Their numbers are exaggerated by many, but no doubt at least some are examples of some on the true far right who often are subject to paranoia. Note.

Their numbers are exaggerated by many, but no doubt at least some are examples of some on the true far right who often are subject to paranoia. Note.

I have encountered people who believe this. They are always afraid, all the time.

I have encountered people who believe this. They are always afraid, all the time.

To repeat what I did on another thread:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/0…

To repeat what I did on another thread:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/0…

They are objects of exaggeration. [yawn] I'm not worried.

It's pretty bad when some New York Times readers who are Democrats find such fervent defense of the Messiah to be disturbing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/lweb1…

As someone who has lived and traveled all over the USA and much of Canada, I'm also not surprised to be told about what many readers who don't know would be surprised to learn:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16ega…

This has implications not only for Obama's success in Red states but for the Democratic Party in those states if they have the will and make the effort to succeed there.

(Too bad the GOP, not merely McCain, doesn't have the same approach as Obama.)

This makes me wonder about the barrage of commentary regarding how 'traumatized' or humorless the people are who couldn't laugh. Is it now politically incorrect to empathize with people who might be hurt by certain types of humor? When did callousness become the name of the American game?

Some people got the joke and laughed.
Some people got the joke but thought it misfired.
Some people got the joke, but could understand why it would be hurtful to the Obamas, personally, and to Obama's election campaign. They didn't find that idea funny.

I've laughed at some jokes with guilty pleasure, because the joke was irresistably funny, but at the same time, it's uncomfortable to laugh at someone else's expense.

It looks to me like I'm witnessing a closing circle: from the open intolerance of my parents' generation to the ascendance of tolerance during the civil reights era and now back to extreme intolerance, I mean, if there is a need to argue about a sense of humor, that's pretty darn extreme.

PS One way the cartoon satire misfired is that it completely obscured, even obliterated, the article about Obama in the same issue.

Have no fear. The Obamarama NASCAR vehicle is part of Obama's outreach, along with appeals to the Religious Right (evil Bible-toting fundamentalist hillbillies who often have guns).

And it's the fellow sophisticates who “Don't Get It” and are acting like idiots about it.

Lest we forget, many of these “hicks” happen to vote, which is one reason they were pandered to so much in the 00 and 04 elections by the GOP & surrogates. As it is no secret the line between the literal and satire is missed by so many of these folks, being an apologist for this failed attempt at satire is more than a little disingenuous.

The significance of Hitchen's quote from Swift, linked by Damozel, is that satire is often something that is not obvious . . . i.e., it is a form open to multiple (mis)readings.

There is nothing truly “obvious” about this New Yorker cover. Note Hitchens implies how it can be read as signifying the “limousine elitism” that Dems and Obama have been accused of since Obama's San Francisco “clinging to guns and religion” fiasco.

“Instead, you have sophisticates in the metropolis laughing at a portrayal of the fears of the lowly white hicks. This set-up could itself be the subject of a satire, but probably at some other time and in some other magazine.”

This cover can do damage to Obama . . . because there is NEVER one true reading of a text…as the New Yorker is desperately trying to do here.

Damozel, being married to a Brit, may thus know of one of the classic “misreadings” of modern politics: the Soviet attack on Margaret Thatcher as the “Iron Lady” in repeated talking points through the late 1970s.

“Obviously” the analogy of Thatcher to a medieval torture device was a smear, gleefully adopted by the British Left. Then Thatcher took it . . . misread it in a “non-obvious way” …and use it to further her becoming an icon.

The frantic spinning about this cover . . . trying to “fix” its meaning . . . is indicative of my point. This can work against Obama…as his team is obviously aware…on numerous levels.

The people making a ridiculously big deal out of nothing are childish losers.