Mt. Rushmore for the 21st Century

Fannie Mae and Bernie Mac

This weekend, comedian Bernie Mac used some “off-color” language at an Obama fundraiser. Given our gaffe-obsessed 24-hour cable news culture, the Obama campaign was quick to label it as “inappropriate.”

The campaign reacted similarly in the face of the latest issue of The New Yorker. The cover features a cartoon of Barack Obama in Muslim garb giving a fist-pound to Michelle who is dressed as a terrorist. It all takes place in the oval office with a portrait of Osama Bin Laden and a flag burning in the fire place.

And, boy, am I offended.

Now, I’m not offended by the cartoon itself. I actually find it quite amusing! It is clear that The New Yorker is casting light on the ridiculousness of all the false claims leveled against Obama. Comedian Bill Maher put it best, “If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?”

I am offended by the knee-jerk reaction offered by the Obama campaign. Spokesman, Bill Burton, described the cover by saying “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

I disagree. Comedy, by design, is not intended to be taken seriously. Taking offense at a cartoon, regardless of intention or context, demonstrates a level of close-mindedness that is all too common in our culture and politics; Remember the false-controversy spurred by John Kerry’s “botched joke?”

It is actually somewhat telling that the Obama campaign would take offense … you know who does get offended by cartoons?

Muslims.

I kid, I kid. Seriously, though, laughing at the ridiculous claims made about Obama are the easiest way to neutralize them. If the Obama campaign, rather than calling the cartoon “tasteless,” were to say, “We get it, it’s satire,” then they would be offering a new kind of politics.

The electorate is not comprised of children ready to cry at any instance of name-calling. Don’t insult us by feigning insult.

While political diversions of every flavor have kept our eyes off the ball, serious problems like the $5 trillion in debt racked up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seem to come as a surprise. The burst of the housing bubble was predictable, and the mess we’re in preventable, but the rational voices have all been washed out by a media and public too concerned with controversy, however much a stretch it is.

It is imperative that the issues facing the dollar, our banking institutions, and our federal debt take center stage. Every news story about what Bernie Mac said or didn’t say takes our attention off what Freddie Mac did or didn’t do. If we’re going to get ourselves out of this mess, we’re going to need a sense of humor. It’s time to put all kidding aside.

Obama: You May Have Already Won!

The Obama campaign appears to have brought on a new political consultant to its already impressive roster of Washington insiders and outsiders, techno gurus, ad wizards, designers, speech writers and all the other talent that has made his campaign, thus far, so successful. While it hasn’t been officially announced by the campaign, based on their latest fundraising tactics it is clear: they’ve got Ed McMahon.

While most of the country remembers McMahon as the Oates to Johnny Carson’s Hall and his prolonged “Here’s Johnny,” a large segment of Obama’s youth voting bloc knows McMahon for a very different phrase: “You may have already won!”

For years, Ed McMahon was the face of the American Family Sweepstakes. In commercial after commercial, mailing after mailing, yellow envelope after yellow envelope, they sold false hopes of big bucks while banking millions of subscriptions. “Hope” was a key ingredient to their success.

The Obama campaign, after encouraging a great deal of genuine hope in the electorate, has now settled for a far more McMahonian form. In a mass-email titled “Big announcement,” Campaign Manager, David Plouffe, announced that the campaign is basically running a sweepstakes.

“If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them.”

Sure, “David Plouffe” sounds like a game show host name, but seriously? An all-expenses paid trip for two? How about a year’s supply of Rice-a-roni?

People have been donating in droves to this campaign, not because they expect anything in return personally, but because they think it will yield dividends for the country. Campaign donations need to be earned by the campaign and certainly not gambled.

The AP reports that the Minnesota Gambling Authority is questioning the legality of this fundraising method. According to Minnesota law, only nonprofit charities can conduct raffles. The Obama campaign responded that it is not a raffle in that the winners will not be drawn at random but chosen by the campaign. It is hard to tell if this is better or worse.

But more than questioning the legality, Obama’s supporters need to question this method’s prudence. Garnering campaign donations is important business, but selling dreams of “a front row seat to history,” and building false hopes around Obama’s amazing cult of personality is not worth the $5+ donations, however many come in. Real hope is bigger than that.