Time: Cover Picture Of Barack Obama As FDR
2008 November 13
What a great cover! My heart fills with so much pride tonight as I see this cover photo.
Just a week ago I posted a review for a book, and stated, “perhaps it I close my eyes I can see FDR with his legs braced, his cape flapping in the wind, and his head cocked upwards to greet us still.”
Over the past week James and I have talked a great deal about 1932 and the election of FDR, and how it resembles 2008 and the election of Barack Obama. James has heard selected passages from the book mentioned above, as great paragraphs need to be shared. But now Time magazine makes history, and the future, a lot more clear.
I ♥ FDR!!!!!! he was like totally awesome, and he’s my hero and bff. obama in FDR’s place? errg, okay
I cannot believe this. Of all the things that Time magazine could do, they make a despicable photoshop of one of the greatest Presidents of our time. Obama is in no way a Lincoln a Kennedy or Roosevelt. These were all leaders of our great nation that have made tremendous impacts on our freedoms.
I hope those of us can remember our History Lessons. F.D.R. was our President at the start of WWII and helped end it.
Does this possibly mean a war is on our horizon? It seems that Obama has drawn many of his statements during his campaign from great leaders, is seeking current great leaders (McCain and economic talks) to help his Presidency.
If he is so great than he needs, the press needs to show that instead of defacing our history.
What’s next? Obama’s face on Mt Rushmore or perhaps his face carved in the Lincoln Memorial?
Wake up people.
I’m quite certain that Obama will lead the country, or what’s left of it, through a longer and more severe depression than FDR’s.
The New Yorker’s election recap issue had a hand-drawn version of this, which avoids Time’s awkward photoshopping a bit.
Terrence,
Let me assure you that liberals have a logical reason for stating that Bush has shredded the Constitution. If you were to search this blog you will find that a reasoned and coherent view on a wide range of issues are dealt with, including a long list of topics about civil and constitutional rights. Having been in broadcasting and the state legislature (though not as an elected official) I have a lot of issues that are on my horizon. None are perhaps more important than those that deal with our very core of a democracy. The nice thing about a blog is that I can have a serious piece on these matters, and also have a different way of making my point such as the post where I have a copy of the constitution and state that Bush wipes his butt with it. Both make the same point about the abuses to our country from Bush. That does not make me shrill. It just means that I make my point and my readers with varied backgrounds get it.
I sense that you believe logic is not employed if the outcome does not agree with a conservative’s point of view. That of course is your right. But lets put the facts in some type of paragraph about the need as to why I state we needed to take the country back from the conservatives this year as it relates to the Bush Crime Family and our rights.
Bush has used uninhibited executive power to wage war, seize, confine, torture at will, breaching constitutional laws, international treaties, along with covenants concerning treatment of combatants. The Patriot Act was a pile of the most insane items ever assembled….and thankfully the man who lived only a short distance from me for many years….Sen. Feingold, voted against it……and proudly ran for re-election on that fact and won! YES! The prison camp at Guantanamo, and the attacks against habeas corpus under Bush are innumerable. Free speech is no longer a right. Stand alongside Bush’s presidential motorcade with a protest sign, and the Secret Service or local law enforcement will haul you off. Appearance on any watch lists maintained by government agencies means inability to get on a plane. You need your papers for more than just travel. The Indiana statute approved by the Supreme Court demands that persons lacking “proper” ID only cast provisional ballots, with a bureaucratic idea for subsequent verification. Americans no longer have an unimpaired right to vote, even if of appropriate age. Warrantless wiretappers and the FISA bill, make me gag. Bush has ravaged the Fourth Amendment, starting with his insistence that he could issue arrest warrants if there was reason to believe a noncitizen was implicated in terrorist activity. BULLSHIT! Once seized the captive had no recourse in a court of law. The “probable cause” standard which is for disciplining the state’s desire to search and to seize, has been abused, as are the FBI’s powers under the “material witness” statute to arrest and hold suspects.
So much for your theory that “critics who are either too lazy to develop a logical line of criticism or are not statisfied by merely blasting Bush’s poor results and prefer to portray Bush as “evil” in order to make themselves feel better about themselves.’
Bush is in fact evil.
Thanks Dina.
I’m not sure I understand your point on electing Bush in 2000 as an experienced candidate. His critics were quick to point out his relative lack of experience at that time, so this would seem to argue against electing someone with even less experience– like Barry.
My point on the “good/bad” dichotomy does not rest on arguing that Bush’s performance as president was actually effective and misunderetimated. Rather, I to have complaints about Bush, and I think it is vitally important to hold our leadership up to a high standard. However, I also believe that process is undermined by critics who are either too lazy to develop a logical line of criticism or are not statisfied by merely blasting Bush’s poor results and prefer to portray Bush as “evil” in order to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Take Iraq, for example. It’s not enough for many of Bush’s critics to take him to task for his obvious failures in Iraq. Rather, it has to be “blood for oil” or a conspiracy by the neocons to protect Israel. Similarly, Bush’s attempts to find same way to deal with terrorists picked up on the battlefield (terrorists who are not lawful combatants and not entitled to the protections afforded under the Geneva Conventions) are not criticized as ineffective, wrong-headed or misguided. Rather, they are held up as some attempt by the Bush/Cheney “crime family” to “shred” the constitution for some unknown reason I have yet to see specified. This kind of shrill nonsense drives away potential critics on the left, right and center– potential critics who might otherwise raise their voices against Bush and curtail his subsequent screw-ups.
On the “taking our country back” meme, Bush can’t take away your country and Obama can’t give it back. America is based on principles that neither man can undermine, I believe, though I am concerned about what havoc can be wrought by an earnest, but woefully misguided electorate.
Forget all the propaganda you’ve heard about “Hope.” It was just a marketing slogan like “change we can believe in” as I think is becoming painfully obvious by the imminent selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
Please note that I am spouting off in general here– I’m not trying to paint you as being silly and naive. I think your skepticism on The Messiah is well-founded and I am confident that it will serve you well as the silliness continues to unfold.
In response to Terrence, (and I think here would be an appropriate time to include the fact that I am a Liberal), I want to begin by saying that I agree with much of what he is saying. I too worry about the hero-worshiping of our new leader, and I too dislike simplistic analogies and political ties.
That said, however, I would also like to include that for eight years now, starting in 2000, and then again 2004, we cautioned and forewarned the dangers of electing a very well-experienced, character filled Bush because we do know what we “believe” in and we do have a firm understanding of what we what “we hold to be true and logical.”
As aforementioned, for much of the Obama campaign I too cringed at the cult-like displayed by SOME Obama followers. And although I must admit, I am quite taken by him too–I still recognize that he is entering a more-than “iffy” situation, and might not be able to do much in the first couple of years, and indeed might even make a choice or two that prove detrimental rather than awe-inspiring.
But I think what you fail to recognize is that Bush was “bad” as far as leaders go–and as simplistic as it sounds, sometimes truth is found in simplicity. For eight years now, we’ve been watching this country and the principles we hold dear slip away from us. So you must understand the overwhelming joy at the prospect of a new leader who displays such pragmatism and calm.
Finally, the Time magazine cover and its article are not a simplistic idolization of Obama, comparing him to FDR and all he stood for, but is comparing Obama’s SITUATION to that of FDR’s. Of course, it is a flattering comparison that is silver-lined with a fresh, new prospect of Hope.
And good sir, who would not to relish in Hope in these dreary days? Certainly we recognize the pit-falls, and the endless possibilities of jumping and falling flat on our faces…but right now, Hope is the only thing that will keep us in the air, just a little while longer.
Hi, I’m a conservative who stumbled on this post. I am an expat in Singapore who was talking to an Indian colleague about the Great Depression and I wanted to point him to this Time cover, which I think is absurd. I googled for it and found this blog. Actually, I saw this cover the other day at the American Club here, and I was startled by it, I must admit. I grew up reading time magazine– I can remember more than one family discussion about Time magazine covers when I was a boy. However, I can’t stomach Time anymore. I realize that many Obama supporters have high hopes about the Obama administration, but this kind of hero worship frightens me. Also, I’m distressed at how in far in the tank Time is for Obama. I just chucked out their other recent issue– the one about whether “temperment” mattered (which had Obama facing Lincoln on top of FDR facing McCain). To me, that cover said it all. I thought we should have been asking whether experience or character mattered– not temperment. Also, I would caution you to not brush off the reassessment of FDR as right-wing attacks. One thing I learned from this election was to focus in on what your core principles are– why you believe what you believe– and to try and let go of your desire for your side to win, or to see the other side lose. Figure out what you believe and what you hold to be true and logical, based on a cold surveying of history and the facts. I don’t think Time is helping here. The simplistic view (Hoover bad, FDR Good; Bush bad, Obama good) may be attractive, but it is simplistic and misleading to say the least. We’ll see what Obama can do, and I wish him well, but I hope you will remember this post if things don’t turn out as glorious as the cheerleaders at Time anticipate.
Does anyone know where the original photo was taken ie its historical significance?
Paul,
Thanks for reading and commenting!
No it was not to be funny, just a statement about the way 1932 and FDR resembles 2008 and Obama.
Also I used Google photos to find it and used the term FDR and car.
I was glad to help.
Thanks Derek, I will save the pic, and my copy of Time. Looks like there will be several collectors issues to hold onto. Do you think that it was meant to be funny, or is it just my warped sence of humor? I guess I didn’t know what to ask for from my google. Thanks, Paul
Here ’tis.
http://weblogs.amny.com/news/local/tracker/blog/fdr1.jpg
(It took 10 seconds on Google)
As a subscriber to Time I laughed my butt off looking at this cover! I am at a loss to find the picture that this parody is reflecting. I know that I have seen this picture of FDR somewhere before, but after a search on the web, I am at a dead end. All I can find is it is a modified 1936 Ford Phaeton. Can someone help me find the original picture? Thanks, Paul R.
I just love this Time cover. I’ve noticed that the right wingers have begun to attack FDR lately, after seeing the comparisions between him and Obama. They are saying, of all things, that FDR’s policies prolonged an otherwise short recession. That’s ridiculous of course.
He looks a little strange there, but I think that the reference is very flattering.