, which in all modesty I have to say was a very small one, was merely in jumping to a hasty conclusion as to the origin of the material. Your laughter, OTOH, was - - or seemed to be - - based on the concept that the cover could be one thing or the other, based solely on the origin of the material. In other words, it seemed to me that you were unaware of the basic idea of parody and perhaps of parody itself, and were laughing at the very concept that makes parody work.
Delightfull , I have always liked Parody .
Unless I am very much mistaken you are presently engagued in unconchous self parody ,...
Which is of course the very best kind.
-
<<Unless I am very much mistaken you are presently engagued in unconchous self parody ,...>>
LOL. Aren't we all?
-
he embraces Angela Davis, who is still promoting armed revolution in the U.S.A. and they both venerate OBL and burn American flags.
========================
I know of no instance in which Angela Davis ever burned an American flag. She certainly has not done so recently.
Angela Davis has pretty much vanished from the political scene, so far as I can tell. This does not appear tp be a drawing of Davis, who was always drawn wearing large round glasses. I THINK this is supposed to be Michelle Obama, but poorly drawn. Michelle is not really all that well known at present, and I doubt that any cartoon of her would be widely recognized.
Apparently, both the Obama campaign and the McSame campaign consider this cartoon to be offensive and tasteless. This might be, but it is also clearly satirical to all but those who are unfamiliar with the New Yorker, which is unfortunately, a rather large group. The New Yorker, Harpers and The Atlantic Monthly are the nation's best magazines.
Chelsea Clinton was, in my opinion, never ugly, and is now rather attractive.
In any event, Limbaugh calling her ugly was cruel and totally inappropriate-- even more so than calling Rush a fat drug fiend, because she was just a young girl who was not an actor on the political stage and unable to defend herself.
-
he embraces Angela Davis, who is still promoting armed revolution in the U.S.A. and they both venerate OBL and burn American flags.
========================
I know of no instance in which Angela Davis ever burned an American flag. She certainly has not done so recently.
Angela Davis has pretty much vanished from the political scene, so far as I can tell. This does not appear tp be a drawing of Davis, who was always drawn wearing large round glasses. I THINK this is supposed to be Michelle Obama, but poorly drawn. Michelle is not really all that well known at present, and I doubt that any cartoon of her would be widely recognized.
Apparently, both the Obama campaign and the McSame campaign consider this cartoon to be offensive and tasteless. This might be, but it is also clearly satirical to all but those who are unfamiliar with the New Yorker, which is unfortunately, a rather large group. The New Yorker, Harpers and The Atlantic Monthly are the nation's best magazines.
Chelsea Clinton was, in my opinion, never ugly, and is now rather attractive.
In any event, Limbaugh calling her ugly was cruel and totally inappropriate-- even more so than calling Rush a fat drug fiend, because she was just a young girl who was not an actor on the political stage and unable to defend herself.
I like the New Yorker too. In the New Yorker I can depend on finding at least one interesting subject being examined in detail and at length I don't read it frequently but often enough to be familliar with their style.
I agree that Rush Limbaugh was far over the line to criticise Chelsea for her looks , this was in bad taste for the reasons you cite and others. I don't want to see the children of the Canadates picked on this year either , unless they are old enough and involved enough in the campaign to be considered consenting as an informed consenting adult.
McCain has a busy blogger daughter who might be due for criticism , but Obama's children are too young to be subjected to that .
-
Outrageous SATIRE!
Shame on the New Yorker~
-
<<I know of no instance in which Angela Davis ever burned an American flag. She certainly has not done so recently.>>
Of course not. Doesn't burn flags in the fireplace, doesn't have a photo of OBL on the wall, doesn't carry a long gun, probably doesn't even advocate armed Revolution any more. These are all elements of the right wing's lunatic fringe cosmology, an alternate universe where Angela Davis IS as she and Barak were portrayed in the cover drawing.
-
The fact that some people incorrectly identified the female Black woman as Angela Davis rather than Michelle Obama sort of proves my point that Michelle Obama is not yet well-known enough to be caricaturable. It also seems as though the artist failed to capture the essence of her image. That does not seem to be her current hairstyle.
-
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/29987/thumbs/r-OBAMA-SECOND-TOP-huge.jpg)
This has been so badly misinterpreted.
Respectfull burning is the proper disposal of a worn out flag, in this scene we see First Lady Michelle Obama and her husband , President O, celebrating their purchase of a new flag while they privately and properly dispose of their flag that they had displayed till it was too ragged to keep.
Michelle is demurely enjoying her second amendment right and seems ready for her weekly meeting with her well ordered militia.
On the wall they still have the same portrait of Osama Bin Laden that President Bush put up , this drawing is not detailed enough to show the text of the "WANTED dead or alive" text on it or the darts in it.
President Barak H. Obama Is obviously about to make an OPEC leader welcome , walking hand in hand through the rose garden and making nice in the most diplomatic way possible President O will surely get oil deliveries increased enough to lower the average Americans fuel bill lowered to comfortable low levels again. God bless the good hearted.
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/michellespan.jpg)
She is pretty , but caricaturists won't have any trouble.
-
President Barak H. Obama Is obviously about to make an OPEC leader welcome , walking hand in hand through the rose garden and making nice in the most diplomatic way possible President O will surely get oil deliveries increased enough to lower the average Americans fuel bill lowered to comfortable low levels again. God bless the good hearted.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v651/pilgrim7_5/wow-dementia-express-1.jpg)
President McCain would give up all of his wifes many vacation homes just to be able to take a normal pain free leak.
-
This has been so badly misinterpreted.
Respectfull burning is the proper disposal of a worn out flag, in this scene we see First Lady Michelle Obama and her husband , President O, celebrating their purchase of a new flag while they privately and properly dispose of their flag that they had displayed till it was too ragged to keep.
Michelle is demurely enjoying her second amendment right and seems ready for her weekly meeting with her well ordered militia.
On the wall they still have the same portrait of Osama Bin Laden that President Bush put up , this drawing is not detailed enough to show the text of the "WANTED dead or alive" text on it or the darts in it.
President Barak H. Obama Is obviously about to make an OPEC leader welcome , walking hand in hand through the rose garden and making nice in the most diplomatic way possible President O will surely get oil deliveries increased enough to lower the average Americans fuel bill lowered to comfortable low levels again. God bless the good hearted.
I've got to say plane, you do satire very well.
-
The camo and gun...that threw me. My first thought was, Angela Davis? Huh?
When you have to think about a cartoon and puzzle it out, it isn't funny.
-
I guess I understand what he was doing but that is not a cover, that should be an attached cartoon to an article about all the nonsense that has been said about Obama. Without any explanation on the cover about it, the artwork just looks like a statement about the candidate.
-
Chelsea Clinton was, in my opinion, never ugly, and is now rather attractive.
Beauty (or ugly,or homely) is in the eye of the beholder.
In any event, Limbaugh calling her ugly was cruel and totally inappropriate
True - didn't say it wasn't, just that I agreed with him at the time.
...even more so than calling Rush a fat drug fiend, because she was just a young girl who was not an actor on the political stage and unable to defend herself.
Well, Rush was a fat druggie, and chose to make himself a public figure, so I don't see anything unfair about saying so. Chelsea didn't have that choice when Billary was in the White House, and so should not have been made fair game. But I still think she was homely.
-
I still haven't decided whether Janet Reno was a man or a woman.
-
I still haven't decided whether Janet Reno was a man or a woman.
She is a woman.
I met her once here in Miami.
She is very tall-at least six feet.
-
<<Without any explanation on the cover about it, the artwork just looks like a statement about the candidate.>>
IGG-zackly.
-
<<Without any explanation on the cover about it, the artwork just looks like a statement about the candidate.>>
IGG-zackly.
Nuance can be tough.
-
Before this is explained, is it mean or is it trite or is it an ironic offering from an Obama fan?
(http://www.goats.com/store/images/preview_protobama.png)
http://www.goats.com/ (http://www.goats.com/)
-
:D
-
It's mildly funny, but the same concept could be applied to any politician. It's more a spoof on evolutionary theory or developmental anatomy, with political characteristics substituted for phenotype or organelles. It's just as funny to do one on McCain with organelles representing duty, honour, country or "experience" or heiress-seeking. The humour is from the inappropriate interaction of two concepts, politics and cellular anatomy, which in real life have nothing to do with each other.
-
It's mildly funny, but the same concept could be applied to any politician. It's more a spoof on evolutionary theory or developmental anatomy, with political characteristics substituted for phenotype or organelles. It's just as funny to do one on McCain with organelles representing duty, honour, country or "experience" or heiress-seeking. The humour is from the inappropriate interaction of two concepts, politics and cellular anatomy, which in real life have nothing to do with each other.
Now, we need to hear from Sirs with Satire from the WW2 era.
d'oh
Looking forward to it, actually. I might even find some ggggggggags from the SAaaaatire of the paaaaaaaaaSst.
-
It's mildly funny, but the same concept could be applied to any politician. It's more a spoof on evolutionary theory or developmental anatomy, with political characteristics substituted for phenotype or organelles. It's just as funny to do one on McCain with organelles representing duty, honour, country or "experience" or heiress-seeking. The humour is from the inappropriate interaction of two concepts, politics and cellular anatomy, which in real life have nothing to do with each other.
No better than a non sequiter?
Did you know that spell check doesn't know non sequiter?
Anyway ,it is availible on a T shirt.
This too.
(http://www.goats.com/store/images/shirt_rfv.gif)http://www.goats.com/store/
-
<<Did you know that spell check doesn't know non sequiter?>>
Try non sequitur.
-
<<Did you know that spell check doesn't know non sequiter?>>
Try non sequitur.
Nope ,Spell checker does not grok Non sequitur either.
But it did catch grock and suggest grok , viva Heinlein .
-
Is this really on the NR cover?
No fair looking.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/30248/original.jpg)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/a-new-yorker-cover-for-na_n_112877.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/a-new-yorker-cover-for-na_n_112877.html)
-
Is it? Inquiring minds demand an answer.
-
Is it? Inquiring minds demand an answer.
You really can't tell?
Ok here is the real(http://covers.magazine-agent.com/images/image.aspx?i=8518.jpg&w=303)
Aprils issue was in that vein.....
Is it mean or satirical?
(http://covers.magazine-agent.com/images/image.aspx?)
-
<<You really can't tell?>>
Well, you said, "No fair looking" so I didn't look. It's not as if I'm a regular reader of that cryptofascist rag and see its cover every other week. I think the "cover" is very funny and right on the mark. A doddering fool of a war criminal and his junkie heiress dreaming of more war crimes to come and burning the Constitution to ashes in the process. Hope it gets the widest possible distribution and thanks for sharing.
-
A cartoon is a type of joke.
If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it's not funny, and could be called a "failed joke".
A failed state can apparently be rescued by the benevolent military takeover of a superpower. I don't think Saddam's Iraq was a "failed state", until after the invasion decapitated the government.
There is no intervention for a failed joke. All we can do is misunderstand it or be baffled by it. There is no closure.
-
Rachel Sklar had a fairly interesting piece on this in Hufpo. Sorry I forgot the link. Pretty much what most commentators are now saying, that without some kind of exposition or explanation on the drawing itself, the "joke" falls flat - - there's nothing to indicate the back-story of drawing, its context. The title "Politics of Fear" would have made all the difference, but it was found inside the magazine in the table of contents; had it been a part of the cover, no one would have doubted the parodic nature of the drawing.
-
Her link is here:
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6702.msg67991#msg67991 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6702.msg67991#msg67991)
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/new-jibjab-video-of-obama_n_113016.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/new-jibjab-video-of-obama_n_113016.html)
Oh look!
-
Gee, I dunno, plane. That looked kind of, well . . . cynical, didn't it?
LOVED the part where Hillary beans Bill with the skillet, though. That wasn't cynical at all. Just good old American family values reasserting themselves at last. YOU tell 'im, Hillary!
-
Jib-Jab is more for laughs than any sort of deep thought, so naturally it uses sitcom skits.
It was funny, though. It lampooned both sides equally, it seemed to me.
-
<<It lampooned both sides equally, it seemed to me.>>
Absolutely, but whereas the lampooning of Bush, John Insane and Hillary were based on solid fact, the lampoon of Obama, while just as funny as the others, was not grounded in fact.
-
<<It lampooned both sides equally, it seemed to me.>>
Absolutely, but whereas the lampooning of Bush, John Insane and Hillary were based on solid fact, the lampoon of Obama, while just as funny as the others, was not grounded in fact.
Oh?
-
You have to consider the source, Plane
-
(http://www.mattbors.com/strips/357.gif)
-
(http://www.mattbors.com/strips/357.gif)
I see how that could be mistaken for unfreindly.
-
Just interesting that there's all this fuss over the New Yorker cover, when this cartoon has been out since March and seems 'way more insulting.