In Search of Scandals

John McCain, Republican presidential candidate, called the U.S. Social Security system “a total disgrace.” His advisor Phil Gramm characterized Americans as “whiners.” There was a lot to talk about last week in America’s blogosphere. Still, a few bloggers found the time to take sides in the controversy surrounding Obama’s planned appearance at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate.

Columnist Diane West wrote that she heard an Obama advisor say he took the decision to speak at the Brandenburg Gate as a sign of Obama’s interest in European matters. “Showing up isn’t ‘interest’ — it’s tourism,” railed West on the conservative opinion forum, Townhall. She rebelled at the advisor’s suggestion that Berlin was a bridge between east and west and that he recalled John F. Kennedy’s famous Berlin speech but neglected to mention Ronald Reagan’s role in ending the Cold War and reuniting Germany. This in contrast to Kennedy who, she said, allowed the building of the Berlin Wall.

The left wing of the blogosphere is currently engaged in the next Obama controversy concerning the current New Yorker magazine’s cover. It features a caricature designed to unite the many right-wing vendettas against Obama. Obama is shown in the White House doing a fist-bump with his wife Michelle. He’s depicted wearing a turban while his wife sports an Afro hair-do and brandishes an assault rifle. A portrait of Osama bin-Laden hangs on the wall over a fireplace in which an American flag burns.

The search engine Technorati found nearly a thousand blog entries on the caricature within a few hours. No wonder; the cartoon was the lead story Sunday night on the Huffington Post, a flagship of the political blogosphere. While self-declared conservative blogger Drew458 gave the New Yorker an A-plus on the cartoon, a rash of three-letter postings, “WTF” (“What the fuck?”) appeared on left-leaning blogs, among them the discussion platform DailyKos where OMFGWTF (Oh my fucking god, what the fuck?) made an appearance.

It was one of the most discussed entries of the day and one of the more passionate discussions in recent times. “Just imagine the outrage if this cover had appeared on the National Review, wrote Kos-blogger LongTom, referring to the magazine of the intellectual right. “What difference does publishing it in the New Yorker make? Does the cartoon represent the hate, fear and mistrust of a few Americans while stoking up the hate, fear and mistrust of everyone else?” The argument that the New Yorker is only read by left-liberals anyway was drowned out by a flood of readers’ letters and calls for a boycott of the magazine. The number of commentaries had risen to more than 2,250 by Monday morning.

Jake Tapper, political and pop-culture reporter for ABC, commented without the “f-word” but was nonetheless obviously irritated, “It’s a recruiting poster for the right-wing,” he said, adding “I cannot imagine there aren’t some angry, angry people in Chicago right now wondering if they should ever even talk to the New Yorker again.” Later, he clarified the Obama campaign’s position saying most of them agreed with New Yorker readers that the cartoon was insulting and tasteless.

On the New Yorker website itself, the cover is hidden next to the new magazine’s table of contents. On their homepage, the big stories of the issue are prominently linked but the cover shown is from the previous issue. As of Monday morning, the editors had not yet made any statements concerning the cover. In the in-house election coverage and blogs, lead stories from the previous week were featured.

Huffington Post author Nico Pitney asked the cartoonist for his retrospective reaction to the outcry concerning the cartoon. “Retrospect? Outcry?” the artist replied Sunday night. “The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not…”

In a couple of days the cartoon might be old hat – but the week is just beginning.