Cuban flag and Guevara poster at Obama's Houston HQ

[snopes]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chavez.asp

[Tootsie Plunkette]

I heard it was a North Korean flag and a picture of Mao. Or was it an Iranian flag and a picture of Osama bin Laden? I forget.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: Reportedly, the Obama headquarters in Houston prominently
displayed a Cuban flag along with a photograph of Che.
Any truth to this rumor?

Now that's subtle. But no reference to Islam?

[Chloe]

Boortz was touting this yesterday.

[Dr. Dave]

Well, there is that bit that his campaign rented a storefront that was previously a headshop. Don't those types often have a Che poster around? Maybe the story got garbled. And off by a couple thousand miles.

Seriously though, snopes, could you or Barbara please clear this up for us. Is the guy Muslim of the Arab variety, Christain but super Afrocentric, Nation of Islam, or Atheist Commie?

[Tarquin Farquart]

They should have added "and a book by him called I Am Secretly A Muslim Afrocentric Communist"

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: Reportedly, the Obama headquarters in Houston prominently displayed a Cuban flag along with a photograph of Che. Any truth to this rumor?

Well, where else is he going to drink the blood of Christian babies, if not underneath that poster?

[BoKu]

Wait, this isn't "when tinfoil hats aren't enough"?

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Well, the Obama Campaign's official response seems to acknowledge that the Che Guevara flag was at a campaign office, but deny that it was a headquarters or an office funded by the national headquarters.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/fac...ppropriate.php

[Tootsie Plunkette]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: Reportedly, the Obama headquarters in Houston prominently
displayed a Cuban flag along with a photograph of Che.
Any truth to this rumor?

Well, technically, that's not really a Cuban flag, since the official flag of Cuba doesn't have an image of Che on it.

And technically, that's not a photograph of Che, it's the famous graphic image of Che printed on something resembling (but not actually) a Cuban flag.

Cuban Che Flag.

So I'd say, no, it's not true.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Here is a link to a local Texas news report about the campaign for the primary in Texas. The focus wasn't on the flag with Guevara's likeness on it, but was just showing the Obama office being opened. It's shown in the first fifteen seconds after the commercial. Although at the time it appears this was rented and staffed by volunteers, the report says that they expected paid staff at the site by the end of the week.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=1.1.1

Originally Posted by Tootsie Plunkette

Well, technically, that's not really a Cuban flag, since the official flag of Cuba doesn't have an image of Che on it.

And technically, that's not a photograph of Che, it's the famous graphic image of Che printed on something resembling (but not actually) a Cuban flag.

Cuban Che Flag.

So I'd say, no, it's not true.

Very technical distinction there, considering the general thrust of the statement.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Tootsie Plunkette

And technically, that's not a photograph of Che, it's the famous graphic image of Che printed on something resembling (but not actually) a Cuban flag.

Well, it is a photo and the photographer has received no royalties whatsoever when people have used it through the years.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Floater

Well, it is a photo and the photographer has received no royalties whatsoever when people have used it through the years.

Tootsie Plunkette is correct, the image is a graphic, not a photo, since it has been extensively modified from the original photograph.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

Tootsie Plunkette is correct, the image is a graphic, not a photo, since it has been extensively modified from the original photograph.

What I meant was, of course, that regardless of how it has been treated the basis of the image is a photo and what I wanted to point out was that the photographer hasn't been paid.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Floater

What I meant was, of course, that regardless of how it has been treated the basis of the image is a photo and what I wanted to point out was that the photographer hasn't been paid.

Yep, you are right. Of course, I'm sure the graphic artist hasn't been paid either.

But hey, both the photog and artist were probably commies so it is OK.

[Cyrano]

Alberto Korda (1928 - 2001) was the photographer's name.

And yes, he was a Communist in the best sense of the term.

He never received any royalties for the image, although in 2000 he sued Smirnoff over the use of the image in advertisement. Commenting on the illicit use of his photograph, the artist said, "As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world, but I am categorically against the exploitation of Che's image for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che". His out-of-court settlement of US $50,000 was donated to the Cuban healthcare system. He said, "If Che were still alive, he would have done the same."

[Seburiel]

Originally Posted by Floater

Well, it is a photo and the photographer has received no royalties whatsoever when people have used it through the years.

Wow, I've never seen that photo of Sr. Guevara, and I must say, the reprographic protrays his (at least in my mind) as a much better-looking, more mysterious man. the photograph, on the other hand, in my opinion, makes me realize (once again) that people are people. Sr. Guevara looks very disheveled in that photo, whereas the graphic makes him look 'actiony'
just my opinion.