July 16, 2008
Chuckling over The New Yorker
I would be happier with the idea that the New Yorker’s cover was satirical, as editor David Remnick claimed, if it was funny. Isn’t satire supposed to be funny? (Jeffrey Goldberg alerts me to the fact that an editorial writer at the New York Sun chuckled over it for several minutes. I didn’t chuckle even for a moment. It wasn’t that I was offended. I was just puzzled. What am I supposed to make of this, I wondered?)
Imagine the cartoon were not on the cover of the New Yorker. Most people, I think, would then read it not as reducing a certain idiotic view of Barack Obama and his wife to a comical absurdity, but as expressing that idiotic view with caricatural emphasis. Would it have been satirical (in the sense David Remnick means) on the cover of National Review? At best, without a caption or headline to send the image up, its meaning is unclear: it is a joke without a punchline, and just doesn’t work (except, of course, as a way to get people talking about the magazine).
Obama rightly made light of it. He called it (I’m paraphrasing) an attempt at satire that failed. That is exactly what it was.
Is there a chance that as President, Obama may ban all humor that satirizes him?
In a week that saw Obama sinking like a rock in the polls, and roundly criticized for his poor decision making ability regarding the troop surge in Iraq, the press has given its full efforts to attacking a cartoon.
Sen. Obama has been brilliant at his PR game (with a legion of paid and unpaid assistance). If only our media would look at the issues, he would have been out of the race after Iowa.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm | Report this commentI think you’ve got it quite wrong here, Clive Crook.
The New Yorker is famous for its humor, and it is a humor not to everyone’s taste.
It is stylish and sophisticated, sometimes bordering on a bit vague, almost ethereal.
But this cartoon does not fit that pattern at all.
It is, if anything, a bit like a political version of what one might expect from Mad Magazine, over the top, poking you right in the eye, and rather teenagerish in tone.
The fact that it does not fit the pattern should tell us something.
The New Yorker cover is definitely making a statement, thinly disguised as humor.
And I believe Obama’s campaign is right to object. The cartoon is very much on the level of 1860’s newspaper cartoons in America portraying Lincoln as an obscene ape. It throws into one document every cheap shot taken at Obama during the primaries, including Romney’s unpleasant trick of repeatedly referring to Obama as Osama.
I know some very intelligent people work for The New Yorker, so awkward things like this do not happen by mistake.
Just imagine a cartoon of Bush in a Nazi uniform.
A cartoon of that nature would actually have far more historical basis - both in regard to Bush’s own actions at home and abroad and to the behavior of his rotten grandfather who traded with the Nazis - but I think it fair to say that there would be a firestorm over it.
The problem with this cartoon is that it superficially represents a satire on Obama’s name-callers, but it really is exploiting the opportunity for other purposes, a version of the old adage about having your cake and eating it too.
I suspect, but of course do not know, that the New Yorker is appealing to the prejudices of a sizeable segment of its large Jewish readership in New York.
It is a pity, but there is definitely a prejudice running through that community concerning Obama and Israel. And, of course, something of which British readers will not be aware, there is an old and traditional enmity between large parts of the black and Jewish communities in the U.S., quite nasty at times.
Those concerned about Obama in this regard would likely rather have candidates who shout about incinerating a nation.
I do believe Hillary’s near insane remark during the primaries about incinerating Iran was aimed at this community and its financial backing when her campaign was running on empty. There really is no other explanation for her bizarre outburst.
This is all dangerous and nasty stuff.
I also find it objectionable to drag the candidate’s wife into scorn the way this cartoon does. As one lamentable commentator, Oliver Kamm, wrote, “…where [Michelle Obama} stands politically [is a] matter of public interest…”
This uninformed statement was justified on the basis of the vicious assaults made on Mrs. Clinton during her husband’s presidency. The brutal stupidity of that speaks for itself.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | July 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Report this comment“Is there a chance that as President, Obama may ban all humor that satirizes him?”
Sorry, John Powers, it just doesn’t get dumber than that.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | July 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Report this commentThe New Yorker cartoon was simply a partly sophisticated and partly crude attempt to satirize the anti-Obama smears that failed, because too many Americans outside of Manhattan’s Upper West Side (where I happen to live) and, perhaps, San Francisco, are likely to take it seriously.
Posted by: algasema | July 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, I would say Obama took this idiotic insult very graciously. What in God’s name are you talking about?
Posted by: Sade | July 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentGiven that Sen. Obama’s proxies in the press hammer away at any criticism of his campaign and personality, I think it is safe to say that there is censorship going on today.
As the NY Times quoted a comedy writer
“The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way,” “He’s not a comical figure,”
A big eared, cigarette smoker yammering on about Reinhold Niebuhr while trying to protect his South Side neighbors from the evils of Wal-Mart sounds fairly ripe for comedy.
As a comedy writer (approximately as Roger typed) said last night on Chicago Tonight (PBS), the funny part is the reaction arrogant people have that “too many Americans outside of Manhattan’s Upper West Side (where I happen to live) and, perhaps, San Francisco, are likely to take it seriously”.
We must take proper care that the Great Unwashed do not see the New Yorker, I suppose.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm | Report this comment“We must take proper care that the Great Unwashed do not see the New Yorker, I suppose.”
Dumb comment after dumb comment.
No one has said anything like this - no one - except you.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | July 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentLet me be the first then.
Who knows what people in Kentucky might think if they saw this? He might get defeated in a landslide, like he did 2 months ago.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, does this latest post mean that you take the New Yorker cartoon seriously? If so, would you be kind enough to share your zip code with the rest of us, washed or otherwise, so we will have some idea where you live?
Posted by: algasema | July 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, I would also like you street address and apartment number if thats not to much trouble for you? Oh and are you alergic to anything? Whats your greatest fear?
Posted by: Sade | July 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pm | Report this comment“I also find it objectionable to drag the candidate’s wife into scorn the way this cartoon does.”
And why do you find it so objectionable, Mr. Chuckman? Aren’t you aware that the First Lady has traditionally represented the US, albeit to a much lesser extent than her husband? (I say “her” because we’ve not yet had a female president) If she’s living with her husband in the White House, hosting events there, or travelling with the President to affairs around the world, she’s representing our country. As such, any candidate’s spouse ought to be subjected to public scrutiny. I can understand many politicians’ pleas to “leave my spouse alone,” but that’s the way it is. If your spouse can’t withstand public scrutiny, then stay out of politics.
Posted by: DW, US | July 16th, 2008 at 8:16 pm | Report this commentPosted by Sade: “John Powers, I would also like you [sic] street address and apartment number if thats not to much trouble for you? Oh and are you alergic to anything? Whats your greatest fear?”
I’ll hazard a guess here: JP’s greatest fear is likely an Obama presidency. In truth, this is probably most Americans’ fear as well (we’ll find out in November). I’d also venture to suggest that JP has a healthy fear of Obama’s supporters who (like many amateur terrorists) can be found issuing veiled threats on online forums and going by the name “Sade.” Kinda gives me the willies, actually…
I’m afraid I can’t help you out in terms of an actual address…
Posted by: DW, US | July 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Report this commentLooking at the cover I was incredulous, examined Obama, his wife, got a smile out of Osama’s portrait above the fireplace and then saw the burning flag and it clicked: lol.
What was your take ?
Posted by: Hans Suter | July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 pm | Report this comment[…] Evidence that the opinion of Clive Crook is:No “An attempt at satire that failed.”From FT.com: […]
Posted by: Clive Crook - Is the New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama effective satire? | July 16th, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Report this commentMr. Powers,
You obviously are not hip to the New Yorker. For decades it has posted mysterious, ambiguously humorous covers with no explanation and mysterious, ambiguously intelligent cartoons with no explanation. Anyone who is familiar with American culture knows this. For example there was a scene on the satirical American TV show “Family Guy” where a character is shown a New Yorker cartoon. He freezes and stares intensely at it, days pass, and then he finally says: “Oh, I get it. Heh, that’s kinda funny.” He then walks away.
Posted by: Charles Frederick | July 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm | Report this commentI think for most of us, the “New Yorker” cartoon cover doesn’t work as satire because it simply isn’t funny. Had it been something along the line of Obama the South Chicago Pol now presenting himself as an “agent of change,” a la old Thomas Nast cartoons, it probably would have worked. This cartoon seems to have no real point as satire.
As far as such satire goes, the Obamas brought it on themselves. The flag burning in the fireplace? Obama himself would not wear a flag pin for a long time, and many of us have seen the video where the other Dem candidates were holding their hands over their hearts during the rendition of the National Anthem, while Obama did not. That seems to me fair game for either satire or political criticism.
And Michelle–well, she is the one who said that when her husband was a candidate for president, it was the first time she was proud of this nation (I know, she explained it all away–wouldn’t you?). Public statements like that make her fair game also.
John Chuckman–Regarding three of your statements:
It may be objectionable to you to drag the candidate’s wife into this, but she injected herself with her statements at rallies, etc. If a candidate’s wife does not wish to be lampooned or politically attacked, she had best watch very carefully what she says, or say nothing at all.
There is not an “old and traditional enmity in the US between large parts of the black and Jewish communities.” The Jewish community was one of the strongest supporters of black civil rights before, during and after the 1960s Civil Rights movement. There is increasing enmity over the last two to three decades between the two groups. This is a result of continued US Jewish support for Israel, during a time the Muslim religion has made considerable inroads into the US black community. As well, many in the black community, for various reasons, are now identifying to one extent or the other with the Palestinians and others who are anti-Israel. But this is a fairly recent phenomenon, as history goes.
Your comment that a cartoon of George Bush in a Nazi uniform would have more basis in fact due to George Bush’s actions at home and abroad is just plain stupid. That remark seems to indicate that you are in reality simply a rabid, carpet-chewing leftist. Any rational person who has any concept of history knows and understands that nothing George Bush has done anywhere approximates to any degree the horror of the Nazis and their practices in the time period just before, and then after, they took command of Germany.
Posted by: Terry L. Walker | July 16th, 2008 at 10:54 pm | Report this comment(intended text…)
To determine the rationale for the cover, one might begin by reading Hendrik Hertzberg’s editorial:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/21/080721taco_talk_hertzberg
Encomium it is not.
Another clue to the subtext of the cover might be Eustace Tilley, the New Yorker’s venerable mascot. Tilley a raffish sophistiqué is seen holding some object or other under close scrutiny–in this case, yet another self-serving politico on the make. Obama, a facile, even unctuous character, got his over-weening ambitions tweaked by Tilley. Hollow men, who bellow often but mean less do not fare well on Tilley’s watch (McCain lies, no doubt, somewhere beneath Tilley’s contempt).
And, editor Remnick stated: “The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas….That’s part of what we do.” The key might be found in Remnick’s coda , i.e., “PART of the reason we did this is…”.
Said another way: We will satirize what is patently false, but the net effect of the entire matter–i.e., once we dismiss their clownish garb–will be to establish a saner, more accurate image of what is, ultimately, mediocre at best, and insidious at the other extreme.
The New Yorker has been at this since 1925; they know what they are about.
One can be damned with faint praise; one can also be damned by faint satire.
Posted by: Dean Taylor | July 17th, 2008 at 2:24 am | Report this commentLets see,
New Yorker cartoon wasn’t very funny, like most of the stuff in that magazine.
I am in generally unwashed Chicago, where the just is that Sen. Obama is an incompetent swindler (like the rest of our politicians) who will be able to direct a lot of pork to the City, so he gains huge voting margins here (Cook County alone gave Obama a 700,000 vote margin around 15x Obamas total popular vote margin nationwide).
I, for one, am worn out paying tribute to the incompetent swindlers who run Chicago, Cook County and the State of Illinois (and its serial incarcerated governors). Placing this crew of pirates in command of the United States seems likes a grave punishment for the poor performance of our media.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 17th, 2008 at 2:42 am | Report this commentIs it really that hard to look up the definition of the word satire?
Posted by: James Soper | July 17th, 2008 at 4:34 am | Report this commenthttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asatire&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Seriously, stop calling yourself a journalist.
People,
This picture was great. I thought it was hilarious. Lighten up people, have no worries all you Obama-fans your guy will be the next POTUS. Good luck with him.
Posted by: brian | July 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Report this commentSatire- A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. Humour is often used to aid this
Posted by: Sade | July 17th, 2008 at 2:17 pm | Report this commenten.wiktionary.org/wiki/satire
I’m going to admit it I’m still young. In fact I’ve only been “politically aware” through the Clinton and Bush II administrations. So maybe I dont have as much experience in detecting phony politicians. I am aware that Chicago has been a cess pool of corruption since atleast the Al Capone days. Over the past few elections I have however paid attention and noticed bad qualities in many candidates like Mitt Romney for example, thats guys a jerk.Then you have Bush II, who has an IQ of 91, which is about 35 points lower than that of my own. I’ll even admit Kerry as a bufoon When I look at Obama I see a smart, honest guy. He got my vote in the primary and he’s going to get it in the gernal election, but if I help elect him into office and he turns into as much of a careless baboon as the last guy, I’m switching to a 3rd party, and voting 3rd party for the rest of my life, if Obama disappoints me I give up on America.
Posted by: Sade | July 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentI guess I’ll be proper like everyone else and correct my self
Posted by: Sade | July 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Report this comment“gernal”= “general”, sorry guys.
Honest guys do not ask Tony Rezko to help them buy their house, then endorse Rod Blagojevich who then hires Rezko’s CFO to be in charge of economic development in Ilinois.
Honest guys do not send their kids to private school while claiming that the wretched public schools are good enough for the rest of the neighborhood.
Honest guys do not endorse (literally) brain dead candidates (John Stroger) then anoint a hereditary heir (Todd Stroger) when the initial candidate passes on.
Politicians from one of the most corrupt counties in the United States are expected to behave like 19th century ward-bosses, which I can and do live with. However, we should expect better from the leader of the United States than we do from a run-of-the-mill Cook County politician.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Report this commentWith all due respect Mr Powers. A presidential candidates kids in a public school sounds like a bad idea, a distraction if you will.
Posted by: Sade | July 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this commentSade,
Sure enough.
But it must be more distracting to see ones neighbor’s children fail due at least in part to the prison-feeder public schools on the South Side of Chicago.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Report this comment“I, for one, am worn out paying tribute to the incompetent swindlers who run Chicago, Cook County and the State of Illinois (and its serial incarcerated governors).”
JBP
Wow! Where to start?
How did the subject of The New Yorker cover get to Chicago?
Oh yes, accusations that because his base was in Chicago, Mr. Obama must be corrupt.
Let’s take a look … so much in just one sentence.
‘Paying tribute’ by whom? Are you tired of giving praise, or are you referring to others doing so?
‘Incompetent swindlers’ … does this expression mean that Mr. Obama, and the people who, ‘run Chicago, Cook County and the State of Illinois’ are incompetent at their proper jobs, or that they are unable to swindle properly?
“Serial incarcerated governors” … tut, tut!
George Ryan, Republican, [in office, 1999–2003] began serving a prison sentence of six years and six months November 7, 2007.
James Edgar, also a Republican, [in office, 1991–1999] Ryan’s predecessor, was involved in a scandal concerning Management Systems of Illinois (MSI). Though others were indicted, convicted and jailed, Edgar was never indicted.
James Thompson, Edgar’s predecessor, also a Republican, [in office, 1977–1991] was never indicted, or even accused of, any crime in office.
Daniel Walker, Thompson’s predecessor, a Democrat, [in office, 1973–1977] was indicted, convicted in a scandal involving a Savings and Loan association. Though given a sentence of seven years, he only served 18 months.
It is worth noting that Walker was elected as a fierce opponent of the ‘Chicago Machine’. Was his indictment and conviction a matter of revenge by the ‘old machine’? At any rate …
No series.
No party monopoly on corruption.
No party monopoly on virtue.
If it is any consolation, I too am sick of corrupt politics, I just think it is more widespread than you seem to. And, I am sick of the sneering attitude towards Chicago, and Illinois, assumed in the national and international media. The real pros in corruption are in Washington, DC.
I thought the New Yorker cover was neither satirical nor funny.
An old Chicagoan … with help from Wikipedia.
Posted by: J Llewellyn | July 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm | Report this commentJL,
Nonsense, you forgot Otto Kerner, who Jim Thompson put in jail over some racetrack irregularities.
I will put the corruption of Cook County and Chicago up against any other political body in the country. Who can challenge a city where the chief of detectives of the CPD is running an Outfit-backed jewelry-heist ring? Where a contractor at the City’s 911 center “forgot” to install a backup generator? Where postmen are routinely bribed to quit “losing” the mail?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 17th, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentThe New Yorker cover said everything the far-right could want to say. Whether this was meant as satire or not won’t matter. It’s been splattered across news pages up and down the US and abroad: and it’s an image that will stick in people’s minds. Forget the high-brow (?) readership of the New Yorker, this has gone deep into the other side’s camp, reinforcing their desired image (and maybe convertibg quite a few more on the way).
Satirical? Stupid, more like.
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | July 17th, 2008 at 6:47 pm | Report this commentPhew that’s a great number of comments on what is after all, merely a magazine cover. I would like to ask whether Clive Cook has read the article inside the magazine recounting the rise of Mr. Obama through the ranks of Chicago politics. It paints an image which matches my impression of him: ruthless, naked ambition which could teach the Clintons a lesson or two. It bears no relation to the cover, but how any American can vote for that false prophet if beyond me.
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | July 17th, 2008 at 7:10 pm | Report this commentDerek Tunicliffe is right. He has described the reality of what people will think about this unfortunate cartoon, which was clearly meant to help Obama but may wind up having hurt him more than a hundred swift boat ads or Jeremiah Wright speeches.
An example is Elisabeth Schumann’s comment calling Obama a “false prophet”. Exactly what is that supposed to mean?
Re John Powers’ comment, I mean no disrespect to Chicago, even though I am one of those arrogant New York liberals he mentions.
My first wife was from the North Shore, we were married (in the early 1960’s) at a well known Michigan Avenue hotel, and my then father - in- law, whose politics were so far to the right that JBP, I am sure, would have seemed like one of us New York lefties by comparison, ran a cattle brokerage firm at the old Chicago stockyards that had been founded in the 19th century.
My in-laws constantly warned me never to go near Chicago’s South Side. They claimed that the African-American community was in danger of being stirred up to violence by an allegedly demagogic preacher who supposedly hated whites, someone by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Tout ca change…
Posted by: algasema | July 17th, 2008 at 8:13 pm | Report this commentRoger,
Given that the South Side was and is incredibly violent, I would say your in-law’s advice was pretty good, if a bit off the mark on the mission of Dr. King.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pm | Report this commentTo change the subject somewhat, in the hope that this comment will still be relevant despite its lack of reference to any cartoon, does it mean nothing that George W. Bush is now sending an envoy to explore the possibility of having the same kind of dialogue with Iran that Barack Obama was so vigorously denounced for daring to suggest?
Is this not yet another example of Obama’s so called “lack of experience” being a virtue, rather than a demerit? There are certain kinds of “experience” that America can well do without. The McBush/McCheney variety should be high on the list.
Posted by: algasema | July 17th, 2008 at 11:34 pm | Report this commentAre you from chicago or wisconsin?
Posted by: Sade | July 18th, 2008 at 12:12 am | Report this commentJohn Powers is from Chicago for everyones information.
Posted by: Sade | July 18th, 2008 at 12:15 am | Report this commentIn answer to Sade’s question, I won’t attempt to bore anyone by describing a trip to Madison I once made with my erstwhile in- laws from Chicago (deceased these many years) tagging along to protect me from all the “Commies” at the University of Wisconsin.
In those days we had to watch out to make sure that the “Reds” didn’t take over the country. Today, we have to worry about the “terrorists” who may be living next door, not to mention the “Muslim” who may become our next president (if America comes to its senses after eight years of quasi - dictatorship under McBush/McCheney).
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 2:29 am | Report this commentPersonally, I liked it. But, I can understand why people are divided and why some are even confused.
Many Bush/McSame right-wingers won’t like it or “get it”, because they’re the object of satire. On this cover is the image right-wing radio talking heads (and their idolaters) have created in their heads. The cover doesn’t satirize the Obamas. It satires these right-wingers.
If you’re a left-winger, libertarian, or anti-Bush/neocon conservative and don’t “get it”, then (a) on the one hand, be thankful you don’t interact enough with the “dittoheads” who drone on about flag pins (as a way to say “traitor” without saying it) or insisting that he’s a Muslim but (b) on the other hand, if you lack that interaction with dittoheads then you underestimate how serious this country’s problems are. One election will not solve our problems. This is a democracy and Bush really does reflect his supporters’ own personal shortcomings.
Posted by: wunsacon | July 18th, 2008 at 2:45 am | Report this commentMr. Algasema’s knowledge of the Bible is as poor as his knowledge of French idioms. See the following verses: Matthew, 7:15 -23 . And it’s: “Plus ça change …”. If you’d rather I used a political term, I mean shameless demagogue.
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | July 18th, 2008 at 3:43 am | Report this commentElizabeth Schumann, my keyboard doesn’t have French symbols. Otherwise, I would have been able to to write the cedille underneath the “c” in “ca”. However, you are absolutely right that I should have written “Plus ca change”… My apologies for this awful gaffe. There is no excuse for misstating an idiom I have known for more than fifty years.
I am surprised, however, that you would think that my reference to your comment about a “false prophet” had anything to do with the Bible, given the context of the cartoon we have been discussing, which, as you are well aware, deals with a different religion in which the Prophet plays a rather important role.
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am | Report this commentI must also hasten to add that I am not suggesting for a moment that Elizabeth Schumann’s calling Senator Obama a “false prophet” implied any disrespect on her part toward the man whom Muslims revere as the Messenger of God.
Islam recognizes many prophets before the Prophet Mohammed, including many who are also mentioned in the Bible. Quite simply, I thought that by using the word “prophet” to describe Senator Obama, Ms. Schumann was alluding to the subject of the cartoon, namely his supposed identity as a Muslim.
Clearly, I misunderstood her comment completely. Tant pix pour moi.
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 8:46 am | Report this commentI understand that the Editors of the New York are claming “BIlls & Jesse’s Monsters of the ID” made them do it. The New Yorker was on hard times they need a pick me up. So what better way to get every buddies attention then doing a “Nice Cover”. It is the talk of the world. In fact I am sure on Obama’ “tour of Europe with the “MEDIA ELITES” in tow it will be a topic will come up again. But I see this trip as his “Waterloo” I wonder how many reporters covered Neville Chamberlain’s trip.
Obama = Neville Chamberlain = Appeasement = terrorists win and we die
VJ Machiavelli
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | July 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am | Report this commenthttp://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
I agree that the New Yorker cartoon is a sophisticated and complex piece of humour.
But I would interpret it rather differently. There is an element of racism in New Yorks liberal elite. They support equal rights and minorities in principal, but, are deeply uneasy when they encounter blacks and hisapanics in person.
So how to have your cake and eat it. Just “quote” the openly racist views of some “unsophisticated” Southerners and pretend to condem it.
Posted by: James Anderson | July 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am | Report this comment