framing the obamas
by Jeremy P. Jacobs
Published: July 21, 2008
I was on the phone with my girlfriend last week as I was watching the political whirlwind surrounding this week’s cover of The New Yorker on cable news. As Chris Matthews went to commercial, I said to my girlfriend with a chuckle that I wanted to buy a copy of the magazine, frame it and put it up on the wall of our new apartment.
I did not want to frame the cartoon because I was amazed by its satirical genius (though, believe me, I get the joke). Nor did I want it because I thought there was any truth to any of it (I know there isn’t). I want to frame the cartoon because it so perfectly encapsulates why the Democrats so often fail in presidential elections. Simply put, they do themselves in.
For the record, I am not celebrating the Democrats’ blunder because I want the Republicans to win in November. While this year has been full of amazing political theater, watching the Democrats do this again is like watching reruns of “Saved by the Bell.” You know what’s going to happen, when it’s going to happen and who is going to do it and yet, you keep watching. In the end, you find the predictability entertaining and somehow reassuring.
Similarly on the GOP side, if I could somehow frame John McCain’s green screen speech in which he repeatedly poorly delivered the punch line, “That’s not change we can believe in,” I would.
I was having lunch last week with a Democratic strategist that worked on Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign. Inevitably, the conversation turned to this year’s race and I asked what he thought about Barack Obama’s chances. He said that he had never seen an election cycle that so favored the Democrats. On a generic ballot, a Democrat wins by over 11 points, according to the Real Clear Politics poll average. President George W. Bush’s job approval rating is currently hovering around a dismal 31 percent and at the end of June, almost 80 percent of the country thought the country was going in the wrong direction.
All this was good news, he said, but how did the Democrats respond? By nominating the riskiest candidate they could.
Aside from Obama being African American, Obama was risky, he said, because he doesn’t have nearly the national profile that John McCain has. So, Obama has to spend considerable time and energy establishing that profile or the GOP will do it for him. McCain’s brand is much more established, so he is able to get away with more hazy policy positions because people believe he is an independent maverick (see: McCain’s recent economic policies). Obama’s positions can’t be nearly as hazy without suffering severe criticism because both journalists and voters don’t know him as well (see: FISA and faith-based initiatives).
The Republican Party, he said, has honed its skills when it comes to defining the Democratic nominee on its terms, not the Democrats’. Obama, he said, has to make sure his national profile is defined by his campaign, not the Republican Party.
So that brings us back to the New Yorker. First, most of the magazine’s readership is going to vote for Obama. So, presumably, they want Obama to be the next president. Given that 12 percent of voters still believe Obama is a Muslim, it is mind-boggling that the New Yorker would want to literally draw the impression of Obama that the Republicans hope voters will have in their minds going into the voting booth.
In sum, the GOP doesn’t need to worry about defining Obama in a way that will help them win; the New Yorker just did it for them.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 21st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
The people who pay attention to the New Yorker know he’s not a Muslim. The people who think he is, weren’t paying attention to The New Yorker before this cover and havegone back to their “Juggs” and Nascar magazines by now. The New Yorker wasn’t going to change their mind — satirical or not. (And no, I’m not knocking Nascar magazines. “Juggs” maybe; “Juggs” readers, definitely. But not Nascar or its publications.)
July 21st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Yeah, let’s be honest with ourselves. The satire was intended for wine drinking, cheese eating liberal elites to read as they ride along in their yachts on the Long Island Sound. God forbid one of those lowly “average Americans” gets a hold of a copy of our magazine.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 am
But Sandra, both Juggs readers and Nascar fans vote and I promise you that when they see the New Yorker cover they’re going to tell themselves “I knew it! I knew he was a terrorist!” If you’re pulling for Obama, that’s the last image you put out there - even if it’s hillarious.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 am
Next week will be McCain holding the Obamas behind razor-topped fences with an AK-47 in his right hand, waving the half-burned American flag that he saved from the fireplace in the other - and in a watchtower above the Obama’s holding camp will be Bush with a goofy grin, shooting Obama in the back of the head with a pellet gun.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Denouncing the New Yorker for running that cover is exactly the liberal elitist attitude that won’t get Obama elected. That’s basically saying dumb average Americans won’t get the New Yorker’s satire, and how dare those wine drinking liberals betray the Obamas by making fun of them (while actually commenting on some ridiculous stereotypes that have haunted him and his wife).
I’m glad the New Yorker ran that cover. It’s hilarious!
This is what America’s all about, freedom of speech.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Why are are wine drinkers elitist? Why are all elitists wine-drinkers? Can’t we all be a bit more original in our insults?
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I like to imagine liberal elitists drinking Mint Juleps.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Sandra,
How about slime, liberal slime? Or swine? Or incoherent, slandering rhinos?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Sure maybe Nascar and Jugg’s-reading simpletons don’t normally pay attention to The New Yorker, but many of them watch the circus that is the national media. Unfortunately for the Obama camp, the fact that the cover was splashed all over CNN, MSNBC, and more importantly, FOX News (not to mention nearly every blog in cyberspace), means that yes, many people who wouldn’t “get it” saw the magazine cover, thus affirming the author’s point to some degree.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
By the way - this is by far the best titled article concerning the whole affair.
Cleverly punny, and not ovebearing.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Ahhhhh….sales are up for the The New Yorker…life is good,,,,and wine drinker wine too much….