Is Obama’s Race Trumping Whatever Else The TIME Cover Is Supposed To Be Trumping?

I agree that the cover as a whole has a creepy air to it. The “two-faced” comment is spot on.
Two other things that struck me – the B&W side almost make Obama look like a white-faced mime, an archetype often considered sinister. And perhaps because I am an old Star Trek fan, it reminded me of the episode in which, in an unsubtle allegory on racism, two aliens, one black on the left and white on the right and the other just the other way around, were locked in a race-based battle that eventually destroyed their planet.

The black & white side looks like a hastily done mimeograph of a wanted poster or flyer. Circa 1971.
Or a half painted-white powdered-white face.
I’d love to hear more about this editorial decision.
It’s just odd.

eNantiOmorph

All points very well taken. It’s a hit piece of the highest magnitude, if unintentionally so (tough it would be hard to be that clueless).

A hit piece indeed. I see a publicly human face hiding a subconscious ‘black agenda.’ Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be frightened by, rather than continued immature and ignorant leadership?
This cover is a shameless appeal to the lizard-brain.

The question in visual form, “Who is Barak Obama?”

I think this cover “exposes” underlying and under the surface prejudices. I didn’t read it at all the way you did, but I understand your perspective,reasoning, and I imagine that many people agree with this analysis.
My perspective is informed as one who grew up in a small Ohio town with only a half dozen black families and no other minorities, as far as I was ever aware. Mr. Rivers was my school bus driver, and he was a benificent authority figure to me. Mrs. Purdue ran the local Girl Scout council – another benificent authority figure – and a female leader, to boot.
But my mother’s family was form NYC, where she was raised by a nanny, and my grandparents always had black household workers as cooks, housekeepers and child minders.
My interactions with minorities until my high school years was solely with black adults in roles that had authority with children, but had nothing in the way of workers rights and autonomy in their jobs.
Even in high school, my contact with people from other cultures and ethnicities was limited to students at other schools that were competitors on speech and debate teams.
So until I hit college, my horizons were extremely limited, narrow and skewed. Remember that only about 20% of Americans even go to college.
That’s flyover small town country. It’s the norm for many, many, millions of Americans.
They are afraid of what and who they don’t know.
They really don’t have any point of reference in real life to understand Obama’s multi-ethnicity, his global education and exposure, and his advanced use of nuance, reasoning, logic and emphasis on critical thinking and deliberation.
So it’s the “exposure” from negative and undeveloped opinion (the left side) to fully exposed and developed opinion(the right side) that I picked up on.
Probably all wet, but I thought I’d throw this into the mix.

Bag — I think you are overreacting here a bit. We could sit here and find all sorts of things to fuss over in the image. Does one ear (listening to the radical interests in the world of Bill Ayers) appear slightly bigger than the other? Do the tops of the “M” coming out of his head make him look like the devil? And on and on. The real issue is not can we impose all sorts of symbolic meaning here (of course we can), but the fact that we see him as two-faced. But even here I’m a bit surprised to see you raise the issue, at least in these terms. You make the case that Time is making him appear as if he has multiple faces. But as a psychotherapist I would think you would believe that we all have multiple faces (maybe not as many as the many faces of Eve, but probably more than two) and one thing we should be mindful of (and the media should work at) is helping us to take account of the multiple fragments of the personality. The BIG PROBLEM, for me, is not that they identify multiple fragments BUT (a) how they constitute those fragments (what is included, what is left out — and here, I think your analysis comes closer to the mark, though I don’t think you really accent the point as strongly as needs be), and (b) they don’t do the same with someone like McCain or Palin.

And, of course, shows Time as completely out of touch with voters, since their main concern right now is the stupid economy.
Sigh.

Is it only me who sees the horns?
The upper end of the letter M gives Obama two black horns.
Intentional or light-hearted-joking-kinda intentional?

White face…need I say more?

Bag’s reading seems to be to a bit on the pessimistic side (though I would not dispute it).
But there’s a lot more weird stuff going on there:
Look at the textual/visual narrative arc: it goes from black-and-white to color… from mimeographed “mug-shot” to nuanced, textured reality. (as Bag says…)
But Obama’s face ALSO goes from white to black…!!!
And that progression mirrors the text-arc… i.e. why “the ECONOMY” (which is a problem/issue for whites) is trumping “RACE” (which is a problem/issue for blacks).
Put your hand over the right side, and look only at the left:
The “worried white voters” are seeing only black all around… and in their panic, Obama now emerges as the beacon in the sea of darkness… i.e. a guide to a safe haven, but also (less symbolically) a white guy just like the readers of Time and real/reg’lar voters.
“The economy” (in case you haven’t seen the color of every single expert in the government or on the news is always coded as white and male. (Check out Jon Stewart’s Octobox/decabox skit last night if you don’t believe me … white guys x10.)
–> So the real (full-color, nuanced) Obama on the right is actually black–and thus, his race is an issue… but the tanking economy is causing fear (black-and-white mimeograph look), making him look white, and so race (his blackness) recedes by the blackness around, as his economic expertise MAKES him white (by mass-media definition.)
So there’s a visual suggestion that the fear surrounding the economy is making him seem white… but that he’s REALLY black.
Crystal clear?
Also, kudos to Nick (top) on his Star Trek knowledge. (The episode was “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” and it was–in my opinion–one of the most challenging, provocative television episodes in American history. If you watched it now it would seem quaint, but in the late ’60s, it was so far ahead of its time as to defy belief: It shows an almost late-’90s sensibility of seeing “race” as a social construct that damages BOTH the oppressed AND the oppressor.

The longer I stare, the more I discover:
1. The horns, the horns–he is Satanic?!!
2. The disembodied head–he is demonic?!!
3. His stare and light smile–he is mocking me?!!
…
Ergo, he is an evil spirit ready to show his true “color” when it fits him.
The murcury poison they put on Obama rather makes my blood boil.
How malicious they can be!
I want to write to _Time_ demanding an apology and correction to this defamation.

Halloween anybody?

I saw this at the grocery store last weekend, and I hoped the BAG would pick it up; I don’t think your response is over-reacting. I think the cover is both creepy and confusing. Stella’s comment about the lizard brain seems right on. The text may say “economy” but the graphics all say “race! race!”
McCain/Palin claim that Obama is not a person who loves America, that he is a secret Muslim, who pals around with terrorists, that we don’t know who the real Obama is. These are all emotional appeals that play on white racial fears. Maybe Time was going to do a cover story on the Republican meme of “WHO IS OBAMA, REALLY??!?? DO YOU KNOW????”–maybe as a Halloween issue?– and had prepared this cover to illustrate it. Then, the markets crashed and events on the ground overtook the “WHO IS HE, REALLY???” story. But they kept the cover anyway?

Sometimes publishers are just plain stupid, and fail at creating a sophisticated cover that expreses visually what the inside story is about.

Crème d’ Tartarus (after Paracelsus)

I think the Bag is right on here and not over reacting at all. The black and white suggests mug shot. The addition of red adds an aggressive militant message. Think Barbara Kruger art. No doubt the TIME A.D. thought it was punchy.
This cover would never have been considered with any other candidate. Imagine doing the same to Hillary Clinton. Headline: “Economy trumps gender” “How worried male voters are turning to Clinton.” And then showing half her face male. Not possible.

He’s a guy who smoked and he should be eliminated!
Abortions for all! Get your hands off my body!

Can we imagine a Time cover with McCain or Palin painted half black?

right. the image visually reinforces the whole “Who is Obama-?” attack-line narrative with the chickensh*t rhetorical tense as defense/excuse to so impugn the candidate with impunity. What is “colored” and what is “un-colored” = race-neutral remains ambiguous by the sophmoric conceit that the viewer will associate “his character” as his image being like that distinction between B&W and COLOR photography…
…leaving us, instead with the classical Janus dilemma: that we must resolve for ourselves.
=> “that it is unresolvable” is the message, imho.
yes, Nina this particular technique ‘COLORED -vs- WHITE=notCOLORED’ would not work as a means to ascribe “uncertainty” to Mrs. Clinton’s character ~ to do that, Time (or whomever) would e.g. instead show her being as divided between FEMALE -vs- MALE=notFEMALE gender cues. The irony of “Mrs. Clinton”, the character is that she, herself brazenly encourages the confusion, apparent between The Politics of Anxious Masculinity (as this *IS* the status quo), and The Politics of Nurturing Femininity : whereas Mr. Obama courageously discourages us from seeing in him any light other than what he really is ~ rather than what Some Say they would wish he were = just like one of them…
…and in doing so, he transcends ONE gender & race, etc., and becomes just like ALL of us. It is this synergy that is his energy, imho.

as an art director myself, i can imagine designing this layout, thinking the message is: Obama transitions from a graphic high-contrast, lo-detail person, into a vibrant flesh and blood human. it is lazy art direction but i could have done it too, thinking i’d solved my assignment.

Maybe I’m on my own here, but the high contrast black and white portion of the image reminds me of iconic photos of Malcom X. Coincidence?

“..leaving us, instead with the classical Janus dilemma: that we must resolve for ourselves.”
Exactly. And I’d say its a good thing too … the real problem is not that we get Obama with several faces (I recall
seeing a multi-faced Hillary as well) — although any one viewer might not like the choices made or
included here — but that there is an assumption that others are not multi-faced or that it is a “condition”
that could somehow truly be absolved or resolved.

Sarah : “the high contrast black and white portion of the image reminds me of iconic photos…”
that’s interesting, Sarah. Rather like the silkscreens of e.g., Warhol, where he is revealing to us an “insight” that celebrities and political leaders, etc., are as “characters = themselves, the result of mass-produced derivatives of consumer preferences,” not unlike ‘Soup Cans’
Jerry : “Can we imagine a Time cover with McCain… painted half black?”
fwiw, i’d Janus McCain’s and Ayers’ faces with the headline : ” The Issue is : Unrepentant Bombers of the 1960’s “.
iow, i see in McCain’s rhetoric this painfully obvious projection of himself: being an un-repentant, self-righteous old bomber.
This works everywhere except in The States, where a considerable number of people still make no moral equivalence of self-righteous conceit; “bombers” being both in-uniform .AND. irregular violent agents, ‘products of the same inhumane State’.

I think the owner and board of Time/CNN/New York Times secretly favors McCain. They do not represent the best interests of the American people and promoted the war in Iraq, and they know McCain will do as he’s told: he’ll nuke Iran.

MonsieurGonzo,
~fwiw, i’d Janus McCain’s and Ayers’ faces with the headline : ” The Issue is : Unrepentant Bombers of the 1960’s “.
~fwiw, i’d say, your historically accurate statement is priceless !

I too get the sense that the cover treatment was conceived well before they knew which Obama articles they’d be running. As a concept I think it’s leaden, Pentagram-self-satisfied, and really not something I would have given any thought — so I’m grateful to the BAG for bringing this up, because clearly it evokes a great deal that matters. I do think it’s interesting, though, that they ended up with a top-of-page headline that is intended to be generic: Why People Vote the Way They Do — and the graphic below completes the equation with, Pro-Obama or Anti-Obama? This Obama or that Obama? Why indeed.

Monsiuer Gonzo, Very clever idea pairing McCain and Ayers this way. Drill baby drill, sounds more and more like bomb baby bomb.
But a crucial difference between Ayers and McCain, other than the one you stated, is that Ayers has expressed regret, apologizing to a victim of the Days of Rage, and speaking critically of himself for his arrogance during his Weather Underground days. He’s devoted the last 30 years of his life to being an educator, whereas McCain has never apologized or expressed remorse to the people of Vietnam for repeatedly bombing their country, and his words suggest he is eager to replay the whole scenario in Iraq, in Iran and who knows where else.

Another comment, myself beeing in desktop publishing I agree with Roy. Another note, I noticed on a television commercial for The Nation last night that they have a cover of Obama on one of their mags a high contrast black and white image of Obamas face just like the left hand side of the TIME cover. So maybe a little copying there too.

if… “ The Issue is : Unrepentant Bombers of the 1960’s ”
Nina : “a crucial difference between Ayers and McCain… is that Ayers has expressed regret… speaking critically of himself”
indeed! (what remarkable insight you have, dear lady
and so “Ayers”, the bomber ceases to be menace and instead becomes metaphor for those of US (Americans) who have come to terms with our own violent (past / capacity) real character…
…whereas “McCain”, the bomber remains (again, like many Americans) menacing; ie., Still capable of (future) violence :
Because he/many of US cannot “see” himself/ourselves as ‘bombers’ being, really.
During Dubya, a question often asked was: “Is this leader simply incompetent, or is this mis-leader really that delusional?”
imho, We can only speculate, really whether or not Senator McCain would be a competent leader; But it is with certainty that we can say: He remains himself delusional sadly, not unlike many of US ).

I emailed Time about by displeasure with this cover and told them that I would not buy the issue. Like you, I want to know “why?.