CorrenteCeci n'est pas une caption.
|
|
New Yorker's Ryan Lizza. Go read...
And report back? (No fair going with the early quotes, either; read to the end.)
... keep the heat on!
Subscribe to make a monthly payment and keep the hamsters who keep the mighty servers turning in kibble.
No PayPal Account required! Thank you!
Per capita health care spending (2007):
United States: $7290
Switzerland: $4417
France: $3601
United Kingdom: $2992
Average of OECD developed nations: $2964
Italy: $2686
Japan: $2581
-- Bob Somerby
The text of HR676 (Medicare For All) as PDF (30 pages). The FAQ. Compare HR3200 with HR676.
Medicare for All would save $350 billion a year (study in New England Journal of Medicine).
In 2003, a young Illinois state senator named Barack Obama told an AFL-CIO meeting, "I am a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program*." -- Bill Moyers.
* Medicare For All.
Pitchforks for sale!
Contact lambert_strether [dot] corrente [at] yahoo [dot] com (lambert strether) for all your pitchfork needs.
It's OK If You're A Republican. Believed to have originated in Atrios comments.
Front page
Comments
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
campaign -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13...
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:
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
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.
Go Global!
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:
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:
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
obama
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.
Go Global!
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....
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