A Perception Problem

The truth, if people are honest with themselves, is that if there was a similar cover featuring John McCain and the more salacious stories that have been told about him, there would be a call for blood from the right-wing. All the folks from the right-wing who have pooh-poohed this woudl be calling for someone's head.

The hypocrisy is staggering, but I have come to expect that from supporters of the GOP.

And the McCain cover can also show Cindy feeding drugs to McCain. And/Or McCain unable to fly a plane today because he is tech-illiterate. Or him trying to read a world map of TODAY,

American hands have been bathed in Muslim blood. The only salvation is to elect a quasi-Muslim President who will lead Americans to Mecca. Vote for Barack Hussein Obama, or else.

The perfect counteraction would be to re-draw the cartoon!
The gun and bullets goes on Obama who waves the burning US Flag...and the womens' underwear go on his wifes' head!

From my viewpoint the New Yorker cover was hilarious, satire at its best. A have always wondered about the sensibilities of left wing politicians and intellectuals. They love to provoke, to display extremely provocative art shows. It seems as long as the critique, satire is directed at social conservative conventions you can get away with almost anything. But as soon as their own core values, icons are satirized, ridiculed they become oh so virtuous and condemning. ???The satire on Obama is tasteless; the Danish Cartoons lampooning the Allah are blasphemous.???

I now live in the US but I remember the uproar in Sweden when we had an art show in the Central Church in Sweden showing dressed in leather and chains getting head from another leather clad guy. It was great art, great provocation but the same persons that thought it was a very good idea decried the Danish Cartoon calling them blasphemous and inappropriate. Double standards, you bet!

I find one of the things about Obama???s Malaysian experience a little bit troubling, he did not go to a religious school, Madrassa, but he went to a public school in Malaysia. In those Islam is a mandatory subject as well as pervades all education. I would never subject my children to a religion that I do not encompass, when I moved to the US I put my children in a non-denominational school, Obama???s mother could have done the same, since 40 % of the Malaysian population is non Muslim and Sharia laws do not apply to them. So the fact is that he was educated as a Muslim. It is splitting hairs saying he did not go to a religious school.

The even more disturbing fact is that I have friends living in Malaysia. If you marry a Muslim you must convert to Islam. I also believe, but do not know for a fact, that children from your former marriage have to convert. I do not know whether or not Obama???s mother remarried and Muslim but he was put in a public Muslim school and it is an indication of that. Why has this not been discussed?

I am an atheist and do not care one way or the other, fundamentalist Christian and Muslims are equally deluded. But facts are facts.

Yaeger is obviously a scum bag. The sad truth is that McCain has proven himeself to be one also. If you can'y have principles when they are inconvenient, then you don't HAVE principles.

c'mon Ms. Clift. We commoners know that obama was born a Muslim, went to school in Indonesia as a Muslim, but we don't know about his religion during his time in Hawaii when his mentor was Marxist Frank Davis until when he converted to his wife's Black Liberation Theology in Chicago. Why aren't you and the rest of the MSM willing to educate all of us unwashed non elitist about that part of his story?

C'mon Ms. Clift. We commoners know that obama was born a Muslim, went to school as a Muslim, but we dont know what happened in between then when his mentor in Hawaii was Marxist Frank Davis and when he converted to his wife's Black Liberation Theology in Chicago. Why doesn't the MSM even want to enlighten us regarding that part of his life?

"The only way it will work with Obama is if the GOP can link it to the elitism that Hillary Clinton exploited in the primaries."
"It goes beyond satire to perpetuate the most problematic aspect of Obama's candidacy; that he's not in touch with people's fundamental values."
Ms. Clift, are you saying that it is established fact both that Obama is elitist and that he is not in touch with people's fundamental values? I believe you intended to point out that the perception of these flaws exist. A more precise wording of this idea is necessary.

"The only way it will work with Obama is if the GOP can link it to the elitism that Hillary Clinton exploited in the primaries."
"It goes beyond satire to perpetuate the most problematic aspect of Obama's candidacy; that he's not in touch with people's fundamental values."

Ms. Clift, are you saying it is established fact both that Obama is an elitist and that he is not in touch with people's fundamental values? I believe what you meant is that there is a perception of these flaws. Both of these sentences do not convey this idea and should have been more precisely worded.