what a crock of sh1t

I like to read the New Yorker, especially when waiting for a vasectomy or for getting the insides my colon photographed by means of a camera inserted into my innards by means of a flexible tube, but this cover takes the fun out of the otherwise happy occasions.

The cover is horrible -- what about the people who don't get the joke? But what I am trying to tell myself in consolation is that the inevitable discussion around this cover might well have the effect of innoculating Obama against a whole string of Republican attacks. That might be wishful thinking...we'll see.

As Atrios said, it turns out you can say n*, so long as you say "oh, but I meant it ironically!"

I cannot believe how utterly disrespectful this is.

And you're right, it's totally cowardly and just bad, bad satire. The writer didn't go after McCain, why? This image of Obama doens't spring full grown from nowhere--it's part of a coordinated campaign, and a good satirist (as opposed to a useful idiot) identifies where this incongrous image comes from. McCain dressed up as Nixon, or something. McCain's Rovian staffer, dreaming at the back of the plane, or whispering in the press' ear.

This is why liberals lose elections. We not only think it's OK to devour our own, we ONLY think it's OK to devour our own.

It's such a freaking cliche. Liberal publication slams the liberals.

I am so sick of these moribound, BORING LOSERS.

It reminds me of North Korea's nuclear test - a show of force designed to frighten off its opponents, which instead proved to be little more than a pathetic embarrassment for its own side.

Or the Times' article on Vicki Iseman - something that should have been a devastating, campaign-ending expose, but that ended up being gutted and watered down by the pusillanimous Times editors, and actually had the reverse effect of rallying conservatives around McCain.

CAN'T ANYBODY PLAY THIS GAME?

You don't think it's good satire because it didn't involve McCain's thoughts? Dude, draw your own if it's not satirical in the right way for you. That cover is a rightwing nightmare satire, not just McCain's. And I'm not sure McCain would think that way anyhow, he's a jerk willing to let others say and think those things, but I honestly think his fears about Obama are more about losing than about the Oval Office turning into Anti-America Central.

I think it's a fun cover that hits all the right wrong notes. I really love the footwear.

If next week's cover has a flightsuited McCain in front of "Mission Never Accomplished" and "Support the Troops in Eastasia" banners, would that make you happier?

If you want to see a major freak out, look at the DKos diary on the subject.

My question, and I think it is very important, is what is the cover titled? I'll reserve judgment until I find out.

I don't even see how it goes with Lizza's story which does not address the smears at all. His is a straight reporting of Obama's political history -- and a pretty good one.

This is just a gratitious piece of crap that will be facing outward at every Barnes & Noble magazine rack in the country. I doubt many people will get beyond the cover and most will probabaly think that it justifies their worst impressions of Obama.

If next week's cover has a flightsuited McCain in front of "Mission Never Accomplished" and "Support the Troops in Eastasia" banners, would that make you happier?
Posted by: jon

They wouldn't do it ... because they're pussies. That's (partly) the point.

I think it's a fun cover that hits all the right wrong notes. I really love the footwear.

I'm proud of you for being clever enough to see through it ... I don't give the ignorant and uninformed voter as much credit.

My email to Barry Blitt (the artist) and The New Yorker:

So, Mr. Blitt, you think your 'satire' illustration on the New Yorker shows how preposterous those charges of being a moslem are? You are truly clueless, and if you need some days to think about why you have participated in the kind of debasing of our poliitcal system, then you should change occupations. The flag in the fire and Bin Laden's picture were nice incendiary touches, too. Is your objective another Crystal Night, and trains of jews, gays, minorities, and other non-Aryans headed for the ovens?

Honestly, this is the worst I've seen of Rovian sleaze, and that says something. It will take some time before the stink of your work is removed from my mind. You really grew up a couple generations too late: the 1930's Nazi propagandists couldn't have resisted your work. After all, the thick liips, fat nose, pile of children's bones leftover from dinner would have been great satire on the Jews.

You owe the nation and the world a very sincere apology, and the New Yorker's publisher and editor should consider just what should be done to rectify this gross injustice. This is not satire. It is race hate, religious hate, and political hate. It is an invitation to violence, lawbreaking, and cultural war.

I think we are all grateful that Kevin is a pundit and not a Satirical Political Cartoonist.

I really don't like the cover because it just seems flip, and the impression people will take away from it - that I took away from it - is that New Yorker readers (like me, I subscribe) think that Osama & flag burning are just big jokes, and further that patriotism is just a big joke, and we're all elitist snobs. The cover is a disaster.

OK, let's face it, the media aren't going to be helpful to Obama this season. (Duh.) He's going to have to fight this by paying for ads.

Go on, give the man some money.

This fellow needs to be retired immediately. I`m sure he`ll be able to live well with his checks from Karl Rove.

What scum.

"The mind is its own place,
and in itself can make a heaven of hell,
and a hell of heaven." - John Milton

My question, and I think it is very important, is what is the cover titled? I'll reserve judgment until I find out.

My answer, and I think it's more important, is that you're already on familiar terms with the image, and you're not likely to find out whatever caption might be beneath it. If you do, you'll be one of an incredibly small handful of people. The fact that the image to text ratio is in the neighborhood of hundreds-to-one, and that the image is in color & on the cover of the magazine, means that folks aren't going to be standing around their water coolers talking about the caption. Because of that, the cartoonist & the editors at the magazine will view the whole thing as a huge success. And it will serve to confirm the beliefs/suspicions of no small number of people who will point to it & say, "See? Even liberal New Yorkers know that they're radical Muslims!"

I suppose, though, that The New Yorker's editors should be credited for omitting the watermelon rinds & fried chicken bones.

jerry ... I probably should be more sympathetic to the perpetual persecution of white men and christians in america.

... and yet, for some reason, I keep getting nauseous when some halfwit brings it up and equates it with anti-black and anti-muslim bigotry.

Of course it's offensive. Funny as all hell, too, admit it. You're alone in front of the computer. You can laugh if you want to.

But at the same time, if they don't do something similar to McSham and Cindy then it's very, very wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen a New Yorker cover as complex as the one you describe. They're always sort of simple and slightly obscure and almost never "good satire".

Of course it's offensive. Funny as all hell, too, admit it.

I call myself a "laugh slut" because I will laugh at almost anything and I didn't laugh. The first time I saw it, I thought someone might have been faking a New Yorker cover.

Drum is spot on - IMO - it's not risky so it's not well done. If it had some context, like a room full of tiny Karl Roves drawing away - that would be funny.

The cartoonist fired and missed badly.

I'm having a really hard time finding the humor in this. And with humor, time really doesn't help. If you don't laugh the first time, you never will. They better follow this up with an equally humorless and offensive attack on McCain. But they won't.

Satire, eh? In what way, exactly? It's a racist and inflammatory portrayal of the first black major-party candidate, vaguely reminiscent of the worst posters from the 1800s. So, what's the comment the New Yorker is making about it that makes it a satire? Does it exaggerate the claims of the rabid right? Sadly, no, that being impossible. Does it mock them, or merely ape them? And what of the many people unfamiliar with the political position of The New Yorker, walking by newsstands in airports, on streets and everywhere else the magazine is sold? Are we to assume that they will 'get' the arch irony of this picture? Is there something inherent in the image that obviously puts it over the top into satire, in an era when insane political rhetoric is GOP stock-in-trade? How does The New Yorker portraying their delusions on the cover do anything to undermine or attack them?

Even if you agree that this is an ironic satirical masterpiece, why is it the cover?

And will next week's cover be a picture of McCain in the Oval Office, with a drugged-out Cindy McCain dressed as a prostitute, popping pills, while the Constitution burns in the fire, and McCain, wrapped in an American flag, waterboards a dark-skinned man under the guidance of a Vietnamese interrogator? Somehow, I doubt it.

Miss Otis, I guess you been out-slutted. At least this one time.

It was the flag in the fireplace that made me laugh out loud.

Sample comments from the Politico's thread...

It's about time someone told the truth about these two...they're just poster children for the left over 60s radical, America hating, Black Power movement.

That is exactly how many folks picture those two - (for real) Love it..! - Sam -

Too funny! Hey, the truth hurts. Can anyone tell me what religion Obama was before his wife brought him to the infamous house of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Yep, you guessed it, he was a Muslim.....and still would be if it was "politically correct"....

Well Osama's, oops I mean Obama's half brother has recently come out and stated that Obama was raised a moslem as a youngster. So if the turban fits...... And his wife, she's an ultraleftwing America hater, so the Angela Davis fro and the AK fit her perfectly. I'd say the cover is spot on. Think that I'll pin it up in my office it should prove to be quite a conversation piece.

That last comment chilled me. How many bigots are going to print this cover up and put it above their desks?

The cover is eighth-rate, as far as satire goes. It's an unimaginative illustration of what the right-wing imagines Obama to be. The fact that the right will seize on this illustration and will paste it everywhere on the web will, presumably, indicate to the illustrator that he failed in his satirical mission.

In the meantime, the brouhaha over the illustration will serve to distract the media and the public from more important issues.

I might even agree with you Gonads if the moderators didn't make my point for me.

Kevin, and Washington Monthly Moderators,

It's basically pathetic that in a discussion of what you claim is an offensive cover, you would moderate the discussion and eliminate posts that show just how far "us liberals" have gone in the past.

How can we have a discussion of free speech issues if you folks remove comments?

Somewhere George Carlin is rotting.

I take is a straightforward note on the horror of the current situation. This is a real image of Obama that has burbled up, and was waved around openly in West Virginia. The GOP has had a big hand in it, but it's bigger than them.

Miss Otis, I guess you been out-slutted. At least this one time.

Oh man...I hate it when that happens.

It was the flag in the fireplace that made me laugh out loud.

That was helpful, actually. That's about the only thing he has not been accused of by the Whacko Right. (And whatever the leanings of the nuts at No Quarter.)

As I think about it, maybe it's not so much that the cartoonist went too far, but that in this insane country right now, it's almost impossible to tell satire from the real world because they're saying such insane things every single day.

There are basically two objections to this cover:

1. It fails as satire. That's not to say that the artist's intent isn't clear. Nevertheless, Satire requires overstatement, and this is simply a definitive restatement of right wing tropes. Moreover, the image is humorless.

2. Satire won't excuse racism. The images of Michelle and Barack are stereotypical and demeaning. That the author meant them to produce a chuckle amongst right-thinking sophisticates doesn't forgive the use of racially provocative imagery.

I tend to agree with both citicisms, but I think either ought to have been enough to get the editors to spike this one.

it's almost impossible to tell satire from the real world because they're saying such insane things every single day.

Nevertheless, Satire requires overstatement, and this is simply a definitive restatement of right wing tropes.

This isn't satire, it's reporting. A lot of liberals are going to get a wake up call when their conservative friends don't find the image far fetched.

It's a failure as a satire, for the simple reason that it's generally impossible to satirize the far right. This image certainly doesn't; even now hordes of wingnuts are appropriating it and feel it perfectly illustrates their racist notions about Obama. Worse, the fact that the image appeared where it did (on the cover of an iconic "liberal" publication) will give them permission to wear their bigotry even more openly.

The illustrator who created this should be blackballed and the editor who hired him should be sacked.

Huffington post has a note from the cartoonist:

"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

Personally I think they're rarely funny and most often not meant to be. It makes a fairly effective and obvious point. It's in the spirit of previous cover art (which often attempts to push controversy, irony, and subtleness). I don't really see how it's gutless either. I would think Art Spieglman would be proud.

I had two reactions, myself. To be honest, my first one was that it was kinda funny, a clever way of mocking all the conservative BS that's been circulating about the Obamas.

Uncool, Kevin.

This cartoon might fit in in the middle of a copy of Mad magazine, or in some obscure, ultra-liberal magazine or zine (where the humor is expected to be on-the-edge and devilish, and everyone who reads it and is involved in it understands that the creators of the magazine and the audience don't at all actually look down at the Obamas for their ethnicity, or think that the Obamas are terrorists). On cover of the New Yorker however-- broadcast to a mainstream audience from supermarkets and newstands across the country-- the cover is entirely inappropriate, and with no reservation I also call it a real damned shame. Some (even sincere) liberals may not say so, but that is only if they don't understand what the cover is going to look like to a lot of the middle-class, white audience of mainstream media that sees it and how they're going to take it.

I expect a lot of unwitting, common white people will see this kind of thing and interpret it as an anti-Obama statement, and from that conclude, "Oh, a big established magazine like the New Yorker doesn't like Obama because of x, y, and z..." and from that they'll conclude that it's really ok to dislike Obama for those reasons and that there is sophisticated support for this point of view. Recent immigrants or black people may not see this, but from a middle-class white point of view, I think this thing is the latest Rovian attack and it's purposely meant to slam Obama and to stir up racism.

This cover sucks.

But I will say this: My extremely Republican parents visited me and my family last week for a week. There were New Yorkers scattered everywhere and neither of them even lifted one of them off any table. Totally not on their radar.

The furor over this New Yorker cover means that the magazine won't be doing the same kind of hit job on the McCains, because that would leave the editors vulnerable to criticism that they were trying to even the score.

If it weren't for copiers the New Yorker would have to make another run just so all the theocratic/fascist/racist types have the atrocity (on any level) to hang on their cubicle walls.

Despite Thers' point of view at 12:38 AM, I didn't laugh at the cartoon at all- my first reaction was like "Oh shit, this is horrible."

Huffington post has a note from the cartoonist:

"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

Wow, that's a real subtle message for the average dude who sees this on a newstand is supposed to get from the cartoon. To me, this looks a lot more like a racist, anti-Obama t-shirt than that, despite what I guess may be a sight-gag about the fist-bump flap (a manufactured controversy which we may consider ridiculous-- but maybe others don't). I'd say the cartoonist 100% failed in his claimed mission.

Gregor wrote:

I like to read the New Yorker, especially when waiting for a vasectomy

For most of us, The New Yorker is something like that, although it actually does have a following--it's just a really sophisticated audience that really likes a good magazine. But the harm the cartoon causes doesn't have to do with whether a lot of people (that is, a lot of people and a cross-section of the population) read The New Yorker regularly from cover to cover. The harm comes from the fact that The New Yorker is very widely circulated on newstands, in supermarkets and in bookstores, and the cover will be seen by almost everybody over the next month-- even if the only people who usually actually buy The New Yorker and read it from cover to cover are doctors, dentists, scientists, lawyers, college professors, and their partners.

No banjo?

What if The New Yorker did a cover of little John McCain smiling and wearing a black SS uniform, sitting on top of a pile of corpses of combat-uniformed American soldiers, with a couple of barrels of oil on either side of the pile, and some green dollars sticking out of McCain's pockets?

That would be about the same thing as this cover-- notice that they're depicted in the Oval Office and Obama has a portrait of Osama above the fireplace and an American flag burning in the fireplace-- but because the cartoonist makes a pretense of making some anti-racist point, we're seriously entertaining that this cover is clever satire and non-offensive. That's like saying that burning a cross on Obama's lawn would be clever satire of the racism the media and the Republicans aim at him. Good for Obama if he lets some righteous remarks fly against The New Yorker for this.

Absolutely screwed up.

The worst example of racism I've ever personally witnessed in my life (because of the scale of the audience, the noble character of Obama, and because of what's at stake), with the exception of documentary footage of demonstrators being assaulted at civil rights marches or Jews being kept in concentration camps.

Not unlike many of the family photos of Obama with African relatives that the lib media isn't about to show you.

Not unlike many of the family photos of Obama with African relatives that the lib media isn't about to show you.

I doubt those photos feature an assault rifle, a bandolier of bullets, a portrait of Osama in the Oval Office, or an American flag burning in the fireplace of the Oval Office. But don't exoect some poor excuse for a person like Luther to tell you that.

This isn't satire, it's reporting. A lot of liberals are going to get a wake up call when their conservative friends don't find the image far fetched.

And what's the wake-up call going say?

"I'm sorry, right-wingers and yeah, maybe some Democrats, are far stupider than you ever imagined."

Let me know.

I'm didn't think the cartoon was done very well but the outrage and calls of racism seem a little much.

On that note - g'night.

it's very interesting about the NEW YORKER.

IT SEEMS NOT TO HAVE A MASTHEAD.

WHO IS THE EDITOR?

who is the publisher?

are they zionist jews?

the new yorker is owned by conde nast publications.

they own an interesting fleet of rags....from a new business rag, portfolio. to traveler. to vanity fair.

i look at this cover and see a cover from a very popular 1930's german magazine, die sturmer. in that era, this opponent of the fascist bastids would have been portrayed as a hook-nosed jew - a shylock.

now that the fascist, zionists jews are in control, obama[his wife] is portrayed as an anti-american islamic terrorist.

you can go to the conde nast website. and i invite you to cancel your subscriptions to any of their rags to which you subscribe.

there is no irony here. and none was intended. this cover is a zionist jew hit bit.

It will only get worse from here on out.

I mean when you have Hillary nutcrackers and "swing state" t-shirts featuring nooses, it should be no surprise.

If Hillary had won, they'd probably have a cover with her wearing a red, white and blue strap-on.

Stupid move by the New Yorker. Insipid cartoon. It looks like something a freshman cartoonist for a college newspaper would come up with.

There is a not a single person in the world whose opinion of Obama will be changed by this cover. So who the hell cares?

And all of you complainers sound like albertchampion at 2:17am. Now *there's* some satire.

I thought it was so over the top that it makes the RWN look like nattering paranoid naybobs.

No problem with the cover. Not a great cover, but not a disaster either. Looking forward to the McCain cover.

I mean look at the picture, it has every idiotic slant, that hasnt stuck, from the Limbaugh droids to the Rove robots, in the picture.

quite inaccurate, i think.

i listened to a npr weekend edition today. interviewing hispanic women. opposed to anyone other than john mclying.

it was quite clear from the women's responses that they were victims of republican propaganda.

the most interesting aspect of their hostility to obama was their thinking that he was a muslim, aligned with terrorists. that he had no loyalty to the usa.

this cover reinforces that misunderstanding. and it was intended to do that. this cover will get lots of distibution in the catholic hispanic communities.

and the explanation will be that if this islamofascist bent of obama's isn't true, why would the "liberal" new yorker publish it?

the new yorker might publish sy hersh. but that requires reading skills.

this cover is propaganda. the kind of propaganda that mitch wolfson used to highlight at his museum in miami beach.

it is propaganda intended to link obama with usama bin laden.

you know it. i know it.

anyone with a brain recognizes it.

conde nast makes its bones by publishing magazines. shut 'em down. hurt conde in his pocketbook. cancel your subscriptions.

albertchampion, the New Yorker has Sy Hersh warning about war with Iran. Those tricky zionist jews must be playing reverse psychology on us!

People, calm down.

The New Yorker's readership is overwhelmingly liberal and inclined toward Obama. They will get the joke, and the joke's on the right. The caricature is so absurd, it negates itself.

In the 60s and 70s it was the liberals who had a hip sense of humor. WTF happened???

JD wrote:

There is a not a single person in the world whose opinion of Obama will be changed by this cover. So who the hell cares?

Says you.

Of course, a lot of bastids will be out on the Internet and on TV mischaracterizing this and playing it down-- but keep speaking out against this racism. When the bad guys come out to respond to you, it just means what you're doing is actually fighting the racists-- you're not just spinning your wheels.

It is a weird sense of the unreal when this soso cartoon cover of the New Yorker results in arguments about whether it is appropriate. Many critics assume that it is what others will read into the cartoon which is the problem, suggesting that irony does not translate. This fundamentally condescending worry about those who are presumably and by implication endowed with less intelligence, knowledge or humor is a total crock. Unfortunately most political arguments and coverage boil down to this type of thinking as well, where great effort is wasted on how a hypothetical lesser other would interpret a political performance. How some other unfortunate soul would interpret with that person’s limitations as opposed to the well informed commentator and the immediate audience. Whatever you do, never dis this hypothetical other who has a more simplistic view of the world. Give me a break. Even the survey of 10% thinking Obama being a Muslim is very very suspect. Suspect because there are those who answer stupid survey questions with ridiculous answers on purpose and there are those that lie as contrarian or by habit. They are not statistical errors. The small remainder would consist of the uninformed and the stupid. This is not the audience to whom the cover of the New Yorker would matter one way or another. The irony may be lost but the vote would have been lost long before, mostly because they couldn’t or wouldn’t find their way to the poll anyway. Then there are those that manipulate the political discourse stressing the 10%, and they fall on both sides of the politics. One side is the cynically manipulative right the other is the worrier who, typically is overly upset by the New Yorker cover. The two reinforce each other and political discourse turns into shit (or what you find on Fox full time).

We Liberals tend to roll over and take this kind of crap...which is why we lose elections.

There's no points for good sportsmanship in this kind of slander....subtle and cruel to the bone of the meme.

Traveller

YY: No one ever lost an American election by underestimating the intelligence of the American voter.

I still like the cover, "terrorist fist jab" and all. To see it as albertchampion does would take a whole lot of anti-Jewish paranoid fantasies to swirl in a swillish mind. Like it or don't, but to see it as a hitpiece by a Jewish cabal is just the kind of idiotic thinking depicted in the cover art itself: loony, over-the-top, based on ridiculous stereotypes, and wrong. Conde Nast wants to sell advertisements in magazines, not ensure a McCain presidency.

Funny that a satirical attack on a black man brings out a serious attack on possible "zionist jews". No, it's not funny at all. albertchampion is willing to imply a conspiracy of jews with no evidence to a supposed link to a satirical cartoon. Please do cancel your subscriptions, doofus. Reading probably hasn't done you a lick of good in life. Stay in your bunker except to empty your commode and the jews just might leave you out of their conspiracy, dork. And be sure to wear your tinfoil hat and jockstrap.

"If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones..." -KD

I totally agree, or even a well known surrogate would have worked to insure the "idea" got out, yes everyone can appreciate satire, sadly it has all to had to separate these days. Also, could take it a step further and say Blitt may have intentionally drew this in a fashion that it could appeal to both ends...it just has that feel to it. If that is true, these people are much more cynical then I could have imagined.

Art and media have responsibilities. The New Yorker fails both.

This is more like placing a basket of crowbars and hammers on your neighbor's porch as "art", knowing it will serve as an instrument of attack on his home.

Call me nuts, but I think it is a great cover and damn good satire. Its meant for New Yorker readers, whom the editors (rightly) assume will "get" the joke. And, just to be clear, I'm a huge Obama supporter.

Everyman:
I think my point was precisely the opposite. There is an assumption that everyone else is stupid, and this leads to stupidity in the political discourse. This is a conceit that can not be justified if you accept the normal distribution of talents. Furthermore it becomes a game of pretending that there is a majority understood reality that is so much more simple minded that one needs to adjust down to it. What cynicism is out there and what feeling of inconsequential power that may be out there are not the same as being stupid. Otherwise you may as well call Obama French and be done with it.

That was helpful, actually. That's about the only thing he has not been accused of by the Whacko Right.

I suppose that slack-jawed woman Stephanopoulos dug up in Pennsylvania and saw fit to insert into a debate didn't actually accuse him of burning the flag, just of "not loving" it.

What a comment thread! And here I thought that the Outrage Machine was the exclusive property of the VRWC. Luckily, it's Monday and everybody can go back to work and cool down.

Kevin, you think it's "gutless" for not telegraphing its punch? I suggest you reread "A Modest Proposal." Does it say anywhere, "This is the dream of those misguided idiots in Parliament?" Or does it simply paint its picture and trust its absurdity to make its point? Besides, your addition of McCain misses the point. The illustration doesn't mean to say, "This is what McCain thinks." It's "This is a synopsis of the whole Right Wing smear campaign -- isn't it silly when you see all the symbols put together?"

Actually, Kevin, I think you saw the Astroturf outrage and pandered to it. Go with your gut. It's funny, or at least provocative. You gasp, then think, "Oh, I get it." And your suspicion that some won't get the joke adds a little dash of smug superiority to your pleasure.

You think that the Wingers will plaster this picture all over their web sites? Let 'em. The idiots who take it literally are already Dittoheads. If it causes any honest anger on the Right, it'll be directed at the condescending New Yorker once again mocking the little old lady from Dubuque.

The little old lady from Dubuque voted for Obama. You mean the little old lady from Duquesne.

Black Obama supporter here. I'll be honest, anyone who doesn't understand this cartoon and have a big laugh about it is a frickin' moron. All these humorless left wingers wringing their hands about it need to get over the themselves. Its SATIRE, folks! Satire is supposed to be offensive and over the top- or it wouldn't be satire! Kevin doesn't like it- because it doesn't take aim at the " right" target? ,Well, let him draw his own damned cartoon! Obama's response should have been to laugh along with it. Instead, it looks like he is one of those self-important types who can't take a joke.
Now it does give me pause that there are right wing bloggers and comm enters who seem to think that this cartoon is simply a portrayal of self-evident truth! But then those knuckle draggers are beyond help anyway.

Its meant for New Yorker readers, whom the editors (rightly) assume will "get" the joke.

And I'm sure that the three times they showed this on CNN and MSNBC this morning, it was only New Yorker subscribers who were watching.

I guess if you're a liberal, it gives you the license to run around New York shouting "Hey, n****r!" at every black person you see, because, like, you're a liberal and all you're doing is pointing out the absurdity of real racists.

Or something.

If this cover is funny, then so is that hypothetical liberal.

This cover is like the Pontiac Aztek of cartoons. It makes you not only ponder the individual moronicity of the person who conceived it, but also the organizational moronicity required to foist it upon the world.

Its meant for New Yorker readers
But all the people who see it in bookstores and super markets and doctor's offices are not New Yorker readers. They will not get the joke.

i have news for you all - most people in the country have never even heard of the new yorker, much less study it closely. most newsstands don't carry it outside of the city.

It's a funny cover, and the reaction to it is hysterically funny. Obama's fans need to get a friggin grip.

Whatever your view, it will be gone soon enough and forgotten, especially outside of NY. New Yorker mag means nothing to 99% of America.

A magazine cover is always a collaboration between the editor, art director, and the artist. Don't pile on Blitt; we don't know what his original take or idea was. It's ultimately the editor (or publisher) who has the final say.

This is just the beginning. You're going to see all kind of "jokes", so we just have to toughen up and dish it back out at old man mcsame.

Not only did I think it was Obama and the left wing that got satire and nuance and art and all that, but I thought it was the Muslim world that got upset about cartoons.

Maybe next we should go after Stephen Colbert for satiring FOX News too?

Please, NO!

Not only did I think it was Obama and the left wing that got satire and nuance and art and all that, but I thought it was the Muslim world that got upset about cartoons.

Maybe next we should go after Stephen Colbert for satirizing FOX News too?

Please, NO!

I miss William Shawn. He didn't waste much time trying to outrage the bourgeois. Or coming up with pallid satire that would (not) sell magazines.
He might have had William Hamilton do a cover of the Obama as Terribly Nice People, which WOULD have been funny, and satire, being close to the mark.

I miss William Shawn. He didn't waste much time trying to outrage the bourgeoise. Or coming up with pallid satire that would (not) sell magazines.
He might have had William Hamilton do a cover of the Obama as Terribly Nice People, which WOULD have been funny, and satire, being close to the mark.

earl and Dood, people can disagree on the effectiveness or appropriateness of the satire, but you two are misjudging the penetration factor. Did you miss the part about it dominating cable news this morning? You guys sound a bit like John McCain, believing that unless someone's handed a print version of the mag, they'll never see it. And, of course, you badly underestimate how widely distributed the printed mag is nationally.

psmith (love the Wodehouse reference), you're right--but don't you bet that everyone else at The New Yorker will let Blitt take the fall for this?

I'll grant the cover doesn't portray the Senator very accurately. Obama seems more like a blank slate whose Truth is whatever his Inner Chalk comes up with on any given day. The most I'll allow is that the color of the robe is fine, if it's meant to express his blankness. As a caricature, though, the caricature of Michelle Obama seems just about right. She seems to be a killer restrained only by civil society; it's appalling to think what she would do if she had a free hand.

I mostly agree. This was a pretty slow witted attempt at satire that can easily be interpreted the wrong way. The New Yorker needs a Satire 101 refresher.

This is too rich.

Just who created this image of Obama as a crypto-muslim, anyway?

All during the primaries we had Democrats circulating emails claiming Obama is a muslim, Democrats passing around images of Obama dressed like a muslim, and Democrats like Larry Johnson circulating rumors about a Michelle Obama 'whitey' video.

And now we have this ugly image on the cover of the uber-liberal New Yorker magazine, and somehow it is all the Republicans' fault.

There is absolutely nothing that the Democrats won't blame on Republicans, is there.

Stephen Colbert also satirized the "terrorist bump" and inferred that Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

Now I guess Obama's campaign and the outraged left are going to condemn Colbert.

What a shame. Nice to turn the table and feel smug, knowing I get it, when it's usually Obama and his supporters who are!

This is really an astounding cacophony of gored oxen. Not having a dog in this fight (just to keep the metaphor straining along...), I feel free to say that I think the cover is really interesting. Look at what a president has to put up with. The Senator and his people really need to develop a sense of humor. If the treatment of every president I can remember -- esp. the one we now have -- by caricaturists and political opponents is a fair indication, this will look rather tame by the middle of his first term. If you don't find it funny now, well you guys are really in for it down the road.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? The New Yorker has forgotten they are reaching an electorate that put Geo.W.Bush in the White House not once, but twice. This is not a nation of subtle intellects. I don't believe the NY-er spokesperson's comment on Morning Joe that they didn't set out to cause a stir. If they believed this cartoon wouldn't cause problems for Obama they are more ignorant than the people who see it and won't "get" their satire.... Or are they so naive they were not thinking beyond their own ivy league readership. They owe the Obama's (and the Dems of the country) a BIG apology.

Swan: The worst example of racism I've ever personally witnessed in my life

You don't get out much, do you?

Do we want an authoritarian left that can't smile at itself and sees offense in every "politically incorrect" comment or can we look in the mirror at ourselves and understand our excesses. As Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution". In the case of the NYorker cover it is the left's inability to tolerate and appreciate a "swiftian" (as opposed to swiftboat) satire that is so scary.
A real biting attack on Obama would have been not to parody the right's perception of him as the cover does but perhaps to point out the authoritarian style implicit in his mass rallies. (this is not only the 40th anniversary year of the march on Washington but the 70th anniversary year of the Nurenberg rally). Calm down fellow lefties-- I'm being "out there" in a Yippie sort of way. It's a joke --or its it? (that's the irony of political satire.)

My serious point just made would be that the left should be scared of mass demonstrations that pay homage to individuals rather than ideas and that certain south american populists masquerading as socialists are not our role models in style or substance.

Do we want an authoritarian left that can't smile at itself and sees offense in every "politically incorrect" comment or can we look in the mirror at ourselves and understand our excesses. As Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution". In the case of the NYorker cover it is the left's inability to tolerate and appreciate a "swiftian" (as opposed to swiftboat) satire that is so scary.
A real biting attack on Obama would have been not to parody the right's perception of him as the cover does but perhaps to point out the authoritarian style implicit in his mass rallies. (this is not only the 40th anniversary year of the march on Washington but the 70th anniversary year of the Nurenberg rally). Calm down fellow lefties-- I'm being "out there" in a Yippie sort of way. It's a joke --or its it? (that's the irony of political satire.)

My serious point just made would be that the left should be scared of mass demonstrations that pay homage to individuals rather than ideas and that certain south american populists masquerading as socialists are not our role models in style or substance.

Do we want an authoritarian left that can't smile at itself and sees offense in every "politically incorrect" comment or can we look in the mirror at ourselves and understand our excesses. As Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution". In the case of the NYorker cover it is the left's inability to tolerate and appreciate a "swiftian" (as opposed to swiftboat) satire that is so scary.
A real biting attack on Obama would have been not to parody the right's perception of him as the cover does but perhaps to point out the authoritarian style implicit in his mass rallies. (this is not only the 40th anniversary year of the march on Washington but the 70th anniversary year of the Nurenberg rally). Calm down fellow lefties-- I'm being "out there" in a Yippie sort of way. It's a joke --or its it? (that's the irony of political satire.)

My serious point just made would be that the left should be scared of mass demonstrations that pay homage to individuals rather than ideas and that certain south american populists masquerading as socialists are not our role models in style or substance.

Imagine a cartoon appearing in 1863 showing Abraham Lincoln, Emancipation Proclamation in hand, with his arm around a black woman who was waving a spear. Satan is whispering into Lincoln's ear, and a picture of Frederick Douglass is on the wall.

It's a satire on racist attitudes toward Lincoln! Get it? Don't you understand?

Or, imagine a cartoon from the summer of 1941 showing FDR sitting at his presidential desk, with John Bull leaning over his shoulder and whispering into his ear.

It's a satire on isolationist fears that FDR was an Anglophile who was trying to save England from Nazi invasion. Get it? Don't you understand?

Of course, racists in 1863 would have loved the Lincoln depiction, and Lindbergh-type isolationists would have adored the depiction of FDR. And today, the far-right loves this New Yorker cover.

I guess it's never too late, but I'm still disappointed Rick Hertzberg hasn't authorized a cover illustration depicting Joe Lieberman eating matzos made from Palestinian children's blood, manipulating the world's finances, and gleefully crucifying Christ. Obviously we know those are just horrible myths about Jews, but there are people who actually believe those things, and a cover like this would help bring those beliefs into the open so that a healthy dialogue can occur, right? And since Joe Lieberman is a prominent national politician and former Vice-Presidential candidate, I'm sure the ADL and B'Nai Brith would have no objection to such a timely cover... after all, it's just satire, and those who might object would just be chastized for being too sensitive, right?

I admit it would have been funnier (and less controversial) with the wonder twins on the cover fist bumping with the Taleban. However, I don't expect perfect tone and broad audience appeal of every struggling cartoonist. I really don't understand the hypersensitivity and the assumption of an ignorant audience.

I know the new found power is sort of cool, but don't you think being able to get E.D. Hill fired and a cartoonist scared to death is a little scary itself. For me the response is a lot more notable than the comment or the cartoon. And that's saying something. E.D Hill is excellent, if unintentional, satire.

Macrey,

It's satire. Satirists never owe an apology. In fact, even in a court of law in a defamation suit (such as Bill O'Reilly's against Al Franke), if the offense can be proven to have been satire, there is no apology or any other kind of retribution awarded to the person who had his or her feelings hurt.

I liked the left better when we defended American principles, like freedom of the press, than when we became like the right and took on politics of personality and decided to make one man a god and the be all and end all.

The right wing also screams about how gay marriage will destroy the country and ruin straight marriages too. It would just be the end of the world.

So, the Daily Show did a GREAT satire on gay marriage, dated to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the Massachusetts decision to make gay marriage legal, called "Gay Marriage Ruins State."

While I found it to be hilarious, I guess all these naysayers here would have found it offensive to gay people and really just not funny! I mean, satirizing the right wing's hysteria and hyperbole??? Just not funny.

Seems to me, though, that NOT satirizing it gives it credence.

Rasmussenreports has Obama losing support and McCain picking up what he's losing for the past 3 days. Race is dead even now. Prediction, by labor day McCain up by 5. The worm has started to turn. The New Yorker cover is hilarious, by the way, and not far from reality.

From the reactions here, you folks would be comfortable threatening the life of the cartoonist in Denmark who 'blasphemed' Mohammed, eh?

It's a cartoon, it's satire. We live in America, where there is FREE SPEECH, even IF Obamaphiles don't like it.

For God's sake, people, get over it!

Anti-Arugula,

One thing (and just about the only thing!) one really does have to admire about the right wing is how many over there are just so unashamed to publicly display their ignorance, even proudly.

Remember when you all screamed about how Kerry was going to ban the Bible too? And how Bush was sent to the Oval Office by God?

Really, very amusing stuff.

Hey, I thought the cover's a hoot. Seeing as Talk Radio will use it to reinforce the stereotypes lampooned -- Obama wouldn't wear the flag pin, he/she knew some people who were radicals in the '60s, his pastor hates America, he was raised in a Muslim country, etc. -- it will change nothing.

Remember, the New Yorker has pretensions of elitism, so it's natural they would put something of an "inside joke" on the cover, insinuating that only people as sophisticated as their subscribers will appreciate that this is all nonsense. Anybody who complains is a knuckle-dragger.

Nevertheless, it's brilliant. Now that they have something to lose, Obama's people are so humorless and paranoid of being Swiftboated that they can't just shrug it off as the propaganda caricature that it is. Which would have rebounded positively for them. Heck, they should be paying these guys.

Instead they come off as whiners. Maybe Gramm was right after all.

Why does the New Yorker hate America?

Seriously, why?

Because they may just have elected John McCain Preznit.

Here's how the REAL elites screw up. They don't have a clue what Mom and Pop Hayseed suspect and how this will reinforce it.

I have to disagree with you, Kevin. I think that the thought bubble from mccains head would be clumsy - and surely you dont believe that mccain really buys these caricatures either. He just cynically exploits them.

I've blogged in more detail about why I think the cover works as satire and I directly address your argument as well:

So, pissing off McCain is OK...pissing off Obama...gutless.

Seems that anything that gets the left's panties in a twist isnt gutless.

A whole passel of terrorist leaders have endorsed Obama. No doubt they all love the New Yorker cover and wonder aloud about how any serious person could consider this cover to be "satire."

And they're right. During the primaries, Obama made a big deal of his policies of demilitarizing the United States while opposing essentially every effective anti-terrorist effort the Bush Administration or anyone else has come up with since September 11 as violative of "individual rights" or as being "counterproductive" aggression. Now, of course, he's busy modifying his stated positions as fast as he can. But there's no question that Obama wants to rely on "aggressive diplomacy" (against Iran and every other rogue state or organization) which he and everyone else knows perfectly well will be ineffective. He wants to "go European." But we only have to recall how well those European aggressive diplomacy efforts and trade sanctions are working to stop Iran's development of a nuclear bomb pointed at Israel. So the New Yorker cover is pretty accurate. The only problem is the "satire" bit. But that's pretty much taking care of itself since most of the world only reads the New Yorker for the pictures. The liberal refusal to take seriously arguments based on the article itself again confirms that fact (studies show liberals on the whole read much less than others). The magazine has, after all, been correctly described as a "comic book for adults."

what's funny about this is these characterizations of Obama came from a Democratic campaign--i.e. it was Hillary Clinton campaign worker who were spreading the rumor that Obama is a Muslim, etc.

Yet somehow, in true Democratic fashion, it's the evil Republicans that originated this line of attack.

As well, are the condescending notes about those dumb, bigoted voters who won't understand the cover. Hey, those dummies don't read the New Yorker. They are not as sophisticated as you genius Democrats.

Hard to believe I hung with this crowd for so long.

Call me cynical, Anon, but I think we on the left need to extract our heads from the sands of Beach Idealism and get real before we lose another election. I love satire...I'm a big fan of Colbert and Al Franken...and I hope this cartoon will do us more good than harm in the end. But I stand behind my feeling that it went too far at this time with those issues. I am not making a god of Obama, but I do want him to win in November and for that to happen I think we need to be careful and sensitive. Let's not use the Bill of Rights to obscure common sense once again.

I'm an Obama supporter and volunteer, and I think the cover is funny. Somehow the silly season has caused a lot of people to lose their sense of humor, if they ever had one.

Macrey,

George Bush and Dick Cheney also think the Constitution should be suspended so they too can get to their desired end.

If Americans are dumb enough to take this seriously and not recognize it as parody, which of course they are - they gave us Bush, TWICE! - then this country simply deserves what it has been getting.

The problem here is that Obama supporter are being hypocrites and holding one standard for themselves. I'm tired of that.

Defend the Constitution first, last, always.

Oh, and Macrey,

If the left really wanted to extract their heads from sands of idealism, they never would have nominated a junior senator based on a nebulous candidacy of hope, change, and inspiration and would have instead gone for the boring, droll policy wonk.

Geez, Terry, get a grip.

Demilitarize the USA? With hundreds of bases around the world? Sounds good. How about demilitarizing Iraq first? No problem there -- the Iraqis are about to do that for us.

Iran? They don't have nukes pointed at anybody right now. Can't say the same for Israel now, can we? Haven't attacked anybody, have they? Who's gonna attack who first? If you're money's on Iran over Israel, you better stay away from Vegas.

Those silly missiles? Yeah, they'll just strap a toy PNK nuke to them and take out a couple blocks of Tel Aviv. Really? You don't think they know what happens next?

Geez... The US is NOT threatened by Iran, or those cavedwellers (now that we've figured out how to keep the knives off the planes), or any of those other characters.

Our biggest threat is ... ourselves. We need to avoid a third Middle East conflict and get our act together over here -- NOW. And that means: moving on energy policy, hedgefund/mortgage regulation and healthcare reform. Yeah, you better believe we need socialized healthcare, because it's the only way to get that monkey of the backs of American businesses so they can compete.

I have news for Earl and Dood.

The New Yorker is on the magazine stand at many grocery stores in California. Where I often shop, it's clearly visible when you're waiting at the check stand.

It's not just for New Yorkers anymore.

And I don't buy that criticizing the decision to publish this is like the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons.

We're not issuing death threats. We're just sayin' BTW, I thought it was pretty stupid to publish the Danish cartoons, too.

The New Yorker is not the Onion. It's not The Daily Show. It's not the Colbert Report. It is a "serious" magazine and one cannot "expect" it's cover to be taken as satire.

The editors either WANT McCain to be elected or are clueless about the cluelessness of a significant portion of the American electorate. I find it impossible to believe they don't know their own market penetration.

Hard to believe I hung with this crowd for so long.

Mmmm, that suggestion does lack credibility, doesn't it?

Actually, I thought it was kind of funny. I'm actually more concerned with the left's over the top reaction to it (and indeed the candidate's as well)than the substance of an absurd cartoon. If we're just going to cry "wolf" at every innocuous cartoon, or clumsy statement about Obama we risk the public getting immune to our outrage to the point that really disturbing comments, or ads, or cartoons will be weighted the same as the public tunes out.

Anon

I would be equally offended if McCain had been the target of ill advised satire, so don't call me a hypocrite.
Good for you...a constitutionalist just like Scalia. I guess you defend assault weapons as the right to bear arms too, huh???
Maybe Nate is correct. We all need to lighten up.

O, Tim -

You are so right! We and Israel have nothing whatsoever to fear from Iran or al Qaida!! A bunch of cavedwellers," that's what they are. You got me, but WHY DOESN'T OBAMA RUN ON THAT OBVIOUS TRUTH!!!??? Maybe you could contact him and bring him around with your unique charms? You know, make him stop "clarifying" all those far left wing primary campaign positions before it's too late. After all, how many people can resist being persuaded when you write "Geez" at them. I know I was.

Hilarious. Get over it you whiners. Congrats to New Yorker for being so un-PC. It's funny. Anyone who watches the Obamas for a minute knows they are about as middle class as Mr and Mrs. Beaver Cleaver.

C'mon lighten up.

one cannot "expect" it's cover to be taken as satire.

Have you ever seen the magazine before?

Give me a break! Put a bubble with it coming out of John McCain's head??? I agree that McCain thinks Obama's ideas are a bunch of flip-flopping mush and that Obama's record is skimpy and lacking in gravitas. But the author of this piece honetly thinks it's McCain who looks upon Barack as a Muslim and Michelle as a terrorist??? Based on what? It's the left-leaning New Yorker that's done this hatchet job not the Republicans. And by-the bye, the reason this is so clever is because it hits on PRECISELY how these two up-and-comers from the south side of Chicago are seen by most Americans. Check out the polls!! John MCcain will be the 44th President of the united States of America.

Well, the cover has now apparently been reproduced in every single major news publication and been shown on every single televised news program, and, most importantly, on DRUDGE! So one thing we know is that it will NOT be necessary for Joe Nascar to actually BUY the magazine or READ the article.

Of course, few people who do BUY the New Yorker actually read the articles, and even fewer FINISH them. Always been true. True now.

the caricature of Michelle Obama seems just about right. She seems to be a killer restrained only by civil society; it's appalling to think what she would do if she had a free hand.

Now, that's some tasty satire!

Satire? It seems to be the plain and simple truth to me. Something that will never come from the Obamanics.

I read the New Yorker for the cartoons.

No one cared about Harper's picture of Michelle with one of history's greatest mass murderers.

are you kidding...we are suppose to support barack obama and not scare people away from him. i understand the artist did his job but i think it went a little too far...the US flag is burning in the fireplace..come on now! get the PICTURE?!

During the primaries, Obama made a big deal of his policies of demilitarizing the United States

Wow, I must have missed this. Terry, could you provide me a link to the multiple speeches in which Obama pledge to "demilitarize" the United States....? If it was such a big deal, I'm sure there must be multiple news accounts, right?

*crickets chirp. Offstage, a lone bird sings. A tumbleweed rolls gently acr