Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Chronicle/Gallup
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind Gina Barreca

Yes, Bad: 'The New Yorker' Cover Uncovered

Even though Laurie Friedrich already did a terrific job of getting at the New Yorker brouhaha yesterday, I still feel the need to throw in some of my own loose change.

Here goes.

The New Yorker cover was about as sophisticated a piece of satire as a penis drawn on a desk.

As anybody who’s been teaching for more than 15 minutes knows, in pretty much every classroom you enter there will be a picture of a penis drawn or carved onto the surface. This is not, I would argue, a fabulously insouciant form of deconstructive satire emerging from the anxieties surrounding gender/sex issues in contemporary culture. This is not even a jejeune exploration of a particular individual’s nascent and charming outpouring of self-realization. It is, on every level, one-dimensional.

It’s a dick on a desk.

Neanderthals drawing stick figures on cave walls had layered, informed, soul-searching, and complex artistic experiences. It would be tough to make that argument about the cover of The New Yorker and those who conceived of the concept behind it. If one of the Neanderthals had drawn a mastodon stomping one of the stick figures — which, for all I know exists on a cave wall in France somewhere — then that would have been satire, or at least you could have seen it as an attempt at satire. But when I looked at the New Yorker cover, I didn’t see anything nearly as droll as a stick figure being stomped on by a mastodon.

What I saw was an equivalent of a football stadium of boors on Coors singing “Born in the USA” as if Springsteen’s lyrics were a national anthem celebrating the caring, generous, nurturing attitude of the U.S. government toward its veterans rather than the heartbreaking, darkly satirical, deeply fatalistic song it actually is.

Or put it this way: the New Yorker cover has all the subtlety of the cover once run by Hustler (published when Neanderthals were still roaming the earth) where a woman’s body was shown being put into a meat grinder as a visual “joke” about the idea of women being treated as pieces of meat.

Ha bloody ha.

Yeah, yeah, sure, the appreciation of any kind of humor depends to a great extent on appetite and aesthetics, which naturally leads to disagreements over the nature and boundaries of humor itself (it was George Eliot who commented with her usual dry understatement that, after all, “A difference of taste in jokes, is a great strain on the affections”), but some stuff just isn’t funny.

If you wink at somebody, they have to know what you’re doing is winking and not think you have a rock in your eye or a twitch; if even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked, then the audience for satire should be able to tell that something is being mocked rather than sanctioned.

Or maybe that’s just my girlish way of looking at things.

If you want evidence of the easy, albeit deliberate misreading of the New Yorker cover, I suggest you take a look at this collection of quotations assembled by Jake Tapper.

Not that I’m bitter, but somebody should wipe off the desk.

Posted at 12:01:36 PM on July 15, 2008 | All postings by Gina Barreca

Comments

  1. As was commented in the NPR Newshour last night, it’s not satire if you have to explain it.

    — Emile Discard · Jul 15, 12:48 PM · #

  2. this was really good, and really funny too. much thanks for a great piece

    — o-de · Jul 15, 12:52 PM · #

  3. Having fun with Obama is not going to be as easy as having fun with George. The sad thing about the New Yorker Cover is that for some people (apparently very few) it’s satire. For some people, though, it’s evidence. And for another group it’s irrelevant. I’d be curious to know where the thoughtful people at the New Yorker think they are in this uproar. We know where Gina is.

    — Dr. J · Jul 15, 12:59 PM · #

  4. I think the New Yorker should come out and say that they’re sorry-that they made a mistake and have learned important lessons for the future-that if they’d had the right evidence at the time, they would never have voted for… I mean published that cover.

    — GOODY2SHOES · Jul 15, 01:03 PM · #

  5. Perhaps they should reject and repudiate the cover.

    We could take a more zen-like approach to this: a lot of people are getting upset over smething that is ephemeral and, in the end, wholly meaningless. It probably won’t effect the outcome of the pending election; this cover certainly isn’t going to change anyone’s opinion of Obama (and if a silly satirical/non-satirical illustration does inform one’s decision, that doesn’t speak highly of our ‘democracy’). Someone will be elected president and things will continue on as they always have, no change, no explosion of equality or enlightenment, just…same.

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 15, 01:42 PM · #

  6. The cover isn’t satirical at all, as the only truth in the image is Obama’s arrival—fingers crossed—in the Oval Office. But I do empathize with humorists’ trouble having fun with Obama. He may be a total pol at times, but he’s no buffoon. As Letterman’s lead writer was quoted in today’s NY Times, “Let’s hope that he chooses an idiot for vice president.”

    Great piece, Gina!

    Beth W.

    — Elizabeth Welch · Jul 15, 02:00 PM · #

  7. People who think Obama is a Muslim are morons. People who cannot understand that the New Yorker cover makes fun of people who think Obama is a Muslim are equally moronic. Most Americans are morons. Thus the controversy.

    — not a moron · Jul 15, 02:10 PM · #

  8. One more thing: The problem with our country is that people who lack the basic mental capacity to recognize the satirical intent of the cover are allowed to vote, and they vastly outnumber the rest of us.

    — not a moron · Jul 15, 02:45 PM · #

  9. not a moron – That’s (partly) what I was implying in my post, I just didn’t really feel like taking the heat for saying it explicitly. You are correct though.

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 15, 02:57 PM · #

  10. It still escapes me why there is so much uproar over this. A shockingly high number of people apparently believe in one or more of the items mocked in the New Yorker cover. And I still don’t understand what’s wrong with how the New Yorker has expressed the contempt such a constellation of falsehoods deserves.

    One particular recurring problem I see in some of the condemnation is that it is assumed that the meaning of the cover should be readily available to pretty much anyone, and that a failure in such accessibility is tantamount to a failure of design.

    Perhaps those who have trouble distinguishing between mockery and sanction — or who find themselves so distressed over how many others who can’t — are simply registering their lack of fitness to be New Yorker subscribers.

    Since when has the humor of the New Yorker covers gone ecumenical?

    — Anonymous · Jul 15, 03:02 PM · #

  11. I thought the cover was funny because it is true. Now, what it does do is tweak their leftist readership. That you people (yes, I said and MEANT you people) can’t see he is the Muslims choice for president are the morons.

    — Ricky Sartore · Jul 15, 03:02 PM · #

  12. To strengthen your fine point, Ricky, you might have added that McCain is white supremacists’ choice, too.

    — Anonymous · Jul 15, 03:07 PM · #

  13. Ricky,
    Even this moron knows how to use apostrophes. Maybe you people do it differently. Kisses.

    — not a moron · Jul 15, 03:13 PM · #

  14. Haha! There is always a drawing of male anatomy on a desk. Sometimes there are breasts, but most often-why?-there is a penis. Can someone explain this phenomena? Has it been discussed-in a serious manner-anywhere else?

    — Jan · Jul 15, 04:09 PM · #

  15. Actually, Ricky, and others, we live in a nation that has a constitution that forbids us to do what we do—that is, require conformation of Presidential candidates to religious tests. According to our constitution, it would not even matter if Obama were a Muslim, or Hindu, or atheist. BUT, we all know that no one needs to try running for President unless s/he is a Christian—and the more “fundamentalist,” the better. Sadly, many of the most “fundamentalistic” Christians are deeply committed to white supremacy and will cheat and lie and commit other nefarious acts (including a wonderful history of lynchings conducted by Christian gentlemen, essentially to keep blacks in their place). Of course, most Christians are not really terrorists—just as most Muslims are not terrorists. Our current leaders seem to often imply that our current war involvement is a war against Islam. All extreme religious nuts are capable of waging war based on religious hatred and ignorance. Of course moderate Muslims and Hindus and Budhists, etc., would prefer that the US President was someone who is not intent on exterminating them and waging a crusade to convert them to fundamentalist Christianity. Indonesia, the forth most populous nation in the world, has a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, but nearly 90% of the population lists Islam as their religious preference. Many Indonesians are quite excited about the US potentially having a President who actually knows where their country is. Most Americans know nothing whatsoever about Indonesia. If you don’t believe me, ask them. Most people will guess that it is maybe somewhere in the South Pacific, like maybe in Bali.Of course, that is all based on “South Pacific,” the musical, that includes such tunes as “Bali Hai,” and “They’ve got to be carefully taught.” Most of the Muslims in the world are deeply embarrassed by what a very small percentage of extreme members of their faith have done. Our image in the world will improve dramatically if Obama is elected. And we will be perceived (correctly) as less arrogant and intolerant of cultural diversity than we are now. But it remains to be seen whether or not we are really a nation of whining and drooling nuts….

    — Joe Erwin · Jul 15, 05:19 PM · #

  16. (Anonymous, #10) “…simply registering their lack of fitness to be New Yorker subscribers.”

    Gee, all I thought it took was a credit card and a mailing address.

    — Mr. Wiki · Jul 15, 06:27 PM · #

  17. Okay – I’m no Obama fan, but that is by far one of the silliest displays of idiocy I have ever seen – and I have a pretty high tolerance.

    The New Yorker says the cover was meant to mock the mockers of the Obamas. However, I think they failed. While a picture is worth a thousand words, words are better at defending ideas in this instance.

    Penis indeed. On a side note – why does HBO insist on flashing male genitalia all over their otherwise fabulous shows? They give me nightmares.

    On a side side note – Prof. Barreca, thanks for the visit!

    — Milena Thomas · Jul 15, 06:37 PM · #

  18. Great piece. One of your best on this blog, I’d say. I agree with a lot of the posters here that it’ll be tough establishing the humor angle if Obama is elected (Jon Stewart may be out of a job), but come on, this is a pretty poor attempt. It’s more like when a group of friends go out to dinner and one of them gets too drunk, says something he thinks might be intelligent, or funny, and really just winds up missing the mark and making an ass of himself. I see what they were going for, but it seems too irrelevant a thing to make a magazine cover out of in the first place. I don’t think that many Republican voters, even, actually believe Obama and his wife are terrorists, so why draw this sort of attention to it?
    Or hey, maybe the New Yorker is still sore about Hillary.
    Regardless, this was refreshing and insightful. The dick on the desk is a perfect comparison.
    And hey, whether the subject is music, film, literature, or I don’t know, giraffes, a Springsteen reference is never out of place.

    — Barack Ted Kaszinski Obama · Jul 15, 09:36 PM · #

  19. Love the cover New Yorker. Keep up the great work.

    — Not from the left · Jul 16, 04:41 AM · #

  20. We all know that Obama is above humor. No one can offer any kind of criticism of him without being labeled a racist. When does the jihad begin?

    — Mary · Jul 16, 06:00 AM · #

  21. Mary, on the contrary. Obama frequently displays a refreshingly good sense of humor—but it is also clear that he takes the state of this nation and the world seriously. He seems to me to be sensibly sensitive to the kinds of pervasive racism that African Americans endure every day of their lives in America, without dwelling excessively on racism. For those who thrive on racist humor or perpetuation of “white power,” Obama certainly provides abundant opportunities to express those sentiments. Nevertheless, he insists, and I agree, that the choice of leadership in America must not be about race, ethnicity, or religion. Those who try to make those the issues badly miss the mark and diminish the ability of our nation to be as good as it can be.

    — Joe Erwin · Jul 16, 06:26 AM · #

  22. At the end of the day, Barreca and similar knee-jerk respondents are expressing a disturbingly censorious ethos that all authentic liberals should shun. I support Obama and I also thought the New Yorker cover was brilliant.

    — Ranen Omer-Sherman · Jul 16, 06:34 AM · #

  23. I fully understood what they were trying to accomplish when I saw the cover, which is mocking the idiots who call Barack and Michelle wife Muslim, unpatriotic, or terrorists. But the cover still rubbed me the wrong way. Even though mockery was its goal, it still was an image of the Obama being those things that Americans accuse them of being. It was troubling that someone else might not interpret the image the same way. Basically, I got the joke but still found the cover to be inappropriate.

    — Katherine · Jul 16, 06:40 AM · #

  24. Omer-Sherman describes Barreca’s criticism as “knee-jerk.” No it’s not. She takes about a dozen paragraphs to lay out a pretty nice case as to why The New Yorker cover is failed satire. He also says that Barreca and those who agree with her are “censorious.” No we’re not. Nobody has said a word about preventing the magazine from printing another such cover, or punishing the magazine for having printed this one. If mere disagreement is “censorious,” then Omer-Sherman is equally censorious about us, and hardly the fellow you’d want to judge who “authentic liberals” are.

    — Just Passing Through · Jul 16, 06:58 AM · #

  25. Some good comments here, but naturally I prefer the note I sent to the editor at the New Yorker:

    The only folks dumber than those who believe Obama is a Muslim apparently work at the New Yorker.

    — arnold asrelsky · Jul 16, 07:04 AM · #

  26. Once again the Obamites have zealously come to the aid of their faulted candidate who would be president. As far as the argument goes that this cover would influence the masses, I would respectfully disagree. One would only need to observe casually the clientele who purchase or read the New Yorker. Besides, the majority of those “masses” who are anti-Obama are finding solace with their guns and religion, xenophobic to the Twenty-First century immigrants, so why would they read such a periodical? As a candidate of “Change” it would seem to me that the fledgling Senator would consider this satirical potrayal as a possible perception problem that has been created by him and his wife. As a “new age” politician I thought dialogue was the preferred mode of dispute resolution? Instead we see his surrogate attack dogs on the offensive and further evidence of a thin skin possessed by this politician who supposedly transcends the Washington establishment.

    The penis on the desk analogy I found inappropriate here, and the racist angle was ridiculous. Our liberal friends must remember that if any other candidate remained in a church with such extreme views toward others for such a prolonged period, that presidential candidate would have been finished. In addition, the fledgling Senator has not been properly vetted, as the sixties-style lovefest the media gave him in the primary demonstrates. So be prepared Obamites, there may be some anomalies here as the media objectively attempts to sharpen the focus on your chameleon-like political savior. When you consider the fledgling Senator’s presidential aspirations were spawned in that cesspool of Chicago politics, it’s only natural there may be some additional scruntiny applied as the election draws near. Maybe even Jesse Jackson may have some more things to say? Now the penis analogy would be applicable here, although it would be wise to keep the sharp objects away from him.

    — Kong · Jul 16, 08:10 AM · #

  27. I imagine this has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating. The New Yorker cover, while stupid in content, was marketing brilliance. Honestly, it’s put the magazine on the map with a huge demographic who ordinarily couldn’t care less about the New Yorker. Which is often the motivation behind desk penises as well.

    — Bible Spice · Jul 16, 08:22 AM · #

  28. Commercially and socially the cover has worked like a charm doing exactly what its editor said it was designed to do, including the above column we all just read before commenting here. The cover worked as was intended and dialogs of the above sorts are all over the web and among people face to face.

    What offended many of us was, as others have already pointed out (minus the professional disciplinary unnecessary vocabularies) was Obama’s opponents are bidding for the votes of people so stupid that irony goes right past them, so the ad, to those millions of bozos comes across as “an accurate portrait of the deep intent and inner nature of this guy my beer buddies tell me we should together hate”. Or something of the sort. Knowing as we all do, being smarties, that there are millions who will stop their bowling alley beer delivery trucks and buy the New Yorker for the first time in the history of their entire family trees, in order to see what to them is “a correct rendition of the danger that guy and his wife represent to my beer business”, we all are filled with fear and not in a laughing mood. What pompous little fools we are!!!! The cover worked, whether pompous people like us like it or not. Whine whine whine.

    — Richard Tabor Greene · Jul 16, 08:28 AM · #

  29. Well put indeed, Gina, although I believe we have the Cro Magnon people to thank for those wonderful cave paintings. The level of discussion of your article makes it clear why this was an ill-considered cover. I thought it had the subtlety of a Völkischer Beobachter cover, myself, although the Hustler comparison is good.

    — dan · Jul 16, 08:31 AM · #

  30. Your problem, Obama’s and the nation’s is that uproar comes with any negative comment on the man—attempts at humor or otherwise. Either because he is mixed-race or because he is Our Savior, you refuse to treat him as every other candidate is treated. So anybody critical (or just questioning) about Obama is a racist, a Neanderthal, or a White Supremist type. Get with it. Obama has faults—as does any candidate. Stop trying to stiffle that idea. If Obama can’t stand up to questions and even criticism he has no business being where he is. Be a grown-up and treat him as one, too.

    — R. L. Burns · Jul 16, 08:45 AM · #

  31. Oh My, the feminist theory teacher is at it again. I’d be afraid to see the drawings on her desk.
    And as far as this (very liberal) magazine is concerned, who really cares what they choose to put on the cover?

    — Joseph Spretnjak · Jul 16, 08:56 AM · #

  32. As George S. Kaufman said, “Satire is what closes on Saturday.”

    — NJH · Jul 16, 10:39 AM · #

  33. I always wondered if Obama was a Muslim terrorist who would burn the flag, worship Bin Laden, and fist-bump his militant wife. Then I saw a cartoon drawing on the internets of him doing just that! Must be true!!

    — Anna Notherthing · Jul 16, 10:47 AM · #

  34. nobody draws vaginas on a desk. too complicated.

    — anon (female) · Jul 16, 10:58 AM · #

  35. Dicks on desks are hilarious. And the New Yorker cover is a riot…so is the reaction from liberals. What’s disgusting is political correctness.

    — Dick on a Desk · Jul 16, 11:09 AM · #

  36. Anna,
    I realize that your post exhibits an extremely complex concept known as “satire.” Fortunately, I am sufficiently educated to recognize this incredibly difficult concept when I encounter it. I made it all the way through 8th grade English, after all. However, many of my fellow Americans lack this ability, and I fear that their ignorance may somehow cause them to misinterpret your remarks. These people may actually believe that your worst fears have inded been confirmed—or even that the term really is “internets” and they’ve been misusing it all this time. Since intelligent people like you and me should always be sensitive to this type of misunderstanding, could you please retract your satirical post? Thanks.

    — a concerned poster · Jul 16, 11:22 AM · #

  37. Go Gina Go. Here’s my advice to the New Yorker:

    Dear Editor:

    Doubtless you’ll receive a host of mail over your recent cover depicting the Obamas. I hope you will find this one useful.

    As a long-time student of satirical practices, I would suggest that you apply your very successful attention-getting device of lampooning ugly caricatures, by doing them one better on your cover, to other subjects.

    One example that comes to mind is the awful caricature of Israelis held by many in the Middle East and, sadly, by anti-semites worldwide. This caricature would have us believe that Israelis are modern day Nazis practicing a ghettoish apartheid on the innocent Palestinians. They are also secretly planning a worldwide conquest. May I suggest, then, a portrayal of some prominent Israeli leaders wearing armbands with a swastika superimposed on a Star of David. A picture of Adolph Hitler could be partially displayed on a wall, and each of the human figures should have a large and protruding nose. Perhaps on the table around which they are plotting, there could be a series of volumes, some of them open, entitled “Plans for World Conquest.” A Rabbi in a prayer shawl could be shown blessing the proceedings.

    Such a disgusting and perverted image, dearly held by so many, would do much to call attention to the twisted picture that all too many people have of Israeli and other Jews struggling to achieve a secure life free of racial and ethnic hatred.

    I am certain that in using this same parodic principle that justified your magazine’s image of the Obamas, you could think of any number of other subjects for similar treatment. Consider, in particular, feminist , gay, Hispanic, Latino, and Conservative Evangelical leaders, many of whom are often unfairly and wrongfully caricatured by their opponents. The false images they disseminate also deserve public exposure and ridicule. I look forward to a whole series of such clever and biting NEW YORKER covers that will help Americans understand the role such distorted images play in nurturing prejudice.

    Sincerely,

    — George K · Jul 16, 11:24 AM · #

  38. I suggest that what you see is the unconcious bias and fear within the upper class—conservative and liberal—with the notion of a black man becoming president. Teflon John is no accident: Our mainstream media are subtly—and often not so subtly—applying a different standard of excellence to Obama than to McCain, allowing the latter to skate on what is becoming obvious to a lot of people about John McCain—-that he has a tenuous grip on honesty, integrity, and performance. He is totally unsuited to be a president and his party is disgraced. But he is even in the polls. Why? Because the wealth in this country and the media they control are lining up for McCain. Why? Because they are, at their core, afraid of African Americans.

    — Ramone D'Arbau · Jul 16, 11:24 AM · #

  39. Despite the fact that “millions… will stop their bowling alley beer delivery trucks and buy the New Yorker for the first time… in order to see what to them is “a correct rendition of the danger that guy and his wife represent to my beer business” AND despite Ricky’s pitiful comment here, this sataric cartoon is like any other. Some will love it. Some will hate it. Some won’t get it and will twist it for confirmation of “facts” of their own choosing. We need to stop “protecting” Obama and treating him differently than any other candidate that has been satarized. The automatic response heard around the world about this is absolutely ridiculous. It falls nowhere near the category of the “dick on the desk” (although THAT image was hilarious and extremely well done).

    — JJ · Jul 16, 12:41 PM · #

  40. I personally enjoyed the cover— vehicle for the expression/communication of emotions and ideas linked with the Obama question. I agree with a I’m not a moron. Take it for what it’s worth, as a comical symbol of a viewpoint shrouding Obama— moronic Americans who infer too much, hah, or too little.

    — did that just happen · Jul 16, 01:27 PM · #

  41. Several years ago, a high school student wrote an angry letter to my hometown newspaper condemning Doonesbury’s Mr. Butts. She complained that he provided good PR for smoking.

    Several people responded, saying that Mr. Butts was a satirical character. Then others complained that when satire requires explanation, it becomes counterproductive. The response to that was that people should learn what satire is if they want to be educated; the inevitable response to that was that satire is an elitist exercise that should not be inflicted on an innocent public. Returning to the New Yorker and Obama (who really should have instructed his staff to refrain from comment), anyone who thinks that this is in the same ballpark as what will be coming the next few months is in for a rude shock…

    — Gregory McColm · Jul 16, 03:56 PM · #

  42. I went down to Border’s to buy a copy of the issue (my subscription is a casualty to my daughter’s wedding) and they were all sold out. According to the clerk they sold out in 1 hr. The magazine’s circulation staff must be in heaven.

    This cover is not the first by the artist (who’s name I cannot now recall). Another equally satiric piece mocked the iconic photo a sailor kissing a girl on VE-Day. I don’t recall outrage and concerns from that cover that people will think all sailors are gay.

    — Geoffrey Frasz · Jul 16, 04:05 PM · #

  43. i have to say, the satirical nature of the drawing as “a commentary on how conservatives see the obamas” is completely lost in translation. that, as i have read, was their explanation.

    what is satirical however, is the idea that a liberal publication that is more than likely filled with hillary supporters still bitter from their loss were the ones to put this to print.

    regardless of which side i’m on, i believe the cover had a complete lack of taste. it was the dick on the desk. the issue, i believe, lies with the ones who drew and published: self-loathing democrats who somehow found humor in making a mockery of their beloved candidate.

    — alex · Jul 16, 06:03 PM · #

  44. the machete girls love this, btw

    — anon (female) · Jul 16, 06:44 PM · #

  45. Let’s see: for the last 8 years, George Bush has been satirized as a chimp, Hitler, agent of Halliburton, agent of Jews and agent of Middle East oil sheiks.

    More often than not, that portrayal has been at least as offensive as the New Yorker Obama cover and usually, more offensive.

    Far be it from me to point out the obvious hypocrisy, but Obama had best ‘man up.’ Presidents and world leaders are satirized all the time.

    As for Obama’s belated remark that he wasn’t offended but was insulted by the offense given to Muslims, I would be far more impressed had he also made reference to offense given to other groups that might have been insulted by the ‘satire’ of those criticizing the New Yorker cover now.

    — Alex Harris · Jul 17, 06:12 AM · #

  46. Am I the only person whom the New Yorker’s “satire” reminded of the old joke about a redneck’s last words? “Hey, fellas, watch this!”

    — Dan Kirklin · Jul 17, 08:51 AM · #

  47. I can’t believe people are still talking about this; it was a lame cover on a pretentious magazine.

    Does anyone else find the similarities between this and the Jyllands-Posten debacle frightening? (And I mean to the exercise of free speech and the right not to hysterically overreact).

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 17, 11:24 AM · #

  48. Surely there’s a qualitative difference between jeering at satirical and artistic ineptitude and calling for someone’s head.

    — Dan Kirklin · Jul 17, 02:32 PM · #

  49. Dan – If it were limited to ‘jeering’ certainly; rather we’ve (as a country) been going on about it for three days, people are ‘outraged’ over the ‘insensitivity’ and possibly by the fact that someone might not get it and therefore think it is an accurate representation of Obama.

    Perhaps you are correct though. I think a far more damning cover would show Obama voting with the current administration over FISA. It would actually be true and is far more frightening than any of the patently false rumors illustrated on the New Yorker cover.

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 17, 02:41 PM · #

  50. On Comment 50:

    Forget not that Clinton did not vote for the FISA reform – which the ACLU is now gearing up to challenge in the courts. I fear there will be many more “surprises” in store for all of us from both the Democratic and the Republican presumptive nominees.

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 17, 10:42 PM · #

  51. Fabulous article! So glad to see it in the Courant.

    — Caitlin · Jul 22, 02:20 PM · #

  52. excellent and funny! i wonder if satire is possible in a country which reads everything so literally — not that I’m saying this particular piece of satire was well done, but it worries me that a lot many Americans wouldn’t know a satirical joke if it hit them in the face…

    — melissa nyc · Jul 22, 04:58 PM · #

  53. hitting them in the face night have to replace satire

    — JESSIE · Jul 22, 10:27 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review