home

Obama's Latest Endorsement: Rolling Stone Magazine

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama is now officially a rock star, He's made the cover of Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner and the magazine endorse Barack Obama.

Curious subtitle for the article, "Obama: the Machinery of Hope." Machinery reminds me of Chicago politics. Perhaps not the best image for him.

< Team DLC? | Dean: FL And MI "Not Our Problem" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Latest Endorsement: Rolling Stone Magazine | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Things are moving SO fast this season (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    That the cover seems dated -- very January/February....

    It doesn't look like the March/April campaign.

    Given that a lot of it is bragging (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    about their massive on-the-ground organizational ability, with emphasis on Texas, and all of that could not win Texas, Ohio or Rhode Island for him, nor any of the other big states, I read the whole article while wincing.

    A couple of things are kind of interesting, though.  One is that they emphasize that the local organizations are not controlled by the campaign and are allowed to run things as they choose, which gives them all kinds of deniablity when "rogue" organizers (they don't like the term "volunteers") do things like lock Clinton supporters out of caucus rooms, or make off with caucus packets.

    [FYI - CNN was running a story on caucus hijinks in Texas, complete with video and speculation that the Clinton campaign may be filing a lawsuit]

    Another interesting point that will not be lost, because someone will pick it up and run with it, is the disparaging and dismissive tone and attitude about, for example, Howard Dean's 2004 strategy.  One cannot help but be a little turned off by the Obama campaign's being so in love with itself that it has no interest in paying much respect to anyone who came before.

    If ever the term "puff piece" could be applied to an article, this would be that time - it might as well have been written by the campaign.

    Finally, "A New Hope?"  I would argue, "Same Hope - New Face," because I think most of us are all generally hoping for the same things - just making up our minds who is most likely to get us what we want.


    Parent

    Ask Joe Trippi what he thinks (none / 0) (#39)
    by Independence33 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    Joe Trippi himself, who was a major player in Howard Deans campaign and John Edwards said that Obama had the bottom up strategy perfected and better than anything they ever had. Can you really compare what Dean has done to what Obama has done. I think people forget that Obama was a virtual unknown a year ago and is facing the most celebrated Democratic family in the past 15 years and is ahead. I know that it is taboo to praise him here but it truly is amazing what he has done. You can dislike him and his positions all you want but he has done this the right way and now is in the driver seat against a CLINTON. If you would have said that Obama could come less than 5 points from beating Clinton in Texas as close to three weeks ago you would have been laughed at, but his superior ground game and grass root movement actually got him what may be a delegate win. A huge victory for him.  

    Parent
    But it still wasn't enough, was it? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    I don't disagree that he has done tremendous work on the organizational model, and it has been a big help to him in caucus states.  

    It's pretty jarring, though, to read all that gushing about the organization knowing that they still lost.  All that money and all that organization still can't break through with significant segments of the voting population, and I would argue that there has to be more "there" there in order for that to happen.

    I don't think anyone is laughing at Obama -
    I think eveeryone is taking him pretty seriously - but I read that article in the context of him having just lost three races, two in big states, and one of those two in a must-have state.

    It made me wince.  I can't be the only one who did, or will.

    Parent

    Jury is still out on Texas (none / 0) (#46)
    by Independence33 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    Once again I think Texas might end up proving his strategy to be exactly right. The momentum has swung back and forth recently and there is no reason to think it wont again but one constant has been the pledged delegates. This is what Obama is counting on and if things stay the way they are then he will probably win more delegates then Clinton in Texas. I know that I will have to hear about how horrible caucuses are but he is playing by the rules that have been there for years. There was no reason why Clinton couldnt have had great organization and people who could have made her stronger in caucuses but she failed in judgement. She thought it wouldnt matter.

    Parent
    Hmmm. And "A New Hope" (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    was the subtitle for Star Wars episode IV, i.e., the 1977 first film in the series, wasn't it?

    An odd choice, no, when one starts thinking through the whole Darth Cheney aspects of it?

    I was thinking that ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    "The force is strong in this one."

    First The Matrix, now this.

    Is he trying to lock up the Science Fiction fan vote?

    Parent

    holy crap (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    flip the image and compare it to this one:

    LINK

    The similarities are shocking!

    Parent

    LOLOL (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    OMG You got that nailed Kathy.

    Parent
    Kos will have a split screen (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:41:40 AM EST
    any minute.

    Parent
    If he wants that vote (none / 0) (#16)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    He should be abducted and probed as well.

    Parent
    The kewl kids (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:37:39 AM EST
    have spoken! ;)

    does anyone read (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    rolling stone, anymore?

    Those articles (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    about War Inc.--that PR agency involved in selling the war--were pretty interesting.

    Parent
    Maybe the same people (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    who still watch SNL?  I read some of the articles on line, but I wouldn't buy the magazine.  I bought it when Hunter Thompson was writing for them, and I read every episode of his serialization of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail--that was a long long time ago though.


    Parent
    Rolling Stone... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    ... actually has very strong reporting and has done some great work on Iraq, drug policy, and other issues.

    It really is a top-notch publication.

    Parent

    Circulation is 1.3-1.4 million ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    ...and it won a National Magazine Award in 2007. Truly some of the best reporting around.

    Parent
    first magazine (none / 0) (#28)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    to ever publish me, but that was a long time ago...

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#31)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    Still a subscriber, still read it faithfully.  Not surprised that they'd put Barack on the cover at all, given Matt Taibbi's writing . . . although he seemed to get cynical pretty quickly.  His first take on Barack was very glowing.

    Parent
    I still read it (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    from time to time. Some of their political reporting is good. Is it Hunter Thompson quality writing? No, but it can be good.

    Parent
    Good and Bad (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    Good for Obama in the sense that it might be a boost, but it actually is preaching to the choir.

    Bad for Obama in the sense that Rolling Stone is typically very liberal / lefty in its articles, etc. More for McCain to go off on. It's as if Michael Moore himself endorsed Obama with a big sloppy kiss.

    [shudder]

    RS has been shilling for Obama for months (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jim J on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    The only surprise would have been if they didn't give him a cover.

    He looks a little dark in that picture. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    Somebody measure his nose width.

    Here we go (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    with the endorsements to try to prop him up after a Clinton win.  Hope they all work out as well as the Kennedy endorsements!

    try this one (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    from Howard Faunman:

    . . . his every move is, and will be, the story.

    We all know Hillary Clinton -- maybe too well.

    We know who she is and what she offers.

    She was a first lady for eight years, and carries with her all the scars and prior baggage.

    Obama, by contrast, was the shiny newcomer who magically appeared on the scene in 2004. He was fresh, and without battle wounds.

    --geez louise.


    Parent

    that is not a good picture (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:35:03 AM EST
    I mean, seriously-there are much better pics of him out there.  And what's with the glowing light (electricity?) around him?

    This is so not good.

    ahh. All those JFK pictures (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    people had in their living rooms had similar nimbus effects, too.

    Not good.

    Parent

    I used to call it... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    Hallelujah lighting...all glowy and stuff.

    Parent
    And Jesus (none / 0) (#12)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    Elvis, Wayne Newton, Sinatra, black panther on velvet, all that great jazz.

    It almost makes me want to see if there are any blacklight posters of Obama floating around. Obama and Gandalf smoking pipes.

    Parent

    He looks mad (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST


    Parent
    He looks angry (none / 0) (#18)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    in that picture.  I wonder why they didn't use one where he was smiling.  It reminds me of the whiny aspect of his campaign.

    Parent
    Yeah, I think the Messianic glow... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    ... really kind of plays into the style-over-substance, media-in-love-with-him perception that the Clinton campaign is trying to hang on him.

    Parent
    Hope Machine (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    Now that makes me cringe.  I imagine hope being human, organic not mechanically produced.  That makes me cringe.  

    Nice substance post. How about new Nafta-Gate post (none / 0) (#21)
    by Independence33 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    I have never seen "hope" attacked before but if its got anything to do with Obama then it must be wrong. The article gives him credit for his amazing grass-roots campaign. I know that he is worse then Karl Rove and Ken Starr and Dick Cheney on this site but it is impressive and has brought in a whole new generation of progressives to the table. The small donor phenomenon is something all Democrats should be excited about because it will truly take all the special interest and pac money out of politics. I know that Clinton talks about removing special interest from politics but how can she by taking all there money. This was a principaled decision by Obama and Edwards and it has changed the face of politics. Clinton made an appeal to her richest of backers to raise her 1 million as soon as possible when she was having financial trouble. When she finally went to her supporters for small donations she raised that money and more quicker. This is a positive and one that Obama has pushed. Give him some credit. How about a post about the new info. coming out about Nafta-Gate. Turns out it was just what I said. A conservative goverments meddling in our election for there gain and it turns out it was Clinton people that were first to back away from her Nafta talk. Once again, just like with Matt Gonzalez, people jumped on the story being pushed by Obama foes as fact when it turns out there were other motives.

    but what (none / 0) (#26)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM EST
    do you think of the cover?

    Parent
    The cover of course is the important part. What? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Independence33 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    Who cares about a picture on a cover. The substance of the article is whats important. Grass-Roots voter funded campaigns are possible and are the future of politics.(hopefully) I cant beilive people have resorted to the Karl Rove, Ken Starr type politics of comparing a picture of Obama with a muppet! J/K on that one but I wonder if it was done in reverse.

    Parent
    pictures matter more than words (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    Think about where all those Rolling Stones will be shelved, and how many people will glance at them in the check-out line while they are waiting to pay for their groceries.  The photo on the cover matters tremendously, and I stand by my original assessment that the pic does Obama no favors.  And that he looks like Sam the Eagle.

    Parent
    The people in the checkout line.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    who vote based on magazine covers deserve these 3 candidates, no doubt about that.

    Sun god help us...

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#35)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    I know that he is worse then Karl Rove and Ken Starr and Dick Cheney on this site

    Um, no.  One of the principal authors of this site supports Barack, (though "tepidly") because he believes Barack to be more electable.

    Many of us simply don't see him as the political Messiah, and it's true we often make fun of that aspect of his campaign.  

    Parent

    How does that compare with ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    ...this:

    <img src="<img src="http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g314/InvisibleParadigm/bill.jpg" width="200">

    Oops! I forgot that I can't do that ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    ...here.

    Try this link, instead.

    Rolling Stone endorses Clinton, September 17, 1992.

    Parent

    Great (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    He's no different.

    Parent
    Boy He Looks Red (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM EST
    Whatever they did, it worked.

    Parent
    One of these men is not like the other (none / 0) (#50)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    One is smiling, one is not. One is engaging the viewer with eye contact, one is concentrating - oh so hard - on the FUTURE.

    The Obama cover is almost a parody.

    Parent

    Inside Photo Is Smiling (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:10:36 PM EST
    Why a parody? I do not see it. Is it because you dislike the guy?  

    Parent
    I see it (none / 0) (#57)
    by eric on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    I see how it does look a bit like a parody.

    In light of what has been said about the cultishness, the messianic image, the religiousness, the HOPE, etc., (whether you buy any of it or not), this cover plays right into those cliches.  It's Onionesque.

    Parent

    Looks Normal To Me (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:58:41 PM EST
     I do not see the difference between cultists in either camp. Granted I have not been over to dkos or read comments at other Obamamania sites.

    Are you a HRC supporter?

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#59)
    by eric on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    Yep, I like Clinton.  But Obama is fine with me, too.  I was originally a HUGE Edwards fan.

    With regard to the cover, I just think that it is does use the stereotypical Obama stuff - the illuminated image/divine light, the HOPE, etc. which have become cliches.  If I were to create an Onion cover with an endorsement, it wouldn't be much different.

    Parent

    Standard Presidential (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    Leader pose, imo. There are ones like it on HRC's website, too. I think that since he is black and young looking, they did not want the smiley one on the cover.

    I also voted HRC but have little preference at this point, as they both seem equal. I would like to see them as running mates in the GE though. HRC/BHO a hair better than BHO/HRC, although I would not complain about either.

    Parent

    Seems a little late (none / 0) (#24)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:56:07 AM EST
    to me. They should have done this months ago. Now it just seems like a desperate thing to counteract Clinton's Mo, her SNL and Daily show appearances and her poll numbers.

    Did anyone catch (none / 0) (#33)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:35 PM EST
    the Kos quote in the article. I find it particularly LOL funny.

    Adds Moulitsas of Daily Kos, "I don't know how a candidate can say she'll be ready to lead on Day One, when she can't even organize a simple caucus."

    That is funny (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    Presidency as a caucus...

    Parent
    Heh. I wonder when the jury came in for Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    says Obama "has not been the kind of strong leader people expected," with the caveat that he is a freshman. "To me, the jury is still out." (Jan. 22, 2006)
    -Markos Moulitsas Zuniga

    Source.

    Parent

    We are the Hope Machine (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    And you will submit.
    A New Hope (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    interesting choice.
    that was the name of the fourth (first in theaters) Star Wars movie.  the one before everything went to hell.
    I think I've found my late night song (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    and I bet you can all guess what it is.

    Been humming it for about an hour already... (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM EST


    Machinery of HOpe (none / 0) (#54)
    by cann on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM EST
      Machinery is what all that organization is.  It is a necessary thing.  I must confess that I am annoyed when people recoil at any suggestion that Obama is a politician.
     

    That's Funny (none / 0) (#55)
    by Randinho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    Machinery reminds me of something that works.

    and, umm . . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:33:44 PM EST
    Obama was just another middle-aged white guy?

    Obama's Latest Endorsement: Rolling Stone Magazine | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment