Obama campaign slams New Yorker cover

Totally and completely uncalled for! This is obvious abuse of our free speech right.

I too find this characterizaiton of Obama and his wife offensive and inciteful. The word Recall comes to mind.

What? The cover's a satire?

a few years back three athletes almost lost their gold medals for the fist thing. now we have obama and his wife doing the fist thig and it is supposed to be cool' and no one should question it.

Ken wrote "This is obvious abuse of our free speech right". My question is how do you abuse free speech??? This cartoon is 100% acceptable under free speech.

Is Obama's campaign afraid this is a true picture of Obama--

I wonder how the Muslim community will feel about this latest nonesense? Again, there will be outcry about depticting a man as a Muslim, as if the religion itself were a problem.
The campaign is right to speak out because that is not who Obama is and because those the artist claims to skewer portray Obama as such with devious intent.
Still - the implication that being Muslim means one is unpatriotic or even dangerous is unfair and hardly to stuff of an open and free society.

I like the cover, but I love the hypocritical Left screaming for it to be pulled - what happened to Freedom of Speech? - because it offended a handful of hyper-sensitive babies. Ha!

No big deal. The NYer has always been perceived by the rest of the nation as a provincial supermarket tabloid for the well-heeled. The visual compels the New Yorker to snatch it up whilst in the checkout line at Starbucks. Right next to the obese, mouth agape, unflattering over-the-hill doyan cover shot.

Show a picture of McCain in Depends using a walker, see if the satire is so funny.

It's satire and it's also free speech in a free country. Get over it and lighten' up. The New Yorker has been doing this since its inception in the mid-1920s. There are dozens or more likewise covers that satirize Bush/Cheny/Kerry the Pope, Jesus, Mohamed etc....good grief

The decency of John McCain and his campaign come through again with their issuing a statement that the cover is, indeed, tasteless. Wouldn't it be pleasant if Obama's supporters were equally generous about misbegotten attacks on McCain?

Blitt seems to be suffering 'Islamo-hysteria'. Perpetrated in the beginning by the Bushistas and carried to histrionic heights by mainstream media, for the sole purpose of propagandizing the Bush genocide on Muslims. Iran is next up on the Bush blitzkrieg crusade and The New Yorker/Blitt is simply playing their part. Seems kind of sad in a racist sort of manner. New Yorker is "usually" above this sort of insulting profiling. Ah well, what's a propaganda outlet to do in such darkly troubled times.

FAKE OUTRAGE ALERT !!!

I'm an Obama supporter, and I think the cover is HIGHlarious. The truly disturbing aspect of this is how everyone - including Obama - jumps on the "pretend to be offended bandwagon."

GET OVER YOURSELVES people it's The New Yorker all of their covers are satirical.

This is only the first of many covers that is going to upset people on both sides. But as that old saying goes "If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www,vjmachiavelli.blogspot.
ps I guess "Bill & Jesse's Monsters of the ID" have taken control of the New Yorker and its Editors.

.... I USED to admire the New Yorker. After briefly burdening myself with questions regarding their motivations and judgment, I came to the conclusion that they are reflecting an elitist and somewhat antiquated view of black people. Possibly a satire of the right - clearly offensive and disgusting.

Bye bye New Yorker.

Reminds me of when Fox kept saying 'It's probably not a good idea for anyone to use Barack's middle name HUSSEIN'... Well they kept saying it over and over in the guise of questioning if it was proper or not, by that time- "PERCEPTION CREATED and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". Despite the New Yorker's attempt at addressing Obama's media distortion by the right wing media, this has a similar overtone to it. "ENFORCEMENT of already created DISTORTION". This is very much the same.

That is one funny cover. Obamabots need to lighten up. Nobody is dissing their messiah.

It's unnecessary. The people that would believe those things to be true about the Obama's don't read The New Yorker. The world is running out of time concerning our environment and this country is waining under a perfect storm of issues. Let's stick to those, the issues.

The caricatures and satire about President Bush have been flying for eight years now. There's even a cartoon on TV about our sitting president. Now this uproar from the left over a cover illustration. What next dems-book burning?

I like it! It’s free speech and critics be damned.
No one mentions the other cartoons this artist has
created yet; and I hear in the distance – “if you have
an opinion different from mine, shut up”. So much
of today sounds like 1939.

Looking at the cover is kind of a shock that a major publication would do that. It shows how far the New Yorker is from the mainstream perception of things.

After I though about it a little yes I can see it as satire. I live in the deep south though and many people her will see it as reality.

Despicable!

Although it is suppose to be satire, there are those folks in this country who don't understand what that means and to see this without a title on the cover try to explain what the picture is trying to convey is wrong!!! Also, fist bumping was being performed by whites and blacks long before Obama and his wife made it so "popular"!!!

The New York is over estimating the ability of most people to detect satire and is therefore vulnerable to being misunderstood and worse still, believed.

IF Obama was a MAN he might say, “Say what you will of me, but leave my wife a lone.” But instead he acts like a baby child. The presidency is a job that is constantly scrutinized and ridiculed… Now if it was a photo of him sitting in a Cadillac, eating watermelon and big bone sticking out of his nose, then he and the rest could get upset. As it is… this is politics not a church picnic. He’s not a man, he’s a child.

You see what you want to see in this cover. If you're an idiot, you'll see affirmation of the Muslim-Terrorist-Fist Jab-connection to instill your sense of disabled truth. If you're an offended Obama supporter, you're worried that this will perpetuate the disinformation. If you're a sensible humorist, like myself, you see this as a poor attempt at satire in the midst mass disinformation exploitation using non-issues as a guide. How about a cover of McCain and Obama on leashes with corporate lobbyists, special interests, and the non-Federal Reserve, holding the lead.

Of course it is satirical and the point of having such a cover is to make people think long and hard about the absurdity of constantly questioning Obama's religious convictions and loyalty to America.

Does anyone think it not the slightest bit sad that what America is really saying is that, "sure we believe in religious freedom, sure we believe in the democratic ideal, sure we believe in diversity, tollerance and freedom of choice, but if you are a Muslim don't for one second think you could ever become our president.

We can talk the talk but deep down in certain place we don't talk about, we want a Christian in that Office we need a Christian in that office because we can't handle the truth and the truth is you got to believe in a Christian god to become the president. Non Christians need not apply. Sad but true.

Maybe, it wasn't really Barry Blitt that drew the cartoon. Maybe it was Jesse Jackson. Would that make it okay?

That would explain why Obama is standing facing AWAY from the viewer.

re: Sanbourne | July 14, 2008 7:19 AM : Compare apples to apples. Obama has been more than decent and respectful with McCain. So many of McCain's supporters spend their time forwarding tripe e-mails re: Obama that it amazing you would stretch to make this comparison. I get endless inflammatory, inaccurate emails from Republicans re: Obama. I do not get that kind of stuff from Democrats on McCain. The cover? No big deal to me. Obvious satire. But McCain in Depends and using a walker would certainly be fair game as well. Cindy can have a keg of her back and moey bursting out of her pockets.

How can you abuse a 'right'? Its satire, if it is not to your liking than so be it.

I can't believe people are so up in arms over silly silly cartoon.

...hmmm... reminds me of a similar incident that occurred in Denmark...

Grow Up.

Liberals scream "free speech" when the NY Times, etc., prints total trash about Bush, McCain, etc. Turn the tables a little and they want retractions. The can't stand the fact that conservative radio shows make huge money and get a lot of air time while liberal show die from loneliness so they propose legislation to force stations to put left-wing shows on the air. Liberals are all for free speech as long as they agree with the content. Here in the states, that's called fascism.

It's over the top - just like all good satire.

This cover is hilarious...if B.O. cannot take a little heat like this...good luck in the campaign...Obama straddles so many fences...trying to be this and that...he should be depicted as an octopus...at least he could send out the ink and hide.

First Amendment Baby!
If you don't like the cover, don't buy the rag and avoid patronizing the advertisers. If the cover showed an elderly McCain lost in a parking lot, the same whiners would call it accurate and sadly prophetic.
The average Obama Supporter does not read the New Yorker anyway. VIVA BARAKISTAN!

Okay, what's the big fuss about? The cartoon is satire, for cryin' out loud! Which is what the leftists are doing--crying out loud. Keep in mind MSM journalism is left-leaning to begin with, not including the comic strips, movies, etc. Where are the right-wing cry babies? That's right, they are silent. They respect the first amendment, even to their detriment. But every time an article or, in this case, cartoon is published that is not to their liking, the leftists cry foul.
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore."

The cover is hilarious. Only a fool would take it seriously. Now, unless The New Yorker has a satirical cover of McCain wearing Depend's pads, walking with a walker, confused by everything because of Alzheimer's disease, then I will think that The New Yorker is 1.) totally biased, 2.) trying to sell magazines, or 3.) all the above.

It all comes down to the context in which this magazine cover appears. The Obama magazine cover was not offensive to me because of the banner: The New Yorker. I’d have the same attitude even if this cover appeared on The National Review. Or The New Republic or The Nation. In a quality magazine, meaning one with serious, thoughtful content, this cover can only relate to an inside story about the unfounded fears of the nutty far right since the drawing is so obviously over the top. In a magazine of dubious standards, say The Weekly Standard (no pun intended), I’d be more suspect regarding the content as they’d be just the ones to try and make the case that Obama is really, really, really anti-American. Really.

Those who don't see the cover as a "satirical lampoon" don't know what the definition of the term is, & are dumb enough to run to McCain for what they perceive is "proof" Obama is a Muslim.

Hear come the obama supporters complaining, no one complained when Hillary was cartooned as tanya harding, no one complained when they had hillary and obama in bed reaching for the red phone.

It's not a matter of free speech ... it's a matter of stupidity. Sure, I get it ... I get the satire, as do all of you; however, what about the majority of the people in this country who don't get satire or take basically everything at face value? What does this do for Obama ... nothing, except hurt him and portray a false image of him and his wife. Satire is for the intellectual and by creating such an image, the artist and magazine, who claim that it points out that it is addressing the "scare tactics, etc.." are simply perpetuating that very thing to the uninformed (the majority of people in this country). That is what is wrong with this cover.

I think it's brilliant. It's like looking into the mind of the Republican party. Never mind the facts on the man of integrity Barack Obama really is; this is what the Foxers and Bush/McSame cheerleaders think of him. I love the "terrorist fist bump" thrown in. :)

Let the truth be know. That Obama and his family hate America and everything it stands for. Just read some of there past obama's lies.

Take a look at the filth thrown at Condi Rice and Bush, over at michellemalkin.com. Makes this Obama thing look tame. All without protest from the Obey-me nuts.

From Obey-me's response, it appears Jesse Jackson already performed that surgery on hum.

As a black woman and strong supporter of Obama and his wife, how dare the New Yorker do this cover and try to justify the reason it was done was to show how ridiculous it is to think these things about one of the most intelligent & strongest candidates we have seen in decades. Ok we get it he is a black man that is such a huge shock for so many white americans, but so what! He is the most qualfied and the one who seems to care enough to maintain his integrity as a man, husband, father and soon to be president and I doubt seriously had he been a white man this would have been done. The so called artist took advantage of his race, his name and his marriage which unlike some of these political couples is actually geniune and loving. How cool is it that they love & respect each other so much and the best the white media can come up with is they gave each other "a pound"!! And you all say he was wrong to talk about race, race has nothing to do with this campaign!. Thankfully he is smart enough to know better and has still taken the high road. Just one day I'd love to see Obama tell everyone to go straight to hell. Thankfully he has too much class for even that. However on his behalf, New Yorker, Racist America, and all other doubters and haters. GO TO HELL!! Obama for President

Wow, and not in a good way. I agree with one of the previous posts - a glaring look into the mind a the Republican party.

Why didnt they go the other direction with their 'satire" and put a pic of Ms McCain on an operating table waiting for yet another face lift, or a little scared McCain huddling in a make-shift bamboo pen...?

So help me, if the New Yorker ends up apologizing, it will mean that there isn't a publication left in this country with a spine that is willing to fight for freedom of the press. We may not like the the sketch but they have the right to run it.

It is only a satire if everyone GETS it. Unfortunately there are a fair number of people in this country who DO believe that Obama is connected to Islam (and, by extension, terrorism), simply because he is brown and his name is "Barack Obama." This cover confirms these beliefs.

Hence, the satire is "lost" on many, and the cover becomes a source of misinformation itself.

First the lay observation: Several posts invoke "free speech" as the rationale for defending the depiction on the The New Yorker's cover, but then direct criticism towards those of us who are offended by the depiction and through "free speech" articulate that offense. That's a tad hypocritical?

Now for the legal observation: The right to "fee speech" you people keep referencing prevents GOVERNMENTAL (whether direct or indirect) repression of speech. Private citizens, by contrast, most certainly have the right to hold other private citizens (particularly businesses) accountability for offense speech, through for instance, withholding purchasing dollars.

Finally, the personal observation: Whatever irony the artists had hoped to achieve with the depiction will be lost on most (as a survey of the posts on this site bears out) because it is too inflammatory. How can I be sure the depiction crosses the line? Much like pornography, I know it when I see it.

When Obama loses - and he will lose, what will all of you Dems say qas the cause of it? Will you blame Rev Wirte, Rezko, Jesse, Bernie Mac, New Yorker, etc? What will be your swift boat? What states will you say robbed your messiah from the Oval Office.?

Since Hillary stopped campaigning - she has not conceeded, Obama has changed course on many of his platforms.

This election is going to get uglier before it gets better for Obama. Everyday he is not elected is another day for him to have to explain himself and talk in circles to meet the current direction of the political wind.

I am not a fan of McCain but compared to Obama there is no other choice.

I truly think that Obama will need help from Dr Phil after this one , anyone seen Phil G. ! Where's the humor now!

A picture of an empty suit would do me just fine...oh wait, it wouldn't be satire!

Very accutate description of the BO and his bitter wife. Just read her dissertation and see how much she loves America. Should be required reading for all Americans before they cast their vote for the latest false prophet.

The fact that the New Yorker failed to put an appropriate title on cover (on purpose?) totally loses any efforts at satire. This cover needs to be added to Obama's www.fightthesmears.com

...and the Obama camp is outraged. Does he do anything besides be professionally offended?

I read a statement by "patty" regarding the fist bump. The fist bump and what you referred to from the 68 Olympics are two entirely different thing. The "fist" you refer to from the olympics was a raised clenched fist in the air - meant as an enpowerment of black pride and the fist bump that Obama has used is actually used in today's athletic culture like the pat on the backside used to be. Nowadays its used in urban/hip hop/teenage circles as a form of greeting. Lets get it right please!

Undoubtedly rebarbative. Sad commentary not only by but on The New Yorker.

Obama comes out on the offensive EVERY time someone looks crooked at him, which makes him seems petulant and unready for office, if you ask me. This is what happens when someone goes for four years without ever receiving a serious grilling from the press. He seems genuinely surprised when he's criticized or even questioned, but has no problem sending his cronies (John Kerry, Wesley Clark) to beat up on McCain and then cliaming, "it wasn't me."
This, along with his earlier endorsement of Todd Stroger, makes him the poster boy for "politics as usual." ...So much for change.

And I thought the cartoon was clever ... Have you seen some of the cartoons drawn of Hillary over the years?

Obviously this is over the top sarcasm. . . Surprised that they did not have Rev. Jeremiah Wright included as spiritual adviser. Next on the Obama campaign front to go under the bus -- the 1st Amendment?? Say hello to grandma and Rev Wright down there.

I certainly recall all the rot in photographs, & cartoons on Sen. Clinton.

What goes around comes around, get over it, move on
comes to my mind.

The New Yorker made it. Try to get on the magazine's web site. Otherwise the caricature is good. As of the poor Muslims, we did not blow off the Dome of the Rock or any other Muslim shrine.

Don't like it? Don't buy the New Yorker. Free speech is always free speech, not just when you agree with it.

The 'not so important' NYer magazine desperately trys to be controversial/readable with despicable cover-art. Ah the foibles of the DEMBHOLE-LEFTY's eh??? Anything for relevance or for a buck.

I guess the dems can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.....

Love it!! I'm an Obama supporter and have been for years. I also subscribe to the New Yorker, and have for years. I plan to keep both in my life to the extent possible.

THIS IS AMERICA!! HOORAY!!!

Barnes & Noble, Borders, independent bookstores, newstands, libraries, etc should refuse to distribute this issue and return their copies to Conde Nast immediately. David Remnick should issue an apology with his resignation letter. I am cancelling my subscription.

The Obama camp needs to untangle their panties. They are a bunch of sissies. When the media portray Obama as the 3rd coming, they rejoice but when the media show their true colors, they whine. Media, Axlerod and Barry, is a doubled edge swords. Learn to live with it.

Get some thicker skin. Far worse will be printed if Obama/McCain is elected. It's the nature of the job. But maybe this can be classified as hate speech and the guy who drew it can be accused of a hate crime.

I find your cover disgusting, you have lost me as a reader of your publication

Let them know what you think:

themail@newyorker.com
fiction@newyorker.com,
talkofthetown@newyorker.com,
shouts@newyorker.com,
poetry@newyorker.com,
newsbreaks@newyorker.com,
captioncontest@newyorker.com,
subscriptions@newyorker.com,
maria_tenaglia@newyorker.com,
Larissa_MacFarquhar@newyorker.com,
Lawrence_Wright@newyorker.com,
reddicious@newyorker.com,
jacob_lewis@newyorker.com,
david_remnick@newyorker.com,
terese_cunningham@newyorker.com,
anita_raokeech@newyorker.com,
norman_miller@newyorker.com,
melissa_smith@newyorker.com,
connor_o'gara@newyorker.com,
marii_sebahar@newyorker.com,
ed_amstutz@newyorker.com,
cookman_campbell@newyorker.com,
patti_chapman@newyorker.com

The magazine was obviously entitled to whatever cover they chose because of their first amendment rights, but the self-righteousness the ones gleefully screaming "free speech!" amuses me greatly.

Just as it it's free speech to have a cartoon that offends people on a magazine cover, isn't it just as much a first amendment right for someone to vehemently express that they're offended or that it's in really poor taste?

The real information in this article is lost because of the controversial cover. Many people doubt whether or not Obama is really a Christian, and the response has always been that he was brought to Christ by Rev. Wright. However, this article says that Obama joined Rev. Wright's church for political reasons because of the "social connections and prominent parishioners". It's very possible that Obama claims to be a Christian for "political reasons". Many people claim to be Christians who are not

Anyone who has worked on Obama's campaign (I've worked the phones) can tell you that a surprising number of people think he is a Muslim who wants to bring the country down.

These people don't read The New Yorker. But they will see the cover as proof that they are right. The politics of fear is not, for the most part, literate or rational.

The cover has that creepy feeling I get when I hear white people jokingly use the "n" word as a pretense to closeness with black people. It is ill-mannered and ill-advised. The New Yorker should not be above decent manners.

Will New Yorker post a caroon of a stupid McCain being shot down over Vietnam, kicked around for years at a POW camp, then demanding upon release that he is owed high US governmental office?

If not, why not.

What makes it funny is that it isn't funny. There are a lot of people in America who believe that cartoon is accurate. I know that Obama is running to "unify" America -- but there are going to be a fairly large number of folks who are not going to come along. The cover is brilliant, potent, political satire -- and the only people who should be embarrassed (Fox news) won't be because they either don't get it, or they are shameless.

Yes, America, you really still are THIS MUCH of a rube.

Don't criticize or joke about Obama unless you are Obama. If you do you are a racist, gun toting, uneducated English only speaking buffoon.

This guy and his Chicago handlers are wimps. I love watching the same old Chicago style politics being played out by Axlerod and company, under the magic banner of "change"

Where was your fake outrage at all the other New Yorker covers

http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/search_results_category.asp?sitetype=1&topic=politics&keyword=&x=15&y=13§ion=covers&advanced=1

I like it. Only thing missing is the hand of Lucifer up the backsides of them both like little sock puppets.

This is an example of the type of irresponsible media that can cause race riots and murders. Please hurry up President Obama, we need you, and we need you now!!

The very fact that people are offended says more about the subject being satirized (over-the-top political misinformation) than it does about the artist or the New Yorker. I think the piece is an accurate snapshot in time of our politics -- of the tactics of the right and the hyper-sensitivity of the left.

I'm a republican who wouldn't have voted for Clinton and won't vote for Obama.

But that cover even offends me.

The New Yorker is not Mad Magazine or The Onion. Satire is not their forte. That cover is in very bad taste and they owe Obama and his wife BIG appologies.

Sadly, this comes as no surprise to me. It racist and demeaning as well as very disrespectful.

But again, not surprising.

Repeat all you want about the freedom of the press, I bet the McCain’s camp couldn’t dream of a better way to communicate and reinforce their hidden message. Were the picture on the wall and the American flag burning necessary? Shameful.

This is not an issue of free speech. This is how to get people to buy a magazine and talk about the New Yorker Magazine on Cable News.

Why isn't tasteless and offensive when its a Republican.!

It is only a satire if everyone GETS it. Unfortunately there are a fair number of people in this country who DO believe that Obama is connected to Islam (and, by extension, terrorism), simply because he is brown and his name is "Barack Obama." This cover confirms these beliefs.

Hence, the satire is "lost" on many, and the cover becomes a source of misinformation itself.

Posted by: Steve | July 14, 2008 8:48 AM

Steve, I'm sure everyone thought Cheney and Bush were homosexual lovers too as depicted in this 2006 NY mag cover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mark_Ulriksen_New_Yorker_Cheney_Bush_Cover.jpg

Give Americas a little credit- I think people get it-- DUH!

I suppose one can make an argument for the cover being clever, but the overarching reality is that so many will see that cover on the newsstands, and in media coverage such as this, and say 'I knew it, I knew it! He IS a Muslim terrorist.'

I'll bet they're selling a LOT of this issue with all of the free publicity.

Remember silence from the whining left when Condi Rice was pictured as Aunt Jemimah? And that was designed to be offensive, while this is supposedly from is supporters to show how crazy Obama's critics are.

Hmmm, now if the cartoon had Obama in a pew, eating an arugala salad, with Rev. Wright dressed as a Grand Dragon, Tony Rezko putting money in Obama's pocket, and Bill Ayers building a bomb in the pew while sitting on an American flag, then it would have hit too close to home.

As always The New Yorker standard is only to create a controversy... it's much ado about nothing. Let's move on to the next (suggestion: McCain as the Sultan of Iraq!!!.)

This is not MAD Magazine, it's the New Yorker. There is nothing about this cover that screams out SATIRE, but it does come across as baiting and hateful. Shame on the New Yorker editors for allowing such nonsense.

Referencing...Is Obama's campaign afraid this is a true picture of Obama--?
Posted by George

God Lord...Does everyone with the name
"George" have an I.Q. of less than 90????
(Or did the liar who stole the whitehouse twice post this himself?)

The punishment for offense to the Prophet is death. The New Yorker should know that by now.

This Obama supporter loves the cover. I think it's hilarious. If you don't get the satire and think it's an affirmation of what you already believed about Obama, then you were never going to vote for him anyway. Brilliant cover New Yorker, don't you dare apologize. As for Obama's indignation, I believe it's a political imperative. Nothing more. He probably gets a laugh out of it too...in private.

Like it or not, it's going to be an instant collector's item.

Does no one 'get' satire anymore?
http://lifeisacookie.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/elitist-pol-lambastes-elitist-mags-lampoon/

I have just cancelled my subscription.

This is a serious election and this cover incites fear mongering and misinformation.

Perhaps the New Yorker could consectrate on issues...what a novel idea!

The cover's hilarious. Unfortunately it's an accurate depiction of how the typical, fearful gop voter sees the Obamas.

Obviously to the writer and many informed readers, it is satire, depicting how many in mass media try to falsely characterize the Obamas.

So why the objection from the Obama campaign, instead of hearty laughs or thank you New Yorker for your sympathy?

One answer I think can be found, in looking at different approaches to erasing misinformation. The Obama campaign could be trying to fight by cutting out all references to the falsehoods and false characterizations by supplanting it with their own characterizations. Rather than say "the terrorist fist jab is wrong" or that "I'm not a muslim," I think they are going with the approach that "I'm an American with a world view and care about this country's security." The image is different. The latter cuts off the image of the former. Perhaps they view the satire as part of the former.

But also, even if it is satire, it is totally in line with the false information itself. So, in someways, it is not really satire.

A more extreme example would be a jewish newspaper in 1930's Germany depicting jewish people as devils. While it may be satire, mocking press establishments and the government propaganda campaign, it doesn't help and may actually hurt. I think this is how the Obama campaign looks at this New Yorker cover. Sounds like the article on him wasn't flattering either.

The Obama camp is not saying that the magazine should be taken off the shelves - they're saying it's a tasteless cover. Understand the difference, people. What were they supposed to say? "Hilarious cover, New Yorker"? "You really nailed it"? Of course they're going to say it's tasteless, and of course that will cause more people to buy this issue, and of course the New Yorker knew this.

The truth of the matter is that the "Obama is a Muslim" meme has largely been relegated to the fringes of right-wing paranoid conspiracists. Regardless, anybody who still believes he just *might* be a muslim is not going to be reading the New Yorker (it would be surprising if they could read at all). So this cover really accomplishes nothing other than selling a motherload of magazines.

Gee, isn't that what the New Yorker, like all media companies, is in the business of doing?

Didn't think Michelle look that good. Kudos to artist for "air brush" technique.

Thoroughly tasteless and offensive. The excuse that this is a "satirical" exercise is ludicrous and will be lost
on 99% of the New Yorker's readership. If I were Obama I'd sue for
libelous defammation of character. The editor should be fired.

I do see the satire, but it may have gone a bit over the top, given the fact that so many people apparently believe the misinformation. Hopefully, New Yorker is read by those more educated than that.

It is called freedom of speech. If you do not like it, you have teh right not to buy it. You havethe right not to read it. you have the right to write and complain. They have the right to print it, period. Get over it.

I think one of the definitions of humor is that it makes people laugh, and certainly some people will laugh at this thinly disguised attack. Some people laugh when a person sets a cat on fire or pulls the wings off of a butterfly as well, however I don't think most people consider that particularly funny. I believe there is a parallel here. Just because the people at The New Yorker label this cover as satire and think it is funny does not make it so. The question becomes if these individuals are smart enough to see the humor in their satire are we to believe that they did not see the harm in it as well?

Great art and so damn funny. I'm still laughing...

In today's dumbed down culture satire may be over the heads of a majority, yet they all have a vote. Scary.

Here's what's disturbing about this cover:

1. The number of people who are offended by it shows you just how many have either become totally dumbed down (an increasingly salient feature of this country) or so politically correct that intelligent discussion of the (true) issues is not possible.

2. Even the Obama campaign is forced to say it is offended by it because of Problem #1.

3. All of this will probably lead to an apology from the New Yorker, and someone may even initiate a multi-million dollar lawsuit for damages. Which, though frivolous, will still cost $$$.

4. The above problems detracted from my enjoyment of this cover, which is actually quite amusing, if one is in possession of a working brain.

This issue is going to be a collector item.

Has there been more conversation about a cover? Congratulations New Yorker!! Unfortunately, it seems to reinforce beliefs. It will stick in my mind!

This issue is going to fly off the shelves and make the New Yorker profitable for the year.

Don't worry he'll never be President unless the DNC manipulates the vote like they ran the and manipulated the primaries.

Eh, the problem is it's not very good art. Anything that needs THAT much explanation to get the point across after the fact obviously didn't do a very good job in telling its message in the first place. I like satire a lot - but this particular shot at it? Rather feeble...

Wonder where the artist got such an idea........

You can not compare this to President Bush's covers because he is already President and so it would not change the out on anything. And it would be one thing if they were depicting Obama as a baby because of his young age and experience, but when you make a satire that tries to connect him to terrorism, hating the American flag, making a joke of his race, and more - this is satire that could effect the outcome of a presidency over issues that should never be questioned. Grow up America.... and lets get to what is really important in Voting for our next President.

You can't stop what God has ordained. The election is his, that's what scares you people. No weapon formed against him shall prosper. Draw that.

At least one m