Obama retaliates against the "New Yorker" magazine journalist???

@ladyluna (7004)
United States
July 21, 2008 3:15pm CST
Hello All, Is revenge bitter or sweet? Literary references have been mixed over the years. Perhaps we should ask Ryan Lizza, the journalist who wrote the highly controversial "New Yorker" article that featured the caricature of Michelle & Barack Obama on the cover. It would seem that Mr. Lizza "has been barred from traveling with Obama on his foreign field trip this week." [i]"More than 200 media folks applied to fly in Europe with the freshman senator. But, alas, the Obama campaign said it simply was not able to find a seat for Lizza. Now, that's Chicago politics. -- Andrew Malcolm"[/i] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-newyorker.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ [b]My questions for you are: What do you think about the new, retaliatory Obama? This sounds like politics as ususal, if you ask me. The only change I see is that this is actually being reported! So, does this mean that the honeymoon between the media and obama is hitting a rough patch? [/b]
3 people like this
8 responses
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
21 Jul 08
It's not really retaliation. If you look at Obama you'll see he only surrounds himself with people kiss his feet. Any journalists that accompany him will be the type to ask him powder puff questions like "Why are you so smart?" It's for that reason that most of his events are invitation only to keep out anyone who is not sure to fall in line and do what they're told. Lizza and the New Yorker have now shown that they won't kiss his feet and as such, they failed to make the "invitation only" trip.
4 people like this
@clrumfelt (5428)
• United States
22 Jul 08
This instance is typical of the kinds of things Obama is trying to do to shape his image. I have long believed, and still do, though everyone seems to think it is a nonissue at this point, that Obama is a militant Muslim with unthinkable plans for the USA if he is elected. As such he is working overtime to try and dispel that notion from people's minds, such as removing two Muslim women from the backdrop of supporters at one of his speeches. Since the New Yorker published its controversial cover last week, it is only reasonable that Obama would be giving him the cold shoulder. Does anyone besides me see a pattern here?
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Ladyluna, 1)This is the Obama I have been waiting for. As the pressure is turned up I believe he will get more and more retaliatory (perhaps some real pressure form Michelle) 2) Nah, the press is still in love with their "new born king" and will do anything they can to get him elected. Even the article you pointed to(or one of the links in the article) said it probably was unintentional! Will the true Barack Obama please stand up? He can't have it both ways where he is this "new breed" of politician and then when he deems it necessary revert to the practices of the last 40 years!
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Sir Rodney, Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Well, you're certainly right about the growing pressure between now and November. Hence, the reason why I keep referring to there being plenty of time for both candidates to continue to shoot themselves in the foot.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
21 Jul 08
What I am not understanding is we were told that the cover was simply a satirical look at us, those that have a negative view of Obama. I am still trying to figure out why Obama would be so mad at this. Obama seems to me at lest to becoming a political crybaby. I am not sure if we have ever witnessed a politician that acts so childish over everything. No I do not think the honeymoon has hit a rough patch, actually it will become closer over this. From now on the media will make sure that they coordinate with each other closer than. More puff peices, will be what they call the news. Just look at how they are covering Obama's trip to Iraq, compared to how they cover the trip McCain took. The media is doing its part to kiss and make up.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Gewcew, Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Hmmm ... becoming a political crybaby? As I recall, Sen. Obama's official campaign kicked off with a public declaration that his ears are off-limits, didn't it? Perhaps you're right. I read a story today that announced that one reporter and one photographer were at the airport when McCain's plane landed in New Hampshire. That pretty much says it all, eh?
1 person likes this
@djbtol (5498)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Beneath the phony smile, Obama is nasty. Although better at hiding his anger than Michelle, when someone challenges Obama he gets angry. The New Yorker cover is still in the news and has ratttled Obama's chain. Why is that? Because it contains more truth than satire. The cover says a lot about Obama and it is closer to the truth than most things that come out of his mouth. Toough luck Obama. Maybe America will learn who you are before the election. djbtol
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Hello Djbtol, I can only hope that you are right about America perhaps learning who Sen. Obama really is before it's too late. Though, I wonder, do you really believe that Obama is nasty, under a cool exterior? I haven't really thought too much about what his real temperament might be. Perhaps because this New Yorker retaliation is the first glimpse we've seen of his reaction to being scorned. I've long suspected that Michelle is a scrapper. Hard to imagine otherwise, since she hails from Chicago's South Side. Yet, I've not pondered how Obama might react if backed in a corner. Hmmmm, interesting!!!
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Oops! That should read 'backed into a corner'.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
26 Jul 08
Thank you Djbtol, for the very forthright follow-up. Your point makes solid sense to me. I have many times made the comment that it seems as thought Michelle has no filter between her brain and her lips. And, we all know what 'they' say about loose lips, right? "Loose lips sink ships." I guess that we can take some comfort knowing that Barry is better able to hold his tongue, eh? Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. He has slipped up quite a number of times during this campaign. So, I guess I'm left wondering: Will the American voter consiser slips of the tongue as a slip of hiding his real thoughts, beliefs, emotions, etc...???
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
21 Jul 08
I think Obama has to do some "retaliating" given all the trash that's being spewed about him, but that's just my opinion. I have no doubt the New Yorker cover was intended as satire but I don't think it was a wise move on their part if they indeed aren't out to hurt Obama because there are a lot of people who simply didn't "get" the satire and who certainly didn't or won't read the article inside. For what it's worth, I didn't read it myself, the New Yorker isn't one of the magazines I subscribe to but I have more than enough material to try to keep up on so I don't need anymore at this time! Of course, this is politics "as usual", some things will never change and nobody ever said Obama isn't a politician, just that he's a "different" kind of politician. It's no different than McCain badgering Obama about going to Iraq but once Obama makes plans for his trip McCain calls it a "photo-op", which, of course they're all photo-ops. When McCain went to Iraq some months ago and boasted how he could walk freely in the marketplace we weren't told of the helicopters flying overhead or the armed guards surrounding him, were we? Everyone will always read into every move a candidate makes or every word they or their surrogates say whatever they want to read into it. If there's one thing politics is not it's something people are objective about and I won't dispute that I'm every bit as guilty as the next person of not being objective! That does NOT mean I don't pay attention to the facts but just that I'm not as likely to fall for the right-wing spin as someone on the right would be. Annie
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Annie, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it! Barack Obama is no different than the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Clintons or any other politician you can think of or name! He preaches change on the primary trail (with no real substance I might add)and then when he believes it is all wrapped up begins pandering to the people he might have offended with his rhetoric like so, so many before him! New politician, not hardly!
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Annie, Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I agree that the New Yorker article was absolutely not helpful to Team Obama. As I've read it, McCain's objection to Obama's recent trip isn't that it's just a photo opportunity, rather it's based on Obama's having back-peddled from his statement that he would listen to the military leaders there, then adjust his withdrawal policy accordingly. Veering away from McCain's objection, I will add my own. Since this is a "fact finding" mission, his tab is probably paid for on our dime. I imagine that that also includes the security detail & prep, since Obama is using the Secret Service now. Earlier in the campaign he was using private security -- Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan's security personnell. Though, I read some months back that the Secret Service is now also providing security. To be honest, I'm not sure if the Secret Service is providing his full security cover, or if there's a public/private mix. Either way, if Obama was going to the war zone to sincerely re-shape his 16 month policy, based on the success of the surge, then I would be OK about footing the bill. Though, Sen. Obama made it perfectly clear that he would not deviate from the plan that he has been touting since before the surge. So, why bother? If he's only gone to the war zone because McCain shamed him into it, by publicly counting the # of days since Obama had been to Iraq, then why waste the taxpayer's hard-earned money? I have no compunction about lambasting the right for their transgressions, with the same vigor that I lambast the left. I don't really care what the party affiliation is, if our representatives are not doing the job we hire them to do, if they're abandoning the principles of our nation's founding, then I'll provide an equal opportunity critique. That, I believe, is the solemn duty of voter citizens. To render themselves impervious to any politician's spin. After all, "spin" is just a synonym for manipulative deception! On a final note, I do not see how anyone can still consider Sen. Obama a "different" kind of politician. What has he done that differentiates him from the rest of the pack? Please note that the emphasis is on the word done. He may spin a sequined message, but as we all know -- talk is cheap! What has he DONE that renders him deserving of this designation as "different"?
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Obama has been doing the "politics as usual" thing fall along. The only ones who were fooled are the liberals who somehow believe that saying the words is the same thing an doing the deed. I hope the honeymoon is over with the media. Perhaps they will start running the stories on Obama that they have been refusing to.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Hello Destiny, Yes, of course you're right. The media has been 'in the tank' almost from the beginning. Wolfowitz whined and moaned about this egregious bias when Hillary was getting the short end of the medias coverage. Now, the same practice has simply been shifted from Hillary being ignored to McCain being ignored. I'm hoping that the fact that the media is prohibitied from many of the stops on Obama's 'fact finding' mission, that they'll get ticked off enough about being 'excluded' that they'll take it out on Obama. Which would definitely signal an end to the honeymoon. I remain optimisic anyway!
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
22 Jul 08
I think it's insane that the media is following Obama everywhere on this trip. It just shows how much they love him and want him elected. Since most of the newspapers in the US are media groups and earned by big companies or rich folks, that's a bit scary. I wonder what he has promised them?
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Kenzie, I share your sincere concern that this is absolutely insane. Hmmm, the question of possible promises is an interesting one. I have no answers for you Kenzie.
• United States
22 Jul 08
Yes you are rigt. More tahn 200 reporters from all over applied, but only 40 reporters got to go. This means almost 4 out of every 5 were turned down why does this suprise you that he was one? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate. Then again, special treatment for unfavorable coverage doesn't make much sense either.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Hello Danimalhite, You appear to be missing my point. That point being that IF Team Obama believed that the cartoon was a sincere expose of how silly it is to believe that Sen. Obama is an anti-American, radicalized, revolutionary, as was publicly declared then Sen. Obama would have to neither punish nor reward the New Yorker and it's staff. IF Obama really believed the satire excuse, then the New Yorker, touted as one of the most sophisticated periodicals on the planet, would most certainly have continued to have had reserved seating on the Obama bus, plane, train, or covered wagon. The New Yorker represents that group of people who have offered the greatest support of Sen. Obama. To 'snub' the New Yorker is a real gamble. If the New Yorker began to cover Obama in a realistic light, the NYT, LAT, CT, etc ... would soon follow -- because their are few periodicals that the left-wing media revere, though the New Yorker is high on that short list! Do you see what I mean? If the satire excuse was believable then it wouldn't be considered "unfavorable coverage". This indicates that Team Obama believes that the perception of him as a anti-American, radicalized, revolutionary has staying power, and I'm certain that Team Obama fears that!
• United States
23 Jul 08
I think there were 40 seats on this plane. So this mean that there were probably about 20 legacy seats. I don't harldy think the New Yorker would be at the top of my list. I wonder how many newspaper reporters were on their in comparison to Tv and camara men. Clinton banned Amy goodman from the White House because he did not like her questions. Pres. Bush gave Jeff Gannon free access to the White House becasue of his over friendly coverage. so this is not the fisrt time we have seen this. As far as the New Yorker if it were not because of Seymour Hersh the magazine would not be worth the paper. The cover was not satire if the reader is forced to read the whole article to understand the satire then it is no longer satire. Plus Lizza articles are long and take a while to write. Obama wanted immediate coverage of this trip. This was just an attempt to sell a record amount of magasines and it worked. just remember it is alright to rock the boat but don't be suprised when you aren't let back on.