Nope, not yet. This is the third site that I've been to, and I feel like I should have calmed down by now, but I haven't. I get what the satire is SUPPOSED to be, but this crossed the line. Plain and simple. It also pimped out the Obamas by using the stereotypes lobbied against them for readership.

This reminds me of a cartoon that appeared here, on Mother Jones a couple of months ago with Rev. Wright being lynched. Sometimes, you need to think about how people are going to receive a message before you put it out into the world.

it's the lack of a broader, shared context that makes this failed satire. on the cover of the new yorker, yea, i understand it as a joke. but this picture could appear in a lot of other places and it wouldn't seem like a joke. the cartoon needs something -- i'm not sure what -- to make it funny.
it's probably commentary on how dysfunctional and outrageous our current political climate has become that this picture isn't immediately and universally understood as a joke. there are certainly people (god, i hope not too many of them) that perceive obama exactly as depicted in the picture. we're as polarized as ever, i'd say; thanks gop!

Sometimes i think we are being submitted to this kind of puerile crap because an entire generation was lost to AIDS, and those now writing for show business and the media have no sense of propriety because they came to have that power without first experiencing life, without maturing properly. These creatives are not ironic, they don't see the 'big picture'. They are rebellious purely for rebellion's sake. They have no grasp of the how and why of issues with any sense of history or depth. They are a sound and fury signifying nothing.

I'm astounded. Does someone actually pay $4.50 for a magazine about New York? Amazing.

Clever and craven: this "lapoon" of lies becomes ambiguous without a caption. It will be exploited by crazies who believe the lie. The most disturbing aspect of the cover is that it magnifies what trivializes our political process. The crap becomes the focus when readers desperately need some responsible journalism concerning what is jeopardizing our democracy. When will the press stop contemplating the navel of politics (soap opera type-coverage of the campaigns) and get to the heart of what matters: endless war, the erosion of civil liberties, an economy that is tanking. Why hasn't any news organization (except MoJo) given readers Phil Gramm's backstory? No, instead we're primarily concerned with analyzing public perception rather than the hard facts.

That is as obvious as a vote for McCain could be.

Since the beginning of the primaries, I have read the most insulting blogs about Hillary and about McCain from Obama supporters. For the first year of the campaign, Obama was never vetted by the press, and was given a virtual free ride. To this day, Obama bloggers still use a litany of disrespectful names for Senator John McCain. Obama, and his angry supporters can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

What is it, that folks can't take a joke anymore? For gosh sakes, had this been on Saturday Night Live nobody would have said a word. If you can't do anything without worrying about how the other side might use it out of context, then you can't do anything! Joyce had it right when he diagnosed us as suffering from paralysis of the insane. Erleichda, people!

As always, your analysis shows actual THOUGHT where others are just gliding over the surface. And your idea IS funny.

I realize satire is harder than most people want to work, but is it really necessary to dumb everything down to the lowest denominator? Must everything be absolutely literal with disclaimers and explanatory captions?

Sigh... please don't answer that.

I laughed out loud reading the suggestion that the picture depict John and Cindy McCain. Now THAT would have been funny...

The cartoon is simply out of bounds. Sorry guys, but you really offended me and my friends out here in GOP-land, Idaho.

The cartoon is simply out of bounds. Sorry guys, but you really offended me and my friends out here in GOP-land, Idaho.

I agree with you.
There is no comparison of this to Bush. What happened in Ny Orleans was the truth; What happened in the bathroom stall was the truth; what we have just seen on the cover of this horrendous magazine is ALL FICTION and a smear tactic. Pictures speak a thousand words. They should be sued big time. Those are all false accusations.

Most intelligent people understand that this is supposed to be a joke; although not funny. I have that problem with most jokes in this magazine.
As far as this having an influence on the vote of the knuckle-draggers, I don't think so. They don't read The New Yorker.

Yes, the New Yorker went too far - it's looking very like a fifth columnist.

I enjoy the New Yorker and for the moment my rage goes from writing a "cancel my subscription" letter to recognizing free speech and what can I expect the artist to draw about McCain in the weeks to come.

Thankfully magazines shouldn't feel they need to please political campaigns so I fail to see how their approval or disapproval is relevant. When I first saw it I found it funny precisely because I understood what Britt was making fun of. As far as the "almost guarantee somebody's going to get hurt" - most likely the one who will get hurt is Britt because many liberals have lost the understanding of the importance of irreverence.

By the way, I predict in the end this will most likely help Obama. If someone looks at this and says, "Yeah, I can believe this is exactly what the Obama home is like", they aren't going to vote for him. For others the over-the-top nature of this satire may actually disarm the potency of some of these right-wing myths being pushed in the media.

Now, can we get back to something serious like Obama's plan for troop withdrawal or his terrible FISA vote and what that means for civil liberties in an potential Obama administration.

I agree with Mel and with the author. The cover would have been funny with the McCains replacing the Obamas.

Based on email forwards from friends and relatives down here in GOP land, the cover simply reinforces their already deeply held beliefs about the Obamas and how he would govern. Therefore, not funny!

Shouldn't Michelle be in a burqua?

I think they meant this ironically.

Maybe the point would have been clearer if Michelle Malkin's psychopathic attack stare had been in the corner, boxed by a television, and the Obamas as terrorists had been in a cloud bubble emanating from her head.

the cartoon was completely out of order. elections and leadership positions are nothing to joke about. jeri

I'm surprised The New Yorker used this for their cover, but I think people are over-reacting....and that will only help the people who want to use it to the benefit of the GOP. If people just laughed it off, organizations like Fox News would have nowhere to go with this.

Actually, non-reader, the magazine is seldom about New York. It is a very literate, though not literary, look at the world and only seldom as seen through the eyes of New Yorkers. You would do yourself a service if you read it for a little while, you might even find yourself smiling.

By the way, while I do live in NY, I am not in any way, other than as a subscriber, connected to the magazine.

"elections and leadership positions are nothing to joke about."

pink, are you serious? You don't like political humor? I understand your problem with the cover, but really, you don't like any humor that pokes fun at politicians or elected officials? If so, I think you are taking life way too seriously.

"Maybe the point would have been clearer if Michelle Malkin's psychopathic attack stare had been in the corner, boxed by a television, and the Obamas as terrorists had been in a cloud bubble emanating from her head."

Michael H., that's not a bad idea.

Needs John McCain and Hillary Clinton in the foreground 'painting' this scene for it to carry the article's message. (My mom will buy this magazine and give it to me, saying its proof that Obama's a Muslim and I'm going to hell if I vote for him.)

The "cartoon satire" is way over the top in bad taste! I was stunned by it; it wasn't necessary or funny. And, I literally just subscribed to the New Yorker! The man passing through the airport scanner naked a couple weeks ago was a better example of satire because it did not single out people known to virtually everyone

Well, since I think it's a hideous, viperous disgrace (and NOT funny), gives the likes of Rush Limbaugh, etc. all sorts of added fuel, creates a mental picture that sure will be now spread over a wider media swath than just the New Yorker's readership...I'll be going online to check out just how many of our magazine subscriptions besides The New Yorker come from Conde Nast -- and pulling the plug on all. I hope others will follow suit.

I will reserve comment until I see next months cover saterizing Mc...

It seems the damage has been done and we should not discourage the Ney Yorker from dropping th other shoe.

Any suggestions on what it should do to Mccain.?

yes some people will see this and said i told you so they was not going to vote for him any how but the problem is that it's a lot of people that think this way lets face it we got fool by georg twice and put him in the white house so people is not that smart and this will be down south just as sure as i am alive so don't fool yourself i know what it ment anybody who has a ounce of sense knows but thier are more nuts then thier is smart people and thats way it was not a good idea

Not only tasteless, but disrespectful to the Obama's and their supporters. This will only feed the ignorant & rabid masses of conservative authoritarian Christian Republicans who long for Nixon's race-based Southern Strategy and more intolerance, exclusion and hatred in our politics and culture. Shameful.

The problem with sophisticates like The New Yorker is that they live in a vacuum. Entrapped within that small space between the East River and the Hudson, its difficult for them to know or understand anything or anyone just beyond those shores, especially those in "them thar' hills" of Kentucky and West Virginia. Chalk it up to educated conceit.

Once the Obama's are in the White House, they'll be able to laugh at it. For now, it's "tasteless" and "offensive". The McCain camp agrees; laughing all the way to the polls. How The New Yorker portrays John McCain remains to be seen. Perhaps he's not worth satorizing.

Not only is there a lump of rage in my throat, but a sickening in my stomach at the TOTALLY disgusting lack
of judgement this cover on the New Yorker, July 21, has put
into everyone's face. There are people voting McCain who actually believe this stuff.
Very ignorant people out there.

I am extremely disappointed that The New Yorker printed this cover. Living in Texas, I can tell you there are actually people out here that would not catch on that this is satire but would take it as supporting their way of thinking. This one crossed the lines guys and there needs to be an apology to the Obamas and to the public that this cover has offended. As one person posted, "can't people take a joke anymore?" Well, I certainly can and had this been set up properly so that it satirized Fox News "journalism" as well as the right wing media, then it would be funny. However, this just plays on peoples' prejudices and fears.

C'mon Gina. Yeah there were terrible things said about Hillary, but are you still so blind as to ignore your own groups insults to Obama? The things Hillary said are campaign fodder (only McCain and I have the experience) that will come up throughout the election. It's a two way street and you guys went over the median strip quite a bit. Your hands are not clean enough to keep complaining!

Think of it as an IQ test. Those who understand it is satire get 100, and those who don't are below 70.

Those who get it were voting Obama already; and those who don't, weren't. No harm done besides a little more polarization.

The Malkin idea would clarify; or putting it on a FOX news TV screen, with an appropriate banner ending with a question mark.

I did get a laugh out of it, though it did go over the line. But then again, I saw very few negative remarks here when MoveOn placed an ad in a newspaper calling a noted US GENERAL a liar before he spoke before Congress. Such hate there and no satire.

So suck it up and have a laugh over the cover of the New Yorker and be happy they did not have a chance to get Obama's kids on the front cover as he did getting them on TV.

When will see McCain in his bed at the Hanoi Hilton Saying"I'll do and say whatever you want, just leave me alone"

A really dumb move, in poor taste, please cancel my subscription. Not you Mother Jones but the New Yorker. Been wanting to do it anyway for awhile; declining content, unfunny cartoons, too much slick advertising and fewer pages every year. It was a great magazine at one time but no more. This was a calculated grab for attention, a last gasp of a dying icon...

All it really needs is this image to be placed inside a talk balloon over McSame's head, while W holds a dented halo over him... Or, at the bottom, McCain talking to a varied audience looking aghast while a thought balloon dances over their heads...

By leaving out the speaker of the smears, the image makes the magazine the speaker of the smears.

It's a free speech when you speak the truth & not to make accusation and smear someone.
I am wondering,if somebody writes false stories about you as a joke that can destroy your career..is that
free speech ?

Exactly, Mary; a bubble over McCain's audience would do it!

And speaking of McCain's audiences, has anyone noticed how they look like an infomercial? No two look like they were coming to the same event.

Their attempts at diversity look contrived. Some look like they just came from the $1000-plate dinner, & others look like they just got through cleaning the town's sewers.

These people never look at each other, or laugh or nod at each other. No two came together; they don't know each other! They just stare straight ahead, all attentive-like. So very fake!

This shameful cover is--or so I thought--unworthy of the New Yorker, to which I shall no longer subscribe.

Hey People,

WOW>.. This was the funniest thing I have seen in a LONG time... HAHAHA
I would have given ANYTHIGN to have been in the room when Osama’s baby mamma saw this picture..:-)
This might actually be the tipping point to let undecided voters where they stand..huh?

Bill

i think this is probably fair , who is obama? what is his track record?what is his voting record?they say it was unfair to look into his church of twenty years, well what else is there....change? orator, who obviouly liked martin luther king s style of speaking, whitch is fine , but it doesnt give him knowledge or experience for commander in chief of the united states, if it does...several people on my block should have run...this is a joke...if you dont think the republican slime goons stuff doesnt stick either conciencely or un conciencely...look what they did to kerry and hillary clinton....even intellectual are taken in by this ,...and so we get obama...you think you want change now just suffer through his term...america your doing it to yourselves

After reading the cover I immeadiately canceled my subscription to the New Yorker. I next made a list of magazine sponsers so I can voice my displeasure with the coverpicture and inform them I will no longer purchase any products from supporting sponsers. Now I am voicing my displeasure once again by informing you of actions taken on my part. Now I am laughing I am keeping my money in my pocket. Thanks New Yorker you have helped me with my present spending habits.

just was watching lou dobbs,...this magazine has a long history of these kind of cover, its called political satire,..been around for hundreds of years,...they have defamed most high profile politicians, real bad on hillary clinton...but this is obama so its ...how dare you...this is also one of the reasons i hope he doesnt get that job,..any criticism or calling his judgement into question,..you ll be labeled a racist ....write in a canidate.. hillary..gore dont except these choices...in these times especially

Hey People,

I SUBSCRIBED to the new Yorker today..:-) As did many other people who NEVER got the magazine. I don't think you lib's understand, many, like millions of peole, know that obama has some VERY deep seeded ideas that he is not letting out , till his baby moma is in the white house.

Bill

The New Yorker editorial board must be truly warped in order to not understand how racist their cover is

Honestly, I saw this cartoon prior to the media coverage and all the feigned outrage, and I found it to be a genuinely funny bit of satire.

I guess I'm an optimist. Because I had hoped that the average reader would recognize it as a clever lampooning of right wing fear mongering.

After reading some of the comments echoing these racist views, I think perhaps not.

Satire has to be based on some element of truth. There is no element of truth here, therefore it is not satire but an attack, collecting together all the negative lies about Michele and Barack. These two people did not deserve this. It is offensive, damaging, and this, may, in fact, be their Imus moment.

Had you shown Bush and his swift boat cronies drawing the picture you would have achieved satire, unfortunately all you have done is endorse the misinformation of the basest level of our society. Let's see if the New Yorker editor is big enough to apologize to Obama and his wife.

The cartoon is brilliantly funny because it shows us a mirror in which to discover how stupid we are and to laugh at ourselves. There are people who not only think Obama is a Muslim but who even think it would matter if he were a Muslim. THAT IS FRICKIN' HYSTERICAL, PEOPLE. There are people who imagine that it makes a nanno-difference one way or another whether someone wears a flag-pin in a lapel. THIS IS AS FUNNY AS IT GETS, FOLKS. True, it's also heart-breaking that people think these ways, but isn't it the job of a satirist to make us laugh at how stupid we are so we will get snapped back into some form of intelligent maturity once we see our dumbness reflected in this merciless mirror?! Of course, the prophets have a good record at getting thrown into the muddy cisterns or crucified, or what-not. I can't figure why anyone would want the job, but God knows we need them! The cries of "foul" at making fun over our sacred obsessions about whether it matters about whether one is Muslim or wears a pin simply prove how accurate is the cartoonist's insight--and the New Yorker editor's insight--about the pathetic state of what passes for politics (with our two corporate owned and operated parties)!

This might have been funny except for the fact that so many people believe it is true! I constantly get emails from people who believe it! It's a disappointment to see and regardless of any satirical McCain cover in the future, it will still be a disappointment.

This does not surprise me. Unfortunately the country seems to be dumbing down at an alarming rate. Although this may be thought to be satirical, it displays the poor taste that is becoming our trademark. From the comment by Mr. Imus that generated more comments about "nappy" hair than about the fact that the young ladies were called "hoes" to the comments by Beck and the drug user now commanding $400 Million for his tasteless talk show, America is becoming as stupid as the black rappers who constantly disrespect their mothers, sisters and girlfriends. I thought that they didn't know any better. Now it seems that they are in the same category with the "best" of us. They justify their filthy mouths as simply entertainment. So does the New Yorker call its "satire" entertainment.

For the va-Gina of the above comment, the Obama supporters can probably take any thing that you and yours can dish out.

jonnierae is correct. Look up the word satire. You will see that this is not satire, just a blatant racist attack on a man running for President in what he wants to believe is a country ready to move beyond the racism upon which this country is based.

Whether he wins or loses, he will emerge a winner. America will see its true face. What that face is, I cannot say. Nor do I care who wins.

Thanks to all of the stupid attacks against him, the disregard for his whiteness, the constant calling of his attention to his blackness, I will vote for him because he must be very special.

A question for all. If being half black and half white make one all black, are we not admitting that blackness is more powerful than whiteness? And is this really what we are angry about?

If someone like Rush Limbrough were on the cover painting this picture of the Obamas then it would explain it in more detail that what the magazine was attempting to do was to show how the right wing was attempting to smear Obama. However the cover without this simple way of explaining what was attempted, just gave all those people in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Viginia ammunition to say," See I told you so, he is a Muslim and his wife is a radical." The cover is offensive.

I like the cover very much, it's right on target, and neg. reaction to it by the very, very thin skins Obama supporters confirms that.

The New Yorker managed to assassinate the character of two high functioning citizens of this nation to what end? The bigoted will revel in the cover, the ignorant will have their prejudices confirmed and those of us that have been struggling to "maintain" through stolen elections, a mangled Constitution and laws not observed, see that electing a well qualified man who just happens to be a Democrat, married to an accomplished woman may not be possible in this land of assassins.

Brilliant analysis by yabbi. From television programming to the movie industry, the "know nothings" with zip world experience are running the show. More time to read and a wealth of great literature.

I will stand with the mulsims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. Now is that a direct quote from the Audacity of Hope? I don't need you libs to love my country but, I do need my leader.

Well, while the artist of this "delightful satirical humor" is setting somewhere contemplating if he has regrets doing the drawing I think I'd like to thump him between the eyes with my thumb and middle finger. You know, the kind you want to do when some one should have had better sense and maybe the thump can jump start his brain, or at least get him attention? Actually, it's the same kind of thump I'd like to give to all the good church going preachers living here in the south that are still preaching and making their congregation believe that Senator Obama is Muslum (which down here means terrorist), was raised "over there" and and is probably a plant here to take down our government.
Do you not realize what power you have with each stroke of a pen, each stike of a keyboard? Could you please take a couple of weeks off and try to undo the damage you've done? You might try telling them you were just kidding? Someone said here in one of the comments not to worry about the people that don't get the satire,( the illiterate, the ignorant or just plain dumb?), they don't read your magazine anyway. While that's probably true they will be the first to find it after hearing about it from Rush Limbaugh or the like and print out enough copies to plaster the White House with, doing God's will the whole time.
Look, I get it, I do. I've enjoyed the art, the humor and the articles in the New Yorker and have for many years but in times like these you also have to take some responsibility for the damage. How many hours, days, weeks and months so many of us have put in trying to straighten out the misconceptions. You would not believe how many people don't know anything about Obama being raised by white grandparents in Kansas. Just that simple fact is unknown by so many that will be voting "God's will" this November. While it's not your place to try to straighten them out, it's also not right to feed into it either.
I've gone on longer than I meant to but the truth is too important and this drawing has stirred up a lot of feelings by feeding right into the lies. I don't ask that you try to please me or anyone else with your work, just be aware how you can effect others in this climate of the times. Thank you.

While I fear what idiots may think of this cartoon- it makes me want them in the white house even more!! What's wrong with a militant black woman, Muslim, turbans, and burning the flag?
Could do without Osama, i guess. But seriously, Mrs. Obama looks great- go sister! All Power to the People!

"celebrating their arrival in the White House with a good old terrorist fist-bump"

since when did that become a "terrorist fist-bump"? Who are all the terrorists who've been seen doing that? Bin Laden? our old friend Al Qaeda? Bush? Olmert?

When MoJo blog readers, presumably capable of "getting" satire without it being totally dumbed down, write in saying, "Oh, it's just that Obama supporters have a thin skin, or can dish it out but can't take it," it's a sign that the cover's satire doesn't work, that it's being read as commentary on the Obamas rather than commentary on right-wing fear-mongering. If the satire had worked, Rush/Bush/McBush would be the ones in a tizzy.

Satire's tough, like any kind of edgy comedy: you put it out there and wait to see if the right people say "ouch" and the right ones say "ha." It's also contextual, timely: if the right audience doesn't say "ha" immediately, then it's not top-notch satire. (The "ouch" audience often takes a little longer...) Maybe in X years, people will look back and say "wow, that was right on target, brilliant!" -- but really effective satire gets the immediate as well as the long-term audience.

Another suggestion for an alternate version of this cover: magazine rack with someone buying the New Yorker with the McCain-terrorist cover, and someone else buying the National Review with the Obama-terrorist cover. Slam everyone who participates in fearmongering, and maybe let the rest of us get back to actual issues.

I'd call this cover the creation of folks inside the bubble. The image of "a bubble" is apt in a lot of situations, such as Bush in the White House, people living inside the D.C. beltway, etc. Clearly folks at The New Yorker are in their own bubble, and more folks than just the artist, Harry Britt.

Being inside "a bubble" anywhere in America is, or can be, a serious problem. A similar phrase, being "in an Ivory Tower," is an old image of an academic "bubble" of its own making. These images have in common the complete lack of awareness of how average, everyday Americans live their lives. It shows divisions in the country not neatly categorized as between race or economic class.

An old saying, "will it play in Peoria?" was wisdom we seem to lack today. It suggests taking a look at a presumably ordinary town in America, "USA Mainstreet," in other words, and imagining how an idea, a theory, a work of art, would be received in such a community. Ignoring American life "outside of a bubble" has served to get this country into serious trouble on many fronts. Let the bubble breaking begin while there still is a country to save.

Well, my IQ is above 70 but my jaw dropped open too, in dismay at yet more fuel to feed the ignorant rumors of so many people who will believe it's meant for real. I can barely believe the New Yorker is not aware that 1 in 10 Amricans actually believe Obama is a Muslim and use it as an excuse not to vote for him because they're racists. Now they'll call all their hillbilly relatives (the ones with phones) and say "See I told you'all - even got a pitcher of him and his mean ol' lady on front of one of them fancy New York magazines." I think the rag mag should get in touch with the rest of the world. Sure we all disavow those ignorant enough to believe the picture is meant as anything but satire - but unfortunately they are out there in numbers - who don't even understand the concept of humor, let alone satire - and sadly they all have the right to vote. Totally irresponsible and tasteless to the extreme. If I had a subscription I'd cancel.

Dana Reynolds has this issue pegged right. How would this New Yorker cover play in Peoria, rather than inside the metropolitan Manhattan bubble?

Having visited Peoria and believing it is much like my current home town of Saginaw, Michigan in its ethnic makeup, education level, socioeconomic mix, and so forth, I would project the impact of viewing this cover cartoon like this:

20-25% of the people would grasp the joke and its subtleties, consider it funny, edgy, but dangerously close to over the top. These folks are all going to vote for Obama anyway.

20-25% of the people would see it as a joke directed at Barack and Michele Obama as well earned ridicule, exaggerating real traits or stereotypic negative things they've heard or read about the Obamas elsewhere. The white people in this category will never vote for Obama under any circumstances.

The remaining 50% of the people will stare at the cartoon's mixed messages and remain startled and confused about what the joke was intended to be. The more they ponder the matter, the more those uncertainties ultimately will gravitate towards the unintended effect of legitimizing the red-white-and blue racist fear mongering that the stereotypes convey.

Some of those folks, confused about the joke, will hold that against the New Yorker.

Most, unfortunately, will instead hold it against the Obamas because as we all know, when in doubt it's always better to be safe than sorry.

Bill from Saginaw

funny, Funny, Funny, This mag. cover is doing more damage to obama and his baby momma than $50 Mil spent by McCain..:-)
IThis jsut goes to show you that the lib's can't HELP shooting themselves in the FOOT..!!!

HAHHAHAHAHA

Bill

NEXT WEEK'S CARTOON:
McCain being waterboarded & the torturer saying, "still don't believe it's torture?"

regardless of offense, it's just plain poor satire. it's not very sophisticated. As stated, if it were the McCains, it would have been funny. It would have been satire. While the cover is surely satire and nothing to get one's panties in twist over, i can't help but be saddened by the New Yorker's low standards for cover art.

offensive is fine, just make sure it's freaking funny.

As far as this having an influence on the vote of the knuckle-draggers, I don't think so. They don't read The New Yorker.

No they don't read the New Yorker, but now that it's plastered all over FauxNews and every other MSM outlet, they've all seen it and probably taken it as an 'a-ha! - see honey, he IS a muslim!' instead of a joke.

Attempt at "satire and/or humor" lays an egg. - One that truly stinks!
_____________________________________________________________________

To call this magazine cover: "tasteless and offensive" must be seen as the understatement of the year.

Either the once highly intelligent and insightful people at the New Yorker were recently "disappeared" and replaced by 1950's style "sci-fi pods" from the "Gallaxy of Stupidity" or some person or persons at that famous magazine is/are Hell bent, (for reasons best known to the New Yorker), on helping President Bush get that "third term".

No thinking adult could fail to recognize that this magazine cover comes across as the sort of illustration one would expect to encounter on the front page of a very amateurish, immature and sophomoric college fraternity handout.

This is not at all a question of a "Free Speech" issue, as someone very unconvincingly attempted to suggest. To say so is not only quite a stretch but appears deeply disingenuous and insults the intelligence of the readers of the New Yorker magazine, Crain's New York, Craigslist as well as all Americans.

This is however, a rather crude attempt, whether perpetrated knowingly or not, to damage Barack Obama's bid for the White House.

Although it is most likely that this New Yorker magazine cover will not, by itself, or in concert with other such attempts to hurt the Obama campaign, do any lasting permanent damage, it will however remain a permanent stain on the otherwise once praiseworthy reputation of a fine magazine.

Thus, in the end, the thoughtless choice to print this rather obscene, coarse and even repulsive magazine illustration on its cover, says far more about that magazine than it could ever possibly say about the next President and First Lady of the United States.

This is indeed a dark day for American journalism, whether the New Yorker magazine decides to apologize or not, for a rather egregious and most lamentable error in Editorial oversight.

David Pakter
New York City

Thanks to ezry for the cogent analysis of what's wrong with the cartoon.

It's too bad that the editorial staff at The New Yorker didn't consult a little longer or maybe check in about what could make this cartoon REAL satire. Fearmongering as a campaign style is surely worthy of political satire. But they missed the mark this time and in doing so probably caused the Obama campaign some damage in their attempts to court voters. Worse, they most likely added fuel to the flames of racism.

Too many people will see the cover without ever opening the magazine to find out what it says about fearmongering. They might only register their visceral reaction to the image which may very well be fear about the image becoming reality. In those individuals, The New Yorker will have achieved the opposite of their intentions.

The whole country is feeling fearful and with good reason. Of course it's not because of anything truthful about Obama, but there is such a significant portion of citizens who are held in the grip of cognitive dissonance due to the betrayal of power, so many terrified about the future of our country, that any spotlight on our fears has to be carefully done so as not to inspire scapegoating.

Yes, we desperately need a sense of humor. But responsible humor. We are living in dangerous times. With immanent threats to the life support system of our planet to failing economies to corporate take-overs of world governments, never before have our missteps come with such dire consequences.

Unintended consequences are consequences nonetheless. We are all accountable to each other for them and have to work to clear up any misunderstandings that result.

This blog will not be the place to judge the unintended consequences of this cartoon. I hope that MoJo will continue to report where this cartoon goes in the national dialog.

Meanwhile, I wish that somebody would clean up this blog from all the posts that have not followed the community rules. Ad hominum attacks are always an insult to intelligence and I don't like having to bump into them to get to the more salient points.

And to some of my liberal friends here, please think again about using insulting terms like "knuckle draggers" and such to describe others who either don't agree with you or who are misinformed or who have been indoctrinated into a totally different worldview than your own. With that language, you contribute to the problems we are trying to address. It's really no better than the racism to which you object.

NEW YORK TIMES HATE-BAIT LEADERS ATTACK OBAMA, THE LEADING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF THE AMERICA PEOPLE

The notorious systematic "anti-Semitic" baiting, "racist" baiting, "Muslim" baiting, and "extremist" baiting; the standard Podhoretz Neo-Con and Leiberman Neo-Lib hate-baiting tactic in the American Cultural War, does more damage to the treacherous reputations of these Crypto- Neo-Marxists than to the trustworthy reputations of Obama and his supporters. Obama is known throughout the World to have earned broad support among Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Humanists of all races. Such desperate attempts at the intimidation and slander of Obama, by these hate-baiters, shall be severely punished by the American People in the course of the Cultural War.

Is not New York the place were all the trash trains come from?
.

When satire pisses people off that's when satire is at it's best...
Thank you New Yorker magazine.

"I'm astounded. Does someone actually pay $4.50 for a magazine about New York? Amazing."

Duh. New Yorker's not a magazine about New York, it's a literary magazine that's older than your grandma, and outside of the Harpers and Atlantic Monthly, one of the most respected. The periodical about New Yorkers and all things New York is called "New York Magazine."

I sent this email to the editor at The New Yorker.

Satire is one thing - - all-American free speech - - and I do truly enjoy it. This cartoon, however, went that step beyond.

Now, I'm no closet ReThugLikkan, but I would have been equally outraged if they had portrayed a caricature of John McCain in a wheelchair, wearing Depends, being pushed by Cindy swigging from a liquor bottle while popping pills (even though it would have been closer to the truth).

July 14, 2008

To The New Yorker (I will not lower myself to calling you “Dear”):

Your July cover carries what you meant to be an insulting portrayal of Sen. Obama. But it is not really a portrayal of Sen. Obama - it is really a portrayal of The New Yorker's seedy and racist underside, issuing this BLATANT INSULT to Sen. Obama and his supporters of all races and ethnic groups, to all black people, and to Muslims.

You even insult decent, fair-minded Americans who do support Sen. Obama for president, those who decided which candidate to support based solely on their honest opinions of what is best for their country and which candidate they feel can best represent America, not racism. They will also be upset at your ignorant, divisive cartoon.

And is that supposed to be a caricature of Michele Obama on the cover with Sen. Obama? Seems that the New Yorker has outdone itself demonstrating its prejudice. So females who dare be opinionated and outspoken are comparable to guerrilla warriors?

Your rag may get plenty of complaints over this outrageously racist, sexist piece of garbage. Many people will contact you and demand an apology regarding this offense. But I much prefer your overt racism and sexism to hypocrisy. Don't bother to apologize -- stand your ground and EXPRESS YOURSELF FREELY. I know how stressful it can be to repress your true feelings. So don't hold back, New Yorker. Keep putting your real feelings out there! Go ahead and stand proud with your pointed white hoods and flaming crosses! And I, in turn, will stand proud in my decision to never read, or speak highly of, your magazine – ever.

Susan
Buffalo Grove, IL

Absent a caption, the cartoon plays to the uneducated biases of low- (and perhaps middle-brow) America.

Given that humans are visually oriented, even a caption fails to mitigate the absolute gall that The New Yorker displays here.

When Time Magazine put on it's cover an image of the Marines at Iwo Jima raising a tree instead of an American Flag I found it offensive and felt that it was a slap in the face for veterans. I was told by my extremely liberal brother in law that it was "freedom of speech." and he also quoted Sinclair Lewis. When I saw this cover I remembered my brother in law's words, "It's freedom of speech." You Obama supporters can't have it both ways. I totally get the satirists' viewpoint. I also find myself agreeing with Maureen Dowd. Neither Obama or his supporters have a sense of humor. Ms. Dowd has also been attacked on prominent liberal blogs in recent days for that column. With the country in such a state of disarray, I find myself agreeing with the left's point of view more and more lately. Maybe if people on the left were more self depracating I might actually consider voting for Obama. I think the Obama campaign doth protest too much.

I wonder who paid them? And how much??

you couldn't be more correct...