This is . . . stupid.
I want to laugh . . . but I can't laugh with the cartoonist, only at him. It's extraordinarily sad to witness someone whose imagination is so limited, their viewpoint so parochial, that they can't even adequately parody the other side.
An effective political cartoon, or merely a funny one, would have tried to imagine what a sympathetic cartoonist would have drawn, and then exaggerated it. The core fact about the Obama cover is that it was drawn by someone who likes Obama. This cartoon is so obviously drawn by someone who hates McCain that it fails on the most basic level. It might work as a nasty cartoon about McCain (though, really, Cindy McCain's drug problem is hard to make funny). But it does not work as a parody of the cover. And the tagline, conveying "I hate you, Morlocks" with such stunning efficiency, merely makes the artist look like a mean-spirited boor. Of course, a lot of committed partisans like cheering on mean-spirited boors as long as they agree with them, so I guess it doesn't fail at every level.
Based on the New Yorker cover by itself and without any context of the sort of people who work at the New Yorker, what makes you think the person who drew the cover likes Obama? What parts of the style and content suggest affection, respect, etc?
I am genuinely curious.
I didn't even get the Cindy McCain-drug problem angle when I first saw it.
Travis makes a good point. (Aside from the fact that it was a New Yorker cover, which this artist is trying parody with the weekly standard cover).
I just thought the new yorker cover failed. It follows the style of typical political cartoon satire - but where as political cartoons exaggerate perceived truths/flaws (i.e. Bush is dumb, Bill Clinton is fat, etc..), the new yorker attempts to do the opposite, and so without context (as a New Yorker cover), there's nothing to indicate its intent to do so - making it seem like conservative political satire. That's all well and good, but it hardly makes the artist seem like someone who likes Obama.
I think the New Yorker cover worked better. Something about being wordless and still saying so much.
This presidential run, if anything, proves that we need a TWO party system before we can move on to a multi-party system.
Obama, who promises change, presents nothing. The only candidate who was for real and substantial change was Ron Paul. It was the first time in many elections where I saw someone where I was agreeing with more than 50% of what they said.
Instead, I'm left with Obama vs McCain... once again picking the lesser of two evils. I was almost hoping that Hilary was still in the race so I could go for the Cthulhu option ("Why vote for the LESSER of two evils? Vote Cthulhu!").
Yes, the "John McCain is so old" joke is much better made by the website: "things younger than mccain".com. But my all time favorite "McCain is old" joke was actually a comment on this site.
I believe it was Freddie who compared McCain to "that guy at the end of Indiana Jones who chose the wrong grail"
"The New Yorker" is part of the cover and puts it all in context. The first thing I saw wast the name of the magazine and that tells me the slant of what is to come. I was smiling before I recognized the first item, political cartoons are probably Americas second geatest contribution to culture, dunking Oreos in milk being number one. I could tell the cover was drawn by someone who likes Obama.
Eh - seems to represent the feelings of many.
Let them keep publishing things like this - I can use another 4 years of laughing at conspiracy theories developed to explain how SOMEONE made the Democratic party lose rather than serious analysis of what it might do to win.
I *like* laughing at conspiracy theory.
Why is this cartoon drawn by someone who obviously hates John McCain? The irony-challenged people at which it is aimed were liberals.
Heinz writes: "The irony-challenged people at which it is aimed were liberals."
Wrong. It's aimed at the people on both sides who feigned outrage at the New Yorker cover. It's also aimed at Megan, for example, for her reaction to THIS cartoon.
As for Cindy McCain's drug problem, I wonder how many pills a day she takes to maintain her Skeletor physique? I guess Johnny likes his Homewrecking Whores skinny.
But that's not funny! I'm being mean!
I have to disagree with you on this one, Megan. I see the cartoon as exactly tit-for-tat, which I think is the point. Take all of the worst rumors about the McCains and slap them into a single cartoon, laid out very similarly to that in the NYer, except on a mag "sympathetic" to McCain, which to the cartoonist would be NR.
I found it to be very funny. I myself, though, would have chosen the Weekly Standard instead of NR, but that's a peek into my psychotic world.
I have a feeling the Obamas secretly thought the NYer cover was hilarious. Or I'll bet Michelle did, anyway.
It's turning the tables perfectly. It's hilarious because of that. Remnick is such a heel.
I didn't even know Cindy McCain HAD a drug problem. And I think both covers (not just the New Yorker cover) would be totally offensive and completely unfunny.
Isn't the real problem the choice of magazine here; I'm not at all certain the antonym of "The New Yorker" is "National Review." NR (or the Weekly Standard) would work if the original mag was an explicitly political, left-wing outlet like The American Prospect or Mother Jones or The New Republic. But the New Yorker is primarily a culturally liberal mag, not a politically liberal one; the opposite of TNY would be something like Reader's Digest.
Honestly, I'm having a difficult time deciphering the various layers of meaning here-- you're mad because the artist who made the cartoon parodying the cartoon that parodies right-wing attitudes towards Barack Obama by parodying left-wing attitudes towards McCain is excessively unkind to McCain? Is that right?
I love it when people admit that a magazine cover is so much more intelligent and powerful than them that it can overcome all of their thought processes and force them to have a certain emotional response (offense).
Oh, wait, you're female. Carry on then.
Good thing old people don't vote. Otherwise it would be politically stupid to use a blunderbuss to attack McCain and insult the whole AARP at the same time.
The artwork looks like it was drawn by Berkeley Breathed of "Bloom County" and "Opus" fame. The signature says "Horsey." Could this be Breathed under a pseudonym, or am I just seeing things?
It's David Horsey, Seattle PI. His style is unmistakable. And he's definitely no rock-ribbed conservative.
I take it back. David Horsey is apparently his own person...but I'll be darned if his art doesn't LOOK like Breathed's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horsey
I'd like to second travis's question. Aside from the fact that, hey, it's the New Yorker, what within the four corners of that cover suggests affection for the Obamas?
Further, why is your reaction to this so affectionate toward the McCains when the reaction to the Obama cover was so distant?
Honestly, I'm having a difficult time deciphering the various layers of meaning here-- you're mad because the artist who made the cartoon parodying the cartoon that parodies right-wing attitudes towards Barack Obama by parodying left-wing attitudes towards McCain is excessively unkind to McCain? Is that right?
Whoa. Head rush.
I'm rather ambivalent toward both the NYer cover and this cartoon, but the thread was worth reading just to hear that Gordian knot untied.
That was pretty much my first thought also. It’s probably not wise at a time when people are living longer and the overall population not just in the United States but most of the developed world is getting older to base one’s strategy on “I’m young, my opponent is old.” Also when your opponent was injured in a POW camp because he refused to leave his men behind, it’s probably not a good idea to try to remind people of that fact by showing him in a wheelchair.
The thing that bothers me most about this is that the woman looks nothing like Cindy McCain. Sure, in the New Yorker piece Michelle had an afro, but at least the face was unmistakable. Cindy looks more like Katie Couric with a blond wig. The facial structure is all wrong.
Actually, now that I think about it, she has Carly Fiorina's haircut, which means the artist probably just got his youngish, blond McCain women mixed up when he drew the stupid thing.
I want to laugh . . . but I can't laugh with the columnist, only at her. It's extraordinarily sad to witness someone whose imagination is so limited, their viewpoint so parochial, that they can't even adequately parody the other side.
Obviously, Megan, you don't understand satire OR parody. So sad. Maybe when you grow up you will learn.
Or maybe you can at least learn to criticize without ridiculing.
I have to disagree with the Cindy McCain drug thing. I think there are endlessly funny ways to point out that she was a major drug addict and stole from her own charity to support her habit.
But, honestly, none of that was as funny as her recent comment that "the only" way to travel around Arizona is by a "private jet". I'll be sure to remember that advice when I travel through Arizona next week. If only I knew which one of her nine houses she'd be at, I'd stop by and thank her for the tip. Maybe I could bring her some flowers like the media does when they go to her house for a barbecue.
But the real problem with the cartoon is that there are no real counter-claims to base a McCain magazine on. The Obama cover is filled with the ludicrous and provably false claims like, "Obama is a Muslim" "Obama is an Al Qaeda plant" but what equivalent falsehoods can one put on a McCain cover? He really IS old. His wife really did have a drug problem. He is pro-Cheney and he has failed to support habeas corpus, unlawful search and seizures, and other meaningful parts of the constitution. He really did sing "bomb bomb bomb iran" The only "satire" is they put him in a wheelchair.
Heck, you could even draw a picture of McCain dumping his tragically injured wife who patiently waited for him while he was a POW for a rich blond heiress twenty years younger and that'd be true too!
I challenge everyone here to make a list of the top lies told about John McCain by liberals that are widespread and in serious need of debunking, ( a la the Obama is a marxist osama loving islamic militant black panther who won't say the pledge of allegiance).
In short, you can't draw an equivalent McCain cover because there are not equivalent widespread lies and falsehoods being spread with the vigor and ferocity of the Obama lies depicted on the Obama cover.
At first it struck me as making the point pretty well, but I agree with the one person who said it's a bit too talky to be a perfect counterpoint. Also the Obamas look happy in their's.
Still I'm not sure if a perfect counterpoint is really necessary or doable. Do you know what one would be?
McCain has been in the public eye much longer Nylund so making up stuff is less likely to work.
Still you could have him literally in bed with a lobbyist and letting her push a red button that says "nuke Tehran" with her tongue or something.
The New Yorker cover was an exaggeration of what right wingers are saying about Obama. This cartoon flips it by being an exaggeration of what left wingers are saying about McCain. I don't understand why Megan doesn't understand this.
That's just nasty. You should be ashamed of yourself.
His ex-wife doesn't have a mean word for McCain. Can you imagine that 5+ years of wrenching confinement and torture by the socialists could place a little stress on a relationship once its partners are reunited? Not surprisingly, the divorce rate of returned POWs was considerably higher than that of the population at large.
Let's show a little human compassion, shall we?
I agree, merely doing the same to the other side does not a cartoon make; furthermore, a good cartoon wouldn't need the explanation: "For all the irony-challenged liberalists..." which throws me off anyway because without it I would assume that the cartoon is for the irony-unchallenged liberalists who would laugh at how the National Review cover wouldn't work--that Republicans would never play with that level of irony.
Feh. I must be so out of it. At first I thought the woman in the McCain cartoon above was Hilary Clinton. But then I thought the woman in the Obama cartoon was Angela Davis. But Sullivan posted a lowvely picture of Carla Bruni earlier, and in fact Sarkozy's previous wife (#2 I believe, Cecile?) was also lovely albeit 10+ years older than Bruni. How about a Playboy cover with tasteful nude photos of all the wives?
The analagous cartoon of McCain would show 30ish John relaxing at a pool, enjoying a marguerita, being served by Asians, and saying to a young woman: "Those suckers living in those bamboo cages! Don't they know they need to have an Admiral for a Dad before they get shot down?"
It's a cartoon making fun of the people who spread such rumors, right? Think we'll see that on National Review anytime soon?
Occam's Dingleberry writes: "His ex-wife doesn't have a mean word for McCain. Can you imagine that 5+ years of wrenching confinement and torture by the socialists could place a little stress on a relationship once its partners are reunited? Not surprisingly, the divorce rate of returned POWs was considerably higher than that of the population at large.
Let's show a little human compassion, shall we?"
Wait a second - a Republican is asking people to show human compassion?
This is a joke, right?
McCain dumped his broken old wife for a young, rich chippy who demanded that he get a marriage license before he was even divorced. If that had been Bill Clinton's profile every Repiglican loudmouth in the country would have been shouting about it for 8 years straight.
If you can't admit that much you're incapable of honesty.
I dunno. I find both of the cartoons pretty funny. I think what does it for me is the facial expressions. Michelle looks so smug, Obama so pompous, Cindy so demented, and Cheney so evil.
Furthermore, I could see the the fake NR cover appearing on a site like imao.us
In fact, as some one who has voted for G. W. Bush FOUR times (in four different elections, thank you very much) and who can hardly WAIT to vote for McCain, I think the Horsey one is funnier. Maybe it is the giant pile of pills.
Sweet Lou writes: "In fact, as some one who has voted for G. W. Bush FOUR times (in four different elections, thank you very much) and who can hardly WAIT to vote for McCain, I think the Horsey one is funnier."
Four times? That's like bragging about having four separate vehicular manslaughter convictions, all "earned" while you were driving drunk.
Just tattoo the word DOLT on your forehead and stay out in the woods on Election Day from now on. You disgust me.
I looked and looked, and for the life of me, I can't see the difference between the two covers. Can you explain how it is obvious David Horsey hates McCain? To investigate a bit, I looked at Horsey's Primary Season cartoons at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/. His depictions of McCain are actually quite affectionate, especially by comparison with those of other Republican candidates, certainly the Clintons, and even Obama. Your "judgment" is a perfect object lesson of perception in the service of bias.
Oh my, you 'disgust' Moelarryandjesus.
Don't worry, anything walking on two legs that resembles an actual human being disgusts him also, so you are in good company.
Megan, you should ban the little troll forthwith.
Ken McCracker writes: "Oh my, you 'disgust' Moelarryandjesus.
Don't worry, anything walking on two legs that resembles an actual human being disgusts him also, so you are in good company.
Megan, you should ban the little troll forthwith."
Hey, Megan, speaking of "little trolls," if you want your apartment walls decorated with way-cool drawings of trolls and unicorns and faeries and the barbarians who (respectively, I suppose) kill, ride, and love them, get in touch with Ken. Ken's a giant (well, not literally) in the field of REALLY BAD FANTASY ART. He sold a painting once in Iowa. Jump all over this before he goes back to his first love, which was stealing catalytic converters or something.
PS - If you're allergic to unicorns Ken can erase the horn and make it a plain old horse.
PPS - But horsies with wings still cost extra!
"The New Yorker cover was an exaggeration of what right wingers are saying about Obama. This cartoon flips it by being an exaggeration of what left wingers are saying about McCain."
One rather obvious difference between the two: everything the New Yorker cartoon says is false.
Ok wow, I start slogging my way back to civilization making a pit stop to check e-mail, news, and commentary and lookie what shows up.
This is juvenility, this is low, this is everything I expect. I suspect it'll only get meaner down the road. Quite frankly I'm hardly surprised, it just angers me that I'm going to have to deal with, and pay for some of this stuff (indirectly).
hilzoy says: "One rather obvious difference between the two: everything the New Yorker cartoon says is false."
Yes, there's that. Plus Cindy McCain will think the "NR" cartoon makes her look fat.
I should add, I don't understand why no one has given me any compliments on my very clever choice of a name, MoeLarryAndJesus. Don't you get it? I'm saying Jesus is like one of the Three Stooges. Because you see, Moe and Larry are two of the three stooges. So what I am saying is that Jesus is the third one. Aren't I ironically ironic?
By the way, anyone who votes for Bush is STOOOOOPID, and is obviously a credulous fool who believes anything they are told. I know this is true because all of my policial science and gender studies professors told me so.
I have to say I am with Megan, in that it is obvious to me that the cartoonist who did the New Yorker was sympathetic to the Obamas (think about it: he almost certainly HAD to be for it to make any sense).
The riposte is likewise interesting. As others have said the Horsey cartoon is a parody of the nastiness often found in the Weekly Standard and National Review. It also makes the point that by mass producing these images you just give them added force, regardless of the ironical intent or the lack of it. So in the context of the New Yorker cover it is asking legitimate questions. No?
Like Travis, I didn't find it at all obvious that the New Yorker's cover was drawn by "someone who likes Obama". Blaie's started on clues, but I'd like to see more.
I'm with Nylund. Cindy McCain's drug habit should be milked for cruel humor for as long as the drug war continues, and for as long as we feel vengeful afterwords.
Remember, she's not just a user, she's a dealer too, making out like a Columbian Coke Lord on the Inbev buyout of Anheuser-Busch.
Actually, I'm probably wrong about that. I don't think Columbians get that good of a cut.
Hey Moe, thanks for reminding me -
Here is a link to my artwork
See for yourself if Moe is a complete idiot or not by saying my art is 'really bad'.
Hey Moe, how about giving us some of your really weird and obscene sexual fantasies about Dick Cheney?
Man, are you guys uptight. I thought it was pretty funny myself. I guess you're not allowed to laugh at Obama even three degrees removed.
Let me see if I can get my head around this:
We have a cartoon satirizing the public's reaction to the New Yorker's attempt to satirize the negative view of Obama, by drawing a hypothetical attempt by National Review to satirize the negative view of John McCain.
Hey -- since Megan thinks this cartoon "doesn't get it", how about someone satirizing that?
Why is it so difficult to see that the cartoon wasn't satirizing Obama? In effect, it was a drawing version of "reducto ad absurdum" where you assume the claims are true and then follow them to their absurd conclusions.
An analogous cartoon for McCain would be something along the lines of a President McCain shaking hands with his Vice President, Dick Cheney, while outside the window dozens of oil derreks dot the landscape. Over his shoulder, the plans for invasions of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea and Canada would hang on the wall.
Fascinating comments. Megan is dead on here with the explanation. The New Yorker's entire tone for decades has been irony, mostly directed at the actions of the rest of America, but with a salting of self-mockery as well. It has not done splashy political cartoons, but ironic takes on the political process in general, though from a generally liberal POV.
I didn't think that the original cover worked that well, but I saw the point. A number of commenters here seem to have come to the same conclusion, seeing the cover as Not Successful rather than offensive. Not all commenters, though, eh? The delicious irony for me is how much this rips the mask off the distant, amused, ironic attitude of New Yorker readers. When that same archness is directed back at them, some have become as rabidly tribal, with humor just as coarse and unsubtle, as those they have been ridiculing for years.
The two covers are not the same in tone - the first cartoonist is clearly making fun of the criticism of Obama, not Obama himself. If you can't see that, then you might be careful about being condescending to others in the future, dig?
Talking about poor, maligned Cindy McCain, it turns out that Occam's Beard is a raging hypocrite - quick, someone knock me down with a feather!
The equivalent 'satirical' cartoon for McCain would show him collaborating with the North Vietnamese - cutting propaganda tapes, feeding them information, etc.
So: Let's see it! That won't be an attack on his service, it'll be positively Swiftian!
"making out like a Columbian Coke Lord"
TR: Columbia University has a Coke Lord? Is it the Cola kind or the cocaine kind?
(Sorry but this is a case where a typo matters. It's Colombia, with two o's)
Thomas R -
My apologies. I blame my muscle memory.
Good to see I'm not the only one to think that was Hillary Clinton.
Woody Bombay writes: "The equivalent 'satirical' cartoon for McCain would show him collaborating with the North Vietnamese - cutting propaganda tapes, feeding them information, etc.
So: Let's see it! That won't be an attack on his service, it'll be positively Swiftian!"
How about the fact that he crashed not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE planes during his time in service? And that was when he supposedly had all of his faculties. I wouldn't trust the guy to run a carousel at a carnival.
Imagine how many planes he could have wrecked if the Vietnamese hadn't, uh, benched him for a few years.
Or to put it in "Armageddon" terms - "Man, talk about the Wrong Stuff!"
Those with basic reading comprehension skills will appreciate that I was talking about slagging off McCain regarding his first marriage, not his present one.
My point was that the emotional upheaval caused by many years of separation, and McCain's torture at the hands of people of more or less of your political persuasion, would put any marriage under severe strain. Dumping on him for the failure of that marriage, given the stresses imposed on it, seems cold. Really cold. A lot of marriages have failed over a lot less.
Occam's Dingleberry says: "My point was that the emotional upheaval caused by many years of separation, and McCain's torture at the hands of people of more or less of your political persuasion, would put any marriage under severe strain. Dumping on him for the failure of that marriage, given the stresses imposed on it, seems cold. Really cold. A lot of marriages have failed over a lot less."
So you know for a fact that his wife's disfiguring accident and weight gain weren't factors, chuckles? Is there some reason you omit all facts that might reflect badly on your candidate?
Cheating on your wife and lying about the circumstances in your ghostwritten campaign-driven biography sure seem like acts of scumbaggery to me. And they would to you, too, if a Democratic candidate had been the one who did those things. Let's not forget all the grief Kerry took from Repiglicans for marrying a wealthy woman. Imagine if the wealthy woman had been two decades younger than him and if he'd been having an affair with her for almost a year before leaving his disabled wife. Imagine if he'd taken out the marriage license before getting divorced.
Would Repiglicans have given him a single moment of peace over those things? Spare me your crock-load of crocodile tears. Your bogus "family values" pals would have KILLED him over such crap.
So suck it up and DEAL WITH IT. McCain won't get half of what Kerry got from your gang, so stop whining and have the first honest moment of your entire life.
"How about the fact that he crashed not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE planes during his time in service?" ML&J
I think that might be low even for you.
It was terrible the way Kerry's life was insulted, but you think Democrats don't do that? You can't be that naive.
And a great many people do vote on policy. I think Russ Feingold mostly seems to be a really good guy. I really don't think I would vote for him on any level because I just don't agree with him. I'll go one better and agree that Obama's personal life is more admirable than McCain's. However we're not voting for next-door neighbor or church choir.
@Assistant Village Idiot: Nicely said.
@ML&J:
Cheating on your wife and lying about the circumstances in your ghostwritten campaign-driven biography sure seem like acts of scumbaggery to me. And they would to you, too, if a Democratic candidate had been the one who did those things.
And yet Democratic candidates who do similar kinds of things still get reelected, don't they? I guess the people who give politicians a pass on their personal foibles sit on both sides of the aisle. I agree that McCain is no more the role model of a family man than Clinton or JFK, and I have little respect for that. My issue with Clinton was that he lied under oath. I have not heard that McCain has done the same, so my opinion of him is a little higher - for a politician, which is frankly not that high.