Tim has already weighed in on this one and I have to agree with his thinking this is a good thing. I think it’s not only great, but will get talked about. It allows for two things to happen, both of which already have:
1. Obama can communicate disgust and outrage at the imagery. Bill Burton complies:
“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.”
2. The McCain camp is forced to join in the opinion of the Obama camp and we get him on record (again) saying these types of things are inappropriate. Cue Tucker Bounds:
“We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”
Is there a risk this will just be publicized enough as to gain more traction with those whose votes it might affect in a negative way for Obama? There is certainly a section of our electorate that would make that a worry. I would argue there is a greater section of our electorate who tire on the vile nature of attack politics and my thinking in this cycle is the more you expose the vicious nature of the right when it comes to Barack Obama, the better.
They don’t have anything else to beat him with – if you don’t count their weak attempts to toss flip flopping stones from glass houses. Nothing. They are so completely devoid of ideas at this point that McCain is forced to borrow from the left and become some Manchurian environmentalist candidate. They have fear and loathing tourettes syndrome. It’s the only card they know how to play. Too bad it’s not gonna work this time.
I’ll be headed out tomorrow to pick up a copy, if for not other reason than to tell my kids about the time we beat fear by cutting off it’s ugly head and holding it up for all to see.
No related stories.