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

[steffen]

This would only be a PR blunder in the U.S. Are enough Americans so dumb that they can even give a grain of credence to any of these idiotic rumors?

[hugo]

alas, where we'd be if Obama had handled it that way at the beginning is with an additional 4% of the electorate confirmed in their misbelief that he is a Muslim with a group called swift-rag-toppers-for-truth citing this magazine cover from a "respected liberal magazine" as proof that even Obama supporters recognizing that he is an American hating Muslim radical.

[ngash]

La times is evolving to another tabloid! where do you guys learn your journalism? probably in a drive-through schools where journalism certificates are handed out like candy bar!

[American Citizen]

I think presidential candidates have more important things to be concerned with than satirical drawings. Of course the media thinks Barack's response came too late because he didn't immediately address one of their productions.

America has just about lost all respect for media save for neo-cons and Fox and we all know the neo-con coup failed as soon as Americans realized they'd have to sacrifice their liberty for the kind of security the administration was selling. So the New Yorker mocks a dead political movement using Barack and he is suppose to respond why?

Because he's black? Because his religion has been questioned? He should not have even responded to such stupidity, IMO. And Mr. Malcom, to suggest he somehow had some responsibility, I believe you are demonstrating traits of racism and xenophobia.

He doesn't have to explain himself to you. You really aren't that important even if you do post trashy blogs to a relatively popular web site.

[John]

It is a free country where free speech is secured. I'd like to see a candidate who has a BACKBONE - one who can ignore nonsense like this and move on. Apparently Mr. Obama has to delay and regroup in order to wind up his spin on this. Why is it that people in our country so THIN SKINNED?!?!? If Bush can ignore polls then Obama - and McCain - can ignore this gaffe.

[ArlineB]

You have it completely backwards. That cover drew intense reaction from the public even before the Obama campaign reacted. It was the public and the online community that totally reacted to it, commenting in the hundreds of thousands on a variety of websites. How could the campaign NOT have responded? I thought Obama's reaction last night was perfectly tuned.

[Tom J]

Let's talk about why the cartoon failed.

imo...political cartoons are the modern equivalent of the court jester: speaking truth to power. A successful cartoon on the topic would have lampooned those CREATING the whisper campaign, not the whisper campaign itself.

That's the difference.

[Gili]

I am tired of all of the media defending the cartoon. This article says:

"The cartoon has every detail that an intellectual magazine would think makes perfectly obvious over-the-top satire."

So, is the sole defense of this cartoon that it was published on the "intellectual" New Yorker cover? What if exactly the same cartoon appeared on the Weekly Standard, or worse, some radical right-wing magazine cover? Would the LA times and all the other "intellectual" media still rush to defend it?

The satire in the cartoon seems to emanate from the venue (or magazine) where it is published and not from the material or the cartoon itself. So do these "intellectual" media outlets have the sole authority over what flies for satire and what does not?

Thus, it is very poor taste and I think the New Yorker put it up so that they could sell 305 million copies.

[rbuddw]

Perhaps the Obama campaign is in such a hurry to respond quickly to any perceived slight (not wanting to be as passive as previous Democratic candidates) that they didn't give nearly enough thought to what this was really about.

[AnnapolisMD]

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

You're kidding right?

With the "Internet" and all (in case you don't know about it) everyone saw the cover even before either campaign had a chance to comment.

Welcome to the 21st century!

[moot]

"PR blunder" implies he admitted to killing stray dogs or something, not this garbage. This has no effect on the issues whatsoever, just trashy news gossip.

[Tom]

Who cares! But we can certainly expect the flood of whiners and complainers on both sides of the fence. I swear - people with a PC and an opinion and nothing better to do.

[John Reynolds]

Actually, the Obama response may turn out to be pure genius in the long run. They've effectively pre-empted any future libel/accusations of Muslim ties, etc., that would have inevitably appeared from the other side. They have done it three months before the election, ensuring that it will soon be forgotten. And they have dealt with the issue in the form of satire, which it undoubtedly is. Imagine if Kerry had dealt with the Swift Boat attack in this manner?

[Hax Or]

I can see and understand this type of cover on satirical magazines like MAD or Cracked, but this is the New Yorker we're talking about.

The rest of the magazine is garbage. It isn't MAD or Cracked magazine at all. That's false advertising. I expected comedy in the New Yorker.

Since the magazine has nothing to do with the cover, I'm sure Cracked is mad that they didn't get the artwork for their own magazine. At least it would have fit with the content inside.

Clearly the motive was not satire, but to reinforce the misperceptions that some people have about Obama. Don't be stupid.

[Steven Sullam]

I still say the premise of this article is stupid after reading it again. There are ambulance chasers and rubber neckers at accidents, people who are drawn to macabre spectacles. Does Obama have to stoop to their level before the author is satisfied? I enjoyed the satire. For those stupid enough to take it literally, I am sure that 99% of them come from the 24% that are still think President Bush is doing a good job. Are these the people we want be catering to? Enough said.

[mike]

I always think its funny when one corporate print media outlet calls another "elitist." As if the current president isn't a Yaley. As if any super-rich Republican isn't an elitist. Somehow in the modern vernacular, being able to read English, having a college degree and not believing we were all miracled into existence 5000 years ago, whereupon we and the dinosaurs boarded Noah's Ark - just like the Flintstones! - is now "elitist."

Does anyone buy this doublespeak anymore? Does anyone think that both political parties aren't elitist? That the most corporate administration ever, which has destroyed the middle class in 8 years, isn't elitist? Give it up. The elected officials in both dominant parties are in the pockets of "elitist" CEOs and Ivy Leaguers who are making upwards of $10 mil a year. Somehow a president who does the same but talks and acts like a bumpkin gets a free pass from being part of the Kennebunkport Bushes.

[jim]

To Andrew Malcolm,

Could you make it any more obvious that you are voting for McCain? Why is it a PR Blunder for the Obama campaign to call the article offensive, but not for the McCain campaign to do the same thing? I also don't see anything wrong with both sides of the fence pointing out that The New Yorker overstepped their bouds with this cover. So, do us a favor and report on the issues without jamming your article full of Pro-McCain statements- let people decide on their own who they will vote for.

[Kristin Erman]

Yes, by all means, let's talk about issues of great importance to the American people. A magazine cover. Not gas, not jobs, not climate change, a war, not a failed Republican presidency. No, what's REALLY IMPORTANT is a magazine cover. Why don't we just have a beauty pageant for the presidency? We can put Obama and McCain in evening gowns, bathing suits, have a talent segment, and then maybe we can ask a really insightful trivia question, and then have a panel of five fashion experts make the selection.

[Duff Mahan]

This was already going to be a huge story before either campaign touched it. To proffer that something soooo over the top would not hit the desperate 24 hr tv news wave is naïve at best.

[eric]

This author is a clown. The following opinion is nonsense:

"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?"

Why are you paying this guy? Go back and find some news.

[Texafinn]

Honey- you need to get out more! This isn't a "huge PR mistake." It is just another blip being overanalyed by pundits. You see, the news orgs do a lot less news than ever these days becasue real journalism that requires digging up facts is slow and has a low ROI, so people just opine- so much more affordable!
Most of America is trying to figure out if they can afford to drive accross town to take advantage of a bargain.

And what the hell is the New Yorker anyway?

[kevin]

TOP ISSUE?!? why does he have to respond at all about some political cartoon or why would Larry King waste both Obama and his time asking? BUSH should still be addressing cartoons from his first term then...right...but I am glad both figures have their priorities straight.

The New Yorker did this intentionally and congradulations to them for accomplishing everything that they wanted to by creating a controvesy for a purpose, SELL MAGAZINES !

[Floyd Gerling]

Neither campaign made a huge flap about this, other than calling it tasteless and offensive - which it is. The cover was obviously intended to inflame controversy, and as usual it's the press that has risen to the bait, not the campaigns. There wasn't anything Obama or his people could do to prevent it, and I applaud their evenhanded and graceful handling of the matter.

[maz hess]

Barack was falsly hit during more then a year that he should be a muslim. Millions of people were falsly informed about his religion believes by calls, mails and ads and the Fox channel was lying and told that obama was brought up in a muslim scool. Do you don't think asking him and his campaign to stay calm with such a cartoon after all what happend till now could be a little to much?

[ST]

They called attention to it because the overwhelming reaction ended pro obama. He got a BOUNCE out of the coverage of this thing. It was not a mistake, they knew that people found it offensive and ended up increasing their feelings of support. It is also the odd situation that forces McCain to support Obama. Perfect, spot on PR.