Newsweek's 'Gay President' Cover a Gift for Andrew Sullivan, Capturing His Emotional Intensity at 'Moral Liberation'
On Monday afternoon, CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield asked Newsweek director of editorial operations Mark Miller about Newsweek’s “First Gay President” cover. He denied it when Banfield asked if they were trying to “notch it up a bit” after Time’s provocative breast-feeding cover came out.
She also asked if dumb Newsweek readers would actually believe Obama was revealed as homosexual. It turns out the cover was meant to capture the kind of tears-of-joy emotional intensity that writer Andrew Sullivan was feeling as an affirmed gay man. How any of this psychotherapy in print relates to the magazine formerly matching the name “Newsweek” is anyone’s guess:
MILLER: What we wanted to do with this piece, because we knew with Andrew Sullivan writing, and being the author of it, and Andrew, as you know, is one of the chief intellectual authors of the idea that same-sex marriage is actually a conservative idea.
What we wanted to do -- so we knew that this piece would mean a great deal to Andrew personally and professionally. And so what we were trying to do in capturing that kind of intensity in the argument, the writer was, to have a column -- a cover image that would also be
intense in the emotions that it evokes.
And it's an allusion to Toni Morrison's piece in "The New Yorker" which was edited by Tina Brown at that time that Bill Clinton was the first black president.
That was also ludicrous. Tina Brown is doubling down on ludicrous, which is not aytpical. This is how liberals pay tribute to each other: “You love and ‘get’ blacks so much that you’re actually a black president even if you’re not....You love and ‘get’ gays so much that you’re actually a gay president even if you’re not.”
This certainly is what liberal media scolds used to call “a journalism of assertion rather than a journalism of verification.” The sappy attention-seeking liberal states something untrue on its face to create a stir. Why liberals aren’t more critical of Tina Brown’s “journalism” is proof of how it takes ideology more seriously than accuracy.
That said, it’s somehow perfect that a snobbish liberal like Ashleigh Banfield in her no-doubt-expensive specs is wondering about the idiots at the supermarket in Oklahoma who might think Obama has outed himself and will start dating men:
BANFIELD: It's definitely provocative. I certainly get the message. But I live and breathe news every day. I even understand the innuendo and the arcane aspects to these covers and these stories. Are you the least a bit concerned that the average person who has got a busy day dealing with kids walks by a newsstand and is misconstrues that this is actually a gay man who has now come out of the closet and is our president? And I don't think that is overstepping to ask that question.
MILLER: I don't think anyone is confused about Barack Obama's heterosexuality. And I think --
BANFIELD: They're concerned about whether he's a Christian or Muslim despite ad nauseam people telling people he's a citizen of this country and he's a Christian. And yet they're still confused about that. Why do you think it's such a silly suggestion that a magazine cover
like that might have people thinking, ‘Wow, I didn't know that?’
MILLER: Well, if they think that, then they will open the magazine and read the piece, we hope --
BANFIELD: Let's hope.
MILLER: ... and understand what our argument was. Our view is that our readers are smart enough to get the reference here, that he's embraced a fundamental aspect of gay rights and, in doing so, has become such a supporter that this kind of cover is understandable.
In her column at the front of Newsweek, Tina Brown called the president's proclamation "a moment of moral liberation -- not just for Obama but for America." (Urp.) Andrew Sullivan closed out his article with this reverie:
I have always sensed that he intuitively understands gays and our predicament—because it so mirrors his own. And he knows how the love and sacrifice of marriage can heal, integrate, and rebuild a soul. The point of the gay-rights movement, after all, is not about helping people be gay. It is about creating the space for people to be themselves. This has been Obama’s life’s work. And he just enlarged the space in this world for so many others, trapped in different cages of identity, yearning to be released and returned to the families they love and the dignity they deserve.
PS: Newsweek has posted its alternative Obama's gay moment covers.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
OK...........let me simplify
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:31am.
OK...........let me simplify all of this for the StateRun Media morons. Boy Baraka IS a bi-sexual, so the 'gay thang' works for him.
And Randy Andy Sullivan is as queer as the Jack-off-Hearts, so whatever he happens to think is coming from a faggot facade.
And ButtBoy Baraka is NOT a 'Christian'...............other then when he needs it to advance his cause............and he IS a mooooooooooooooslem, except when it gets in the way of his cause. The first thing that you idiots need to learn is that Boy Baraka will say ANYTHING that he thinks is going to push his agenda forward - regardless of what he may really think about the subject...............so if you buy into ANY of his Kenyan Kow Krap, then you are a helluva lot stoooooooooooopider than you think you are!!! I STILL don't think that Hollywood has realized that they just got scammed - big time!!!
Any questions??? The ol' Killa will be happy to answer them. I know what I'm talkin' (Obamaspeak) about..........................
u know sumfin killa?
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:16pm.
you gots a way with righteous words! peace out mo-fo!
Well, MM, I gots to speak
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:25pm.
Well, MM, I gots to speak TROOF - ya'know what I'm tawkin' bout??? Course, there be some homies here who think I"m blowin' smoke..............but I've gots to keep on keepin' on, yo??? Keep pushin' forward, muv vah falkah!!! G's UP, ho's DOWN!!!
America 2012: A Nation at Risk
Submitted by berlet98 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:54am.
America 2012: A Nation at Risk
“Stuff” is happening in America today that our country has rarely witnessed in our 224 year old history and none of it is propitious for our future.
True, we have suffered through other major crises, but never so many at the same time.
We survived the Revolution and early wars and revolts against our nationhood; we weathered a bloody Civil War; we eventually overcame the Great Depression; we struggled through the upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement the Viet Nam War protests; we mostly recovered from the horrors of September 11th, 2001; we lost thousands of our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and some believe we actually won those wars.
However, we have never endured so many contemporaneous, dire threats to our national security, our fiscal future, our way of life, our cherished values, and our national character as we are witnessing today.
America made a grave mistake in November, 2008, a terrible mistake which, in the brief span of three and a half years, has served to greatly intensify those dire threats.
To be sure, the election of President Barack Hussein Obama did not incite crazed Muslim terrorists to launch an unprovoked war against the “Great Satan” and the entire Western world; that war has been ongoing for decades and has been smoldering for centuries.
What Obama has done is to minimize the magnitude of the dangers posed by Islam and has catered to, literally bowed to, the very Muslim potentate whose country hatched and financed 9/11.
He declared that a war on terrorism didn’t exist and then announced that the non-existent war was over by virtue of the defeat of al-Qaeda and our supposed victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which is a valid assumption.
He established domestic security measures which are more smoke and mirrors than actual safety nets. Perhaps the most telling feature of this commander-in-chief’s perspective on Americans’ safety was his 2010 concession to Fareed Zakariah that we are “resilient” enough to “bounce back” after nuclear attacks.
We were woefully unprepared for the Second World War. We are far more vulnerable in this, the Third World War, thanks to our president.
Should we somehow succeed in overcoming Muslim forces intent on destroying the America we love, we would still have to contend with the Great Recession, an economy which began to implode in 2008 and which shows few signs of real recovery.
The Obama administration’s total disregard for fiscal sanity and racking up trillions of dollars in unprecedented national deficits and debt has already cost the United States its long-standing AAA credit rating with no hope of paying our bills in sight.
The administration’s obsession with socialistic social programs such as food stamps, multi-billion dollar boondoggles and bailouts, and oppressive environmental regulations have stifled job growth and fostered dependency among the millions of the poor and the unemployed.
In brief, our economy and our society are a critical mess, a disaster as beneficial to Obama’s re-election prospects due to that widespread dependency as it is destructive of the human spirit.
Wars and rumors of war combined with economic malaise would be more than sufficient to effect America’s downfall. Unfortunately, there’s much more on our dismal plate: The social fabric which is supposed to bind us together and define us as a nation is disintegrating as rapidly as the integrity of our borders. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=23948.)
I've said it many times here
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 2:12am.
I've said it many times here on NB, as well as publicly, berlet, that Boy Barry Soetoro Baraka Hussein Obama (and his handlers, backers, puppetmasters, and the StateRun Media), IS the GREATEST threat to this country since it's inception!!! And I STILL believe that I'm right!!! We have dealt with all of the other threats and issues and attacks on us - from without, as well as within, but there is a very realistic chance that - if this spawn of Satan is either re-elected, or suspends the election due to the fact that he is in danger of losing it - the USA will NOT be able to recover from the damage that he (and his handlers) have inflicted upon this once-great nation.
"Andrew, as you know, is one
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 2:57am.
"Andrew, as you know, is one of the chief intellectual authors of the idea that same-sex marriage is actually a conservative idea. ... What we wanted to do -- so we knew that this piece would mean a great deal to Andrew personally and professionally. And so what we were trying to do in capturing that kind of intensity in the argument, the writer was, to have a column -- a cover image that would also be intense in the emotions that it evokes."
Okay, I got it. The cover represents Sullivan's naive fawning over Obama based on intellectually bankrupt ideas. Perfectly done.
Oh, please.
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 7:49am.
Obama says he thinks gays should be allowed to marry, and suddenly that makes it moral??
As George Will says, Obama seems to think he can "speak things into existence."
Apparently he's not the only one who believes that.
'Moral Liberation'
Submitted by needle on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:38am.
An excellent phrase. I am keeping a copy for myself.
Really. It annoys me how Liberals chaff at the slightest hint that they are immoral. If their amorality rubs someone the wrong way, well that is the other person's problem.
Morality suggests a sense of responsibility, and we all know liberals break out in hives at the suggestion of being responsible, and they also really chaff at being called irresponsible.
That must be it: Liberals are "aresponsible."
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
"I don't think anyone is confused about Obama's heterosexuality"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:48am.
Correctimundo.
Gee, I dunno....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:00am.
The two daughters might be...
-Jon
Alternative "Obama's gay moment" covers
Submitted by Marsh_mellow on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:10am.
"Newsweek has posted its alternative Obama's gay moment covers."
I notice the cover chosen had the largest picture of Obama. They must have asked him which one he liked.
But, tears of joy when the
Submitted by texastommy on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:36am.
But, tears of joy when the guy actually DID nothing but run his mouth? Was there any doubt beforehand? This crap is ridiculous.
What happens when another president says he disagrees with it? Tears of sadness? Stories of a return to the 3rd century? Stories about the return to Jim Crowe? Stories of massive hate crimes against gays?
Sadly, yes.
Magazine Cover
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:47am.
Shouldn't the caption have read "We Are All Gay Now"? Or, should an earlier one have said "Obama, America's First Socialist President"? The latter is the more truthful one.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Obama, America's First Socialist President
Submitted by needle on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:37pm.
Personally I am looking forward this fall to America’s First American President [in four years], something that will make the people in the DNC media positively retch – not that they are traitors, much.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.