VF Parodies New Yorker Cartoon

larger version here.

Vanity Fair has a parody of the New Yorker's awful cartoon featuring Sen. Barack Obama and Michelle Obama.

I think the VF cartoon is much gentler and less offensive than the New Yorker cartoon.

Also, the McCain cartoon has more truths: John McCain is old, Cindy McCain did have a love affair with pills (even though in the cartoon the pills she is holding are for her husband) and McCain does admire George Bush.

What would you have added to the McCain cartoon to clearly represent the "politics of fear"?

< Negligent Pool Installation Leads to Criminal Prosecution | The New McCain Iraq Position? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I thought the reaction to the New Yorker cartoon (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:19:19 PM EST
    was over the top.  It was satire.  The entire audience of the New Yorker is Obama's base.  

    I love the New Yorker. . . (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:23:51 PM EST
    and I voted for Clinton.

    Just sayin'


    LOL. me too. I was exaggerating. (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    Still, what the hell?  I don't get why anyone was hyped up about the cartoon.  I really don't.

    Obama didn't get all of the chablis drinkers (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    Especially those who live in New York.

    Two older white people fist bumping (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    would hardly strike fear in the heart of America...anything thrown at McCain will probably not hurt him, as it has been done numerous times before, whereas obama is fresh meat.

    but, it was an excellent opportunity (4.50 / 6) (#18)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    for the Obama camp to once again play the "race-card" as a warning shot to anyone out there who plans to criticize Obama in the future.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    everytime he does that he lessens his chances of winning in Nov. Do people want to hear that for the next four years from a President?

    If the two covers were equally satiric (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    I'd expect the Obama fans to go nuts, absolutely crazy in being offended for mocking McCain's age and Cindy's addiction.

    But what is that I hear?  Oh yeah, crickets.  No, no...wait...crickets celebrating!  

    I think that what this cover will mostly reveal is the rank hypocrisy of the faux outrage from Obama's supporters over the NYer cover.

    Sexism, ageism, any mean-spirited or untrue smear or other viral cr*p that comes from the Obama camp is somehow magically transformed and purified into legitimate criticism by its source.  Any criticism of Obama, though, is automatically that thing that I'm not to say aloud here or anywhere.


    Wow. That's a stretch. (2.00 / 0) (#39)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    i don't think so... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    the Obama camp has done it consistently.  Just recently in FL Obama played the "pre-emptive" race card against McCain warning voters there that the republicans would reming them that he is "black".  McCain and his campaign has not done anything like that at all.  But, Obama put out the warning claim the McCain WOULD be doing it.

    So you don't think (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    there will be any ads in FL and the deep south that race-bait deliberately? Obama is just playing the race card to warn against those sorts of Rovian tactics, from either Mccain's camp or the 527s? I don't buy it. I think he's merely pointing out the ugly truth: there are plenty of people who can and will push those buttons for political effect.

    i think that Obama (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    is calling McCain a racist with no evidence to back it up.

    May other groups such as 527s do it in order to benefit McCain?  Maybe.  Call them oyt on it when it happens and don't blame McCain for it.

    That's no different than all the benefit Obama received from the sexist attacks his supporters or surrogates or the media made against Clinton and Obama took no responsibility for them.


    Well... (none / 0) (#67)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    I'm not sure I agree, but I don't think this thread is the place to discuss it. I'm always afraid of incurring wrath here...

    How exactly (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:30:16 PM EST
    could Obama expect to "benefit" from sexist attacks? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    The New Yorker was pointing out that (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    exactly.  Obama did not need to -- and I agree that it would be wise for a candidate who claims to be pushing a "post-racial" society to stop jumping on so much.

    It was an opportunity alright! (2.00 / 0) (#97)
    by RustedView on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    It was an opportunity, but it was Obama's chance to try to look like an "everyday non-elitist guy", or ENEG because people like acronyms.

    McCain has been trying to paint Obama, Clinton did paint Obama, and a lot of people see Obama, as an elitist.  It doesn't mean he is, but that is the attack the right, and more and more these days the left likes to use.

    What better chance to disprove them than by attacking the last bastion of high-brow in America, The New Yorker?  The cartoon was clearly satire, and, hilarious if I do say so myself.  However, it gave Sen. Obama the chance to show off his "I don' no like 'dem elitists either" schtick.

    For what it is worth, the cartoon likely did Obama more good than harm in the eyes of centrists in the country.


    Neocons and end timers (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    hiding in McCain's closet, would've been a nice touch.

    Politics of fear (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    What would you have added to the McCain cartoon to clearly represent the "politics of fear"?

    Clearly, a document on the table marked, "Plan to starve grandma to death by cutting of Social Security."  That fear campaign comes out just about every election.

    Cindy and John needs hats (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    How about this one

    Budweiser cans of course.  And perhaps dancing to the record (and I do mean vinyl) of Barbara Ann

    A coat hanger (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    Somewhere in the cartoon there needs to be a coat hanger.

    I think there should have been (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    a pic of the new yorker cartoon over the fireplace instead of W.

    FAIL (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    This VF cover misses the point entirely.

    The whole point of the New Yorker cover is that it was making fun of misconceptions about Barack Obama. Nothing in the entire picture was supposed to be taken seriously, though that certainly didn't stop people from trying. The people being mocked were the ones who believed any of the ridiculous rumors being depicted.

    The VF cover, unfortunately, is quite the opposite. It portrays things that are either objectively true (McCain is in fact old) or are subjective claims that are genuinely held by many people (McCain has been trampling the Constitution.) The pill thing is just plain mean--how can we be sure that they're meant for John and not Cindy?

    In that sense, the VF cover is considerably crueler and mean-spirited--it's meant to attack McCain, while the New Yorker cover was meant to attack the people who believe silly things about Obama. The only mitigating factor is that since it's obviously a response to the New Yorker cover, it's also meant as a joke, though a bad one.

    I'm with you (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    To the extent that the New Yorker cover was funny (I know there is disagreement on that) it was because the things depicted were so ridiculous.  It made fun of people who propagate those stories -  that is the picture of the Obamas they have in their heads.

    This is just making fun of the McCains by exaggerating actual true things. I think it's lame, myself, but I'm getting old enough myself that I don't find jokes about the elderly very funny!


    You're exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by talesoftwokitties on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:57:37 PM EST
    And it amazes me that so many missed the point of the New Yorker cover.  The dumbing down of America, indeed.

    Will Vanity Fair Reporters Be Snubbed By Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by bmc on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    Just askin' since Ryan Lizza has been prohibited from a seat on the ObamaJet for the New Yorker Cover. Really Childish and stupid of Barack, by the way.

    Geez Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:58:15 PM EST
    First, I expect that McCain and the Republicans will shrug this off as he has done with other especially ugly cartoons - like one I saw a couple days ago parodying his time as a POW.  That's generally what grown-ups do, rather than blasting the cartoonist as racist, ageist, etc.  Besides, why would a person want to call attention to an unflattering portrait of themselves?

    Second, so this cartoon looks more true to you than the one of Obama?  Again - this stuff is called 'satire' (though its not a very good example).  Clearly, this particular piece is meant as the original Obama cartoon was meant - that is, to make fun of the people who are doing the labeling.  And you want to include a few more stereotypical labels.  OK.

    do you understand HUMOR? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by scourtney on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    I am a comedian in NYC, and while I usually love TalkLeft, I am appalled at response to the New Yorker cover. Guess what? That's satire! Did you like Borat, with him walking around making fun of jews and gays--only the joke was on those who couldn't readily agreed with his feigned ignorance. That movie made hundreds of millions of dollars because when SATIRE is that exaggerated, people get it! It is the same thing with Stephen Colbert and it is the same with the New Yorker cartoon. I find it especially amusing that you wrote that McCain's is less offensive because it has more truths... Are you sure you 'get it'?

    The I think that the VF cover (none / 0) (#142)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    should have had McCain holding one of those bombs from the Warner Brothers cartoons with "Iran" written on it. Cindy should have been holding a coat hanger with a label on it that said, "Abortion Clinic". The portrait over the fireplace should have been Justice Alito. I can think of some things for the fireplace, but I don't want to get banned from TL. McCain should have been in full military regalia, and Cindy should have been dressed as a rodeo queen.

    I could have sworn (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    this blog was about second chances and rehabilitating ex offenders. So I'm perplexed at the cheap shot taken at Cindy's past problem in the entry.

    Ouch. Good point. (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:00:58 PM EST
    Not really... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:05:54 PM EST
    Lighten up.  Its just a cartoon.

    No, the comment was not about (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    the cartoon.  Read it again.  Maybe you've lightened up too much, affecting comprehension?

    you miss the point (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:20:32 PM EST
    as I wrote earlier. John McCain believes in second chances for his wife but not for the rest of addicted Americans.

    So your belief in second chances (none / 0) (#186)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:49:38 PM EST
    and rehabilitation is based on what McCain thinks? Wouldn't you be the better person and have the moral highground if you extended your sympathy and belief for second chances and rehabilitation to Cindy in spite of her hypocritical husband?

    And what does what McCain think have to do with your labeling her battle with addiction as a "love affair?"


    'Being The Better Person' (none / 0) (#195)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:56:17 AM EST
    as you're defining it may sometimes conflict with an  important function of this site: the exchange of ideas and information.

    Until this thread, I only knew that Cindy McCain had some kind of problem with prescription medication, Now that Jerilyn has spelled out the specifics, I'm better informed about that, and about her husband's policies which, I guess, I could have figured out for myself, but I never did.

    As to the cover, I'm not really a fan of either of them. I wouldn't censor them (or censure anyone for them). I just don't think either one is very effective as satire.


    so is this mocking (4.83 / 6) (#19)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    the way liberals view the mccain's?
    that's what the new yorker cover did - mock the way righties
    view obamas.
    if so, we look pretty hypocritical as progressives - we think old people are mockable and drug addiction is a big ol' ha ha ha?
    i don't like my tribe anymore.

    If VF had wanted to (2.00 / 0) (#98)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    do a "politics of fear" cartoon about the McCains, the cartoonist should have visited a site that isn't heavily moderated and looked for the comments made by Obama supporters to the Hillary supporters about all of the terrible things that will happen if the Clinton supporters do not vote for Obama. That would give him a good list of things "to be afraid of" if McCain is elected. This cartoon misses its mark in the satire. Other than McCain's being too old to President, there is nothing to be afraid of in this cartoon. Cindy McCain would not be the first First Lady to battle drugs and/or alcohol. One of our most courageous FLs was Betty Ford. And Obama is playing as fast and hard with our constitutional rights as McCain.

    Every human being.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    is mockable for something.

    Jeez...when did poking a little fun become such a no-no?  I blame the pc police.


    do you have a grandma or addicted family member (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    somethings are not funny.

    Better to laugh.... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:32:40 PM EST
    than to cry.

    My father died from his love affair with the bottle...my grandmas are long gone but my great-uncle is in his late 70's, I call him an old goat and he calls me a young punk.


    I don't object to mocking either candidate (none / 0) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:26:18 PM EST
    I think pretty much everyone is mockable on one point or another; no one's a saint.  And I tend to like folks who can laugh about themselves.  It's a bias I have, I think people can laugh at themselves are generally mentally healthier.

    But one thing I do object to is IF you go insanely crazy over satire of one candidate, but applaud it against the other.  Or even if you don't reach insanely crazy levels, but object to it in the first case but not in the second.

    I think good satire is very hard to achieve, and neither cover really qualifies.  But I don't hear so much flipping out coming from one campaign today.


    No (none / 0) (#88)
    by eric on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    it is obviously mocking the New Yorker's attempt at satire.

    To me, it is kind of saying, "isn't this a really stupid thing to put on the cover of a magazine?"

    Yes, it is.


    Obviously, you've not (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by tree on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    seen many New Yorker or Vanity Fair covers. They define "stupid" covers.

    "The politics of fear".... (4.83 / 6) (#21)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    ...well, there is the burning constitution in the fireplace....

    But I don't think that the VF cartoon would have been called "politics of fear", because (unlike the NYer cartoon) the focus of the VF cartoon is personal (McCain's age, Cindy's drug history; the 'political' stuff is not the focus -- and to me it looks like she's holding those pill close to herself...if she was offering them to McCain, her arm would have been positioned differently).  The VF cartoon would be called "The Politics of Personal Destruction."

    The NY cartoon was "political" -- its central focus was on the concept that Obama would bring a radical anti-American Islamist agenda with him to the white house.  But there is no political agenda implied by either McCain's walker, or Cindy's pills -- that's just personal stuff.

    Thank you, Paul.... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    that was my take, exactly.

    The NY cover was political, this one is entirely personal (except for the burning constitution and GWB).

    And I laugh when BO supporters call McCain old (as in too old to be POTUS)...remember when they wanted HRC to quit and "wait for 8 years" when she can run again?  HA.  She'll be 70 then and they will then have their shot at mocking her with a walker.

    The two covers are entirely different.  


    I agree with you both (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    mocking drug addiction and age are pretty low.

    And effing dumb (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:41:52 PM EST
    considering how many much more pertinent things there are to nail on McCain.

    One of those monkey helpers looking very much like Dubya might work. Or, would that be offensive to the disabled and the local puma posse who are suddenly so sensitive (again) about how others are portrayed?


    Burning the Constitution in the fire place? (none / 0) (#42)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    Personal stuff?

    Cindy's previous drug habit? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Personal stuff...

    Yes, but not the Constitution. (none / 0) (#80)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    It's muddled, not just personal or just political.  

    and a Clinton one... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    would have a blue dress hanging in the closet...

    It wasn't just personal (none / 0) (#180)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    or just use. There was prescription fraud involved and she investigated but not charged.  From one of my earlier posts on this (with source links):

    Cindy McCain wasn't just addicted to pain pills. She was investigated federally for stealing pain pills from a medical charity she headed and for having prescriptions filled in the names of the charity's employees. She admitted it. One of the doctors who wrote the prescriptions for her lost his license.

    Mrs. McCain, through her lawyers, was able to get federal prosecutors to let her enter a diversion program and avoid jail.

    Diversion is common in state courts for first-time offenders. It isn't in federal courts.

    ...John McCain is a hawk in the war on drugs. One standard for his wife, another for everyone else.

    I think that is a much more refined point (none / 0) (#193)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:35:12 PM EST
    than this cover makes.

    Everyone becomes a hypocrite when it's a member of their own family.  I have a hard time believing that if it were Michelle, Barack would wave her goodbye off to the pokey, whether it was state or federal.  I think he'd pull whatever strings he needed to to keep her out of jail.  And I really wouldn't hold it against him for trying.  It is more than the vast majority of people could do, whatever their professed principles.

    I think it's much more a problem with our legal system that if you're famous enough (how many celebrities in the past 10 years have gotten away with their 7th or 8th drunk driving arrest?) or well-connected enough, then you're held to a different standard.


    Thanks for the added info... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:37:51 AM EST
    but I'm going to agree with Valhalla. I think that the "helping the charity's employees" aspect doesn't even come into play unless you know the background and added context.

    As someone who didn't, I never even saw that bit...what I did see was the personal addiction part.

    With regards to semiotics and the 'look act,' this is where viewer response theory comes into play.


    Claiming that Obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    would "bring a radical, Islamist blah blah" is "political" in the way (moronically) claiming HRC would bring a radical, lesbian agenda to the Whitehouse is political: only political in a way that drains the word of all decency and repectability.

    They mocked the criticisms (4.75 / 4) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    of McCain just as the other cover did with Obama.  If they were trying to mock the other cover, they missed.... put these side by side, and it begs the question: the criticisms of McCain are mild and true, are the ones of Obama?  If McCain doesn't react to this, or laughs it off, should the Obama camp have laughed off the other cover.

    If the cover was to mock the Obama cover, it would needed to be an exaggerated of the arguments against McCain.  I would have included a map room showing that McCain plans to bomb the world (map should be solidly covered with pins), he could have been shown older like the crpyt keeper, he and Bush in bed (shaped like a tank type child's bed with camo blankets) together, in the oval office surrounded by lobbyists with pockets stuffed with money while the huddled masses are homeless in the gutter and thin from starving, needed some untruths (his adopted child) etc.

    It should have been an ridiculously extreme exaggeration to show the Obama cover was a ridicuously extreme exaggeration.

    Meh (4.66 / 3) (#34)
    by Paprika on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    I don't particularly think either cover was very funny. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And in terms of this being gentler, slightly, because John McCain IS old. Still, of all the things to constantly criticize him on, his age shouldn't be the biggest factor.

    Frankly, our culture is really ageist and disrespectful to older folks and the constant mockery of John McCain for his age just plays into that. Mocking his age, to me, is like mocking Hillary Clinton for being a woman.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    But it seems like, in the new progressive party, there is only one kind of bigotry worth fighting against anymore - racial bigotry. Everything else is on the table or just political correctness.

    Oh well, to each his/her own.


    If this is a parody of the New Yorker, (4.66 / 3) (#37)
    by Roz on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    and it is seen to have "truths," then it will probably reinforce the original cartoon in a way that isn't favorable to Obama, especially since he and his media took such umbrage at it.

    That's what I was thinking... (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    After all...the other one was mocking urban legends...this one seems to be mocking the people themselves for an addiction and Nature.

    Completely agree (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    I don't see the VF cover as "gentler." I actually think it's more mean-spirited. The NYer cover was ridiculing the misconceptions that people have about the Obamas, while the VF cover is holding up things that are actually true -- C. McCain's past addiction, J. McCain's age -- for ridicule, so they're ridiculing the people themselves. The only tidbit that is on-topic is the Constitution in the fireplace. Not well played, Vanity Fair, not at all.

    Hope I'm still around when y'all (4.50 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    get old.  

    I don't know if it's.... (4.50 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    politics of fear but I woulda thrown in the nuclear football with McCain's shaky finger on the trigger...that scares the sh*t out of me!

    buttons make me nervous with Obama too (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    Obama is the one who said that he kept pushing the wrong buttons in the ILL State Senate every time he voted the wrong way on something.

    Because (none / 0) (#15)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    no one, ever, anywhere, makes mistakes.

    Come on. This one is pretty tired.


    How strange (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    What is the term for something that looks like a debunking but, you know, actually isn't one?

    It's (none / 0) (#191)
    by rm on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:09:40 PM EST
    A bunking.

    He should have a bomb in his arm (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    with "Iran" written on the side.

    Very true... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    regardless, this made me laugh quite a bit.

    Jeralyn, you say: (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    Cindy McCain did have a love affair with pills (even though in the cartoon the pills she is holding are for her husband)
    I'm not so sure of that. I think the artist meant the first thing, though it could be interpreted either way.

    Get rid of the walker... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    On the other hand the Constitution in the fireplace is apt.

    And the pills should be Viagra.  

    With the walker in place, the VF cover makes the same mistake as Muslim garb for Obama, it is mean-spirited.


    i'm suprised at this comment by Jerlyn (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:25:04 PM EST
    she always keeps it on the clean side.
    saying "cindy's love affair with pills" mocks her drug
    addiction. that's not the progressive perspective
    i like to be a part of.

    I don't think it's mocking.... (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    it's the truth...Cindy had a love affair with the pills.  No moral judgement included.

    Everybody is so sensitive...I know a few people who have (or had) addictions, they'd say the same about themselves....that they had a love affair with pills/booze/coke/horse.


    As one who has endured constant pain (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    I would not want to be considered having had a "love affair" with pills.  Especially because I hated them and was glad to be done with them when the cause finally was correctly diagnosed (and solved surgically).  So fortunately, I did not get addicted.  

    But at the level of pain I had then, if it had not been solved, I would have had to stay on painkillers for life -- or I would not have wanted to live.

    I understand that pain was the cause of McCain taking painkillers and then becoming addicted.

    Just saying.  "Love affair" is a connotative term, and thus does entail a judgment.  In this case, a moral judgment.

    I am so weary of so much moral judgment in our society.  Walk a mile in someone's shoes. . . .


    Taking pills for pain and becoming (1.00 / 3) (#86)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    addicted to said pills is one thing.  Stealing pills from the charity you are running is another.  

    And I don't see you using your "walk a mile in someone's shoes" standard when you dicuss Obama or his wife. You seem plenty willing to offer up plenty of moral judgments about them.


    I know people who have been addicted (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    to pain pills, none of them call it a "love affair".  I for one could care a less if she suffered such an addiction, except that I feel for her, it's terrible.  It's not a legitimate campaign issue.

    Fair enough guys.... (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    Maybe because the people who I know who became addicted did so through recreational use, hence the term "love affair".

    And because I readily admit to a love affair with reefer and the occasional Perc' or 'Din...and think I'm on fairly sound ground morally:)

    Still not seeing the mocking though...it's a figure of speech.


    I warn against recreational Perc use. (none / 0) (#87)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    It's an opiod, meaning basically percription heroine.  It's highly addictive.

    Thanks for the concern... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    but I'm straight.

    That was thoughtless. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Mari on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM EST
    Addiction is not a "love affair"; it's a physical and psychological disease. Cindy McCain doesn't deserve that.

    I love it (2.66 / 6) (#149)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:08:52 PM EST
    Accusations of treason are no problem and "obvious satire", but heavan forbid anyone poke fun at Cindy and John McPuma.

    I think the point is that neither Cindy nor (none / 0) (#171)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:34:26 PM EST
    John would be likely to extend you the same sympathy unless of course you were in a position to contribute heavily to his campaign.  These are the kind of people who would use the very same challenges they themselves have against you if it suited their purposes.

    Larry Craig is "not gay" and hates gay marriage but hangs around picking guys up in bathrooms.  David Vitter wants to regulate hetero marriage for everyone else and yet he cheats on his wife.  John McCain is no different.  People say it is hypocritical, but really it is elitist - they all want one set of rules for themselves and a particularly harsh and judgmental set for everyone else.


    Why descend to their level then? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Mari on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:11:56 PM EST
    I thought progressives were more fair and just in their view of people.

    Well She Should Take A Stand Against McSame (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:20:07 PM EST
    Of the four major candidates, McCain has expressed the most hawkish positions on drug policy. He wants to increas penalties for selling drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts. He said the Clinton administration was "AWOL on the war on drugs" and he would push for more money and military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.


    And then the hypocrisy would not be such a target. I am sure that we would see progressives lining up with compassion for her drug problems.


    Why is it descending to their level to (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    point out that they want to set two sets of rules - one for them and one for the rest of us?  That is UNFAIR.  Do you not see the importance of this distinction between their governing style and ours?

    Do you think it is acceptable that if it were not for the fact that she is a sitting Senator's wife she probably would been put in jail like millions of others are for her drug related offenses?

    I don't take issue with her addiction problem - I take issue that she and her husband would imprison - or even put to death - 99.9% of the rest of the people in this country for being just like her - but they would not imprison her or put her to death - no that would never happen.

    It is more than FAIR to talk about her problem in this context.


    Stealing pills from her charity is (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    certainly a legitimate campaign issue.  Or at least as legitimate  as any of the stuff thrown at Michelle Obama.  

    Two wrongs don't make a right. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    Addicts do things they "normally" (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    wouldn't. They lie and steal when they need to. My sister has done things while addicted that she would have never done had she not been. CM's stealing was directly related to her addiction. I don't see that as a legitimate campaign issue any more than her addiction. It's all part n' parcel.

    It's (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:49:11 PM EST
    old news. It was talked about in 2000 and I don't think you'll be hearing much about it during the election.

    read this post (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST

    And my two other comments on this thread. She got special treatment, it was prescription fraud, not just drug use and her husband is a huge hawk in the war on drugs. He believes in one standard for her and another for everyone else.


    yep, (4.40 / 5) (#12)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    Apparently Cindy McCain became addicted to prescription pain killers and was willing to steal them in order to get them.  And, she was able to kick the habit and no longer has this problem

    On the other hand, Obama had a bit of a problem with illegal non prescription recreational drug use himself as a younger man, didn't he?

    Since neither person has this problem any longer, shall we discuss BOTH or NEITHER?

    Be careful, if you decide to talk about Obama's drug use, you will be called a racist.


    Obama 'had a problem' with drugs? (3.00 / 2) (#78)
    by byteb on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    Although Obama experimented with drugs in his younger days..as did many people..this experimentation never approached the level of dependency and/or addiction.
    On the other hand, Cindy McCai was addicted to opiods. She stole from her own charity to support her habit. She was investigated by law enforcement officials. Her parents conducted an intervention and she went away for treatment and continued outpatient treatments after she came home.
    I salute her sobriety but I object to your attempt to equate Obama's self[admitted youthful drug experimentation versus Cindy McCain's true addiction to drugs which only came to light after investigation and intervention.

    are you saying (4.00 / 3) (#101)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    that Obama's "youthful experimentation" with cocaine is less illegal than Cindy McCain's addiction?

    Just because Obama was never caught by the authorities doesn't mean his behavior was somehow admirable.

    And yes, I think the experimental use of cocaine can be accurately described as "a problem".


    I'm not sure how the term 'admirable' entered (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by byteb on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    the discussion but I do know that there is a big difference substance abuse and dependency/addiction (check out the DSM-V for the differences) and mere experimentation. Although experimenting with drugs certainly has the potential for becoming a 'problem', unless and until the  drug use becomes repeated, habitual and negatively impacting relationships, finances, jobs and behavior, it remains experimental.
    As for illegality, all non prescription/street drug substance use, of course, is illegal; however, there are different degrees of severity in criminal law reflecting an attempt to match the charge to the 'crime'. We could debate what charges with potential for conviction might be for Obama (experimenting with weed and coke) v Ms. McCain (heavy and prolonged use of vicodin and other opiod pills).

    However, in addition to her illegal drug use, Cindy McCain was investigated by the federal governmentfor drug theft (of her charity). An aggreement was secured with the US Attorney and Mrs. McCain's attorney that involved financial restitution and drug treatment.

    I don't see the equivalency bwtn Obama and Mrs.McCain in either their use of drugs and certainly not in terms of behavior on Mrs. Mccain's part the warranted a federal investigation.


    i guess i don't see (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    why their individual circumstances of HOW they used drugs plays any import to the point I was originally trying to make.  That being if one person's use of drugs is "fair game" then so is everyone else's.

    stop the race-baiting. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    race-baiting comments are not allowed here.

    I'm not sure (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    how it is race-baiting to make reference to an earlier occurance in the campaign where Mr Shaheen was accused of making racist comments about Obama by discussing his drug use, while at the same time no one is accused of anythign wrong when discussing Cindy McCain's old drug use.

    Calling my post race-baiting just tends to re-inforce the point that you can say anything you want to about all candidates EXCEPT Obama.  The, saying the same thing will get you accused of race-baiting.


    Jeralyn... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    what about that comment do you consider 'race-baiting'.

    Yets not forget that when Bill Sheehan mentioned Obama's drug use as a potential liability in terms of electability, he was accused of playing 'dog-whistle' politics, and 'playing the race card.'

    I think that the poster was making a perfectly valid point about the 'double standard' that exists among Obama supporters; and how they use accusations of racism to empower that double standard.



    this (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    Be careful, if you decide to talk about Obama's drug use, you will be called a racist.

    It invites race-based comments.


    if you think it invites (none / 0) (#189)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:23:00 PM EST
    race-based comments, then I just wasn't clear enough that I was referring to Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use being called "playing the race card" and now the same type of comments about Cindy McCain's drug use are considered perfectly fine.

    If that isn't a double standard, then what is?


    I have to say that (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    it could be construed as racist to consider discussion of drug use as racist.

    It is endemic in almost all groups in our society.


    we talked about (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's drug use in 1992 without any problems.  In fact "didn't inhale" has become part of everyday language.  

    We talked about GWs drug and alcohol abuse in 2000.  GW handled it the way Obama should have handled it this time.  GW said it was something he did when he was young and refused to discuss it any further.  There was no uproar about the discussion.

    But, with Obama, all hell broke loose.  The race-card was played by the Obama camp and it started the decline of support for Clinton in the black community.

    It illustrates the "double standard" being upheld for the benefit of Obama and could rightly be used as part of a larger set of examples to show that Obama is the "affirmative action" candidate.


    Our Gov did the same thing (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    put his past drug use to bed. It's a non-issue.

    That was pretty cool of him. (none / 0) (#92)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    Pre-emptive strike on the Republicans, who no doubt were going to make it a huge issue. :-)

    And it worked (3.00 / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    Air the "dirty laundry" and then get down to the work of running the state. After all the Spitzer BS, it was sure nice to have this done and over with quickly and not become some over blown issue.

    Frankly, I don't care about either (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    I see a big distinction between a (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    candidate's spouse past addiction to prescription meds. and a candidate's past use of unlawful substances.  Cindy McCain, even if a coke addict/dealer, does not seem relevant to me.

    I don't care about Obama's past drug use either (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Seriously, I just don't.

    I care.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    it makes me think of them as more human and less psychopathic.

    I know. It's an "age" thing, I gather. (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    That's what it should have been in the first place (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM EST
    and either Steve M or LarryInNYC suggested it here last week.

    Not quite. . . (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    the parody has the same problem as the original -- rather than satire it is an effective representation of what it claims to be satirizing.

    My original idea was to dress the McCains as Islamic terrorists exactly the same way the Obamas were depicted in the original.  I thought that would more effectively demonstrate the ridiculous and shallow aspect of the smears.


    You're right (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:20:48 PM EST
    That version would have been better. But this one does work because everyone is familiar with the original.

    One wonders why the McCains are doing the fist jab, though. Shouldn't it be a cheek kiss or something?


    Like all satire ... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    the original was only "awful" in light of what the intended audience read into it.

    But, frankly, given the current state of the economy and foreign affairs.  I have more important things to worry about than whether or not a cartoon offended some privileged politician.


    Well said. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    Waiting! (none / 0) (#2)
    by QuakerInABasement on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:08:46 PM EST
    I eagerly await the thoughtful explanations why this really isn't funny.

    Needs a sign on the wall ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by CMike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    Something like this.

    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#10)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    this is an opportunity for Mccain to laugh it off and reinforce that "Maverick Humorist" label that's been pushed lately. I wish Obama would have done the same to the other cartoon, but alas...

    I wonder if the irony that this cartoon is actually based on TRUTH will be lost on Mccain.

    Never mind, I know the answer to that.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    Obama's reaction really reinforced the negative impressions of him and Michelle.

    Only to people who already had (none / 0) (#163)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    negative impressions. As near as I can tell.

    Agreed. The New Yorker didn't change (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM EST
    a single vote, I swear.

    However . . . it also needs to be said that reaffirming negative impressions is not the way to win over folks who might be on the fence.

    What I'm beginning to hear is a growing weariness about all the angst of the candidate and his wife, with comments like "they ought to have real problems like ours."  And real problems, a lot of people have now.  


    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    for one thing, they didn't do a good cartoon imitation of Cindy McCain. That doesn't even look like her. They did do a good one of McCain though.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#23)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    but where's his cheeky WALNUTS!?

    I think it could be a better parody..... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    ...my main gripe is that it's just not very good....for example, the fist bump does not belong, that's an Obama reference not a McCainism. And if it was a true parody of the New Yorker cover then it would have references to some of the McCain rumors, like the "black" child and the younger mistress and Cindy's alleged "enemies" list.

    So, all in all, lame.

    that would be true (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    if the libs were willing to admit that the NY cover actually was a satire of the misinformation about Obama.

    If you aren't willing to concede that point, then this is what you come up with.


    Satire only works (none / 0) (#43)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30:53 PM EST
    if people get it. The problem with the first cover was that it needed to be explained. For a cartoonist, explanations = FAIL.

    I got it. I don't know how anyone could have (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST
    missed it.  It required no explanation.

    There are millions of folks (none / 0) (#48)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:35:23 PM EST
    who didn't get it at all. See my comment below.

    and the millions who (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    didn't "get it" wouldn't have ever seen it except for the over reactino to it.

    Who cares? The audience for the New yorker gets (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    it.  That's their business, their audience.  

    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    ... if nobody made any big deal of it, the only people who would have seen it are New Yorker readers, who don't amount to millions, and who are presumably smart enough to get it.

    In any case, I'm tired beyond belief of accusations of smears and racism from people who know perfectly well that no offense was meant. From Bill's fairy-tale comments to Hillary's LBJ remarks, and on and on and on, it's been a relentless parade of sliming other people when it's clear they had no ill motives. Enough already.


    that's was a point some other pundit made (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    somehow a magazine like the New Yorker (whose readership probably did "get it" without explanation) should be required to dumb down their content to the lowest common denominator just in case the media decides to push their stuff out into the wider public realm.

    Some said it was dangerous because Joe Sixpack wouldn't "get it" and would assume the New Yorker was making a claim that the rumors about the Obama's were true.  Well, without the media hype all over this story, Joe SixPack wouldn't have ever seen it anyway.


    I would also add (none / 0) (#47)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    that the problem many had was not that it was satirical per se, but that its vagueness opened the door for all sorts of "satire" ( know you guys can't stand HuffPo, but that's the easiest link, sorry).

    So? That's America. Freedom of expression (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    and all that.  

    Sure. (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    I didn't say it shouldn't have been published or that there should have been the uproar there was. Just pointing out the consequences of bad satire.

    I agree with you in that I was also confused over the brou-ha-ha. But I also live among plenty of rubes who probably hung their printout of the cartoon right nest to their framed picture of dubya.

    So, god bless America... or something.


    So what? I don't get your point at all. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:46:33 PM EST
    The New Yorker is written for a particular audience.  Do you think people who wouldn't get the cartoon needed the New Yorker to make such assumptions about the Obamas?

    All I meant (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    was that I don't think either cartoon is a particularly effective one, whether it's Guthrie, OK or NYC, NY. I know a little bit about good political cartooning and I don't think either is so hot. That's my opinion of course but it's also the reason I didn't explode in outrage over the first one. I just saw what was coming.

    You're right that people who didn't get it weren't swayed by it. But again, its shortcomings as a satirical device simply makes it easier to misinterpret and misconstrue, IMO. Nothing horrible about it, just the way it is.


    Exactly. It didn't change a single vote. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    People aren't (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    "swayed". That's interesting. One of you should make some calls to Madison Avenue and tell the they've been wasting all their time and money for the last 100 years.

    I've seen 1000s of New Yorker covers (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    and don't recall a single one doing any more than affirming what I already thought, since I already was a New Yorker reader, and people primarily pay subscription costs to find affirmation for what they already thought. . . .

    But then, Madison Avenue doesn't do the covers.

    The ads, though, they sell me on some books.  Not on summer camps, though.  Such a Noo Yawk City sorta thang, reading those ads to figure out where to send the chillun to get them out of Noo Yawk City, I guess. :-)


    after all the hoopla about the new yorker (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    cover, i went to their web site and looked at past covers. i thoroughly enjoyed it and got a big laugh from it. in fact they sell their covers framed. i wouldn't mind having some. the christmas ones are my favorites.

    They sell books full of 'em, too (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:19:48 PM EST
    And the very best bathroom wallpaper ever, by a friend of mine, was entirely with New Yorker covers that she coveted over the years and years.

    Another friend and her spouse save up every year's worth and then spend New Year's Eve going through them, getting to laugh again at the covers -- and the cartoons.  Ah, the New Yorker cartoons.

    And the fillers, the "news from all over" squibs.  But there used to be so many more, and those hooked me on the New Yorker even when I was a kid.  Sadly, the downside of computerized page design is better gauging of story length, so fewer fillers.  Sigh.


    Puh-leaze -- People are morons (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by angie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:04:58 PM EST
    what's new? Now we have to curtail our First Amendment rights because there are a lot of people who aren't smart enough to "get it"?  I am sick to death with the fascist mindset that seems to have taken over this country.
    And P.S. -- believe me, neither of those covers was the worst thing VF or The New Yorker did during this election -- I canceled my subscriptions to both during the primary because of their biased reporting  & sexism against Hillary. That's how I protest speech I don't like -- I don't patronize it.  

    the VF cover... (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    is more meta-satire than actually about McCain.

    Its satirizing the entire New Yorker cover, rather than satirizing McCain....which is why the 'fist-bump' belongs where it is.


    yes (none / 0) (#161)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    to the degree it is successful it is due to its meta quality.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    Coat tails (none / 0) (#29)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:24:51 PM EST
    tend to sell magazines.

    I completely agree on the lameness, btw. A lot could be done with it, but this artist didn't really try very hard, imo.


    A boomerang (none / 0) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    I say that because not only is the cover correct, it needs to add the fact that no matter how many times this guy has been down for the count, he keeps ending up in the primary as the last man standing. It is like he goes away and swish, he is back. So I would add a boomerang. Oh, and a keg of Budweiser.

    Or a barbecue pit? (none / 0) (#35)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    oops lost my link (none / 0) (#72)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    Funny, I still don't understand (none / 0) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    the argument that the New Yorker cover was irresponsible or propagating false rumours. If people are so stupid that they can't understand clear satire, that's their problem.

    It couldn't have been any more obvious that the cover was a satire of right-wing smears against the Obama's. Were they supposed to print in bold across the top "SATIRE!"?

    Amen (none / 0) (#169)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:13:27 PM EST
    I find neither offensive or laugh out loud funny. (none / 0) (#102)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:25:54 PM EST
    I agree with you this one is pretty lazy, but mockery is good for politicians.  Keeps their feet planted to the ground.  

    The REAL problem with the VF (none / 0) (#103)
    by tree on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    cartoon is that the drawing is poor. "McCain" looks more like Jesse Helms than John McCain.

    Its a bit mean-spirited but has nothing that hasn't been parodied years ago. I predict that McCain will laugh it off if he's smart. Obama should have laughed the NYorker cover off.

    They both strike me as lame (none / 0) (#110)
    by Pol C on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    Following LarryInNYC's lead, this is what I wrote about a McCain version of this cover:

    Instead of the Obamas, put the McCains in these trappings. Think about it for a minute. John McCain in ceremonial Muslim garb with the U.S. flag burning in the fireplace and Osama bin-Laden's portrait over the mantlepiece. (I'd put a portrait of Ahmadinejad next to it, given McCain's incredibly stupid statement to the effect that al-Qaeda and Iran are allied.) He fist-bumps with Cindy McCain, all done up like Patty Hearst in her Symbionese Liberation Army days. Hey, they're both heiresses. And the whole thing would fit in with the right-wing tendency to project their own negative attributes onto their political opponents.

    You can read the whole post here.

    Incidentally, Barry Blitt draws a lot better than whomever it was that did this cover. Is that "T. Power" on the signature?

    Here's a version (none / 0) (#117)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    of the cartoon that's actually satire - LINK

    The other cartoons fall flat because the target isn't clear. This one skewers its target pretty well - the foolish 'liberal' media.

    Boy, if I were that cartoonist (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:06:19 PM EST
    I'd be pretty sure the VF cartoonist stole my work.  Either that or all the McCain jokes are so obvious anyone can do them.

    The latter... n/t (none / 0) (#126)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    Generally, a parodies are exempt ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    from claims of copyright infringement.

    This was a parody of the original cartoon, hence it would be very hard to prove copyright infringement.


    Sorry, I was not clear (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    I meant that the cartoon at the link in the parent comment has all the same jokes about McCain that the Vanity Fair cover does, down to the Constitution in the fireplace - and it was done a week ago.  I know there is no legal recourse, but it does seem like a ripoff to me.  

    Just lame on VF's part all the way around, IMO.


    Or it was just stupid me ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    for not paying closer attention.

    You're absolutely right though.  Horsey's cartoon is right on target.

    As I said some days ago, Europeans think Americans have no sense of irony. And the reaction to the New Yorker cartoon really proved they might be right.


    isn't the point supposed to be (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    if you are making the McCain version of the NYer cover, should it depict some set of horrible untrue rumors about McCain?

    What are the untrue rumors about McCain depicted in the link you provide?  


    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#119)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    to a cartoonist who gets it.

    Amen. (none / 0) (#133)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    yes, that's a good one (none / 0) (#179)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    very funny.

    Oh goody (none / 0) (#135)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    recovering addicts and "old" people both equally offended.

    MCain probably will get some votes from this.

    Wow (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    so well said Jeralyn.

    I would have a picture of mushroom clouds over Iran on and America on a TV in an Oval office where McCain in the middle of getting it on with a blonde lobbyist and having a heart attack and dying.  All while some crazy evangleical gets ready to take office.

    Ohh and Cindy pushing 1st wifes wheel chair down the stairs.

    I think nycstray (none / 0) (#147)
    by tree on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    is talking about the way Gov. Paterson handled it. Paterson admitted past affairs and drug use in his youth shortly after stepping up to the Governor's position after the resignation of Spitzer.

    Both covers fail. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    Though the second one is better than the first because it highlights the failure of the first one. So in a sense it redeems the whole situation by failing.

    And the irony of some of the commentary is far funnier than either of the two cartoons could ever hope to be.

    This is a more appropriate comparison (none / 0) (#162)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    please put urls (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:21:27 PM EST
    in html format so they don't skew the site. Otherwise, if it's a long one, I have to delete the comment.