Obama in Chicago

New Yorker's Ryan Lizza. Go read...

And report back? (No fair going with the early quotes, either; read to the end.)

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

why now?

why didn't this run in January?

A Good Question

one worth asking Lizza.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Actually, a question to ask the editor

See my lament/rant here.

Short answer: The story didn't appear in January because Hendryk Herzberg was in the tank.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

NY cover

did you see the cover? could it get anymore racist?

The cover is so small online...

.... I can't see it. What's racist about it?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

here you go--& there's already fauxtrage from Obama's

Maybe Hendryk Herzberg got buyer's remorse

A little late, however.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

A conspiracy-minded gal could think they commisioned that

cover to give Obama cover to criticize it and their story, and to divert attention from Obama's full right-wing Overton window-pulling.

Also, the New Yorker can't play innocent about this, since they played with this type of fire when they had a Valentine's Day cover of a Hasidic man and a black woman kissing:

http://tinyurl.com/5c2w9m

Play Innocent?

It's The New Yorker! Why would it be bothered to do that?

Because you referenced Lips, Art Spiegelman's IMO brilliant cover, I thought this 1995 Boston Book Review interview excerpt with him was enlightening, especially in light of today's environment:

H: What about this moment of the loss of innocence draws you?

AS: It's always what interests me; it's what exists between categories. It is when something is at the point of meeting something else but hasn't melted into it. The example I keep going back to is Seurat. I always like Seurat's paintings. Depending on where you stand you see either dots or people in a park. But it's not just a field of dots and it's not just people in a park. It's a point of discovery because there are no easy categories. It's true for Seurat, and it's true for this particular moment of the zeitgeist that takes place in the '20s, and it's true for comics becoming literature as they lose their central function as things that sell newspapers, let's say.

H: So breakdown of genre is the moment of possible discovery.

AS: It's not just a breakdown of genre; very often it's a breakdown of values. Genre is just the superficial manifestation.

H: People get used to looking at genre for guarantees. Fiction is fiction; nonfiction is nonfiction. When those sorts of distinctions weaken, it can be unnerving.

AS: And that's the terrifying moment that can lead to revelation. Nonfiction associates itself with the exterior world and fiction presumably deals with sensibility. There's a point where those things do and must meet. In Seurat, you have a post-Impressionist moment where the question is what is a picture? Is the rectangle a window or is it a canvas? Different values, different world views are implied in each answer. Not just a matter of style, not just a matter of craft. And there's a move eventually through Seurat to a certain kind of field abstraction. Whatever value I find in totally non-representational painting or in totally representational painting, the moment of collision is the one where I get the biggest charge. It's also true at the end of the '20s, before the '30s set in. That particular curdled innocence of the '20s is still central to me; and if there's a place where The Wild Party still remains relevant in today's world it has to do with something I can't fully articulate; it has to do with that particular collision, the collision between the world that rhymes and the world that doesn't.

H: This sheds a new light on your controversial 1993 Valentine's Day New Yorker cover in which, during the conflict between Hasidim and African Americans in Brooklyn, you portray a Hasidic man and a black woman embracing. Values and worlds colliding, meeting.

AS: It didn't come as a shock to me that this got people to sit up and take notice. I'm interested in visual signs; and that's certainly an aspect of the New Yorker cover and, in a very different way, part of The Wild Party project.

H: How does that apply to the New Yorker cover?

AS: The signs are highly recognizable. The sign for Hasid is clear and unavoidable, without the usual anti-Semitic physiognomy that goes with it. The sign for African-American woman is equally unavoidable, without entering into Aunt Jemima stereotypes or anything of the kind. Then there's this other sign that has to do with the Valentine's Card-the kiss, the field of red with the lacy decoration around it, all of it weaving together separate meanings. The irony is you have these two groups that are at each other's throats at each other's lips instead. That's supposed to conjure up carnality and yet Valentine's Day, the image of Valentine's Day, isn't about carnality but a kind of benign romantic love. All those things course through this image and the impossibility of it is what's so entertaining for me. What got people most upset that week was not other magazines with the usual S&M imagery-chains and whips, leather and hurt-but something quite benign on the surface, playing with signs. Reverend Dougherty, a representative of the black community in Crown Heights, was very upset I used a black woman: one more time, he said, a white man was oppressing a black woman. Why didn't I have a black man and a Hasidic woman, he asked on the radio. Maybe he's a good reverend, I don't know, but he's a rotten art director. A Hasidic man is a lot easier to recognize than a woman with a handkerchief on her head. In terms of visual signs you've got one thing that works and one thing that doesn't. Even more important, I answered him, if I had used a black man and Hasidic woman, you'd be complaining I was once again showing the black man as a rapist and defiler of white woman. This shows me the problem has nothing to do with the signs being shown but the reverberation of those signs in people's heads. The same thing happened in op-ed articles. There was an op-ed in the New York Times in which a woman who was very upset about the New Yorker cover writes about the Jew's lascivious lips. Another person, equally upset in the Washington Post, described the Jew's prim lips. Now you know I can't draw lips that are simultaneously lascivious and prim; I'm limited.

H: Sure you can.

AS: I did. I just drew lips.

[From: Wassup with the tiny url, already? ;-)]

Here's a more fleshed out version of the melodrama that played out:

Crown Heights: Blacks, Jews, and the 1991 Brooklyn Riot - Google Books Result

When the real action sorrowfully unfolded, people died, one of them a child. So serious real life and death stuff, no question. As serious as a candidate portraying himself other than what he is, for good or for ill depending on your POV, in a world of war and crises--not just another tricky day for him.

So, to The New Yorker, keep it intentional, though I agree with lambert on why this may regretfully be too little too damn late. Curses on Herzberg's ego waltzing with a couple of swell wannabes of Eustace Tilley.

[Note: Lots of linky goodness, but never forget there's no place like home.]

a new kind of nothing==

"... "[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game." ..."

faux outrage?

I am livid, truly livid. Crude racist propoganda under color of edgy humor is not ok. serioulsy not ok.

this has consequences beyond Obama. What about the black guy who has a job interview tomorrow? or is meeting with a potential client? Or just needs to hail a cab? Ideas have consequences.

it is just sick

this wouldn't even be news if it wasn't for Obama's

people making it news--they're pissed about the article, and are attacking and making sure the whole world knows about the cover--it's not even on newsstands yet, i don't think.

Faux because most outragees are outed as faux liberals

The glee shown by so-called liberals over The New Republic's infamous "Hillary the mad bitch" cover exposes them.

There was no satire excuse for the Clinton cover, as the accompanying story set out to not ridicule misogyny but to in fact make the misogyny case.

If the Clinton cover had been used to satirize rather than promote misogyny, I can honestly say I would have tried to suck it up and laugh along. Many are finding they can do so with the Obama cover, which inarguably mocks racism in an arguably constructive fashion.

Incredibly, the New Republic is expressing outrage at the New Yorker cover: What Were They Thinking? I would have to kill myself if I worked for such people.

How the hell do we pull out from this descent into Bizarro World?!

Compare TNR's Clinton cover above with its Jan Obama cover

TNR, the outlet so outraged at the New Yorker.

To pull back a little bit

What about the Muslim/foreigner/The Other who has a job interview tomorrow?
I salute free speech in all its forms. However, this cover doesn't reveal any special insight, hint at anything relevant or even attempt to be satirical or funny.
Just really poor, poor taste and worse decision making.

That's zooming in, not pulling back

I don't see why your comment is posted as a reply to mine, as it doesn't address my point, CS. I along with many others have other comments here assessing the cover on its own merits, or lack thereof. That's a separate issue from faux-progressive hypocrisy.

That said... a satirist prodding social progress must always be asking herself/himself questions like yours, must evaluate the risk of the satire being misunderstood and used to prop up the very social ill being lampooned. The risk is always there, so the balancing act is rarely a simple one.

Check any poll on any question in America and you will see that we always have our 5-10% lunatic fringe that are virtually unreachable. If they became our "test audience" for satire, it would be the death of one of society's most powerful weapons against evil. I've looked since the cover came out, and so far it appears the New Yorker correct, with misunderstanding confined to the lunatic fringe whose minds were already made up anyway.

To honestly answer your question, I truly believe the Muslim on a job interview will be in an America that's safer for Muslims by encouraging liberal satire like this. Plus, I believe the loud cries that having Obama dressed as a Muslim is the ultimate line-crossing simply reinforces the notion that Muslim dress is the ultimate horror -- a terrible message.

Irony and Satire

here you go--& there's already fauxtrage from Obama's campaign

I know the words "Irony" and "Satire" are frequently missused to rationalize stupidity and bigotry, but it's pretty clear to me that that cover is just ridiculing all the racist memes the media's thrown around about Obama. I mean the "fist jab?" That's obviously a joke. Though I could see, if someone made a cackling, big-butted harpy image of Clinton standing outside of a building labeled "Probate Court" with the same intentions, the "satire" argument probably wouldn't sit well with me. I doubt anyone at Obama's campaign or many of the people who post at HuffPo would bat an eye, however.

except that it's his campaign ginning this up--

it's not the New Yorker or the artist, or anyone except for Obama's people making this a big deal--to distract from the article itself? as punishment for the article? ...

it's them who are using this for their own purposes-- "... Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish." ..."

Did you say HuffPo?

Check the examples. Sauce for the gander...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Oops... great minds think alike

I posted the TNR Clinton cover before I saw your link here or the Confluence post.

My link, BTW, is to Shakesville, which has been great about documenting both racism and sexism.

some of the artist's other covers--

-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13... --

Bush/Cheney as Oscar and Felix of Odd Couple, Ahmadinejad as Larry Craig...

"... And in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?

"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..." ..."

Gad

One of McGovern's problems, IIRC, is that lots of people really disliked his supporters....

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Are you suggesting

some sort or eerie historical parallel?? Why Lambert, don't you know that there has never been a candidate like Obama and there never will be again!

Thanks to him, the past is irrelevant. History has been vanquished (and therefore, Francis Fukuyama is vindicated (sadly)!). Hope and change are now the new zeitgeist.

Jean-Francois Lyotard turns in his grave as Obama has produced the ultimate Grand Narrative that we all thought was dead, heralding the transformative era of post-post-modernism (po-po-mo for short).

Those of us still stuck in the old justice, FDRish narrative, watch as the great march of Hope and Change, passes us by, clingy and bitter (and racists too), relics of another era now displaced by the young cohorts of shiny new voters/citizens activists, ready to crash the gates that were supposed to have crashed a few years ago.

About that article....

I actually read it. Anyone else?

After thinking it over, over a sinkful of dishes, the article seems noteworthy more for what it didn't say than for what it did. Much of the Chicago background stuff was filling in details of an outline I've already seen a few times. How Obama got from law school to the state legislature was already kind of known; now we have more vivid detail of that. But Lizza doesn't attempt to go any further than that, not even really addressing the way the Senate campaign happened, let alone the Presidential one. I've just realized I don't even know how Obama came to give the speech at the 2004 convention. Is this common knowledge?

That's the biggest disappointment for me -- I don't think this rather long article really told me much I didn't already know, and the questions I still have turned out to be beyond its scope. The rather flip ending implies that the presidential stuff happened purely because of Obama's charisma, smarts, and ambition. I can't believe there isn't more to the story. Am I foily?

Then there are the things I do know that were left out, like the Rezko house-buying affair and the slumlord angle exposed in detail by the Boston Globe.

All in all, a well-written article that left me feeling that I would have been wiser to spend the time playing the fiddle.

Policy not party!

Well read, GOB!

The article ends with Obama walking down the street after having given his 2004 speech, but there's not a word in the article about how that came to be. Not one fucking word. Now, I know that the article's title is "Obama in Chicago," and the convention was in Boston, but still, that lacuna is obvious.

Why, it's almost like Lizza doesn't want to write about the national Democratic Party -- Dean, the DNC, Daschle, Reid, Pelosi -- at all. Odd, that.

NOTE This is interesting on Rezko and redistricting (though Obama knew Rezko before that:

Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his “ideal map.” Corrigan remembers two things about the district that he and Obama drew. First, it retained Obama’s Hyde Park base—he had managed to beat Rush in Hyde Park—then swooped upward along the lakefront and toward downtown. By the end of the final redistricting process, his new district bore little resemblance to his old one. Rather than jutting far to the west, like a long thin dagger, into a swath of poor black neighborhoods of bungalow homes, Obama’s map now shot north, encompassing about half of the Loop, whose southern portion was beginning to be transformed by developers like Tony Rezko, and stretched far up Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast, covering much of the city’s economic heart, its main retail thoroughfares, and its finest museums, parks, skyscrapers, and lakefront apartment buildings. African-Americans still were a majority, and the map contained some of the poorest sections of Chicago, but Obama’s new district was wealthier, whiter, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and better educated. It also included one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in Chicago.
“It was a radical change,” Corrigan said. The new district was a natural fit for the candidate that Obama was in the process of becoming. “He saw that when we were doing fund-raisers in the Rush campaign his appeal to, quite frankly, young white professionals was dramatic.”

Haw. Rezko and the "creative class" are two sides of the same coin (the common factor being, as Xenophon would be the first to say, gentrification. Nobody would have predicted...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

john corrigan is a racist!

“He saw that when we were doing fund-raisers in the Rush campaign his appeal to, quite frankly, young white professionals was dramatic.”

isn't this basically what bill clinton was saying? and to some extent, geraldine ferarro?

that bit about the gerrymandering was probably the only thing i hadn't already read about elsewhere, and it was the part i found most interesting. but that's mostly because i've been ranting, futilely it would seem, about the evils of gerrymandering.

the article was a nice explication of chicago machine and anti-machine politics, even if it appears to whitewash obama's participation a bit [ok, a lot]. i was left with the same feeling about obama as i am after reading some superhero comics, where the heroes are flawed, partially corrupted by the corrupt system/world they're a part of, but ultimately their good natures prevail and evil is once again held at bay.

The middle class is so outre

"Rezko and the “creative class” are two sides of the same coin (the common factor being, as Xenophon would be the first to say, gentrification.)"

Lambert, what you're pointing out in this story helps clarify for me in part where Obama and the new Dems are headed, and explains a lot of the dynamics that have mystified me. The kind of forces it puts into play, unfortunately, do not seem benevolent to me.

The end of the Ryan Lizza article about Obama

Lambert, the brag from Obama takes place late in the afternoon before he gives the keynote:

Marty Nesbitt remembers Obama’s utter calm the day he gave his celebrated speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in Boston, which made him an international celebrity and a potential 2008 Presidential candidate. “We were walking down the street late in the afternoon,” Nesbitt told me. “And this crowd was building behind us, like it was Tiger Woods at the Masters.”

“Barack, man, you’re like a rock star,” Nesbitt said.

“Yeah, if you think it’s bad today, wait until tomorrow,” Obama replied.

“What do you mean?”

“My speech,” Obama said, “is pretty good.”

Not sure what you see here as so significant, either way. It isn't a brag if you deliver, and Obama delivered. If it is because Lizza doesn't discuss who asked Obama to speak, it was Kerry's call and I'm not sure why that is particularly significant either. Obama was a hot item that summer, definitely a rising star. Can't believe that Kerry at that point was putting Obama up for 2008; he would instead have been expecting to be running himself, for his second term as President.

The whole article is just a rehash of earlier reports, with no worthwhile analysis at all. Filler to justify the cover, apparently. The cover itself is an attempt at parody that doesn't work because it isn't funny; the whole project is very odd, and not helpful to Obama in the least. Repetition of lies never helps unless the lede is the truth. Whenever the lie is at the beginning it gets reinforced, no matter how thorough the debunking that follows.

Why would a crowd be following him?

His first book was a flop (it did better on reissue later) and he hadn't given his 2004 speech yet. His second book came out in 2006.

His 2002 Anti-war speech hadn't even been covered by the media at the time.

He was running second in the Illinois primary until the frontrunner had to quit.

What had he done to inspire crowds????

------------------------------------------------
“Just say NO! to Kool-aid.”

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Obama was quite famous

Here in Jet, here in the NYT.

IIRC, he and Ken Salizar were the only real prospects for Democratic pickups, and Salazar's race was close while Obama would clearly win in a walkaway. He was young, charismatic, black, gave a good speech, was as clean as a politician could be and was going to be the only black in the new Senate. He was a winner, and everyone who was watching national politics knew he had a bright future. He was hardly plucked from obscurity.

Far be it from me to say you're projecting, bringiton....

... but I really, and only meant that I wanted people to read to the end of the article. That's because I didn't want people retailing bits from the beginning of the article -- like the "we don't want nobody nobody sent," which is funny and revealing, but also a very well-known anecdote.

Sometimes, gentlemen, a cigar is just a cigar.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Well shame on you then

for enticing me into reading that whole dreary sonorous drone of repetition to no good end.

I want my cigar now, please.

Who did ask Obama to deliver the Keynote in 2004?

Surprised to see this asked, it was Kerry who as the presumptive nominee was in the same position that Obama is now with regard to control over the Convention agenda. Assume staff put together a list of potentials, but the decision was Kerry's. Obama was a hot topic, having just won the Democratic Senatorial primary and so a shoe-in to be the fifth (I think) black Senator ever.

Also surprised to discover how difficult it was to find a source to cite for that factoid but here it is, Kerry from an interview with HuffPo:

“…I'm the one who invited him to speak at our convention in 2004….”

I have a vague memory...

... and I don't know the source, that Obama had already been singled out as a comer before his speech, obviously, and by, of all people, Howard Dean. I don't see how that could be so, given that Dean's defeat and the Convention happened within a few months of each other, but that's my memory.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

dean dozens, 2004

Seven of Seventy-Two

Hell of a stealth program there. That Dean fellah is so much more impressive than he first appears. Too bad he didn't apply all that cleverness to running for President himself...oh, wait....

obviously...

he's better at stealth than openness. or got better at wooing independents and exploiting the web [pdf] with practice. or...

about those bonus delegates, that scheme was apparently hatched in december 2006, but by early-mid 2006 obama already wasn't not running for president. maybe there wasn't any way to predict that north carolina would help him in the primary, but it's quite plausible that having more delegates in later primaries, rather than early ones, would benefit a candidate who started the season as a relative unknown.

Yeah, and what an asshole Kerry is, to be sure

Read the HuffPo article bringiton links to to see Kerry run the "I did not inhale" riff, which, naturally, applies to Hillary, or, should I say in this case, OfBill?

Can I get a refund for the money Kerry collected to challenge the OH 2004 results?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

they may be distracting from this too--Lobbyist funding Denver-

Democrats Look to Lobbyist to Finance Convention

It was Durbin and Kerry who gave Obama the 04 spot, no?

UnitedHealth Group, AT&T, [& some others]: DNC sponsors

how about that.

As a result of Mr. Farber’s efforts, dozens of organizations have signed up as corporate sponsors of the Denver convention, including six that are lobbying clients of his firm: UnitedHealth Group, AT&T Comcast, the National Association of Home Builders, Western Union and Google. In return for these donations, which can go up to $1 million or more, sponsors are promised prominent display space for corporate marketing and access to elected officials and Democratic leaders at a large number of parties and receptions.

Maybe we could sell naming rights to the candidates?

We could get rid of that pesky Barack "Hussein" Obama and replace it with Barack "AT&T Comcast" Obama (in honor of Obama's FISA vote). I'm sure the solidity of corporate branding would reassure everybody...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Lambert, that idea has already been novelized

Max Barry's "Jennifer Government"... an excellent book.

as always, Atrios nails it

Shouting "n****r" is ok as long as you mean it ironically.

that cover is a Earl Buzt, George Allen, disaster

A conspiracy-minded gal could think they commisioned that

cover just to give the Obama team something to divert everyone's attention... just as the dad of the Obama campaign manager says an epithet that is one step of asking Obama to be lynched, to divert attention from the campaign's hard-right Overton window-pulling and the missed targets in recent fundraising.

And don't tell me they didn't know the impact of what they did -- they had the same brouhaha over a Hasidic Jewish man kissing a dreadlocked black woman, drawn by Art Spiegelman, that had NYC spouting off for months.

http://tinyurl.com/5c2w9m

One might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment....

@cg.eye

Did you post this twice on purpose?

A Conspiracy-minded Gal Could Think They Commisioned That

Submitted by cg.eye on Mon, 2008-07-14 02:19.

&

Submitted by cg.eye on Mon, 2008-07-14 03:01.

I got soooo confused, scrolling back and forth!

I looked for this post for a half-hour, to no avail, on the

blog post list -- then I had to reconstruct it.

It *wasn't* my imagination that I already posted it.

Tell me again, why we think we have any voice at all in politics

Judy Black, wife of Charles Black, works with Steve Farber.

Steve Farber is as high as one gets in Denver in re lobbying power.

Hickenlooper's been the public face of 'oh, no, we don't want anyone to think we're selling access'. Guess they're replacing the peace chief with the war chief....

Mr. Farber’s firm also represents the former Liggett tobacco company and a trade group seeking to retain tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund investors.

Most recently, Mr. Farber’s firm joined forces, through mergers, with the leading law firm in Las Vegas representing gambling companies and the leading firm in Los Angeles representing water interests.

“I have my list of companies, not only my client list, but companies throughout Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region,” Mr. Farber said in a telephone interview. “We’ve got offices in Las Vegas and California, so I have clients that we can contact, and I have friends of clients that I intend to contact. And if they have given to the convention already, I try to get them to double their contribution.”

Mr. Obama’s well-publicized statements denouncing special interest money have done little to dampen Mr. Farber’s efforts. In Mr. Farber’s view, money to the convention — an issue Mr. Obama has not addressed directly — is different from money to the candidates themselves.

“The money to the convention doesn’t go to the candidates or the Democratic National Committee, but to the host committee to pay for the cost of the convention,” Mr. Farber said. “So what he has said doesn’t inhibit it.”

This ain't about local companies; he represents multinationals who perch in Colorado because of resources, regulations, or both. The NY Times article wasn't a warning; it was notice that the DNC's open for bidness.

Just keep talking and saying

BoG (pronounced like Bogey? Like the actor?)
Seriously, just keep pointing stuff out. Oh good, that's what we do here!

Because either 1)they know what they're doing and will admit it later (it was "just politics") or 2) they are prejudiced (against certain genders, against certain types of skin color, etc.) and we can let them know we see and object to it, narrowing the acceptable range--and maybe someday they will understand it themselves.

FrenchDoc, if we do political novels as a theme for next week's Book Review, will you write a review of "Jennifer Government" for us? I agree, an interesting book with some timely scares...

You can call me Bo

as in "Derek." It's an old nickname based on someone's hallucinatory idea of a resemblance. Though understandably a little confusing with a favorite subject's initials. Gardiner may or may not be my real last name... I keep forgetting.

You mean like...

... don't BoGardiner that joint?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi