Oh, magazine world, you so cuh-raaazy. First, you put a mother nursing her 3-year-old son on the cover of Time. Now, you put Obama on the cover of Newsweek, stick a rainbow halo over his head, and call him "The First Gay President." You so nutty, mag world. You so controversial. You so frickin' desperate!
Hey, I get it. No one buys magazines anymore. We all know everyone gets their news online. So you gotta get insaaaaane for anyone to notice you.
Of course, these two covers, coming in the same week, aren't exactly the first water cooler covers we've ever seen. There was the Princess Diana Back From the Dead cover, again on Newsweek. There's the crazy-eyed Michele Bachmann cover on ... yep, Newsweek! Anyone else sensing a theme here?
More from The Stir: Hollywood Reacts to Obama's Historic Marriage Equality Announcement (VIDEO)
My point is this: Mothers breastfeeding toddlers have been around for a long time. I know women who were doing it a decade ago. Not ... a ... big ... deal. And Obama is not our "first gay president." He supports the right of gay people to get married. This does not, in actuality, make him gay. (Yes, I know you are playing on Bill Clinton's reputation as the "first black president." But Clinton never appeared on Newsweek in an Afro wig -- though I bet you are regretting that!)
Worthy topics such as these could be dealt with in a more mature fashion, mag world, no? Instead, covers like these are something you'd see blaring from the frontpage of The Weekly World News. "Giant Baby Abducts Woman's Breast!" or "President Obama's Secret Life as a Drag Queen!"
All this is doing is making you look desperate, mag world. Especially you two kids over there, Newsweek and Time. Listen to me! Sit down. Behave yourselves.
What do you think of the Obama Newsweek cover? Desperate or -- oohh! -- controversial?
Image via Newsweek
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 48
I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Stuff like this, in my opinion, just takes the conversation off the important issues. We have such serious problems in our country right now and I don't think this is one of them.
This is taking creative journalism too far. It's bad enough when journalists twist facts around or publish partial statements to mislead people, but this is a downright lie and they shouldn't get away with it. Is should be called, "Liesweek" instead of "Newsweek."
Agreed
a long time ago, they had a name for this - 'yellow journalism'. this is completely stupid and as @JAFE said, takes the focus off the point that's important here.
what also really grinds my gears (*teehee*) is that this just goes to further anger the conservatives and paint up this whole overblown liberal/socialist image they have of the democrats and independents that support Obama.
honestly, sometimes i feel like the media is just overrun with out of control children. some of them could stand some time outs or even some (oh gosh!) corporal punishment! ;)
Oh, please! Don't you remember when Bill Clinton was called the "First Black President"? Yeah. Same thing. They wasted that title on the wrong guy, and now they're wasting THIS title on the wrong guy too. Nothing ever changes!
Bwahaha. It is an unbelievable cover of a sitting U.S. President (the ring over his head is a "gaylo", BTW).
Maybe if his campaign strategy focused on the issues the majority of Americans are concerned about this cover would never have happened. [Could the "Law of Unforeseen Consequences" be in play here?]
Tina Brown, the Editor in Chief of Newsweek and The Daily Beast (a left-leaning website) is a notorious Leftist who supports Obama, so I guess she sees this as a "positive". Her own words:
“If President Clinton was the ‘first black president’ then Obama earns every stripe in that ‘gaylo’ with last week’s gay marriage proclamation," Brown said. "Newsweek’s cover pays tribute to his newly ordained place in history.”
Question to Democrats: can Americans NOW expect discussion of issues like spiraling unemployment, national debt, rising energy prices, national security, etc.?
New cover of "The New Yorker" magazine:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/05/cover-story-spectrum-of-light.html
It's the White House with the front columns re-painted in rainbow hues.
Obama and the Left: "a laser-like focus on jobs and the economy" ROFL!
Good for a laugh, but deep-down -- it's pathetic and sad.
Hey, President Obama, when you tire of giving America your personal opinion on SameSexMarriage, could you discuss what plans you have to address our limping economy? (Besides tax more and spend more, that is). And Mr. President, have you seen the latest nationwide scholastic achievement scores? It's bad -- they're getting worse. Et cetera, Mr. President. Mr. President?
"Maybe if his campaign strategy focused on the issues the majority of Americans are concerned about this cover would never have happened. "
HYSTERICAL....considering all conservatives talk about is abortion and homosexuals. Regular conservatives might be talking about "real issues" (why equal rights for all our citizens isn't a "real issue" I'll never understand) but your politicians aren't.
I agree it's a ridiculous cover though and they shouldn't have been allowed to print it. I was young when the Clinton cover came out (I was only 7-15 when he was in office) so I didn't know about it but I think that's ridiculous as well.