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

[Art Lover]

Obama's campaign should look on the positive side and hire Barry Blitt right away. He is very creative and can be a great help in the campaign with his cartoon creation against the republicans.

[Eric Brown]

This kind of manipulative, yellow journalism is hurting America.

[kid]

Actually, he got it right, you got it wrong.
We don't need a President who does things according to your arbitrary clock.
We need a President who shows good judgment in his actions and reactions.
Your clock is useful however in timing John McCain's belated and empty response, as well as the belated and empty responses of much of the media whose responsibility it is to provide timely and effective commentary on themselves.

[Rob Cincy]

First this was a softball served up to Obama and as the article shows they swung and missed in my opinion three straight times.

Second, I'd like to see a portrait of mccain in a pow camp talking about how this would be great for his presidential resume or somehow mock the fact that being a prisoner doesn't make you a good president. Also, his nickname was songbird if you can wrap your head around that.

Third, how does the email crowd get off so easy on this one. This misinformation about obama mostly spreads through these emails from right wing surrogates and ends up as word of gospel to the uninformed, shouldn't someone do some reporting on this.

[LISA]

Barack should not have to 'repair" anything. The New Yorker needs to start doing some PR to repair the credibility of their paper
Obama has more important things to focus on.
Like maybe "THE ISSUES"

[michigan]

So. If one hasn't elitistist or intellectual credentials, theydon't get the New Yorker's satirical cover?

Gad, we are a nation of buffoons.

[Jonathan]

Wow. Are you aware that the New Yorker is actually a rather well-known newspaper, that people all across America get to see? The idea that Obama somehow created this controversy himself is another slanted error by a column that makes many.

[Barry Lloyd]

Huge mistake ?!

Please.

Obama's campaign did the right thing - by not dignifying the classless behavior of a high profile magazine.
How undignified the magazine has profiled themselves.
Im sure the content beyond the cover of the magazine is just as useless, inflamatory , insensitive and prejudiced.
Why Obama vs McCain or Hillary or other political highlight ? Who knows....

It's true, inaction when it comes to serious tangibly damaging events is costly. Inaction (or at least time to a well thought response ) to classless rhetoric with no redeeeming literary value to society is not a "huge mistake". Knee jerk responses and castigation would be stooping to the low point that the editor of the magazine chose by taking aim at the presidential candidate. ( and only one ). If the magazoine truly had a pundit intent , where's the McCain counterpart ?

The magazine and the road the editor(s) chose is a low one , reflective of the future direction and literary value of the stunt and content of the magazine -useless.

Where's the sense and moral fiber in our community ? Respect for and tolerance for people who ADD to our society when literary leaders like this magazine choose the 'low road' form of advertizing , attempting to boost sales resulting in flash-paper , limelight attention.

The Obama campaign did the RIGHT thing , dignified graceful and respectful. If anything the McCain capaign should feel slighted that they didnt receive a similar opportunity to show best graces in the face of adverse predjudiced opinion.

[Brian]

So someones poor attempt at humor is somehow his fault?

More people believe he's a muslim now than a few months ago, and him being offended by something that exasperates that dilemma is a "PR mistake"?

You can be offended by something and understand it's intended nature.

It's not surprising that this story still has legs after he gave a very significant speech addressing the most important foreign policy issues of our time.

[Tod Roberts]

Another blundering campaign for the Democrats. Oh what a surprise! Who runs these things Mickey Mouse? And to think they had the nerve to blame Ralph Nader for Gores loss! What a joke the democratic party has become. Only im not laughing because between the U.S. slaughtering people in Iraq and Iran and the depression we are headed for i am far to angry at the "Keystone Cops" routine of our fumbling, stumbling, get rich quick on the backs o the poor, government we have saddled our selves with.

[Tod Roberts]

Another blundering campaign for the Democrats. Oh what a surprise! Who runs these things Mickey Mouse? And to think they had the nerve to blame Ralph Nader for Gores loss! What a joke the democratic party has become. Only im not laughing because between the U.S. slaughtering people in Iraq and Iran and the depression we are headed for i am far to angry at the "Keystone Cops" routine of our fumbling, stumbling, get rich quick on the backs o the poor, government we have saddled our selves with.

[sd]

Funny how much copy space was used to talk about a issue that should be dead. Start practicing what you preach
Lets move on....and start talking about issues that matter.

[GI John]

The New Yorker Pic? Thanks Liberals!!
HA HA HA HA hahahahahahahahah .... (gasp) HA HA HA HA hahahahahahahaha .... (wheese) HA HA HA hahahahahahahaha .... (fart) oops!!

[DCX2]

I think it was a great idea. By pulling together just about every rumor and bringing this to the forefront in the national media, the 10-15% of people who think he's a Muslim will be forced to see that they were being lied to.

[JJ]

The way you've got things rigged, Mr. Malcolm, there's no way Obama can win. Does this make you feel smart?

What's most sinister about the cartoon is that, unlike others that have been made about and suggested for political figures, it is based on fabrications. Misinformation, disinformation, distortion and lies that have been created and promulgated by a political machine are being reinforced here. That makes it categorically different from other political cartoons sponsored by the New Yorker.

This cartoon is like shouting "bomb!" after malcontents spread false rumors of a bomb threat. What kind of people find such "satire" funny?

[RC]

The LA Times has GOT to be one of the most worthless major papers in the nation. Every time I read an article (linked from Google News) it is tries to make the article sound over-the-top serious, yet the articles are always boring and mundane. You create a big, flashy, important sounding headline in order to draw people here, then hope the junk your pushing. PR blunder? How, exactly, is that a PR blunder? Boooorrrriinnngggggg . . .

[Mary]

I don't care one way or another about the cover; clever though it may be.
I just thought the artist captured perfectly the coy, slightly simpering look Michelle gave B. on the night he took the nomination and they " butted fists".

[Historian1956]

There is no way Obama or his campaign could have ignored this cover. It had all the bells and whistles that the New Yorker knew, when they printed it, would cause a sensation. The media was going to have its field day with this thing, no matter what he would have done. It was a reporter who first asked Obama about the cover and offered to show him the advance copy on his/her computer if he hadn't seen it already. In this day and age of instant news and who has the biggest gaffe each day, the Obama campaign was going to be toast no matter how they handled it, and they did try to ignore it at first. This was too big a bone for the media dog to let go of and any one who has been watching this campaign should know that. Sorry.

[ME]

No it was not too late. Considering the irrelevancy of this issue, it was handled in a proper timely manner. It's just that the press is uncomfortable with the new president who does not want to bite in all gossip/flame wars/ etc.

Obviously the press is the big looser. It's good for the American people we finally will have a president that stands above this.

[Steve K]

I get the sense that the media is struggling to make this story bigger than it really is. In short, does anyone care about a cartoon on the cover of New Yorker magazine? As far as the popularity of the topic, the last time I checked Google news, there were about 1,100 articles related to the Obama cartoon. There were, on the other hand, 4,800 articles on Brett Favre's "un-retirement."

[russ]

Why do you refer to McCain's comments as self serving while not pointing out the same about Obama? Your bias is showing.

[Frank]

Shoud we really listen to McCain when he speaks about knowing how to win a war. Does someone need to reming him he was captured and I highly doubt anyone see Vietnam as a war the US won...

[Andrew Cristancho]

I think calling Obama's response a mistake is a...mistake.
The thoughtful remark defused the controversy in one fell swoop. And the fact his campaign denounced the cover the day it came out is understandable considering many Americans will take the art depicting he and his wife as terrorists at face value and say, "see, I knew it."

[DaveW]

Obama ran such a smart primary campaign and they all seem to have taken stupid pills since then. The only explanation that comes to mind is that he's started listening to the same "strategists" who seized defeat from the jaws of victory for Gore and Kerry.

The column is dead on. I am firmly on the left politically, but have to say that the liberal addiction to faux outrage and victimhood gets truly embarrassing. As is so often the case, Jon Stewart got it the most right of all: Obama could have said "I'm not upset by the cartoon depicting me as a Muslim extremist, because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists!"

I hope Obama kicks out a bunch of "advisors" and starts listening to his own very smart instincts before he follows Kerry and Gore into oblivion.

[p crowley]

Sleazy lies about Obama have been circulating through the sewers of Fox and rancid email chains. This New Yorker cover has forced the media to cover the lies, and to state forthrightly that they are lies. Would it have been better for Obama if the lies had continued to flow unchallenged?