Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: Are the Clintons Behind the Obamas-as-Terrorist New Yorker Cover?

By Hargrove Jones     Jul 15, 2008 in Politics
Hillary Clinton's tactics against Barack Obama were despicable, but it would not have occurred to me that she would sabotage him in the general election, until I watched James Carville's interview about the New Yorker cover on CNN.
The July 2008 New Yorker cover depicts Michelle Obama as an Angela Davis re-creation, in war mode, including gun and afro; while Barack is dressed in Arabic garb, bearing an eerie resemblance to Osama Bin Laden. The setting is a White House - oval office-like room, with a picture of the real Osama Bin Laden on the wall, and the American flag burning in the fire place.
The image "spoke" to me about the Obamas as outsiders, aligned with black interests that are hostile to this country, and foreign interests, that are intent on doing Americans harm. Hating America, evidenced by the burning flag, and smugly saluting each other, presumably for winning the presidential election, and an opportunity to put in play, what the symbols around them suggest - namely, bring this nation down —
With that as the effect, of the New Yorker imagery on me, you can imagine my amazement when James Carville, a political wizard, and a member of the Clintons' inner circle, denied that it had any significance. Mind you, his denial gives the New Yorker a free pass, and it opens the door for similar political attacks on the Obamas, with the blessing of a Democratic honcho.
I've been watching James Carville for a long time, and there are a lot of things that I could call him, but naive isn't one of them, and I could only understand a naive person, characterizing the New Yorker cover, as innocuous.
If he said the New Yorker didn't mean any harm, I could have bought that as his interpretation of their intent, even though I would have disagreed. But he claimed that he could not see the harm in it, and that I could not believe. How could a man, who knows everything about imagery and sound-bites, and their role in politics, fail to appreciate the impact, of America's worse nightmare, imaged in the likeness of the Democratic candidate for the presidency, and his wife.
What really blew my mind is that while Carville was saying, no harm; William Bennet, a Republican, who once claimed that the crime rate would go down if more black people aborted their babies, denounced The New Yorker cover as inappropriate and politically harmful.
I listened as the words that would be expected from a democrat, came out of the mouth of a Republican; and the words that would be expected from a Republican, came out of the mouth of a Democrat. But what aroused my suspicion was Carville's use of Geraldine Ferraro's talking points. His words inferred that people were making something out of nothing. It had the rhythm of Geraldine Ferraro's belligerent claim, that her racially inflammatory words were not offensive, insisting instead, that the reaction was the product of Barack Obama playing the race card. I sensed Carville's desire to nudge our minds toward a similar deception, but I think that he was restrained by his recognition that the raucous chorus of national outcry, overwhelmed the idea that Barack was overreacting.
Any one who was paying attention knows that Hillary's first reaction to losing the nomination was to dispatch her surrogates to secure the vice presidency. Recently, people under consideration for the vice presidency have been vetted. Hillary Clinton was not vetted. Hence, Hillary knows that there's no chance she will be Barack Obama's running mate.
Perhaps the Clintons have a three-prong plan. Win the nomination. If that fails, secure the vice presidency. If that fails, insure McCain's victory, so that Hillary can run again in 2012. Coincidentally, Hillary has asked her contributors to let her hold onto their money for her 2012 senate race. Senate race, presidential race, only Bill and Hillary know for sure.
Carville's unCarville-like behavior led me to investigate the Clintons' relationship with the New Yorker, with a mind toward determining whether they have the kind of clout to influence reporting - turns out they do. It so happens that the New Yorker editor, David Remnick, is so chummy with Bill Clinton, until he was selected to accompany Bill on a trip around the world, netting him invaluable access to Bill Clinton and the historic and newsworthy information that Bill Clinton controls. Hence, one might conclude that David Remnick, owes Bill Clinton - big time.
A writer questioned, "why are the New Yorker, Salon and other liberal media doing the right's dirty work?" I would submit that, for the first time, liberals are not sure that they want their team to win.
That is the dilemma of race in America. We're on the same team, but some of us, only want certain people to score.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of
More about New yorker cover, Hillary clinton, Obama, Michelle, David remnick