New Yorker Cover Parody Lost on the Left
What good is satire if you have to explain what you are lampooning?
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Listening to the chorus of fainthearted responses to this week’s New Yorker cover, one gets the impression that satire, like everything else in our sad culture, must now come with a warning label and child-safety latch. Barry Blitt’s slightly overwrought but still amusing illustration, which is even pedantically titled “The Politics of Fear,” features the Obamas fist-bumping in the Oval Office. Michelle is rendered as an AK-47-wielding Angela Davis, Barack is tricked out as a pious Muslim, an Osama Bin Laden portrait hangs on the wall and an American flag burns in the fireplace.
Irony should cut like a rapier, not drop like a Steinway, but still, it’s not hard to appreciate what this pictorial intends. Yet it has got a few supporters of the Illinois senator barking mad.
Obama himself had no direct response to the cover, presumably because the task of appearing dull-witted and earnest fell to his campaign spokesman Bill Burton, who said: “Most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” How Mr. Burton presumes to know what most readers will think is a question for another day, but the McCain camp, likely fearing any other interpretation might be seen as darkly motivated, swooped in to second his artistic criticism.
Some outraged liberals have gone so far as to cancel their subscriptions to the New Yorker — or at least claim that’s what they’ve done until Seymour Hersh announces next month that the Pentagon already bombed Iran over the 4th of July — while others are quick to insist they “get” the joke but still fear the reactionary hysterics and illiterate rubes it lampoons will not.
Eve Fairbanks at the New Republic is a particularly sensitive minder of low IQs. The Blitt pic, she says, is “no better than Perry Bacon’s infamous Washington Post story, ‘Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.’ Both outlets claimed not to support the allegations they were visually or rhetorically putting forward — obviously! — and yet a reader would have to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of each outlet’s ethos to immediately intuit the intended ironic distance.”
Is Ms. Fairbanks suggesting that the “ethos” of the Washington Post and the New Yorker is liberalism or sanity? Obama himself issued several press statements combating the same email-circulated rumors the newspaper felt obliged to address. It would have looked defensive and guilty — qualities that could have easily been extrapolated as partisan bias by the same point-missing nincompoops Fairbanks worries about — to slap disclaimers on its own reporting. Even a few conspiracy theorists can distinguish news from editorial content.
Michael Weiss is a New York-based writer. His blog is Snarksmith.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
61 Comments
elixelx:I´m sorry, I thought planting watermelons was a 90% illegal “migrant worker” thing, not a black thing anymore!
Jul 15, 2008 - 3:36 am Boris:Here are some more apropos contributions to the satire vs. reality
How´s about a black guy ripping out the White bowling alley in the White House, and putting in an Ecumenical b-ball court instead, complete with inner-city lighting and “stashes”?
Maybe outlawing handshaking, cheek-kissing and nose-frotting in favour of complex fist bumps?
How about a sign on the dome saying “Casa Negra”? (You´d have to have studied Spanish to understand that!)
Satire, folks, satire! Really inoffensive satire!
I liked the cover. The crowning touch was the FOX News “terrorist fist jab.”
But the rabid right failed to get the satire too.
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:08 am Avital Pilpel:I personally like my satire more undestated than that–I prefer a rapier to a bludgeon–but, come on, if you can’t take the heat, you shouldn’t be running for president.
I’ve heard people on the lest calling this “republican propaganda”. Er, yeah, coming from that bastion of right-wing propaganda–the “New Yorker” magazine…
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:20 am Tim:Excellent. Although I remember as a college newspaper editorial writer in the early 1980s having to write an entire column explaining to my fellow students that much of what I wrote was satirical and perhaps not to be taken totally seriously–and this was at a small, CONSERVATIVE Southern Baptist college in Kentucky. Inability to fathom satire is not entirely a fault of the liberals, it seems.
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:48 am Ronnie W.:Dear Michael,
You wrote: “it’s not hard to appreciate what this pictorial intends.”
The problem is: IT IS HARD to understand what is intended.
Ronnie
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:48 am Ava:Satire or not…it certainly is food for thought!
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:11 am Kay B.:Gee, where was all the outrage when cartoonists showed Condi Rice as Bush’s parrot with big lips? Or the dreadful cartoons of Bush with bloody fangs, or Bushitler references, or racial cartoons about Colin Powell, or the racial invective hurled at Michael Steele, or the hateful ramblings on Huffington Post and LA Times about the recently deceased Tony Snow, or…oops, I forgot, they are Republicans. Never mind.
Besides, Michelle Obama IS angry and resentful and Obama’s arrogant sense of entitlement after only one actual year in the Senate begs for satire.
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:23 am mjk:I personally think the cartoon itself was weak. But the outrage from the Dems - High-larious!
I love the snobby “You just don’t get it” response from the New Yorker. Whatever happend to “Nuance”, I wonder?
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:28 am Roque Nuevo:One thing you forgot to mention: New Yorker readers are a tiny minority; a tiny minority will see the cartoon; a tiny minority cannot affect the election significantly. The publicity that resulted from the cartoon makes the New Yorker available to a large minority through the Internet. Who does this publicity benefit besides the New Yorker? Well… it doesn’t benefit John McCain, so….
It seems obvious the the New Yorker will flack for any Democratic candidate and attack any Republican one, any time. This cartoon is devious enough to rate approval from Nixon; it puts the “prejudice” of the hicks out there (who don’t read the New Yorker) up for ridicule and also gives Obama another chance to be self-righteous; it’s simply part of the publicity the magazine gives to the latest Hope their smug and condescending readership requires.
I would have to see a New Yorker cover satirizing Obama to believe that the New Yorker has a true satirical spirit.
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:43 am RE:Despite the satire argument, there is a plausibility to the cover.
It calls attention to the ‘blame America first’ crowd, hence the outrage from the glass is always half empty leftists.
I like it, no matter what the intention.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:01 am misanthropicus:Hussein & Ulrike Meinhoff, Che & Michelle…
The New Yorker cover is funny and on the mark - and liberals’ sanctimonious fury regarding it shows the cartoonist has well locked on the target. All the cartoon’s elements are drawn from Glibama’s authentic yet radical past which, this kind community activist! hoped will never be hold accountable for (yes, the burning flag - what about the 2002 photo with Ayres stepping on the US flag?)
But the scandal (maybe by design) skips the real issue, which is the the New Yorker written piece on Glibama - that’s a GREAT JOB! It shows what so many people still, simply do not want to recognize - what a calculated (and oftentimes brutal) operator mastro Glibama has ever been, from his early Chicago years to the present “hope we can believe in” New-Age scammer.
THAT is the real source of liberals’ fury - situation resembling the Jackson bruhaha, where it wasn’t Jackson remark’s terms that caused the liberal hysteria - it was the remark’s underlying significance that many blacks don’t see Glibama as a real black person, and like that situation, there are many, and potentially very dangerous rifts within the grand “salade-de-beuf” that the Democrat Party is (since here, has the liberal media decided that the Hillary affair is closed? Methinks it ain’t closed.)
“Does it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that… an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for?” McLaughlin said, and the Dems again were hit by convulsions. McLaughlin’s remark confirmed what I stated before - it is not the notion in itself that infuriates Dems & libs, IT IS THE FACT that the emperor mustn’t be described as naked, i.e.:
a) that many blacks don’t find Glibama black (enough)
b) that there are big rifts, racial and otherwise, within the Democrat Party conglomerate which can crack wider at the elections time.
And that spooks the daylight out of the “change we can believe in” crowd - and for good reason.
The Dems’ panicky responses in these situations, the slowing pace of their money scheme, the shyness of the potential Dem VP-s and the latest poll which finds Glibama sorely lacking as a commander-in-chief when compared with McCain shows that the public, lately, has become more and more reluctant to buy Glibama products.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:28 am Edmund Jenks (MAXINE):Yes, parody or satire must be truthful to it’s subject.
The New Yorker cover is truthful to the Obamas: that is to say that the satire is an exaggeration of the truth about them.
The New Yorker alleges that they are satirizing the “right-wing” view of the Obamas. What is not truthful is alleging that the New Yorker knows the truth about how “right-wingers” represent the Obamas. In that sense the satire - really a caricature - is not truthful.
But the Progressives will accept the New Yorker explanation at face value; for them caricature …
becomes truth.
Additional Thoughts & Comments:
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:45 am Valerie:http://tinyurl.com/5s3464
I suppose nobody read the article that went with the cover. THAT’s the real stinger.
Meanwhile, the Obama Campaign website is STILL using that forged image of a birth certificate. By its aggressive use of this forgery as if it were a real document, the Obama Campaign continues to fuel the questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship. My theory is that they have the proper document, or think they do, but they want to wait until there is enough interest in the MSM, so they can get the maximum splash when they trounce the “Republicans” for their “calumny.” My call is that the proper time will be, oh, maybe October.
That way, anybody uncomfortable with Obama’s lack of the accomplishment or his hair-raising connections can be tarred as a nut for “questioning his citizenship.” Never mind that these are all separate issues, and never mind that its the Democrats that have blown the whistle on them all.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:45 am Smarty:Why are we so sure that this wasn’t a jab from the Hillary supporters at The New Yorker?
Did the content of the article make it clear that this was parody?
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:46 am The Wizard:Don’t run for president if you can’t take the heat! Good grief….perhaps the cover is a bit too close to home??? Perhaps the truth hurts more than satire! Obama is an idiot, inexperienced charlatan. His great vision of hope is for a “new black society” not for a better America. If this man wins, we are all in big trouble.
Jul 15, 2008 - 7:12 am Bill Perron:Will the liberals put out a death warrant for the people responsible as the Muslims did for those who poke fun at their Messiah
Jul 15, 2008 - 7:39 am cirby:The cartoon throws one thing into sharp focus:
Barack Obama has no sense of humor.
It’s been obvious for quite a while now, but most folks haven’t really caught it. Sure he says mildly funny things in some of his speeches (written by others), but when it comes to getting jokes or reacting to funny situations… he doesn’t, much. The Obama reaction to this is not unexpected.
At least McCain is able to laugh at his own expense from time to time.
Jul 15, 2008 - 7:40 am Morton Doodslag:How perfect! This cartoon is a parody of a parody.
Leftists don’t like cartoons mocking their prophet, and they sound like another group constantly in the news these days… In a delicious twist, a cartoonist attempting to create (and slay) a straw man buggaboo on behalf of his man Obama has exposed a queasy simulacrum between the Left and fascist Islam. From some deep unconscious well Blitt’s cartoon betrays some uncomfortable truths about his candidate, truths which the Left is incapable of facing.
This parody has boomeranged in a beautiful and nasty way.
Jul 15, 2008 - 7:46 am abu al-fin:Yet more Mohammed cartoon riots by Muslims? No! Mohammed cartoon riots by leftists! Obama as a smirking Mohammed is simply too much for his lefty backers to stomach. Michelle as a triumphant Angela Davis/Sandinista is a little more uncomfortably close to the truth for the left.
Hopes are high, perhaps audaciously high for the coming of the singular Obama. Oprah has anointed him, the faithful from Gaza to Damascus are backing him.
The cartoon is just one version of the triumphal ascent to power. Slightly satirical, but with just enough subliminal truth to cause the truest of true believers to shriek in fury.
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:23 am Lem:Clearly, what we have here is a disagreement over the proper portrayal of a deity.
Thou shall not caricature thy lord Obama
If Obama wins I’m moving to Denmark
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:32 am JED:I get it! It is satire going full circle into reality. It could be captioned’”In your face.”
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:45 am Dave II:Put the cover on the front of MAD magazine, instead of The New Yorker…and you get the joke! Though I doubt the howls from the left would be any less!
The problem, (if there even is one) for the most part is…The New Yorker is NOT known as a satirical magazine. Other than it’s abundance of good cartoons, it is not known for it’s snide humor or satire…and the article on Obama inside, while good, is NOT satire…so how does The New Yorker justify putting on a satirical cover???
Well… weakly, but it certainly did one thing for the magazine: It gave them their biggest issue of the year!
And what it did was hit a NERVE! Much like the Danish cartoons, it showed that making fun of something or someone that people find near and dear, and that there is little if anything to make fun of in the first place (witness the late night comics difficulty in making jokes about Obama…save for Jon Stewart) usually means the joke will be lost, and the howl of “the offended” will be loud and clear…and totally humorless.
Hey…Barack and all you Obamabots…listen up:
“We’re just messing with you!”
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:50 am tanstaafl:“…and yet a reader would have to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of each outlet’s ethos to immediately intuit the intended ironic distance.”
I think I have a fairly good understanding of the New Yorker’s “ethos”
But that particular stab at “satire” falls completely flat.
(Has quality of satire has gone down the tubes along with “IQ” and education?)
For the record, negative stereotypes about the Obamas have been on the wane. But it seems like the New Yorker has resurrected them with a roar.
Good job depicting Michelle’s face, however.
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:55 am Bobby Mcgill:T’was truly lost on the left. I suggested on my blog that Obama go with it and see where it takes him. Kinda doubt that will happen. Instead they go on a New Yorker jihad and come off as possessing a complete inability to take a joke.
Bobby
Jul 15, 2008 - 9:33 am Olivia:Obamessiah and his acolytes needs to grow a pair. He has whined since New Hampshire onward like the PC hypersensitive Harvard brat that he is. I can’t imagine how he’d govern. Thankfully I won’t have to see it. Negative stereotypes about the Obamas are not on the wane. His “fight the smears” website is a joke and honestly creates more questions than it provides answers. The electorate did not pick his friends or associates, make him go to that fake church, or pad his resume. I would like for once to hear Obama not whine and make a serious decision when it really counts. I’m not holding my breath.
Jul 15, 2008 - 10:32 am Bob Miller:Obama now needs to throw us a pithy response like Nixon’s “I am not a crook!”
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:03 am Boris:“Much like the Danish cartoons, it showed that making fun of something or someone that people find near and dear”
The New Yorker is not making fun of Obama. They are making fun of FOX News and all the other right wing hysteria about how Obama is a terrorist who will eat your children. Talk about missing the point!
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:03 pm Javelin:Kay B, good work at the petty outrages you nurture like a hothouse orchid. I guess that all negative reader’s comments must now be filtered on sites concerning a conservative less you or some fellow small mind like Bill O’Reilly will start raving abour hate sites. Actually, I went to HuffPo to find those comments that made you so ill and despondent but found this list of Obama approved jokes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obama-releases-list-of-ap_b_112837.html
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:11 pm Peg C.:I thought it was a hoot — a subversive swipe from Hillarybots combined with feverswamp projection onto conservatives of what is truly in the minds of the Left. The Republicans got nothin’ on the Dems when it comes to racism, sexism and overall bigotry and paranoia.
Plenty of us despise Obama and Michelle Ma Belle and it has NOTHING to do with race, religion (other than Rev. Wright/Trinity) or sexism. The graceful thing for the O’s to do would be to laugh it off. You take the strongest umbrage at that which hits closest to home. Lefties are screaming. Ha!
Furthermore, artists may have intentions but they cannot order us to see what they want us to see. Everyone who views art, satire, etc. will interpret it through his or her own lens. My lens tells me payback is a bitch…
Jul 15, 2008 - 1:01 pm Roderick Reilly:I am wickedly and sadistically enjoying the discomfort and outrage by the hypocritical left over this cover. Keep in mind that these are the folks that believe in punishing the rest of us for “thought crimes.”
The artist is a clod based on his intent, and a fellow-traveler to those most outraged by his creation. I am glad that his ideological compatriots are standing around him in a metaphorical circle and kicking the figurative doo-doo out of him.
Jul 15, 2008 - 1:45 pm Roy M:Kay B. You won!
Jul 15, 2008 - 1:54 pm Brad:Yes, Boris, we get it. It’s the Obama camp that doesn’t. If it got it, why all the hoopla? You’re the one missing the point here.
Jul 15, 2008 - 1:59 pm Dave II:“The New Yorker is not making fun of Obama. They are making fun of FOX News and all the other right wing hysteria about how Obama is a terrorist who will eat your children. Talk about missing the point!”
Gee… then I guess the jokes on them and the left has absolutely nothing to be upset about!
I’ll go with that!
Jul 15, 2008 - 2:07 pm LaMonte:Honestly, I knew the cover art was not an accurate portraiture when I noticed Michelle lacked her $600 earrings. Were it not for that, it would have fooled me…
Jul 15, 2008 - 2:11 pm Boris:Well, the left is afraid the terrorist label will stick, but it’s only sticking with the rubes. BTW, not everyone on the right gets it. Some seem to think it’s a photograph.
Jul 15, 2008 - 2:41 pm Gary Foreman:I seems the left is so anxious for the right to strike with racist, nasty, and false attacks, they have jumped the gun and did it themselves. The GOP has been accused of slanders and future slanders that have just not happened. With very few exceptions the attacks have been generated by democrats and their MSM shills during the primary season.
Jul 15, 2008 - 2:45 pm randy:the truth is sometimes hard to swallow,but in this case it went down like like applesauce. we now know another segment of a story that gets better with every passing day.welcome my friends, to the show that never ends.i hate using cleches,but what the h%ll, you can’t unring a bell!!!
Jul 15, 2008 - 3:38 pm dan:i think it s great this snake oil salesmans his father was a muslim his mom lived in indo this guy we change things ok to a marxist country he, dangerous don t vote no hope obama stupid americans better wake up
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:24 pm VoteResponsibly:All this anti-American, angry woman with Obama and Michelle..Now who is to blame for all this? Obama and Michelle themselves.
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:29 pm Dr. Ted Baehr:His association with the wrong crowd. Farrahkan, Wright, Ayers was bad judgement!
His denouncement to little too late! Twenty Years to late..My opinion he will do or say anything to win. He was certainly a radical Racist anti-American supporter for twenty years…why did he throw all these people his friends, preacher mentor church under the bus? SELF SERVING POLITICAL GAIN… So who are we to blame for the misinterpretation of the cartoon? Obama! and Michelle for all her rehtoric and litanies against America. They are not our preachers nor our saviors..O bama is running for President and they both should stop with the speaches and litanies of what is wrong with America and tell us what he will do for America..for all I have heard so far is just empty words!!!
The New Yorker should have gone with their first idea for their cover : George W. Bush standing at a Complaints Department window, with the caption reading “I wish I was smarter”.
Dr. Ted Baehr
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:01 pm seePea:http://www.movieguide.org
oh please, the Obama campaign put up a major fuss about the cover for one reason only - to prevent people from talking about the article itself
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:09 pm Redphilly:More publicity for which Obama doesn’t have to pay! He loves attention and probably feels that if he won the nomination with the Rev. Wright and the bitter guns and religion deal in tow, this is small stuff. I saw on Larry King that he is letting it roll off his back like so much dirty water. Some American people say they think he is Muslim; to that I say hogwash. They know he is not a Muslim, though he says on King’s show “there’s nothing wrong with that!” He says it is insulting to the Muslim people. Right answer,Obama. You just made the New Yorker group look like a bunch of insensitive, desperate simpletons.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:11 pm fred:Haha, very funny. I found it very unimpressive and in poor taste. BTW, I am not an Obama supporter. I am in complete agreement with John McCain’s public statement about it and Dick Morris’ as well.
I never saw Obama as a closet Muslim terrorist. He may be other things, but he is not a Muslim. The pity is that the things we can say about him that are true get no wide dissemination and discussion. Most thoughtful conservatives do not see themselves in the straw man stereotype that The New Yorker has cobbled together.
I watch FOX News channel and I just don’t see evidence that the people there portray Obama in that silly manner. This is just a typical Leftist tactic to use ad hominen in order to obliterate the credibility of the critic. It’s an example of why it is dangerous for these people to get power in D.C.
Jul 15, 2008 - 7:03 pm Ted S.:Out of the mouths of babes and the pens of cartoonists…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:25 pm torasham:all cartoon will be going wrong if they using human as subject.
Jul 15, 2008 - 10:58 pm Dave Surls:‘Barry Blitt’s slightly overwrought but still amusing illustration, which is even pedantically titled “The Politics of Fear,” features the Obamas fist-bumping in the Oval Office.’
Sounds pretty scary to me.
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:19 pm Ed Wallis:This Obamboozler candidate is such a WIMP!
NOW he’s crying all the way back home and saying that the cartoon is an insult to American-Muslims…“see, Achmed, they’re insulting you, too! Now, go beat them up for me!”
What a coward. And some people still think THIS MORON should be our President?!!?
Jul 16, 2008 - 3:58 am Boris:“I watch FOX News channel and I just don’t see evidence that the people there portray Obama in that silly manner.”
Missed the “terrorist fist jab” huh?
Jul 16, 2008 - 4:12 am Deb N.:I believe that it is not “new” or recent that people don’t get satire. I think a lot of people are just not raised to have that thirst for knowledge of any kind. Mean, selfish parents raise dumb kids. As far as I’m concerned, sarcasm is a basic survival skill. The cartoon stunk, anyway.
Jul 16, 2008 - 5:12 am rocketeer:I love when liberals attack. This election cycle has been the most entertaining ever, to watch how one lefty camp tries to out victimize the other lefty camp. They have demonstrated the complete idiocy of being PC. Can’t say anything about Hilary, she’s a woman, can’t say anything about Barak, he’s black and has muslim relatives.
The only real surprise in all of this is that the cover was on the NewYorker. I thought that they (lefty publications) weren’t allowed to speak blaspheme against St. Obama. They’re going to lose their liberal club membership card.
Jul 16, 2008 - 8:05 am tanstaafl:I knew the cover art was not an accurate portraiture when I noticed Michelle lacked her $600 earrings…
That’s what Michelle suggested one might wind up doing with their tax rebate. I guess she was recalling the folks in NOLA who used their FEMA cards to buy Gucci handbags etc.
And now Nancy & crowd are making noises about yet another round of rebates to the American citizen or (perhaps more accurately in their view) the American consumer.
Eeks, those are your philosophical compadres, Michelle, who want to enable you to buy yet another pair of earrings !
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:29 am JOHN:If I was McCain I would have t-shirts made up with that image. I’d wear one
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:31 am tanstaafl:I seems the left is so anxious for the right to strike with racist, nasty, and false attacks, they have jumped the gun and did it themselves.
Yes.
This is just a typical Leftist tactic to use ad hominen in order to obliterate the credibility of the critic. It’s an example of why it is dangerous for these people to get power in D.C.
And yes.
While the current Obama camp spin that the ‘toon is an insult to Muslims is just more of the phony, insincere, “we’ve got the high ground” posturing.
Jul 16, 2008 - 9:49 am fred:Obama’s biological father was a Communist, not a Muslim. His stepfather was originally a Communist too, but when the Suharto thing happened in 1965 stepdad had his scholarship money and visa pulled, so upon returning to Indonesia he got with the Islamist program. But, he did so only in the most superficial of ways, to insure his own survival. Led a double life of drinking and wenching too, which did not go over well with Obama’s mom.
Nearly all of Obama’s most influential influences and people were Marxists/Communists, not Muslims. Dr. Rashid Khalidi was a member of Arafat’s PLO and was nominally, but not devoutly, a Muslim. Louis Farahkan is a member of an organization that is not considered strict Sunni, orthodox Islam. It is a front organization, meant to rope in black American dopes looking for less than full throttle Islam. Any respect paid by Obama to Muslims and Muslim groups and governments falls under the Leftist ideology of multi-culti nonsense.
Jul 16, 2008 - 2:08 pm Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:“Obama’s arrogant sense of entitlement after only one actual year in the Senate begs for satire.”
Jul 16, 2008 - 3:29 pm I challenge you:Has he really been there that long? Due to missing so many votes, I thought it was a shorter period
watch this video and demand answers.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6802228062297352475
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:39 pm misanthropicus:Jim,MtnViewCA,USA RE:
“Obama’s arrogant sense of entitlement after only one actual year in the Senate begs for satire.”
Has he really been there that long? Due to missing so many votes, I thought it was a shorter period.
Jim, he WAS THERE MUCH, MUCH LONGER - he is holographic, yet bitter people simply don’t want to get that he generally was/is where he doesn’t appear to be. Simple explanation.
Jul 18, 2008 - 6:33 am Sejanus:In fairness to the left the New Yorker hasn’t published anything funny in decades, including the cartoons.
I suspect the Dems will hold a congressional hearings appoint a task force that will impanel or empanel a blue ribbon report that will recommend a federal humor department be formed with undersecretaries for parody, irony, satire and Carrot Top. Now thats comedy.
Jul 18, 2008 - 6:57 pm