New Yorker's Cover: Tastless and Offensive or A Bee Sting?

The problem with the cover is that the typical under educated or first glance viewer is going to say if the New Yorker, a major liberal magazine says it's true it must be true. This will go over big in West Virginia and every backwater section of the country that gets a wonderful Republican Party email that says, "Even the New Yorker Magazine recognizes who Obama is!"

This will have a lasting impact on the campaign.
When abortion rights are lost, American worker's rights are lost and the Constitution is shreaded because one more conservative has been placed on the Supreme Court you can blame the editors of the New Yorker Magazine.

before both everyone starts marching on the Conde Nast building

Ha ha, way to score humor points off of Marx's famous aphorism that when the dictatorship of the proletariat arrives, all magazine covers will be tasteful and inoffensive.

Anyone interested in this is a moron, including the Obama spokesjoker and especially Mark Halperin.

Criticizing a magazine for poor judgment != banning the magazine or (as in the Falwell case), suing the magazine for libel.

No one is talking about banning all caricatures. I think you're breathing a bit too deeply, MS. It's a distasteful cover that merits criticism.

I think it's pretty funny, actually.

That's pretty tasteless. It would be just as tasteless if it were a cartoon of McCain in a cell in the Hanoi Hilton. They are free to publish it, but people don't have to like it.

Funny, though, how you rise to the defense of a free press when you barely fulfill your end of the obligation and bother to do your job in terms of taking the government to account. Thick w/irony!!!!

...when I say "interested in this" by "this" I mean the New Yorker cover-as-scandal. The cover itself is par for the course, mildly amusing, suited to its audience. The day we as a nation adopt the aesthetic sensibilities of Mark Halperin (including his evaluations of what is "tasteful") will be, I promise, the last day I exist on this earth.

...or Michael Schererreer for that matter. Dude, that cover didn't take guts, it took a half an hour with watercolor and an arched eyebrow. Get a grip.

I should make clear that I am not suggesting there is any legal case at play in the New Yorker cover. Of course, the New Yorker has an absolute right to publish that cover. I just think that controversial political cartoon's must be understood in the context of the history of controversial political cartoons, which is what the former chief judge does in the passage I quoted above. And quite well, too.

Everyone (including Scherer) relax. Once Barack is president, he'll know just how to take care of things like this. As he said earlier today (oddly not covered by Time) "hateful rhetoric... has no place in this great nation. Of course, what is and isn't "hate" will be defined by Obama with the assistance of racial power groups like the NCLR.

Under the Obama regime presidency, things that Obama finds hateful - such as the New Yorker cover - will be banned. Problem solved!

controversial political cartoon's

Oh god the apostrophe it hurts.

My mother read the New Yorker article on Obama - on the internet, so she hadn't seen the cover - and she was stunned by how negative it was. Especially in comparison with the usual tone of their coverage of Obama. So the whole "it's obviously a caricature" argument is weakened by being combined with the negative article. Anyway, I'm sure they meant it as a caricature. But it's still tasteless and stupid.

If I were a New Yorker subscriber, I wouldn't be, after this. Floridian is correct: those rednecks out there just looking for a reason to hate BHO even more will run with this - to the detriment of us all.

Cookie also makes a good point: Mikey, this issue moves you enough to blog about it, but what are you writing about the Fannie Mae meltdown? What are you writing about the Arlington Cemetery scandal? Anything forthcoming on the DHS / Bush Library bribery?

If not, can you honestly argue that you're anything but a Republican hack?

There's a fine line between guts and stupidity, and given the weight riding on this election, I'd say this cover falls on the side of the latter.

We don't understand why you think it's the Obamas who are the objects of satire or caricature in this case (which you evidently do, given the Rehnquist quote), unless you actually believe the cartoon exaggerates their features in such a way as to bring out their innate terroristic qualities. Do you think the Obamas are terrorists?

Acid J. Me to. Er, too.

The Committee, the satire/caricature is not of Obama, it is of the right-wing caricature of Obama.

See the artist's explanation, which I thought was pretty self-evident, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html

Ok, am I the only one who sees the logical fallacy in this "caricature" argument?

It's described as "exaggerating features or mannerisms for satirical effect" and examples given are of "Lincoln's tall, gangling posture, Teddy Roosevelt's glasses and teeth, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's jutting jaw and cigarette holder".

All of those were actual features or facts about a person that were exaggerated for satirical effect.

This New Yorker cover, on the other hand, is taking LIES and SMEARS against a person and exaggerating THOSE for satirical effect.

Do you not see the difference? If it was merely a caricature making fun of Obama's gangliness (like Lincoln) or some other truthful feature, that would be satire. This is SLANDER, unless you truly believe Obama is a Muslim who loves bin Laden and hates the American flag.

This cover is simply an exaggerated version of every email lie that has been spread against Obama. It is NOT, as the artist contends, a satire of the spreaders of those lies.

That is why it FAILS as "caricature" or "satire" and why it is so offensive.

The New Yorker must be feeling the pinch of a declining economy. Maybe subscribership is down. They obviously wanted attention, and they got it! Of course they're allowed to print such a thing, but to reinforce a lie that Senator Obama has tried so hard to overcome is really unforgiveable. I truly hope people cancel their subscriptions in protest.

The Committee, the satire/caricature is not of Obama

So then who's supposed to be offended? The right wing for having their caricatures appropriated by a left-leaning magazine? Why is Rehnquist's quote relevant?

We think you may have been confused, Michael Scherer. But no worry, we have already begun to adjust our operation to account for your confusion.

I too, thought you were engaging in misdirection, conflating the question of whether something is protected speech vs whether it's utterly tasteless.
I was glad to see that confusion was cleared up until I read this:

This is SLANDER, unless you truly believe Obama is a Muslim who loves bin Laden and hates the American flag.

I guess it really IS necessary to explain why this is protected speech after all!

This New Yorker cover is in a class all by itself.

Those early cartoons of Washington mentioned by Rehnquist were not immediately seen and discussed by millions of people around the world, as these will be. And those caricatures of Lincoln's posture and FDR's jutting jaw did not also depict those men as being in sympathy with, and in awe of, a mass murderer.

That said, the cover *might* have made some sense had it shown Sean Hannity & Matt Drudge sketching it. As it is tho, it lacks enough context to prevent it from being used in all the wrong ways.

Well, if that is the best the artist can do for humor, I'd suggest another line of work might be better. The point of caricature is that you can clearly see that it is caricature, and in a way real caricature is affectionate. Thus, when people saw Teddy Roosevelt's teeth, they would recognize that the artist had exaggerated a noticable feature for effect, but no-one would take it as a comment about what TR really thought.

Unfortunately, the cover in question really does look like a straight take on right-wing hate mail, even a clumsy homage. The problem is that there is nothing in the picture to specify that this is how wingnuts think - and so the context disintegrates and you end up with what seems to be a straight "this is what Obama will be like" image. There are ways of doing this sort of thing - the dream image with the alternate reality contained in a bubble, for example, but the artist in question failed to provide the frame to make things clear - and that's why the cover is an offensive disaster.

I think I have a fairly wide-ranging sense of humor, but I must admit that I can't find much to laugh about in the image offered to us. It does seem to legitimate and agree with the hate-mail and the smears. I believe the artist had good intentions - but looking at the results, I think it's time to admit that the execution was terrible, and that an apology is appropriate.

I'm really fuming over this one. According to the HuffPost, Bill Blatt is defending his cartoon saying he is showing how ridiculous fear-mongering is. The problem is, his cartoon reinforces that Obama is a terrorist who secretly hates his country. You'd better believe this will be the opening story on the Today show and GMA.

I'm really fuming over this one. According to the HuffPost, Bill Blatt is defending his cartoon saying he is showing how ridiculous fear-mongering is. The problem is, his cartoon reinforces that Obama is a terrorist who secretly hates his country. You'd better believe this will be the opening story on the Today show and GMA.

"I guess it really IS necessary to explain why this is protected speech after all!"

Paul Dirks, no one is saying this is not protected free speech. We are saying it is offensive and fails as "satire". As others have said, if the intent was to satirize the spreaders of these hateful lies, there are ways to do that. A thought bubble, someone looking at a computer screen and sending an email, someone's hand drawing the cartoon.

To simply have this picture on the cover implies that this is an exaggeration, or caricature, of the REAL Obamas. It fails in the artist's stated purpose of lampooning the hate-mongers. Yes, he has a constitutional right to publish this cartoon. But it is offensive and fails in its stated purpose.

I'm suggest that if we want to see whether wingnuts are going to have their worst nightmares confirmed or simply see this as an odd caricature of their own views, we should simply wait here for our resident Obama-hating-canary-in-the-coal-mine.

Rusty?

I agree. Blatt's cartoon's purpose backfired big time. Tomorrow morning when this is on every morning talk show ad nausem it will reinforce the opinions of those who never gave Senator Obama a chance. I think the picture being shown over and over again will trump what anyone can do to explain it.

@Saquin

Two items. You referred to it as slander. That is a crime and is hence not protected speech.

fails in it's stated purpose

We're all assuming we know what it's purpose is. We could be mistaken. It might be a deliberate slam at Obama.

Gosh, Mikey, you and me together in the minority on this one. Odd bedfellows, huh?

It could be a deliberate slam at Obama.

Not according to the artist. Huffington Post interviewed Blatt. He said he wanted to show how ridiculous fear-mongering is. Then he reinforced the stereotype by depicting it on the cover. It's an image people will remember. His lame explanation will not be enough for people to get his original point.

Reading around the internet, looks like Kos people are universally pissed. Interestingly, no one will cop to being pissed themselves, it's always about some anonymous public who they imagine will be persuaded by the caricature. It's so weird, it strikes me as such a right wing thing to do. Like taking on Dunkin Donuts. I'm embarrassed.

I'm angry and I'll own up to it!

SFBear, I never doubted you. Even in during the worst of it.

Paul Dirks,

Two items.

"Slander" does not need to be used in a legal sense and I did not intend it in the legal sense.

The purpose of the cartoon has been stated by the artist. He said it was intended to lampoon the smears against Obama. As I said, it fails in that purpose.

Paul Dirks,

Two items.

"Slander" does not need to be used in a legal sense and I did not intend it in the legal sense.

The purpose of the cartoon has been stated by the artist. He said it was intended to lampoon the smears against Obama. As I said, it fails in that purpose.

I don't get the "outrage." It's obviously a caricature of the McCain-driven rightwing myths about Obama. It's spot on, too. I'm pretty sure that Obama will release a statement laughing it off as well. The kicker is that he's captured it all right in one piece: patriotism, Muslim, terrorist fist bump, Obama-Osama

I well remember that Blatt cover on Katrina with all the bushies drowning in the oval office, Karl Rove standing above it all surveying the scene, presumably working up a strategy on how to spin that debacle. Turns out, it was even more spot on that we had initially thought. That cover can be seen at the Huffington link. The take-off on the Craig controversy is pretty funny too.

MS, after reading Blitt's rebuttal - which is really somewhat weak - I came across this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-kreck/mccainbush_b_112285.html

Sounds like McCain really _is_ just like Bush. McCain's marking out his "free speech zones", and he's not even elected, yet.

And those cops who wrote this woman a ticket should be ashamed. They know darned well she hadn't done anything wrong.

Frankly, I'd have changed her sign, so it read: McCain == Scum.

The other Blatt cartoons didn't cost anyone an election. Yes, I'm outraged. No, I don't think this is "spot-on". There are a lot of dingbats out there who will be watching endless debate about this cartoon tomorrow who won't get the point of it. These dingbats vote.

Back on topic, I'm with the others. The artist could've made it clear that he was spoofing the haters out there. This cover makes him look like one, himself.

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous.....

He apparently doesn't get out much......

Reading around the internet, looks like Kos people are universally pissed.

Kos people are *always* universally pissed. They've turned into the RedState of the left. Gone completely off the rails this year. I had to give up my dKos membership in good standing just to retain my grip on reality.

It *is* obvious satire, fer crissake. It's a caricature. And the claim that this is going to "cost someone an election" is a charge without a modicum of substance.

Everyone is outraged Micheal?

Byron York at National Review apparently has different sources in the McCain camp than you do:

"On the record, the McCain campaign adds: "We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it's tasteless and offensive." But privately, some McCain types admit they find the cover funny. And how bad can it be for your campaign when a national magazine, in an effort to take a shot at Fox News and talk radio, portrays your opponent like this? Some of Obama's supporters are likely to go over the top in their defensive outrage, sending subtle reinforcements to viewers who already believe that McCain is stronger than Obama on the issue of terrorism. Maybe it's funny, and maybe it's tasteless and offensive — maybe all three — but it will be noticed." http://corner.nationalreview.com/

So which is it Mike? Is Byron a liar or are you just not quite as much in the loop?

Uh, James, LA? I beg to differ on the "modicum" part. I know folks, unfortunately, who will eat this up, spread it around as "truth" - "if the New Yorker publishes it, it _has_ to be true!" - and I fully expect to receive e-mails from them, shortly, pointing out, again, all of BHO's "sins," with this image as supporting "evidence."

I hate to admit it, but I do keep company with some Rusty-like folks, and, try as I might, they are impervious to logic. Don't underestimate the power of this image applied in the wrong manner.

Case in point: which Swamplander was it that brought this to our attention? Need I say more?

Mr. Nice Guy,

I think the whole point is that the deluded idiots who view this cover as some kind of representation of reality *already* believe those caricatures. That's the whole point of the caricature. You think that cover is going to actually persuade an undecided person to vote against Obama? I think that's a stretch.

You are going to get those emails on right-wing "truth" regardless of what the New Yorker has on it's cover page in July 2008. Believe me, the RNC has much, much worse than this in store for the Dems.

this outrage should be a turning point in the obama campaign, if he is going to win the election.
if he continues the passive, apologetic, defensive posture he has maintained to this point in the campaign, he will continue to be pummeled and ultimately the impact of a thousand small wounds will be fatal to his campaign.
he must confront the national media and stand up and say no more.
no more slurs.
no more lies.
no more hit jobs by the media while mccain gets a free pass.
he has to let the media know that each time they take an unfair shot at him, while ignoring and excusing mccain's troubles, he will aggressively confront the press.
republicans have been doing this since spiro agnew.
hillary turned her campaign around when she confronted what she saw as unfair treatment and talked about it openly and aggressively.
i'm not sure why obama has maintained a turtle-like posture with the press, especially on issues of fairness, but he is slowly losing control of the campaign because of his passivity.
if he does not step up now and let loose a volley that should put everyone on notice, he is going to get buried by a media that will see him as fair game for any slanderous accusation anyone wants to utter and he can kiss the presidency goodbye.

i am not sure the "morons will be morons" defense really lets the artist off the hook here. I agree that the hardcore haters probably don't care if the New Yorker depicts Obama as St Francis and Bill Gates combined, and that they probably assume that he has all sorts of hidden agendas. Equally, I don't see this as a tipping-point in the election.

That said, I think the image is a poor piece of work that is, unintentionally, extremely offensive because of the artist's failure to frame his satire appropriately. I understand his wish to defend his work, but I do think an apology and a mea culpa would be appropriate here.

Why would a militant leftist like Obama or his equally militant wife Michelle "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country" Obama object to the cover? Shouldn't the cover have included their three best friends, to wit: Jeremiah "God da#* America" Wright, William "The Terrorist" Ayers and the lunatic Ayers calls his wife?

As has been noted a couple of times already - it's all about context. The cartoonist and the editors got the joke and they erroneously mapped that understanding onto the public and the campaigns assuming they'd get it too - the image is obviously satirical, but the fact that it's satirizing the goofballs who come up with these concepts and not the Obamas directly is clear as mud.

Fifty years from now when all the details from the campaigns have faded away this image will still be around and without anything in the image to put it into context, the interpretations will be sadly way off the mark. I'm pretty sure the only folks today who will glom onto the image are the ones who are already in agreement with the rumors, but it's still a glaring example of artists and journalists assuming too much of the general public.

"Interestingly, no one will cop to being pissed themselves, it's always about some anonymous public who they imagine will be persuaded by the caricature."

Posted by Acid J | July 13, 2008 11:58 PM

AcidJ,
You seem to have 2 different groups of people confused here: The ones who are pissed (and many people here have confessed to being part of this group) are obviously NOT the ones who will be persuaded by this cartoon.

Well, Paul, texte has chimed in. I guess he'll do as a stand-in for Rusty.

"But before everyone starts marching on the Conde Nast building, we should all breathe deep and reread William Rehnquist's majority opinion..."

Sigh... Yet another silly freshman journalism essay from little Mikey Scherer...

"The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploration of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events -- an exploration often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal."

I think that helps explain the outrage over this image. There is no clear indication that this is a satirization of individuals who think this way since the image does not in anyway encourage that line of thought. [If the image was placed in a thought bubble, say of Karl Rove, it would make more sense.] Instead, the artist's rendering takes aim squarely at Barack and Michelle. Most people won't make logical inferences about this, and they especially won't infer that just because it's The New Yorker it's meant as satire. Nor, will many ever see the accompanying blurb (inside the magazine) explaining the image.

The bottom line is that many will simply view this image as a confirmation of the preexisting, distorted perspectives, rumors and innuendo about the Obamas. That's what makes this so dangerous. And the inability of the supposedly informed, enlightened New Yorker magazine to grasp that is dumbfounding. By the way, when is having to explain your satire ever a good thing?

Agree with Floridian and Rose, etc.

This will reinforce the caricature - it will not "satirize" it. The article is indeed quite negative, and will add to the sense that the cover has meaning.

Michael - I'm afraid that the artist's "intention" will be lost on most viewers. The only hope is that the average non-New Yorker-reader won't recognize the people on the cover.

All of that being said, I think it's irrelevant whether it's "tasteless" and "offensive." What Jesse Jackson said was tasteless and offensive, but it won't hurt Obama. The point here is that with deliberation and forethought the New Yorker portrayed a presidential candidate in a false way that inflamed false rumors about him, in a way that could influence voters. That's unconscionable, and irresponsible "journalism."

The artist Bill Blatt is full of crap in his defense. What is more disturbing is that the editorial board and or management would lead with this cover. Folks these are intelligent people and it is likely wrong of us to believe they did not consider the impact this false cover would have. As I have stated many times before, corporate media are not our friends. Their agenda has ceased to be stand up for the common man and get to the bottom of every dirty story... it's now.... how can we manipulate the news... how can we manipulate public opinion... how can we control the message. Right now our very financial system is melting down and with each successive bailout they massage the news to make it seem that it's not a problem. McCain gets nearly a free pass with the corporate media making excuses for his and his campaign's statements. The Iraq war is page 6 and almost no effort is made to cover our soldier's horrible treatment and misuse. Torture is glossed over. Corporate media is in lockstep with this administration and the Republican Party's goals because it provides them direct economic benefit. This is the ultimate effect of corporate media consolidation. They have now become the enemy of middle class America. .

I got to go to work so I will post on this a little later. But I'm just curious how one was supposed to figure out the artistic point here without and explanation. He says its obvious. I say it can be obvious in more than one way.

Daniel Larison's conclusion might be right: "The fairly small number who just laugh at it and think that it skewers smear artists will not begin to offset the number of people who will either take offense or take the image all together too seriously." It's just not a funny or clever enough cartoon to make up for impact of the image.

As has been noted a couple of times already - it's all about context. The cartoonist and the editors got the joke and they erroneously mapped that understanding onto the public and the campaigns assuming they'd get it too - the image is obviously satirical, but the fact that it's satirizing the goofballs who come up with these concepts and not the Obamas directly is clear as mud.

Posted by robdeemer | July 14, 2008 1:52 AM

And let's reinforce this point one more time - the object of the satire is not obvious. Anyone who thinks that it is really needs to step back and take a really long look at that piece. For starters, Michelle Obama's afro (she wears her hair straight), and both people's other exaggerated "African" features - these types of things have been used in racist imagery forever in the Western world. Nope, there is something else going on in this piece that isn't straight satirization of the Obamas, and that's probably what bugs me the most. It seems like the artist is actually acknowledging that the slurs have some merit, when factual, rational analyses proves that incorrect.

I know some rational, normal Republicans who were initially intrigued by Obama, but who, after hearing Scherer's cohorts on cable Tee Vee flogging the Jeremiah Wrigt "story" for weeks and weeks, came away very wary of Obama.

In short, Michael Scherer, the right wing propaganda has worked on quite a number of, in Chris Matthews' term, "regular Americans." As of a couple of months ago, 1/10 of the population believed Obama is a Muslim. I'd be willing to bet that number is holding pretty fast. Try googling the phrase "believe Obama Muslim" and see what you get.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=believe+Obama+Muslim

Scherer, I can't believe you'd even try to frame this as a 1st Amendment issue. What a laugh. It's not even worth trying to debate that point. I haven't seen anyone question the New Yorker's right to publish the cartoon, you simpleton.
People, including me, are upset about this because it appeals only to base emotion. As I said above, there is nothing rational about this image, it's meant to hit you in the gut, not make you think. Shouldn't we have a higher expectation than this?

"Nope, there is something else going on in this piece that isn't straight satirization of the Obamas"

meant to add "satiriazation of the Obamas, and certainly not their critics on the right wing."

It's tasteless and offensive.

And you, once again, are a moron, Michael. What does a legal opinion have to do with my reaction to the New Yorker cover? No one is suggesting that what they did is legally actionable.

The folks at New Yorker can rationalise all they want: it is still tasteless and demeaning. I don't think many of Chris Matthews regular folks get to see a New Yorker in their diners. No: this will be manna to the bottom feeders in the rw blogosphere.

We always ask politicians to take responsibility for this or that. Do we ever see an editor, cartoonist or writer take responsibility for anything? Calling this satire is a way out of a horrible piece of journalism.

"1/10 of the population believed Obama is a Muslim. I'd be willing to bet that number is holding pretty fast."

On Morning Joe today, Joe brought up the polls that say 12% of Americans still think Obama is a muslim and this after Obama has talked about or said "Jesus" more than anybody this side of Billy Graham. That's a paraphrase.

I wonder how many advertisers in this issue of the New Yorker are happy having their advertising dollars linked with this message. I would bet that the magazine's management is getting some pretty heated calls from brand managers or PR types this morning about a lack of warning about the cover and contents. My bet is some probably would have taken a pass if they would have known the cover.

Thank God we have the NY'er magazine cover to discuss this week. if there were any actual news, like say bank failures or the collapse of the mortgage lenders of last resort, i would appreciate the coverage.

this kinda o s...stuff allows the campaigns to avoid the issues that face America outside of Washington.

If you want to see a controversy, check out the collapse of the home ownership rate under George.

Jaysus. This constant outrage over absolute trivia by core Obama supporters is tiresome. It's a fracking satirical magazine cover, for gawdsakes. You guys are getting to be just like Bill Donohue in your waves and waves of outrage over completely normal, everyday things. A satirical cover on an upscale magazine like the New Yorker is going to have exactly zero effect on the course of the campaign, okay?, except the off-putting zealotry displayed here and elsewhere. It's embarrassing.

Here is some of the artist's other work. The cover is exactly in line with his other work in style and substance. So what? Get. A. Grip.

And Michael, shame on you for throwing this kind of red meat out there like that. You're trying to be another Jake Tapper, perhaps?

Still waiting for the New Yorker cover of John McCain with an industrial size bottle of Viagra and an encyclopedia on anger management, Cindy in a cheerleader's outfit, knee pads and lip stick smeared on her face, and the agents of intolerance in a line with their pants at their ankles and holding numbers.

"We always ask politicians to take responsibility for this or that. Do we ever see an editor, cartoonist or writer take responsibility for anything?"

I don't how many times I have a heard the talking heads giving Obama the advice that he really needs to be careful not to offend this group or that group and he can't come off as an angry black man. But it is okay if we portray you as one anyway. It’s all in fun.

I cannot believe some of the innocence shown here about this. It reminds of John Kerry in August of 2004 saying that he just did not believe people would believe the charges made by the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" over the word of a "Two Purple Hearts" Navy veteran and US Senator. Are we going to "swiftboat" our own this time?

It does seem that the media has really had to stretch to find negatives on Obama. He didn't wear a flag pin on his lapel (the wretch!), his friend said something controversial, his wife made a comment in the middle of a frenzied primary contest that was obviously taken out of context. And time after time, Senator Obama has handled it with grace and nerves of steel. I don't know if getting worked up and chewing out the media will serve him well. When Senator Clinton got angry, they made her look petty and hysterical. Maybe he should continue how he's been handling these things.

On the other hand, smedley, do you not think that such waves and waves of outrage over completely innocuous things might reduces the impact of our complaints over things that really *need* waves of outrage. Mobs of people crying WOLF!! over and over again eventually produces eyerolling disdain in people who might otherwise be our allies. As a matter of fact, this trivial "issue" is likely to produce exactly that.

The cartoonist might have intended to skewer right-wing bigots and and show how silly they are but if he doesn't understand he lost control of the message the moment the magazine was released, he's an idiot.

This cover will, sans any explanation, will make the wingnut email list and the irony is that the very people the artist is criticizing will use it to their advantage.

Is the cover outrageous? No. Is it offensive? No? Is it both weak and very badly thought through? Yes.

Michael's quotation of Rehnquist's majority opinion is interesting, but then apply it against the New Yorker cover. The intent was to skewer the lies and misinformation that swirl around Obama and in this in fails miserably.

The image doesn't satirize the smear machine, it repeats the smears and asks the reader to connect the dots. It claims to show the 'politics of fear', but unfortunately even that message isn't represented with any clarity or wit by the cover.

From William Hogarth onwards, successful satirical cartoons are a succinct summation of the foibles and hypocrisy of the ruling classes. They do not rely on an 18 page article to explain themselves, nor do they ask readers to make connections outside of the imagery. The image itself should cut like a dagger on its own. And this is where the cover falls so badly down.

As posters on various sites have mentioned, there are any number of ways of representing the lies around the Obamas pictorally. A single image of Obama, defaced with pens or badly photoshopped. Or the Blitt cartoon itself being worked on by feral right-wing hacks, bloggers and spin-doctors. Or the Blitt cartoon on the front of a yellowsheet, being hawked by a hateful figure on a street corner. Write your own version. All have the benefit of showing containing the message about media distortions and lies in a single, stand-alone image. The cover doesn't.

There also seems to be some editorial confusion as to what the intent of the cover was. If it is - as they claim - a trenchant comment on the lies machine, why is it followed by an 18 page non sequitur on Obama's career path? Wouldn't 18 pages on the 'politics of fear' logically have followed from a cover of the 'politics of fear'?

The defense seems to be "New Yorker readers will 'get' it." In other words, clever people will understand the cleverness. By extension, anyone outside of the readership who 'misunderstands' the cover is dull-witted and unable to appreciate the intent. This is where cleverosity ends up eating itself.

If the cover is successfully satirizing media distortion, where are the right-wing hacks, bloggers and wingnuts screaming in agony at their vilification? On the contrary, they seem quite pleased.

When your intended victims are smiling to themselves and giving the cartoon a big thumbs-up, you have missed the target by a wide, wide margin.

It's satire. But it's lazy and lousy satire that actually seems to be appreciated by those who are supposedly being held up for ridicule. Is that was those terribly clever people at the New Yorker were aiming for?

Micheal, this wasn't satire. If it were satire, that would be McCain and Cindy on the cover with a flag burning in the fire place and Bin Laden's portrait hanging over the fireplace.

This was in a sense validating every trope against Obama: these smears are DIRECTLY connected to the candidate. In appropriating them they did NOTHING to imply this was false but rather fed the beast here. And in a country where 15% don't know his religion, 10% think he's a muslim, and 1% somehow decided he's jewish if you move beyond New Yorker readers and people passing this on the newsstand they're going to go with the image they see.

JMHO; but this isn't something to joke about. There seems to be a genuine campaign to lie about Obama and tie him to terrorists. And in some places and sectors it's working.

See, it isn't the artist's responsibility to draw a cover to support the Obama campaign. That seems to be the prevalent assumption here. The artist was doing political commentary. Okay, Fast Eddie at least had a rational critique of the work, without making that assumption. You don't like the cover, fine, but the histrionics are unwarranted, and based on the fallacy of that initial assumption.

@James, Los angeles

I think the reason for the negative reaction of Obama suuporters is due to a sense that the media is biased.

Reliable Sources stories yesterday were:

1) The New Yorker cover
2) Obama's "flip-flop" on Iraq
3) Jesse Jackson's chocolate nuts comment
4) The travesty of the Obama children appearing On Access Hollywood

There was no detailed covearage on the following events in the McCain campaign:

1) McCain calling Social Security a disgrace
2) Phill Gramm of the foreclosure inducing UBS and McCain's top economic adviser calling Americans "whiners" and their economic concerns a "mental recession"
3) McCain refusal to accept as fact Iraqi PM Maliki's request for a time-table for US troop withdrawal
4) McCain releasing an economic plan with no details

Instead of turning coverage to McCain, the post Obama bashing segment was followed by coverage of the affair and pregnancy of a CBS Iraq War correspondent, the Christie Brinkley divorce and the death of Tony Snow.

Howard Kurtz, the CNN and WaPo media critic, gave McCain a pass. The WaPO's own Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, gave a pass to a hit piece on a home loan The obama's had received. Note that the Obama's invested more wit the trust company than the mortgage value. Howell merely said the story was more negative than warranted. The entire point of the story was negative.

Are people hypersensitive? Yes. I think the reaction is founded in reality. There is open bias. The press needs to be as afraid of us as they are of the Conservatives.

I have no doubt that regular readers of the New Yorker will fully understand that this cartoon was to show the ridiculous caricature that the right wing has painted of Senator Obama, and it is ridiculous. Unfortunately, Ned and Mabel in Nebraska may have been considering voting for a Democrat for the first time in their lives until they saw this cartoon on all the morning talk shows this morning. They remember the horrors of 9/11, and don't want a "terrorist" in the White House. I don't mean to keep yelling "The sky is falling", but this is a big deal.

The New Gawker (read by NOBOMedy outside of the PBS and beltway brigades) cover will not change the facts that Senator Skippy is inexperienced, naive, appeasing, and cult-like in his established foreign funded sycophancy.

France and Germany have both elected center-right execs, which has yet to reach the stunted leadership at DNC HQ, since everything they speak, spew, or mis-state has to be cleared by their lefty propagandas shills at Move On and Kos.

Other than that FISA deal broken, of course.

And the public campaign funding promises broken.

And the Iran-Rezko condo flipping broken.

And the price of hemp in Marin County broken.

Oh well.

JANET COOKE HAPPENS.

rmrd0000,

I'm completely on your page with respect to mainstream media bias in favor of Barbecue McCain, and against the Democrats generally. As a matter of fact, the point that I'm trying to make is that histrionics and garment-rending about this kind of non-issue is counter-productive. Eventually people just roll their eyes and walk away. And then when there is a *real* issue, when we try to make the case it is dismissed as just another wave of liberal outrage. That kind of tactic needs to be used more judiciously.

And by the way, the rightwing media machine uses both carrots and sticks in their media management, and it's been very effective these past 25 years. Sticks alone, like the liberal blogosphere uses, are not going to move the ball along very much.

So, James,

Are you saying there should be no outrage when an outrageous and untrue cartoon depicting a Presidential nominee 3 1/2 months before the election? I don't want to look hysterical, but this is more than a flag lapel.

I think to get this behind us. Obama should just apologize for the cover, then throw away all pass issues of the New Yorker he has saved for the past twenty years and give a speech on satire in politics where he explains how much he really loves it.

Then and only then can we move on to the discussion of how he only gave a speech to pander to all the satirist, how the regular satirist won't vote for him because he is an elitist and ponder why he read the New Yorker for the last twenty years knowing full well what kind of covers they produce.

By the way. I think I just flip flopped. Cool!!

"I wonder how many advertisers in this issue of the New Yorker are happy having their advertising dollars linked with this message. I would bet that the magazine's management is getting some pretty heated calls from brand managers..."

Gas is $4 a gallon, you libs won't allow new nuke plants or refineries or drilling, and you're whining from comfy Coral Sables confines behind a PC made from petro byproducts and mined ores.

As I said, nobody gives a crap about the very humorous if late cover at the New Yorker.

"I think to get this behind us. Obama should just apologize for the cover, then throw away all pass issues of the New Yorker he has saved for the past twenty years and give a speech on satire in politics where he explains how much he really loves it.

Then and only then can we move on to the discussion of how he only gave a speech to pander to all the satirist, how the regular satirist won't vote for him because he is an elitist and ponder why he read the New Yorker for the last twenty years knowing full well what kind of covers they produce."

BEAUTY.

Now fetch me my slippers, and another Heinie.

rainbow,
I am saying that making this a huge issue is counterproductive. How can satire and caricature be "untrue"? I'm also making the point that a satirical New York Magazine cover will have exactly zero impact on election day.

You know, the histrionics are actually bringing much more attention to the issue than is warranted. The story now is "Caricature of Obama on Magazine Cover Sparks Liberal Outrage." Is that some great help to the Obama campaign? I doubt it. He'd probably wish everyone was talking about this:
Obama vows not to seek permanent US bases in Iraq - Yahoo! News

Gunny Sarge,

I like your scenario. It rings all too true. Unfortunately.

I'm looking forward to next week's cover (and the internal hit piece) of McCain.

BTW, my first quick look made me wonder why he was being pictured with Angela Davis -- took a moment to realize it was supposed to be Michele because she doesn't wear an Afro. Haven't had my second cup of tea, but I just think it was badly done -- especially for the artist's stated purpose.

"The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back."

Attacked, but not very well IMO.

Sorry, Michael -- I see you explained that you weren't trying to make a legal point here now that I read your comments.

Still, I'm not quite sure how relevant your point is. For example, why does Obama need to feel a "bee sting" about the right-wing rumors about him? In what way, are these rumors his fault? What next, a cover making fun of quadraplegics for being immobile?

BTW libs:

How's that FISA vote goin fer ya?

Any better than the Cheney impeachment?

Rove hearings?

Libby jail?

Gitmo closing?

Iraq retreat?

Iran appeasement?

Should Israel strike flying peace with Syria, where in the world of Carmen Sandiego will you all finally Move On (too)?

I understand they'll have some freshly re-decorated hemp huts in Wahziristan, shortly.

= 1972 ACCOMPLISHED =

osamish

If you are going to live in the United States at least take the time to learn English. Eurobonics is not acceptable.

Sticks alone, like the liberal blogosphere uses, are not going to move the ball along very much.

I agree that sticks alone are not the answer. But what would you call the celebrity of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olbermann if not carrots?

I think a stick is probably in order for the New Yorker. Not just for this cover but for hiring Lizza, Packer, etc. I'm canceling my subscription after 20 years.

I see what you're saying, James. It's just that Obama has taken so many things on the chin and been the bigger man everytime. The fact that we can't even be upset for fear of being labeled kooks is sad to me.

QH is right on one point.

The people we're worrying about it affecting don't read The New Yorker.

When do we get the caricature of McCain with the Hitler mustache wearing the brown shirt with Lee Raymond as Hermann Goehring and Karl Rove as Heinrich Himmler behind him?

As far as the histrionics, I hadn't heard about this cartoon until this thread. I didn't get why First Amendment law was the first thing to talk about. But now it looks like it's got a chance of displacing Jesse Jackson as the story of the day (a better chance than, say, the possible failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because the media is terrible).

The reason for concern is aptly put here: "the right wing will now uncritically accept this as their image. Now those who love droll irony will drolly appreciate the irony of this. The practical effect, however, is just terrible. This image is acceptable ground now, the right wing's newest hit — and see, a lefty magazine printed it!"

Yes, it's satire (lousy satire, whose humorous punch, such as it is, doesn't make up for the rather jarring images), but when it's on the cover of a mass-market magazine, it takes on a life of its own. Unfunny cartoon, bad decision to put it on the cover.

Personally I'm looking forward to the cover of John McCain with a blanket over his legs in a retirement home reading Soldier of Fortune, and his wife out his window getting off her private jet and dripping with jewelry.

By the way, if you want to do a charicature of a charicature, you do it with a picture of Karl Rove painting the charicature. Not just the current cover alone. Any fool would understand that.

The cover is a colossal failure as satire of the right wing. This is evidenced by the lack of any offense by right wingers. Not because they are so high minded and open, but because they are absent from the cartoon entirely.

This will be the next Wright/Lapel pin/Rezco fiasco that will keep actual issues from the public discourse.

Satire has a place in journalism, even bad satire, but that's not what this image is.

It's an image of the Obama's as terrorists. Full stop.

To Paul Dirks

The people we're worrying about it affecting don't read The New Yorker.

Flawed reasoning. The cover is getting major press on all the blogs and online sites, will be featured in many evening news programs, many right wing and other radio programs and of course will be part of a huge internet campaign by the Republican Party or its mouthpieces. People don't need to read the New Yorker, they just need to see the cover and read the propaganda that accompanys the cover photo.

Mabel and George somewhere out there in America only need to see the cover to start questioning how they are going to vote. Let's face it they have had to leap many objections just to think about voting for a black man with a strange name. The cover propaganda campaign to come will make their decision to vote for Obama even more unlikely.

Interesting discussion of this by a visual media critic. Before the section I quote, he has a list of specific items in the cartoon that need comment.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2008/07/the-politics-of.html

///In my "ObamaPhobia" presentation at Netroots Nation next Saturday, I aim to show how various campaign images in the traditional media echo more extreme right-wing hate imagery -- conveying Obama as a man with a covert, anti-American agenda, or a deliberate and calculated mastermind, or a closet Muslim and Islamic Manchurian candidate. In hitting the trifecta here, many will argue this illustration is simply a satiric representation of the sophomoric attacks being tossed at Obama from far right field.

If that's all there was to it, though, than why do I sense Rove is chortling tonight?

The reason -- besides the fact that the New Yorker demographic is a pretty narrow one -- is that visually-based racial, religious and character-based framing does carry cognitive weight across a spectrum of higher- and lower-level reasoning, and, more than anything, it gains strength and veracity through repetition.

So, forget about "don't think of an elephant." Try not thinking about the guy's name in the turban-thing without not thinking about his brother's name in the portrait behind him.///

I think Floridian and others are right in that this will be all over the supposed news shows tonight and that is what the problem is.

The moment this became a news story was the moment the, "people who would be affected by this don't read The New Yorker", argument got thrown out the window. Watch the MSM go on and on about this for days, ignoring McCain's daily dose of gaffes.

For Obama, it's yet another "damned it you do, damned if you don't". If you criticize it - which they did - you allow the wingers to call you "whiny", to call for you to "get a set". (they are doing this already) You could look "defensive", ie - "he doth protest too much." And you draw attention to it so that it's gets slapped up on the cable news screens for the next 2-3 days, where just about every viewer will miss the "satire" aspect of the cover.

If the Obama campaign ignored this, shrugged it off, the wingers would ask, "Well, why is it OK for the liberal New Yorker to publish this cover but it's out-of-bounds for conservatives to use Obama's middle name?" And he'd look "weak" for not coming out in defense of his honor and his wife.

Whatever, yet another non-story becomes a national scandal. How much you want to bet that this gets more coverage than the deaths of 9 American soldiers in Afghanistan this weekend, or the end of SOFA negotiations between Iraq and the US because of their demand for a withdrawal timeline, or Obama's NYT Op-Ed in the times today, which touches on all of these?

Ahhh, satire. No one appreciates you.
http://lifeisacookie.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/elitist-pol-lambastes-elitist-mags-lampoon/

Citing old cartoons of FDR with an exaggerated chin as a precedent for this New Yorker cover doesn't fly.

Those might be eligible for comparison IF they had depicted FDR doing a Nazi salute in a Luftwaffe uniform and Eleanor saying "Tora tora tora".

Sheesh.

It's funny. It's MEANT to be funny. It's, ironically cnough, making fun of pieces like this.

You folks need to stop clutching your pearls, and, as attaturk says, start doing your freakin' jobs.

The US has engaged in war crimes. The US and the telecommunication industry have collaborated to capture (at least) all overseas communications. The administration has turned multiple government agencies, including the DOJ into political operatives. And hundreds of thoussands of people have been killed in Iraq, apparently in order that US companies obtaining the drilling rights there. Oh, and we just socialized more losses while preserving the privatized profits.

A caricature on the cover of a poofy magazine (I subscribe) doesn't merit even the attention of a blog post by a major news magazine.

Umm, I thought the cover was like the lame cartoon the class idiot in homeroom would draw of the teacher. The only possible harm it might have on Obama is that some moron would be so stupid as to take it literally, and as such a person would be about as bright as a box of rocks, they are just as likely to pull the lever for Obama by mistake as not, assuming they even could find their way to the polls on the right day of the week.

The more probable damage this cover will cause is that it will lead many to re-evaluate the New Yorker's reputation for urbane wit, and decide to change their subscription to a much funnier pseudo-news magazine, like, say, Time.

Tasteless or not, I think it's a hoot (a description not likely used by many of my fellow subscribers). Then again, I laughed myself sick at the National Lampoon's infamous "Kill this dog" cover. That's just how I roll.

The cover has generated, if anything, a much broader and higher-profile discussion – all predicated on acknowledgment that the Obama characterizations are, in fact, despicable lies. I haven't seen previously, for example, such a direct denunciation of the lies from the McCain campaign. To that extent, the drawing is a roaring success.

The 1960 New Yorker was excessively tasteful, but had it run a cover with JFK adorned as the Pope I'm sure Kennedy would have responded with a smile and a wicked one-liner, effectively turning the cover (as the artist here plainly intended) to his advantage.

Remember Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11? Remember what a huge hissy fit the right had about it for days and weeks. The net effect of that huge hissy fit was to drive literally millions and millions of people to see the movie. Thus Michael Moore's message, a good one, got far more coverage than it would have otherwise. From that little lesson, the right has learned to downplay and ignore media that might be unfavorable to their message. That's worked very well for them. The New Yorker cover is now on Drudge, and that will insure that every mainstream outlet is going to go over it in detail, complete with rightwing talking heads tut-tutting the outrage among the "liberal haters." You think Drudge would have featured it if it hadn't sparked liberal outrage to begin with? Uh, No. As I said, counterproductive.

And, really, as I said. The artist isn't obligated to produce a fawning, favorable depiction of Obama. Why is he obligated to do that? And he isn't obligated to produce an unfavorable caricature of McCain, either. Not everyone is on board with the Lionize Obama agenda.

I agree with the author of the cartoon that it was intended as an insult to the Right-Wing hate-mongers. However, the intention is not what makes this a miscalculation bordering on slander. The problem is that low information voters (conservatives) and independents (former Republicans too embarrassed to own up to their beliefs) lack the ability to understand that kind of humor. I will put it bluntly:

Conservatives fail to understand IRONY.

This is a large part of the problem I have with straight reporters including Karen Tumulty. They feel restricted by their place in the journalistic food chain and make themselves satisfied to stop just short of stating the point plainly. They recite all the information necessary but then prematurely cap it off with an ironic flourish or a rhetorical question that is understood by, perhaps, seventy percent of the population and missed entirely by the remaining thirty.

There have been actual studies of this phenomenon but I do not have time to dig up the links.

Michelle "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country" Obama carrying a rifle? Hahahahaha. Other than the most crack addled Obama cultist, who thinks that Michelle "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country" Obama knows how to operate a weapon? Other than that, the cartoon is a pretty fair and accurate representation of the two Obamas and their cult following, although it should have included drawings of their three dearest friends, to wit: Jeremiah "God da#@ America" Wright, William "The Terrorist" Ayers and the lunatic that Ayers calls his wife.

A lot of the outrage about this seems to involve the Third-Person Effect, that it's not I or YOU who will be misinformed by this cartoon, but rather those OTHER people (i.e., low-information voters):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect

I have to say the comments section here is a very thoughtful discussion of this issue, and has helped me sort out why I reacted badly to the cover. [ N.B. Of course it is legally protected speech. No reason to quote the Supreme Court; no one would say otherwise. ]

At first I thought maybe I was reacting negatively because it is still a sensitive subject for me; I am not ready to have this satirized. Indeed, I cringed at first with Stephen Colbert's satire of "Obama is a secret muslim" at first (and I LOVE Stephen Colbert)-- until I got used to it, & now it's OK.

The real point with this though is (as some have pointed out) -- to the extent it's intended as "satire" -- it fails miserably. The cartoonist (and I confess to not reading his "defense") does nothing more than to trot out the stereotypes. He does not provide any point of view or implicit commentary as to how, as the audience, we're to view these images; there is nothing conveyed about the truths of the people who believe these things, the purveyors of these stories, or, indeed, the Obamas themselves. (Maybe he thought he was conveying something via reductio ad absurdum, but he doesn't. Hence the reaction.) The article with which the image is linked also doesn't provide any relevant context; rather, it is a negative piece about Obama as a Chicago pol. (Obama as Al Capone would have made more sense?)

Why then include this drawing -- on the cover no less?

It's gratuitous & I don't believe it is "satire" to simply raise up something existing in the public lexicon without conveying any comment or point of view. Would it be "satire" to print on the NYorker cover, say, without redaction or alteration, the entire manifesto of the KKK? (I mean, no one would think the New Yorker editorial board really BELIEVED any of that stuff, right? Right?)

Is that satire? I don't believe so. In some ways, it reminds me of the Spinal Tap album cover Smell the Glove with the greased up woman on all fours ("no, no, see, we're making fun of all that stuff.").

Have you ever taken one of those psychological tests where you're asked about your positive/negative reaction to something -- and then you're shown an image -- and you're asked again? There's no doubt in my mind that people sampled & shown this image would register a net negative effect on their impressions of the Obamas before/after.

And that, I think, was the point.

at least the racism that had previously been at least somewhat subtle, is now right out in the open.
the cartoon images themselves and the message portrayed by the images are clearly racist in nature.
the media feels very free to propagate these racist views and it will continue to do so because americans have been tolerant, historically, of this type of conduct.
the refusal of many commenters here to grasp the true nature of what the cartoon is about is evidence of that tolerance.
where is a similarly "satiric" cartoon about mccain as a type of manchurian candidate?
where is a similarly "satiric" cartoon based on cindy mccain's admitted past as a pill-popping addict who committed crimes in order to feed her habit?
where was a similarly "satiric" cartoon about george bush snorting cocaine and falling down drunk, in order to lampoon his wild and crazy youthful days?
how come white politicians are not "satirized" in ways that take totally false rumors and convert them into exaggerations seemingly true characteristics?
why are those issues considered completely off-limits by everyone, while the media feels absolutely free to discuss, perpetuate and build up the most scurrilous falsehoods about an african-american politician?
pure and simple and unadulterated RACISM.

sy wrote this earlier:
"Still waiting for the New Yorker cover of John McCain with an industrial size bottle of Viagra and an encyclopedia on anger management, Cindy in a cheerleader's outfit, knee pads and lip stick smeared on her face, and the agents of intolerance in a line with their pants at their ankles and holding numbers."

well, he'll be waiting forever. the media only treats african-american politicians in this fashion.

I'm getting a little tired of the "low information voter" euphemism. If they are indeed "low information" voters, then they don't read Drudge, don't watch Wolfie, and certainly don't subscribe to the New Yorker. The "Obama is a Muslim" meaning "Ohama is a n.....r" thing is out there already, in stealth email campaigns. The "low information" voter has already gotten the message.

Rather than getting the vapors over a low circulation, elite publication's satirical cover, TIME might consider getting to the bottom of the overtly racist lies being perpetrated by the right wing noise machine through email. This would take more work than posting a screen shot of a magazine cover, but it would be more informative about this season's version of the Southern Strategy.

Speaking for myself, I'm waiting for the New Yorker cover that depicts McCain and Cindy standing at the wedding altar with McCain's first wife off to the side in a hospital bed.

Dying.

It is true that a photo of Cindy is very close to parody by itself. And all that time she spends in San Diego....

Racist scum the New Yorker mag are.
Shame on them!
Boycott!
Boycott!
Boycott!

jayackroyd,
the new yorker may be a low circulation magazine, but its cover will be provided the kind of exposure its publishers have wet dreams about.
EVERY media outlet will focus on this image for the next week or so, and people who have never heard of the new yorker will soon become well aware of the magazine and its alleged left-wing and sophisticated readership.
everyone involved in the publication of the cover story is well aware of its probable impact and they should be held responsible for the ramifications.

Just saw this headline over at TPM so everyone calm down:

Obama To Give Major Speech On Satire Tomorrow

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

jayackroyd is absolutely right.

Getting the vapors over the New Yorker magazine cover is futile and a waste of time, specifically because the imagery demonstrates a fundamental truth that most patriotic Americans already know: Barry Hussein Obama and his Black militant wife are indeed portrayed accurately.

Even knee-jerk socialists such as Paul Dirks and James know the inexorable truth about these muslim terrorist-enabling jihadists, which is why they're not in a total froth, unlike the rest of you swamp fever leftists.

Lynn Anne, great post.

jayackroyd, If the New Yorker had decided to cleverly and competently caricature the right-wing attacks on Obama's patriotism, that would have been a good cover. But they didn't. The only reason why anyone would think it's a caricature of the right-wing and not Obama is that it's from the New Yorker. If that illustration had been made for a right-wing or even a centrist magazine, we'd all be thinking that it's a caricature of Obama. In contrast, Stephen Colbert's "attacks" on Obama's patriotism are competent enough to make their purpose clear. But that cover can be used by any racist to make their argument - no modifications are needed.

The New Yorker chose to put a caricature of the Obamas on its cover and thought they could get away with it because they're The New Yorker, and of course The New Yorker would never race-bait. Just