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.
17 thoughts on “Time: Cover Picture Of Barack Obama As FDR”
He looks a little strange there, but I think that the reference is very flattering.
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.
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.
(It took 10 seconds on Google)
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
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.
Does anyone know where the original photo was taken ie its historical significance?
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.
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.
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.