Barack Obama tries to repair a PR blunder, but 2 days too late

He's been a quick learner. But it's too late this time for the Democrat who wants to move into the White House next January. And then get his kids a dog.

As our Swamp colleagues report, Barack Obama finally commented last night on the highly controversial cover of this week's New Yorker magazine. And he said all the right things. But he was about 54 hours tardy.

Sunday, as soon as the elitist magazine released its provocative cartoon cover, Obama declined to comment, not wanting to elevate it to something important enough for a candidate to speak about. Fine. But, as The Ticket promptly reported here, advisors still sent out his communications director, Bill Burton, to denounce it:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

The McCain campaign immediately (and ultimately self-servingly) issued a similar statement quoting Tucker Bounds as saying: "We completely agree with the Obama campaign. It's tasteless and offensive."

The cover of this week's New Yorker magazine depicts Obama in one-piece Muslim garb and headdress fist-bumping his booted, Afro-wearing wife Michelle in camo clothes with an AK-47 and ammo-belt slung over her shoulder beneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden while the American flag burns in the fireplace -- in the presidential Oval Office. Other than that, nothing particularly ...

... incendiary in an election year full of rumors about the freshman senator's little-known past.

The cartoon has every detail that an intellectual magazine would think makes perfectly obvious over-the-top satire. And every detail that the Obama campaign would like the world not to think about or associate with its guy.

Denouncing it Sunday was an instinctive act. Genuine, to be sure. But really dumb damage control.

It was a huge PR mistake by a campaign that doesn't make many. The denunciations by both presidential campaigns accomplished one thing: They pushed a simple cartoon to the top of most-searched terms online and the top of the news lists of countless online sites, commentators, cable news shows, commentators and network TV newscasts for more than two days. No doubt it also helped the bottom line, boosting New Yorker single-copy sales this week.

Worse, the coverage of the strong reactions understandably made many curious to see what the fuss was about.

But think a minute. If the cover is so tasteless and offensive, why purposely call it to the attention of millions of Americans with a strong denunciation on an otherwise slow news Sunday afternoon? It turned a mere magazine cover that the Obama campaign would rather no one see into a must-see for millions. Say, the magazine prints a million copies. A million covers. But there are nearly 305 million Americans.

But as a result of the campaign-induced uproar, that image has now been reproduced and received countless millions more voter impressions than the magazine itself could ever dream of. It's been viewed hundreds of thousands of times already just on this blog. And, by the way, what was the Obama campaign doing calling the magazine, trying to get an apology, or intimidate someone?

Consult Public Relations Rule No. 3, maybe even 2.  Even gangsters know this, which is why they don't sue newspapers for calling them gangsters. Who wants a nice long libel trial with people arguing over your alleged gangsterdom? Even if you win, you lose.

Ignoring the magazine would have been ideal. But if that's not possible, what if Burton had made himself available -- that's not hard to do with reporters circling like hawks -- and waited for the inevitable New Yorker question and said something like, "C'mon, guys. It's a magazine cover, for Pete's sake. A cartoon. They think it's satire. It's a free country. It's sure not funny. We think there are far more important issues to put on the cover of a magazine, like the looming mortgage crisis that the Bush administration and its McCain cronies have ignored so long."

That dismissal and redirection would have made it hard for the McCain folks to point it out because they'd also be calling attention to their Bush connections.

Without an explosive response, that magazine cover story would have been a minor one-day story in far fewer places than it was. In fact, even assuming the McCain camp's denunciation was genuine, both campaigns joining in added more gasoline to the fire, which to be honest doesn't exactly hurt McCain's cause. It sure got all the chatter off the Phil Gramm whiner stuff quickly, an Obama gift to the GOP.

We're now in Day Three of discussing the magazine cover that Obama didn't want many to see.

So, last night on "Larry King Live," right out of the box before asking about Obama's main message, his big Iraq speech, old Larry goes right to the top issue: "We welcome to 'Larry King Live' Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. He made a major foreign policy address today in Washington. We'll get to that in a moment.

"But I've heard a lot of others comment on it. We haven't heard you speak about it yet. That New Yorker cover which depicts you and your wife, and you dressed in a Muslim outfit, your wife in a kind of military outfit, Osama bin Laden's picture burning [sic], what do you make of that?"

And Obama calmly replied: "Well, I know it was the New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It's a cartoon, Larry, and that's why we've got the 1st Amendment. 

"And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it."

Smart stuff. Too late.

Imagine what else we might all be talking about this morning if that had been the campaign's opening response Sunday.

-- Andrew Malcolm

(By the way, no one's talking about it much, but here's the actual article on Obama's early political days in Chicago that goes with the controversial cover. Warning: It's very long.)

Comments

[Joe]

It's hardly a PR Blunder, more like a weak response to an obvious magazine smear cover.

Obama didn't feel the need to harshly criticize it, even though it's an obvious smear, which is peculiar when even his campaign criticized it and other republicans did as well, which demonstrates that he's not nearly as ready to fight the smears as he would like people to believe.

And how can you think that if he had just given his current response on Sunday that the cover wouldn't have attracted any attention?

Because the fact of the matter is that most Obama supporters were already furious Sunday and most Conservatives were elated about the cover, so whether or not the Obama campaign criticized it, it was going to be talked about for quite some time.

[Dick Schladen]

At least he has the humility to make this correction. The arrogant fool that is in the White House never admits mistakes and Bush III won't apologize because he is a warrior.

[Scottm]

The dumming down of America raises it's ugly head. This time instituted by the elite. He is a Harvard graduate, a well documented liberal and yet shows a clear distain for free speech.

This is the most repressive campaign in recent history. Virtually eveything about Obama and his wife are off limits.

As a white American i do hve the right to question whether ther is any hidden animosity. I have the right to be concerned about the multiple abandonment of his father and step father. I do have the right to question his relationships with many radicals.

Like it or not race is an issue. Electing a president is a serious undertaking. I will not be manipulated into a corner. If he can't stand the hard questions it is proof in itself that he is not the right choice.

Let's have some really open dialogue about the elephant in the room and stop this charade.

[Belle]

Aren't you, my dear Andrew, a bit late yourself? Slow news day, is it? OK, move on. Nothing to see here.

[dan Lee]

What I have observed is that since the Obama camp incorporated the Clinton team things aren't going so well anymore. Maybe he should have left that gift outside the gates.

[Nora Tocus]

Was I reading the Los Angeles Times here, or listening to FOX News? The New Yorker is "an elitist magazine"--- what does that mean? When you pick up a copy at the newsstand, they tell you to put it back? Literacy is required? And "...rumors about the freshman senator's little-known past"? Little-known perhaps to the Mirity-tapuya people of the Brazilian Rain Forest, but not to any American who has remained conscious during the past year. These constant comments that the American public doesn't yet know much about Obama are carefully designed to hint that his past is sinister and that, once the truth is known, we will all vote Republican. LA Times, don't hold your breath about that.

[Jim Pugh]

I'm not sure how a big blunder this really is - regardless of how offensive or inoffensive people found this cartoon, is it really going to change anyone's mind about which candidate they support? My impression is that it's really much ado about nothing, and you can't make too big of a blunder on a non-issue.

[Timothy Cleaveland]

Why are so many serious people so sick of what passes for journalism today?

This article is a good example of why the political process in the US is so dysfunctional-- and why readers are so often sick to their stomachs. Instead of an examination of a serious issue, we get a pundit criticizing a candidate for not accurately guessing how major-media pundits would play a stupid cartoon that a magazine published in order to focus attention on itself.

The pundit in question complains that the candidate should have known that major-media pundits are morons who only address shallow issues of 'controversy' that provide good pictures. The candidate should have therefore better played this moronic game.

Is there any wonder why average people who mainly consume this major-media trash are so ignorant about important issues? No.

[Ron Tuttle]

Why is what too late? The exceedingly tasteless and offensive cover did what it was supposed to do; sell magazines by stirring up right-wing racist hatred. As one can easily see by the comments, it did did just that and no one can convince me that that was not the intention.

[Brian Delaney]

This wasn't a blunder at all. The magazine cover is making fun of all the ridiculous rumors about Obama. Because they are just rumors from ridiculous sources, Obama cannot dignify them with a response, but the magazine cover gives the campaign the opportunity to denounce these ideas and thereby take the wind out of them. Now, if someone whispers to someone else, "Have you heard Obama is a secret Muslim trying to destroy America?" that person may be likely to respond, "You sound just like that ridiculous New Yorker cover!" Having the campaign bring people's attention to it, calling it offensive and ridiculous, then the actual candidate acting like it really isn't important (because you don't want to seem petty): a pretty good strategy here.

[michmac]

I don't think anything Obama camp could do would help themselves, it was going viral no matter what they said

[TL]

It does not appear that Obama is able to surround himself with staffers and supporters who can handle being tortured by the media, much less handle being tortured for years by a real foe like the VietCong. Can we please vote for National Leadership that can?

[Kathy G]

I am not going to fault anyone for thinking before responding to something so obviously aimed at provoking a knee-jerk response. I wish that more public figures would exhibit similiar restraint.

[Bob Scofield]

Is this blog a joke? Particularly this line... "Other than that, nothing particularly incendiary in an election year full of rumors about the freshman senator's little-known past." Not incendiary? Don't you think the cover might be offensive to African Americans and Muslims? "Little-known past?" Are you a moron? Barack Obama is only 46 years old and he has not one, but two autobiographies in print, which describe in painfully excruciating detail not only his life from conception through his first year in the Senate, but the lives of his parents and grandparents.

[Dekalb Dem]

I love this article because it's the perfect metaphor for one of the biggest problems in politics these days.

The media making the news instead of reporting it.

The increase in web searches had nothing to do with the candidates' statements. It was caused by every media source in the United States REPORTING IT, and of course, showing the cover.

Andrew Malcom is just as LAZY as most of the major news outlets. Don't research, don't THINK about the facts of the subject you're writing about. Just figure out what kind of angle can box one of the candidates into a corner. This way the controversy continues to have legs.

I think Andrew should aspire to the position which would make the most of his obvious talent.......Weatherman!

[c]

except your parallel example, gansters, doesn't apply because he is NOT any of these things. Terrible article

[Arthur]

Whether Obama's campaign commented on the cover, or not, the cartoon was destined to become front page news. I personally find it offensive, just as I would find it offensive if there were a cartoon showing John McCain in the Oval Office wearing Depends or something equally inappropriate. This was a poor judgment call by The New Yorker, but no one gets to run for President without having someone, some time, step briskly over the line from good taste to poor taste and judgment. It comes as an unhappy part of the job. These events serve as a test of whether a candidate can take it and stay on his or her game, or whether the heat in the kitchen is too much for them. Anyone who heard Senator Obama's speech on foreign policy yesterday, as contrasted with President Bush's rambling and disjointed press conference and Senator McCain's attempt to grab a bit of the limelight would have to accept that Barack Obama appears to be able to handle the heat very nicely, thanks, and make very, very good sense while he is doing so. That should be the story today, not dwelling on this sideshow.

[J]

No PR is bad PR.

[Richard Maus]

This article is about two days too late also. You are contributing to what you are criticizing.

[Alex]

Andrew Malcom...you're a tool. That is all.

[Jay]

I feel good about this article and about the Obama's response. When I first heard about the controversy I thought Obama is above criticism, like god. It wasn't OK to satirize Allah in Dennish cartoon and same way it is not OK to satirize Obama in NYT cartoon ?

In late night shows I have seen every presidential candidate being satirized during the same sketch but Obama was satirized in a glorified way.

So, being black makes him above everybody else ? I understand we need to be little more careful and diplomatic but this we are talking about the president of United States. I think this article has tried to be diplimatic for the same reason, it would have been most satirical if this was about somebody else. I don't want a president about whom I feel pressured to say only good things or keep quiet in public.

As for being not funny, tasteless and offensive, I think thats the likelyhood if you are the supporter of the person being satirized, regardless of whether it is Obama, Mccain, Bush or Clinton being satirized.

[ericmiami]

It's obvious Obama will never be able to do anything to please Malcolm. Too bad, Malcolm.

[greg]

this writer is pretty naive to think that people wouldn't be talking about this if the campaigns hadn't brought it up. For one thing, this is the New Yorker not some backwoods paper with a cartoon on page 6. And second, we live in an age of the Internet where news doesn't only move fast, it moves far and wide.

[Robert]

Come on Malcolm!

About a week ago the Dow Jones lost more than 200 Pts.
Yesterday GM, the pride of the American industry was priced at $9.34, Anheuser- Busch's Budweiser was bought by a competitor from the tiny Belgium, more than ninety national banks are on the FDIC watch list for potential bankruptcy.

You want the guy who is running for president for a tough time like this to care about a stupid cartoon.

We will find very soon that abject poverty won't be the main concern to only minorities but to mainstream whites.

[TJK]

I disagree Obama's comments were too late. It wasn't that big a deal to him so he let everyone who was foolish enough to make it Topic A of their lives get it out of their system. If he had offered his calm and reasonable response on Sunday he would have been slammed for being weak. Now, he looks like one of the few sane individuals amidst the media circus clowns.