The Power of Images

Regardless of who eventually gets my vote, my decision will be based on an objective assessment of the facts. The reasons that the US is in the situation its in right now is because so few of us actually respond to the real issues, but instead react based on knee-jerk emotions. How very sad. And stupid. And you can still vote for McCain, but it will be because of some inane "belief" without regard for any real issue, economic or otherwise. I work in the financial markets, and I see how bad it is and how much worse it will get. And yet all you people seem to care about is some religion someone's father was born into. I can tolerate a lot, but blind stupidity is pretty much not on the list of acceptable traits and it's obviously one too many of you possess.

After reading just a few of the comments presented by McCain bloggers, it is evident that what Mr. Jonathan Alter wrote was correct. However, I would suggest one major change, and that is, "American Raciest Only Look At Pictures". In other words, they never let the truth get in the way of their own bias opinion.

What is ironic is that no blogger on here will have any effect of the real raciest in America. Real raciest can not read, and what they do read they can not fully understand. The New Yorker cover will only help Obama come this Autumn, and I will tell you why. No raciest will ever vote for Obama with or without covers like this one. Secondly, there are no raciest who are on the fence, ie, undecided. They are already in the 45% (if he is lucky) of the vote McCain will get this Fall. It will however energize the Obama campaign in educating the truly mislead which are few as well, but are educated and intelligent.

I???suppose Fred R. Barnard had it right in 1927 when he said, ???One Picture is Worth Ten Thousand Words???. However, the only bad press is no press. As long as they are talking about Senator Obama, the more popular he will get. Just ask 2 term president Bill Clinton about that one

It's quite simple, really. You report by facts or by emotion. The New Yorker chooses to do the latter. This time it backfired, so of course it makes the news. Where are their reports about the reconstruction projects throughout Afghanistan, or the spread of electricity? Report those, too, buddy

Yes, Americans are stupid. Congrats on shaving that diseased looking rat fur from your head. PS: you're reading too much into this.

Are you sure Perot was trying to dish dirt on McCain? A condition of the normalized relations with Vietnam that McCain played a central role in getting was that we'd stop asking questions about POWs that were never found.

Anyway, maybe they're all dead anyway, but Perot seems to think otherwise...

On the New Yorker cover, do you actually think Obama's poll numbers are going to go down over this? I mean, people can pretty easily tell that it's a cartoon and not a photograph; and there's a long history in this country of cartoons portraying politicos in a grotesque and over the top fashion.

To use an example, I think most Americans realize that George W. Bush is actually more than 2 feet tall.

A democratic senator from Illinois that's not close to the Daley machine? Doesn't exist. No matter what the national outcome, Daley will deliver IL for BHO, even if the dead must vote. Oh, by the way, it would have been nice if this reporter would have actually been impartial and included truthful rumors that were actually damaging, rather than the fluff he could safely deny. Like maybe his wife's comment about not being proud of America. Or giving terrorists a victory date by setting a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. That's called surrendering, buddy.

Sometimes I think we're so ignorant we deserve to suffer under another four years of Bush/McCain, and by rights we should pay $100 for a tank of gas, get laid off, lose our home, and then get deployed to Iraq.

It's a dumb move by the New Yorker. They define "liberal elitist" as a publication, so why do they think they can aim satire at an audience that is already gullible and frightened enough to buy into the Obama-is-a Muslim-terrorist BS? I mean, satire is for people who can get satire. The New Yorker editors in their glee forgot this critical aspect. They would've had to go far more over-the-top on this, totally ridiculing the fearmongering about Islam instead of just winking at it. Maybe a pentagram with candles and a levitating Qu'ran or something. Anyway, ther's a thousand ideas better than what they printed. It's too bad, because the idea of a ridiculous satire aimed at the ridiculous rumors os good. Too bad they botched the execution.

A picture is worth a thousand words. How it is interpreted and what it truly meant to say is very different. Isn't the picture really a double-entendre? Mrs. Obama was ashamed of the U.S. Mr. Obama father had been a muslim and Mr. Obama had spent 20 years listening to a pastor preach hate against the U.S. Is the picture really a satire or an attempt to portray reality?

Thanks for the heads up jblackwell, .I can spell just fine.
Either you are part of the problem or part of the solutions. You are reading too much in my comment.
Just mind you own business and say something inteliigent of your own .

I find it ironic that lee226 would LAMENT the exercise of both free speech and gun ownership, while in the same breath warn us that we could loose (sic) our liberties! To lordmi, either you cannot spell, or English is not your first language, but if either is the case, why should anyone take your comments on what is "patriotic" to heart? What is patriotic in say, China or the middle east, may not necessarily apply here. Personally I don't need a cartoon to get a nervous laugh out of Obama. Lately I've come to the conclusion that the problem is not with our candidates, but with the people who choose them on both sides of the debate. If this country collapses, it will represent a true failure of democracy and Americans will have no one to blame but their uneducated selves.

Whitewashing Obama's corrupt political connections in Chicago? If your cousin Paul is relying on you for unbiased political information he is poorly served. If he is indeed reading the publications you cite, perhaps it is you that should be asking him for advice rather than the other way around.

The questions Mr. Alter and "Paul" answered are bizarre. How about the question, "Was Senator Obama identified as a Muslim on school forms when he went to school in Indonesia?" The answer would be "Yes." Another question that you could have discussed was, "Did Hamas endorse Senator Obama?" Again the answer would be "Yes." Another question might have been, "Did Senator Obama tell the largest Jewish American organization that Jerusalem would not be divided, only to change his position when reaching out to the anti-Semitic arm of the Democratic party? " Again, the answer is "Yes." Are any of these questions relevant to any voters? Maybe not. The real relevant question, then, is why Newsweek and Mr. Alter have not asked appropriate questions about Senator Obama and instead insist upon writing shallow puff pieces about irrelevant conversations with cousins that are wholly supportive of the Senator. No questions regarding experience or positions, just answers to silly irrelevant questions. The conclusion is that when Newsweek so fully endorses a candidate, it is time to dig deeper on our own. Sorry Paul, digging deeper does not include reading identical articles in Time or the the LA Times. The very reason that people don't believe the main stream medias promises that Senator Obama loves America is because it is biased and one sided. Always. As this piece drivel shows, Newsweek has given up even trying to appear unbiased, let alone trying to be unbiased. It certainly cannot now be heard to whine about people ignoring its promises and assurances when it gave up any objectivity long ago. P.S. Can't wait for the next cover story about Mrs. Obama -- maybe the Obamas can drag their children out for another interview. Maybe Newsweek could try to interview Senator McCain's family too -- oh wait, he's not exploiting his adopted children or his children serving in the military. It also wouldn't fit into the Newsweek agenda.

The questions you and "Paul" answered are bizarre. How about the question, "Was Senator Obama identified as a Muslim on school forms when he went to school in Indonesia?" The answer would be "Yes." Another question that you could have discussed was, "Did Hamas endorse Senator Obama?" Again the answer would be "Yes." Another question might have been, "Did Senator Obama tell the largest Jewish American organization that Jerusalem would not be divided, only to change his position when reaching out to the anti-Semitic arm of the Democratic party? " Again, the answer is "Yes." Are any of these questions relevant to any voters? Maybe not. The real relevant question, then, is why Newsweek and Mr. Alter have not asked appropriate questions about Senator Obama and instead insist upon writing shallow puff pieces about irrelevant conversations with cousins that are wholly supportive of the Senator. No questions regarding experience or positions, just answers to silly irrelevant questions. The conclusion is that when Newsweek so fully endorses a candidate, it is time to dig deeper on our own. Sorry Paul, digging deeper does not include reading identical articles in Time or the the LA Times. The very reason that people don't believe the main stream medias promises that Senator Obama loves America is because it is biased and one sided. Always. As this piece drivel shows, Newsweek has given up even trying to appear unbiased, let alone trying to be unbiased. It certainly cannot now be heard to whine about people ignoring its promises and assurances when it gave up any objectivity long ago. P.S. Can't wait for the next cover story about Mrs. Obama -- maybe the Obamas can drag their children out for another interview. Maybe Newsweek could try to interview Senator McCain's family too -- oh wait, he's not exploiting his adopted children or his children serving in the military. It also wouldn't fit into the Newsweek agenda.

At the end of your article there is a Barack Obama advertisement for president. Doesn't that suggest that your article and content is slanted TOWARDS the candidate Barack Obama?

It is sad, that so many people follow gossips and do not bother even to think.
It is Disgrace to have this kind of Magazine, which authors demonstrated tasteless of Mop , absence of any Culture and moral standards, moreover ??? their " piece of art??? is unpatriotic. Yes, it is unpatriotic to play this kind of dirty jokes about Presidential Candidate.
Do not tell me ??? it is satiric. It is angry, dirty joke of hate.
Do not tell me , that only intelligent people can understand it???s ??? highest sense???.
I am intelligent enough to stop even open this Dirty Magazine.
Amin.