Senator Obama’s appearance on Larry King Live last night may finally put an end to the ructions caused by The New Yorker’s recent homage to Mad Magazine.
One could argue that the Obama campaign used the controversy over the offensive, albeit technically well-executed, cover as a pretext to get their man some free, national, prime-time exposure. If that was indeed the devious plan, then they pulled it off quite successfully.
His appearance provided him with an opportunity to methodically criticize Senator McCain, to talk about another stimulus package, to continue his efforts to link any discussion of Iraq with a discussion of Afghanistan (arguing that recent difficulties in the latter are inextricably bound with the strains caused by our commitments to the former) -- and, mostly, to again assure voters that his religion is Christianity.
He came across as the image of an enlightened citizen in an advanced democracy. Sure, it offended him personally. But he’s seen worse and, after all, it’s a free country.
“In attempting to satirize something,” Obama noted, “they [The New Yorker] probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead.” Stressing that he was a Christian, he made the appropriate gesture to Muslim-Americans pointing out that the cover fed on anti-Islamic stereotypes. As he often does in such settings, he exhibited grace acknowledging that he had sometimes been “derelict” himself in drawing attention to such stereotypes.
So as far as the Senator from Illinois is concerned, the case is closed. For me, the question that remains might be phrased as follows: Why are so many obstacles to Obama’s presidential dream emerging from those Liberal people and institutions that claim to support, and even admire, him?
Such was the case with Reverend Wright. Such was the case with Reverend Jackson. And such was the case with The New Yorker (whose months of I-can’t-hear-you-Gramercy-Park! boosterism for Obama could have merited its own Larry King special devoted to the subject of elite media bias).
In a spirited video discussion, Sally Quinn and I explore some possible explanations for a form of self-destructive liberal/Left pathology that has emerged from somewhere in the turbulent psyche of Progressive America.
No definitive answers emerge, but I would call attention to the actual New Yorker article underneath the widely discussed cover. In Ryan Lizza’s piece about Obama’s Chicago days, an image emerges not of a Christ-like Liberal messiah, but a savvy, self-interested, political operator. No more or no less than any other politician, but an operator nonetheless. And a good one at that!
Some on the Left demand the Christ-like Messiah -- their version of it, of course. Perhaps this accounts for the difficulties they have created, whether intentionally or not, for a candidate whose goals are less lofty and more realistic.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>