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

[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.