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

[bob dorn]

You guys are beginning to look desperate
for an issue.

[Electress]

The New Yorker Masterpice cover sacred the hell out of the politicians. Obama is above being the politician, at least that what he seems to be selling.

I'm more concerned about his vote for FISA, about his vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill. That makes me feel like I have been duped by him. You could have said maybe he was busy voting on the Medicare bill, and that is why he was late, but no, he was a no show!

[Tom Collins]

This editorial, if that is what it is, fails to make a point. While it may be true that a gangster would not want to argue that he is a gangster, Obama is not a secret muslim, (despite those emails from your uncle) and so he should correct a misrepresentation. Your analogy relies on the fact that the undelying premise is true and to contest it would draw attention to it. In this cover, the premise is false. Moreover, satire requires more than just copying the same specious and false imagery that lurks in the corners of the internet; satire requires a commentary, a way to show that the logical extension of a line of thought leads to a contradiction. In short satire depends upon the viewer experiencing a reductio ad absurdum. This cover did not, and Obama's denunciation was correct.

[Misty Reed]

It can never be too late to say what you want to say.

[anthony]

Remember John Kerry? His campaign did not immediately respond to the charge that John Kerry was less than heroic in his service, which was not supported by any documented evidence, from the Swift Boat veterans. He thought the charge was so ludicrous that it did not merit a response, and he wanted to conserve campaign resources. The charges stuck. If we learned anything from the 2004 election, it is that every false charge must be confronted immediately. Besides, not commenting on the cartoon would not have done any good. The McCain campaign pointed out the cartoon. The Republican blogosphere, and the right-wing commentators on Fox news and talk radio, still will have raised a ruckus no matter what Obama chose to do. Under the circumstance, Obama did the best he could.

[John Kuckowicz]

It's satire and the fact that so many people are having such a difficult time with this magazine cover shows just how out of touch people are with the issues in life that have real importance, not to mention far too many of you take yourselves too seriously. Get over it! Obama's comment was too late? Maybe for those of you who are addicted to your "crackberries." The rest of us can make it through a weekend without freaking out every time the media jumps all over some trivial issue.

[FrederalXpress]

It is idiotic editorials like this one that make me believe some people should have remained in Medical School for the duration of their academic careers. "Don't talk about the cover of the New Yorker (as if the media would have ignored it if no one made a huge fuss)" is as stupid, inane and thoughtkess a comment as, say, nearly anything else at all that will be published this year on the front of any major magazine or newpaper. The statements in this article are too ridiculous to review in this little box. Let's just go ahead and ignore every news item this year, 'Cuz' ya know, like. America dusnt need too kno about stuff and this like... is the best ways to do it!".

Just plain stupid.

[Jessica Bruce]

Rubbish!

The Obama campaign was wise in drawing attention to it and giving themselves and the media several opportunities to again correct these 'silently' propagated myths in the face of 12% of our population still believing them.

We all saw what happened with Kerry, Gore and Dukakis when certain erroneous impressions were allowed to fester.....unanswered.....

[JackTheDog]

Smart and not too late.

Nice try though, LAT.

BTW - that cover New Yorker cover STINKS.

[islandtal]

How is that a PR blunder?? Obama had nothing to do with the printing of the cover. His campaign responded immediately and expressed that they took offense to the disgusting cover. What else do you want? Cartoon or not, it was offensive.

Your blog makes no sense.

[Sam Wilson]

Oh, I'm sorry, was there something you were saying?

[GPM]

The Obama campaign may not make many mistakes, but Obama himself consistently shows serious flaws in judgment that are only compounded by his inexperience.

While switching positions on FISA, NAFTA, a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and campaign finance reform are likely to have the most far-reaching results, his decision to put his young daughters on tabloid television (and thereby failing to follow the well-established and well-known practice of protecting one's children from the media set by the Kennedys, the Carters, the Clintons, and even the Windsors) is perhaps his most shocking display of the kind of change we don't need.

Obama and his political cronies - like Karl Rove & Company before them - are clearly good at getting anyone elected. Like George W. Bush, however, the problem with Obama is that he simply doesn't have the judgment or experience to govern once he's elected.

[keeker]

just because of the first amendment doesn't mean that it was not tasteless

[Dr. Dave]

There is an obvious arrogance and deep fear of the truth in the "We can do it..Yes we can " camp. it seems they can't handle criticism or humor of any sort because they take themselves too seriously. It's almost like a cult following where nobody can make fun of the figurehead. Remember how Obama got upset when left wing columnist Maureen Dowd made fun of his ears? It's high time the politically correct comedians come out from under their rock and rock Obama's world. There's so much to play with but of course they won't dare.
For Starters:
"I'm a bonehead"
"I wasn't in church that day"
"What I meant to say was..."
"What my wife meant to say was..."

[Gerry Wieder]

Mr. Malcolm ,

If the so-called satire on the cover of the NY Times had appeared any other place but on the cover of the NY Times it would have been classed as hate mongering.

Mr. Obama gave a thoughtful answer on the subject to one of your colleagues. The question came, as you observe, 54 hours late. Obama's answer, as always, was from the heart.

Your piece above, I suspect, was designed primarily to sell newspapers, which is really what the American free press is all about today.

Gerry Wieder
Seattle, Washington

[Steven Saltzman]

This is drivel. Let's blame Obama for one of the most offensive covers ever to appear in any reputable magazine. Who is our blogger here. Laura Bush's former secretary, someone therefore who must be very familiar with the Bush-Rove attack machine used against John McCain, Al Gore and John Kerry, who foolishly chose not to respond to the Bush-Rove lies.

Why do people like this continue to get paid for producing such drivel. Now that is something for the LA Times to consider.

[Judith dePonceau]

The content of the article about Obama within the New Yorker has nothing to do with the cover. New Yorker covers stand alone. The title of the cover is always found at the bottom of the table of contents. The title of the cover is "The Politics of Hate."

[Michael S Harris]

Everything about a magazine's layout; of text; imagery and ads is an attempt to lure readers and make a profit .
Other political ; religious influences are at work.
This childish prank could never be played upon those who
work their political/religious organ.
New Yorkers please use a bag next time you feel the need to vomit in the summer heat.

[Mark Davis]

Usually a cover, even if satire, trys to capture the entirety of the article for which it stands. Even though people are hungry for background information on Barack Obama before he is elected President of the United States few will now actually read the article.

The problem here is satire. Had he been shown with a pipe leading American troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan by way of Iran, that would have been satire.

Unfortunately, what was depicted was not radial or far enough away from the truth to be discounted as merely a satirical cartoon of less importance than the economy, housing and banking system aside from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On that score America is in a position like none other in history able and willing to keep radical Islam under check and the oil flowing. Even biological entities which do not have a cycle dependent upon the Sun have cycles none the less. Our economy is in one of those cycles now so instead of trying to quick start it out of a very needed rest we need to be making repairs and doing maintenance to be ready for the next cycle of growth.

[gen]

I think we rush into things as Americans anyway. I am glad he took the time to review his statement and uncover his feelings on the issue.
Now if this was something serious like "The country is under attack" then we would demand instant reaction... wouldn't we?

[umdala]

Too late? Hardly. For those of us who can make it through a weekend without being addicted to our "crackberries" and not go ballistic when the media enters a feeding frenzy over trivial issues, this is hardly important. It just shows how out of touch most of you are with the really important issues we face, like energy usage and little things like reading our mortgage contracts before we sign them. This stuff isn't rocket science, but the evidence is clearly in that even crayon science is too advanced for most people.

[Don J]

Andrew,

Okay so Obama was slow out the gate in his response to the New Yorker. He did respond however but I see you are making it a point to still talk about it and re-publish the cover yet again and here we are 3 days later. Enough already, please! Let it die. It would too if you and other opportunistic journalist (Fox News) would only let it. Your article and re-publishing the pictures yet again makes me question your own motives. Give us a break!

[Amadeo]

Why is it too late? If he had denounced it initially, it would have brought about just as much attention and fervor of the masses as it did when he addressed it on later. the fact that he waited so long, demonstrates that he's intelligent enough to discern credible issues from offensive satire. he did the right thing.

[S. Newburg]

I don't find it tasteless or offensive. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't this what we should be really considering with this man who has done nothing and expects to run this country? What is his background? Do we know? Why is this any more tasteless than all the jokes and stabs that have been made about the Clintons? or the Kennedys?

[Victoria Roberts]

It's never too late to say smart stuff. He obviously had more important issues on his mind Sunday, basically not finding a cartoon satire worthy of comment. It seems to me that you are the one making the big deal out of it.