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.

[Ben Vivet]

The damage has already been done guys. Do not try to flip it around. What a shame on the journalism profession? You guys disgust me. Really!

[Brian Smith]

What you are missing is that the old style of politics (charge/counter charge) no longer applies. The press can simply state that "this kind of magazine cover is the last thing the Obama camp wants now" and carry on with their own meta narrative of the race. The Obama camp's response simply doesn't matter because on a slow news day controversy takes it, even if it is manufactured.

I love all these articles that describe how Obama blew it here or there when no one really knows how the story plays out long term. Perhaps the cover inoculates him from the charges that people raised and will continue to raise in the campaign? I am not so certain that it is particularly unhelpful to him even if you continue to think this is the last thing Obama wants right now. I am not so sure the smart money doesn't say all press is good press. If the cartoon is as "Obama" says an unsuccessful attempt at humor (at his expense) I am not so certain that he wouldn't want people to see it.

Those most people inclined to fall victims to a misinterpretation of satire are the least likely to put any credence in the New Yorker. With the release of the Jesse Jackson blooper, the New Yorker "satire" and articles about Hillary beginning her fund raising efforts for her 2012 "senate" race I would say Obama has had a good week. The further Obama separates himself from the left's inconsistencies (including Hillary) the better.

[Joshua]

Indeed, this was a master stroke by right wingers. Pointing out how stupid and gullible people are on the front cover of the New Yorker.... That's going to win McCain the election for sure! (By the way, does anyone know what McCain's idea of success is for Iraq?)

[Erik Swartz]

yes, a tasteless and offensive cover, we all agree. However, why is his not commenting a PR mistake again? You may be educated enough to know that The New Yorker is a satire magazine, but most of your 305 millions Americans do not. Whether the Obama campaign, the McCain campain or you would have brought it up does not matter...it would have been out there after too long anyway, with the power of the internet. However, their comments were right on line...they mentioned that the magazine is satirical, and they missed with this attempt. Now you are just trying to stir up something where there isn't much. You are trying to keep it going, and that is tasteless and offensive itself.

[Bookwoman2003]

Clearly the brouhaha over the cover will lead more people to read at least part of the damging article. That, combined with the active Denver group urging Dem delegates to "vote their consciences" COULD see HIllary nominated as the Dem candidate after all. ...wonder what the superdeleghates will do then? Hmmmm?

[Scotty Mackenzie]

I have to point out the painfully obvious irony that this article only contributes to and prolongs the very issue under critique.

[Ron]

Again.... there is a reason that I canceled my subscription to the Los Angeles Times. You guys really have no clue.....
George Bush kind of thinking. If you ignore it, it will go away.
Hey Andrew.... you pretend to have an insight, but you don't. Fox news and CNN and all of the media outlets had this plastered all over... all day. I think that Obama handled it perfectly, and maybe Andrew Malcom should stick to doing lost dog stories.

[David H]

Your opinions are so slanted its a joke.

Karl Rove and the republican party have been making sure that the cover gets exposure all over the US.

If it was satire, why hasn't the New Yorker put a picture of the Pope on the front cover with a swastika on his robe to disprove allegations of his Nazi past?

Get a grip please and try to be a little objective. The New Yorker is NOT a liberal magazine it is an elitist magazine.

[RJinchi]

his reply was right on, not too late. It amazes me that if a reply isnt given when the media expects it to be given its deemed to late......

[Peter O]

Yup, you got it right. The media needs these kinds of stories to get readership. They look for controversy. This one was a softball and the Obama camp missed the opportunity to let it sail on by.

[MR]

to the writer .. before we preach abstinence - practice abstinence.

[Van]

To figure out what we would have been talking about, on any given day, just head over to the BBC website.

[junglek]

Get a life, Malcolm, and a real job.

[Larry Clifton]

Obama is everything to everyone, just like the Clintons. I'm tired of listening to Obama's vaque rambling dialogue. In fact, I'm sick of him, Pelosie and Reid. At least Republicans stick to their convictions.

[Skye54]

I find it really disturbing that the writer thinks that Obama was "two days late." What, so, Obama is going to have to spend the rest of his life addressing all the insanity that is going around? Acknowledging every stupid comment, every inane magazine cover, every nutcase's rant? He wasn't "late" and the fact that someone is counting the hours is so pathetic as to be funny. If the man intends to run the country, then leave him the hell alone so that he can. It's not his responsibility to "handle" every insane piece of garbage that comes down the pipeline.

[Brian]

Looks like you the only one still talking about it Andrew. Obama's new speech, his websites erasure of the troop surge, Hillary starting a third fundraising front for her 2012 'senate' seat and you are pressing on with a three day old cartoon?

[Terrapin]

This analysis is flawed to the point of being satire itself. It is lunacy to think that the Obama campaign inspired the heavy coverage that was, in fact, brought on by the cover's failed attempt at satire. If the cover had succeeded in being a satire of the Right-Wing slanders then there would have been little to talk about (because it is very difficult to incite a discussion of the odious tactics of the modern GOP). Even the article that the cartoon is designed to precede says nothing at all about the coordinated effort of modern conservatives to spread ignorance and lies about the presidential nominee of the opposing party. And, if the cartoon had succeeded in being a biting piece of satire aimed at conservatives then one would expect to see conservatives smarting from that attack - instead we see that they are pleased that their images have achieved justification within the more mainstream media. They have commented openly that they expected to see such a cover on one of their magazines instead of the New Yorker - they have no problem with the cover!.

The Obama campaign did NOT inspire the tremendous media coverage of the stupid cartoon - the new media environment of blogs and mass emailings did that. The Obama campaign has been correct in both of their pronouncements on the cartoon - it is offensive but it is also just a cartoon. The Obama campaign has done nothing wrong - your analysis is what is wrong.

Seriously, are you really this bad at being a pundit or was this article yet another highbrow satirical misfire?

[A. Ha]

Here's how the right plans to attack Obama -- with lots of silly blogs about "blunders". It will be a thousand cuts, even though each column (certainly not a "story" since there's so little to say) is hardly worth getting excited about.

The way to fight back? Remind everyone how stupid these columns are.

[Ripton Vanders]

Nice try, Andy, at creating a controversial column. But this one won't work. The Obama campaign responded promptly and clearly. So did McCain's people. David Remnick is not sweating bullets over his outing as a cultural snob. What we didn't know is how clueless he is in national politics. And it makes me sad, Andy, as a devoted reader of your early work in the NYT and your superb book, The Canadians, to see you writing neo-con propaganda for this LA Times, sadly fallen from its former stature.

[Naomi]

You are 100% right! I fell for all the BS too when I saw the New Yorker cover on CNN a couple of days ago. I flocked to the nearest newsstand and bought and then tried to read the article. Although I still don't think the cover is very funny, I agree that there are far more important things we should be talking about.

[Elizabeth Gilmore]

What an incredibly self serving article about how an idiotic magazine cover controversy should have been addressed by the Obama campaign.

Nonsense. No matter how it had been handled, this writer would have been saying, " Too late, or too little, or too much, or not enough."

The fact is that the New Yorker attempt at satire was tasteless and inappropriate- and I for one, will not be buying their magazine again. You don't joke about burning the American flag in the White House fireplace, or depict two fine citizens as terrorists. Simply criminal and degusting.

When are they going to show John McCain flying his Douglas A4 Skyraider over Tehran dropping bombs on its civilians while singing "Bomb. bomb, bomb, Iran?" That would probably closer to true satire- and the truth.

It's time to address the issues and stop telling Senator Obama how to handle the many smears and lies that are coming his way. Don't blame the victim. It's the job of responsible journalists to report the truth- not to make propaganda for a losing Republican candidate.

Not this time.

[08vote]

According to top of the ticket, nothing Obama could, would, or put into action would be satisfactory; give it a rest ; as for the pretentious pseudo intellectual rag, will there be an equal opportunity satire on presidential hopeful John McCain, perhaps enlightening the reader's sense of humor with this depiction: Sen John McCain hunched over, in a wheelchair, holding a bottle of Viagra in one hand, Cindy McCain standing next to him with a drugged out (on stolen prescription medicine) expression on her face, a picture of David Duke poised above the mantle, a copy of the U.S. Constitution burning in the fireplace below, and strewed about on the White House carpet, empty beer cans and bottle from the once American-owned beer company.

[JOM]

The New Yorker is an "elitist" magazine? Because the hoi polloi aren't interested in reading good writing and serious news coverage? Maybe so-- that's why we're reading your blog.

[Rasselas]

This write up is one of the many examples of what is wrong with American media. A penchant for trivia. We are facing a myriad of problems that call for leadership and commitment to be able to solve them. You could have done me, and perhaps many others, a service by devoting your time and energy to raising these issues with the candidates and and finding how they will address them. I guess that would be too much work for you. It seems America is resigned to this blah blah from you. No wonder the rest of the world looks at America and wonders why we just can't get it. We get the leaders that we produce. You would have preferred for Obama to adress this cartoon sooner. It does not matter to you that he spent the time between Sunday and Tuesday adressing the economic and foreign policy issues facing the nation. That to you does not matter, does it?

[Roland Aranjo]

It's amazing to see how the national media continues to derail the insurgent Obama campaign. This is the same media that sold us the war with Iraq. With over 100 more news days before the election, watch for more manufactured "news" stories, going through the news cycle. As a thank you, president McCain will appoint a friendly FCC.