But I can't seem to summon any outrage about it.

Well I am outraged. It isn't satire in any normal sense, or a cartoon either. It is a compilation of all the things a deranged mind could conjure together, nicely packaged in a 'NY liberal' newstand image. It is every kind of 'ist' hate in one place: race, religion, politics.

I really can't understand why this isn't viewed by progressives/liberals as being just as damaging as the Nazi propaganda against jews, gays, lefties, and non-aryan minorities was in the 30's. It doesn't characture the wingnuts, it characturizes a major candidate for the US presidency.

That it is on The New Yorker cover instead of the NR, or some hate magazine doesn't improve its optics.

I really can't understand why this isn't viewed by progressives/liberals as being just as damaging as the Nazi propaganda against jews, gays, lefties, and non-aryan minorities was in the 30's.

Wow, Godwin in 1.

Well I am outraged. It isn't satire in any normal sense, or a cartoon either.

And once again Jimmy-boy demostrates his partisan idiocy. Ezra has it right. Even James Carville on Good Morning America said it was just good satire about all of the stupid rumors.

Get a grip, Jimmy!

True, it is satire once you read the article. But no one actually reads New Yorker articles, they just look at the covers.

And the New Yorker has spent years running cartoons that no one can understand. Why should this cover be any different?

If the intent was to actually portray Obama as a terrorist then this would be worthy of condemnation.

But since that clearly wasn't the intent everyone should just calm down.

What's really the argument here? That satire should be banned because we are too ignorant to discern it?

"I really can't understand why this isn't viewed by progressives/liberals as being just as damaging as the Nazi propaganda against jews, gays, lefties, and non-aryan minorities was in the 30's. It doesn't characture the wingnuts, it characturizes a major candidate for the US presidency. "

Because as ChrisWWW points out, intent matters. The intent of the Nazi propaganda was to inflame hatred against the groups you listed, the intent here is to mock the hate being expressed by those attempting to paint Obama or his wife as (fill in the blank.) When you put the two side by side and further consider their context the difference in intent is really quite obvious.

Now if you are concerned that some people might not get the intent and that its not as obvious as I seem to think it is, I think you have a more reasonable point, one that I disagree with, but reasonable nevertheless. But if thats the case, outrage seems a bit strong and the more appropriate term would be the one I already used - concern.

Either way, I have a feeling we wouldn't be having this debate if this were a painting in an Art museum rather than a publicly displayed magazine. If it were a self-selecting crowd of "high information" viewers capable of discerning effective satire from tasteless imagery (or whatever stereotypes you may have of art gallery attendents) then we'd all be praising this as a tremendous work of political satire. Audience matters of course, but it seems to me that those who are up in arms about this are seriously underestimating the ability of the audience to interpret this according to intent. Maybe I'm overestimating the audience, but I don't think so. It strikes me as pretty obvious what this piece is going for, frankly I think its great.

"even james carville...said it was just good satire...."

EVEN james carville?
his commentary during this campaign has sometimes been on par with rush limbaugh.
sad to see the new yorker, which was a paragon of high culture and often extraordinary wit,pandering to the lowest denominator.
i suppose all of the attention will sell more copies and will be a net win for the new yorker.:-( :-(
a tabloid cartoon.
very disappointing.

if the man with the monocle,represented discernment, he can put down his monocle and look for his jewels and butterflies elsewhere.
like the american prospect!!!

You morans, you can tell it's a joke because it's the flag burning and not the bill of rights. They would never burn a flag.

Obama supporters need to mellow out and accept that satire, even outrageous satire, will be their guy's fate, just like Bush being satirized as Hitler, as a goat-f@ucker, etc.

This further demonstrates that the Obama candidacy is becoming fatal to the race obsessions and politically-correct thought control that have been pushed by the hard left for decades. Thanks, Mr. O, for doing so much to restore freedom of expression to our society.

And the New Yorker has spent years running cartoons that no one can understand.

It has? Perhaps you should speak for yourself.

Were they to have run a cover with Hillary dressed as a dominatrix during the primaries, would we be similarly cautioned to take it with a grain of salt and get over ourselves?

I think not. I think I'll relax with a mojito and contemplate the fun ways McCain can be satirized on the cover of the New Yorker. The first few that come to mind, I know I'll never ever see.

At first I was outraged but then it made me laugh. I guess you could call it outrageous.

It's a funny cover, but I can't help wondering what kind of bellwether my sense of humor is, if I read The New Yorker. The only way this is funny is if you think the Obamas are actually to the Right of yourself and most people you know, that they are a success story blending Civil Rights Era gains with classic "Only in America" narratives. If you're even a little bit uncertain whether they're here to topple the world you know, then the cover speaks cravenly to that while seeming to spoof it.

Personally I don't this cartooon would have been done if the politician were white. This not funny. If he really wanted to satirize the right wing do an illustration of them not the Obamas.

This is gross. Really bad taste. If the National Review printed this cartoon, it would rightly be viewed as a clear libel.

I'm canceling my subscription.

i think it is a sorry day when blitt's cartoon finds it way on to the cover of the new yorker....a magazine that featured the work of really insightful and brilliant humorists like saul steinberg, james thurber, roz chast and charles addams.
their cartoons were an artform, not tabloidism.

it used to seem that the new yorker was a standard~bearer and sanctuary for a fine quality of humor, literature,articles and poetry.
over the years, i clipped and saved cartoons and poems from the pages.

i think this represents a kind of loss.
for some who have long, fond connections with the new yorker magazine, i think this is very disappointing.
but hardly as upsetting as a lot of the other news today.

Ezra and his McGoverncrats are at out of touch with Middle America. Liberal lattes see this as a joke but this is the fear of Middle America and Reagan Democrats.

"Were they to have run a cover with Hillary dressed as a dominatrix during the primaries, would we be similarly cautioned to take it with a grain of salt and get over ourselves?"

It depends what the context was. If it came in the wake of absurd comments by talking heads about how Hillary beat Bill and was hell-bent on creating a society in which women dominated men, then the cover showed Hillary whipping Bill in full dominatrix glory, and it was done in a manner and artistic style that were clearly in jest, then yeah my reaction would be the same.

"Ezra and his McGoverncrats are at out of touch with Middle America. Liberal lattes see this as a joke but this is the fear of Middle America and Reagan Democrats. "

Maybe, though I think you're incorrectly generalizing about large portions of the population. But if they do, then fine, that perspective is one that should be mocked. Thats not being elitist, thats being honest.

Thinking that Obama is a flag burning Muslim with various terrorist factions in his corner and Michelle is a neo-Black Panther is absurd, completely absurd. And thats what this is, its a parody of the absurd. It doesn't deserve honest discussion and open debate, in the same way 9/11 conspiracy theories and things of that nature don't deserve any serious discussion. It may be a real fear, but its not only an ill-informed fear its a ridiculous one, as such its perfectly reasonable to ridicule it.

i really don't know what to think about it. wasn't it elvis costello who said, "i used to be disgusted, but now i try to be amused"? the longer i look at it, the more it seems to fall in the dave chappell (sp?), sarah silverman school of jokes about racism that tread the racist line themselves. it also reminds me of the scenes in the movie ghost world where the display of racist advertising is portrayed as a different statement than the advertisement itself.

i guess right now i think that as politics, it bothers me, but as art it has its place and may actually be kind of brave.

The only thing that gives me pause about the cartoon is that it might give cover for right-wing media outlets to print similar "satirical" material. If the New Yorker can do it, so will the Washington Times, etc... The door is open, and the people who actually do call Obama a terrorist sympathizer will continue to do so, but now "satirically."

I give a lot more room for satire than I do for other things. I am cool with it in the same way I am cool with Borat, White People likes, Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle, etc. In the way that I was cool with "bitch is the new black" and the retort back "black is the new black , bitch." All of its meant to capture who we are in a funny way. As an artist i have a problem with people denying these things because it makes them feel uncomfortable, whatever. Now, as to the new Yorker. My only problem is that they are a pretentious rag that's all about pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo- so I m surprised they actually proved to be relevant on anything.

The anger is not that this is a stationary target (unlike the slur emails), but that this will ultimately fuel another slur email. Look - I get the joke, and on one level I think it's funny. But if you're working to get Barack Obama elected President, it's like throwing napalm on a bonfire.

People who hate "liberal elites" will view this - just as you say - as a cartoon. But for them the gag isn't ironic. Rather, it's a smirking victory for those elites who have finally succeeding in fulfilling their dreams of electing a President who hates America as much as the elites do. Through that lens, the joke is that these America-haters are quite publicly celebrating the coming wave of gun confiscations, forced sodomy and mandatory abortions.

Unfortunately, this comes down to the old, "I hate what you said (drew), but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it," argument. The New Yorker has no obligation to help elect Obama. However, there's a considerable overlap between Obama supporters and New Yorker subscribers, and I imagine that many in this group believe this cover was a low, unexpected, counterproductive, blow.

wait- you think people are thinking this anyway? That hidden racism is better with regard to helping end the stereotyping? This is where we get to the difference between understanding the nature of the problem. The problem isn't voicing the ugliness that lies in politics, the problem is ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Satire brings it to the light of day. The fires were already burning. You just didn't want to think about them. That's the whole point of comedy. if there was this stuff already there- this tension they couldn't make you feel as you do. Get it now?

Jamois,

I see what you're saying that this could be harmful to Obama, but also like you say The New Yorker has no obligation to help or harm Obama. It doesn't really matter if their readers and Obama supporters heavily overlap.

But at the end of the day, I think satire provides a valuable function. There's a whole lot of satire that can be interpreted in a manner that directly conflicts with the actual goals. For instance the humor in Chappelle Show, which is so clearly mocking racist beliefs, rather than endorsing them could be viewed by an ignorant person and taken as evidence confirming their stereotypes - "see I knew black people acted that way." But I think the appropriate way to deal with that is not capitulating to ignorance and deciding that its too risky to makes jokes about this stuff for fear of misinterpretation, but rather that we should be combatting the ignorance itself.

I know thats more long term and when trying to get a President elected it seems a bit ambitious, but I don't think there's a short term solution to addressing problems like racism fed by ignorance. Eliminating satire that mocks racism will not address the fundamental issues at the heart of racism, so lets focus our attention and outrage on actual instances of racism and recognize this for what it is: a humorously exaggerated depiction ridiculing the absurd beliefs people hold about Obama.

Were they to have run a cover with Hillary dressed as a dominatrix during the primaries, would we be similarly cautioned to take it with a grain of salt and get over ourselves?

How quickly we forget

Meh. I find it neither particularly funny nor particularly infuriating. I've been reading the New Yorker for more than 20 years and I can't think of one single time a cover had any real impact on the world. I doubt this time will be any different.

Herschel: New Yorker cartoons being inscrutable is an age-old comment. Show me a person who "gets" every cartoon and I'll show you a liar.

Were they to have run a cover with Hillary dressed as a dominatrix during the primaries, would we be similarly cautioned to take it with a grain of salt and get over ourselves?

How quickly we forget

++++++++++++++++

Yeah, well I don't like that one either. I think it's offensive. And I'm NO fan of Senator Clinton.

The cover seems to be an artistic failure more than a political one.

One of the problems is: it's not a very good joke. Even if well accomplished, the joke doesn't have much comical resonance or bite. It's preaching to the choir-- "Aren't people who believe those smear e-mails idiots?"

Again, that's if the comic were done well.

But the major problem is one of context. You don't quite see who's fantasy this is: who is imagining this image from the New Yorker cover. And without that context, the satirical image isn't too different from the propaganda image. It's like satirizing the KKK's worst stereotypes of African-Americans by just combining them and showing them without giving some sense that these are the KKK's fantasies.

It's too bad the NEW YORKER is getting spanked by this, and not acknowledging the problem was one of editorial taste, and not of "people not getting satire." This will probably push them to do less satire in the future, or, even worse, make their satire more ham-fisted and simplistic.

Watch them do more McCain covers: to prove their blue state creds. Maybe a predictably lazy satire of McCain trying to get on line.

This is typical of the New Yorker. Doesn't everyone remember the "Monica Lisa"?

http://img.slate.com/media/18000/18492/990201_nwyrkr.jpg

It is an unbelievably stupid and offensive cartoon! It might have worked if the picture were a thought bubble from a cartoonish Rush Limbaugh's work desk. But as it stands their is no criticism of the right-wing's worst fears: that the Obamas are unpatriotic. Instead the cartoon merely perpetuates stupidity by replication.

Now, undecided voters, who will see the cover at stores around the country without reading the article, can say "it might be an exaggeration, but maybe the Obamas really aren't patriotic; I'm voting McCain." Remnick and New Yorker editors are too pretentious to grasp that they are idiots -conceding a great deal to the far right.

They have the wrong content. What it should be is Obama at a podium speaking to a bunch of teachers. Behind him two doors. At one door a line of poor and average dressed children being led to by their parents. The other door, parents leading their children dressed in tuxedos. Above the door that the poor and average looking kids are entering should be a sign "Central High Public School". There should be gas coming out of the school. Above the other door should be posted "The Private (for profit) School of Math/Sciance and the Arts".

I think Ezra needs to go back and take a look at the cartoon posters from Nazi Germany and their depictions of Jews using every reprehensible stereotype. According to Ezra's tortured logic, those posters could never have been read as earnest since they were in cartoon form. What garbage!

Matt, Dave Chappelle actually stopped doing the Chappelle Show and gave up a $50(?) million contract because he understood that his over-the-top "skewering" of anti-black stereotypes was giving comfort to white racists. In fact, in his first major interview after he abruptly left the show (on Oprah) he said that immediately after he did a skit (and right before he left the show), he saw a white man on the set of the show whose easy laughter at his portrayal of a stereotypical black person left he feeling extremely uneasy. Your use of Dave Chappelle to prove your point is just laughably off-base.

I TAKE GREAT UMBRAGE AT THIS CARTOON!

Matt, Dave Chappelle actually stopped doing the Chappelle Show and gave up a $50(?) million contract because he understood that his over-the-top "skewering" of anti-black stereotypes was giving comfort to white racists. In fact, in his first major interview after he abruptly left the show (on Oprah) he said that immediately after he did a skit (and right before he left the show), he saw a white man on the set of the show whose easy laughter at his portrayal of a stereotypical black person left he feeling extremely uneasy. Your use of Dave Chappelle to prove your point is just laughably off-base.

As Heath Ledger's Joker says, "Why so serious?"

Lighten up.

Folks offended by this: as someone who used to teach American Lit, I can tell you, Mark Twain is still regularly accused of being a racist. Plenty of folks didn't "get it". Should he have not written Huck Finn?

The cover is hysterical, and great satire.

I fail to see the humor in it nor the satire and struggle to understand what they are trying to say with the cartoon. It is damaging and idiotic and apparently you have to have a giant stick up your ass to understand the point. I think it is the most blatant smear I have ever seen in this country. If I was Obama and I won the election, the first thing that would happen is that the editor of the New Yorker would have a serious visit from the IRS. It's too cool by half and for most of the country will come across as an affirmation of all of their hidden fears about Obama. Shameful and disgusting.

"Matt, Dave Chappelle actually stopped doing the Chappelle Show and gave up a $50(?) million contract because he understood that his over-the-top "skewering" of anti-black stereotypes was giving comfort to white racists. In fact, in his first major interview after he abruptly left the show (on Oprah) he said that immediately after he did a skit (and right before he left the show), he saw a white man on the set of the show whose easy laughter at his portrayal of a stereotypical black person left he feeling extremely uneasy. Your use of Dave Chappelle to prove your point is just laughably off-base."

No its not. I don't have to agree with Chappelle's reason for leaving his show. That was a personal choice he made and actually if you read and watch all the interviews he gave, its actually quite obvious that that was a MUCH smaller reason than simply feeling pressured and controlled by Comedy Central in the wake of his $50 million contract, so don't try to beat me over the head with an incorrect point.

I think that satire is an valuable way of overcoming many prejudices and to discourage them is to apologize for ignorance by implying that we need to dumb things down for ignorance rather than imploring ignorant people to catch up. I'm perfectly willing to hear a discussion about the efficacy of this particular piece of satire and whether or not it missed its mark. I happen to think it worked, but there are valid arguments to made that it didn't.

Nevertheless, the kind of anger this provoked should be reserved for things with more clearly malevolent intentions. I think impact matters, but its also important to distinguish between impact and intented impact.

And for the record, I think people are vastly overstating the impact of this. First of all, most who read the New Yorker are probably fairly familiar with their style of humor and will not be affected by it. Second of all, its given the Obama camp a target to lash out against for all the lying smears made against it. While its more akward to publicly lash out against a series of chain emails with unknown authorship, its very easy to use a major publication as your target. Even McCain was forced to repudiate it.

What is most hillarious is that the picture has a bit of truth in every part.

Obama was raised a Muslim by his own and his families admissions:

- He attended a muslim school where he had a class on Koraniac staudies where he had to memorize the Koran. He admitted that in his own book.

- His sister admitted that, yes, the family did attend celebrations and religious cermonies at the local mosque. They were not regular attendees, but she admitted they showed up for the big Muslim Holidays.

- His best friend growing up, whom the campaign provided for interviews said he and Barack use to hang out at the local mosque growing up.

- His teachers at both his schools, that the campaign provided said he was registered at the school as a MUSLIM, even at the Catholic school. He only went to that school because they were offering free tuition to get people enrolled when the school opened.

And to top it off Obama admitted he true feelings for the Muslim call to prayer calling it:

""Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated, Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

All those sources are either Obama himself or people the campaign put forward for interviews....so where is the mis-information coming from.

I don't think it's offensive, but it should be designed to start a conversation about untrue portrayals of Obama. Instead, it seems to be mostly aimed at creating notoriety for the New Yorker. That bugs me a little bit, but I'm certainly not cancelling my subscription!

Re Chapelle

He was obviously have other issues than what was happening with his show. He blew up really fast, and couldn't handle it. He said as much in the Oprah interview. It's one of the few times I wanted her show so I remember it being mostly his trying to explain his breakdown (although he wouldn't call it a breakdown- which is another issue entirely).

Anonymous says," His teachers at both his schools, that the campaign provided said he was registered at the school as a MUSLIM, even at the Catholic school. He only went to that school because they were offering free tuition to get people enrolled when the school opened."

that's completely untrue. the school from which obama graduated was founded by christian missionaries in 1856. they did not need to pay obama or anyone else to go there. when he went to this school, though it is not catholic as anonymous claims, he would have been required to attend christian chapel once a week. he did not "enroll as a muslim", whatever that means. i work at that school now, and anonymous has his/her facts wrong.

not that any of this has anything to do with the cartoon.

Well, I'm sure Jonathan Swift will be calling them up to commiserate. Satire is a tricky art form, especially that particular form of over-the-top satire that mocks what it exemplifies. There's always someone who mistakes it for reality, or fears that others will do so.

I thought it was funny precisely because the underlying smears are so absurd - individually or collectively - that only a drooling moron would believe them. And Obama's already lost the drooling moron vote.

I guess the LA Times, the AP, the NYT etc. etc and Obamas own book simply got it wrong or are lying...

LA Times link
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,1,7181735,full.story?cset=true&ctrack=3&coll=la-headlines-nation

Islam an unknown factor in Obama bid

. . .His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended. . . .

In the neighborhood mosque, he bowed to Allah.

The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque.

Obama's younger sister, Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only "for big communal events,"

In his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama briefly mentions Koranic study and describes his public school, which accepted students of all religions, as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies,"

In 1968, Obama began first grade at St. Francis Assisi Foundation School, just around the corner from his home.

The Catholic elementary school had opened the previous year and wanted to enroll as many students as possible, so it welcomed children of any religion, said Israella Dharmawan, 63, his first-grade teacher.

"At that time, Barry was also praying in a Catholic way, but Barry was Muslim," Dharmawan said in Obama's old classroom, where she still teaches 39 years later. "He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim."

So the press is just full of liars.....

I don't really see any satire here. I mean he is supposed to be in Washington DC, and he supports the repeal of the gun ban, so of course Michelle is armed.

The flag in the fireplace was probably just a inaugaration gift from William Ayers who likes it when American flags are trampled.

The picture os Obama or Nasrallah is probably just to remind him of his next unconditional meeting with a world leader.

Did I say Obama? Silly me, I meant Osama....

Now I'm sounding like Ted Kennedy...

"hidden racism"

this just isnt about racism.
this is about meanspiritedness and offensiveness selling magazines.
about editors probably being delighted by the attention of the controversy, rather than offering an apology to their readers.

if barry blitt and the writers and editors are pleased with the success of this cover, here are some more ideas for mr blitt....
this week, michelle obama with a gun and barack obama in muslim attire,
how about next week, joseph lieberman with a big nose and a yarmulke...
or a droll drawing of teddy kennedy with an intravenous needle on a hospital bed.....or a funny picture of max cleland?
where does bad taste end in a culture that can barely discern between the sacred and the profane?

another one bites the dust.

Back in 2007, Barack Obama and his campaign were only too happy to brag about his Muslim background. They wanted the press to know he was different, that he brought something new to the problem of reaching out to Muslim terrorists (err, falafel stand workers).

New York Times:

"""Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”"""

Now does anyone believe someone who is completely non-Muslim and spent no time in Mosques and Koranic studies could just repeat the Muslim call to prayer, including its tonal quality,
from memory?

And to say it is one of the pretiiest sounds on Earth? Come on, who's conning who here.

Why was Obama bragging on his Muslim background in 2007, and now denying he was ever a Muslim?

Here is the prayer Obama cited from memory and sid was one of the pretiest sounds on Earth:

Allah is Most Great.
Allah is Most Great.
Allah is Most Great.
Allah is Most Great.
I bear witness that there is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
I bear witness that there is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.

yeah, no Muslim background here, move along please...

wow,patton

you know that prayer very well!

perhaps, on this beautiful summer morning, after your corn flakes,
you should close your eyes, and listen to the haunting melodies of the azan. then, read some of the poetry of rumi and then spin with abandon in your living room, and do some wild dervish dancing!!

good for your soul!!

People are, um, really really stupid and now we're seeing that the "left" is no different. Can't you see that this cartoon is just mimicing Stephen Colbert's brilliant satirical approach?

Apparently the stereotypes are true--Americans really don't get irony. So here's how satire works: You see, sometimes it's possible to get carried away by a certain line of thought. (You're not immune, by the way.) Anyway, Bill O'Reilly is just charismatic enough to have carried several tens of millions of Americans along in his insane rantings. All Colbert had to do was to turn the rant up to 11 (from 10) to show: 1) how easy it is to do what Bill does, and 2) that most of it is just meaningless posturing. That's what satire is--have we really forgotten that?

The Obama/Osama slander has shown itself to be remarkably persistent. This cover--the strategy of mocking--will do far more to deflate it than any amount of the serious-minded liberal scolding we've seen so far.

One thing that holds true for all people, is that their families teach them certain things during their youth that they reject in their 20s, 30s and 40s only to revert back to the in old age.

Many lapse Christains return to the same church denominations of their youth when they get old. They may have not attended church, or went to their spouses church for years, but if they were raised Catholic, they will move back toward that religion.

One can expect, if Obama is actually human and not the second coming, he will revert back to Islam as he ages.

"EVEN james carville?
his commentary during this campaign has sometimes been on par with rush limbaugh."

Hello, Pot. Finally checking your voice mail eh?

Well, it is in poor taste. But it's a political cartoon! When did a sense of propriety ever stay the hands of a political cartoonist, except in a totalitarian state?

That said, I don't know that the New Yorker's leftist bona fides mean it should get more of a pass than National Review, which would of course be universally excoriated for such a cartoon. We must also remember that Clinton is "from" New York, and Obama is from Chicago, and that plenty of people of the left have reason to undermine Obama, perhaps especially in New York.

I do think that if the 1993 Spy Magazine cover of dominatrix Hillary had come out a few months ago, it would be front-and-center of the feminist complaints that media sexism had unfairly taken the crown from Ms. Clinton. Her people have been as sensitive as any on such issues. And apparently we can't even question whether McCain is too old to take the world's most stressful job for 8 years, without facing claims that our ageism is bigoted.

I have met people who think that Obama himself was a Weatherman (unlike Ayers, he is of course too young to have been one), and I'm sure that it must be particularly galling to have to fear losing votes for such completely bogus reasons.

So all in all, I don't think we should think relatively less of Obama because of his response to this cartoon, even though the cartoon is not exactly outrageous.

The cartoon works so brilliantly because it satirizes both the right wing's ridiculouos arguments and also Obama's setting himself up as the victim of such tactics even before they were ever actually used against him (see Democratic Primary).

Major kudos to the artist.

I think the cover is very good, and it would have been quite successful if lefties, instead of being thin-skinned and outraged--had embraced it for what it is: the sick vision in every right-wing nutjob's head. Unfortunately, the artist overestimated his audience. He assumed they were intelligent.

The vast majority of those who see this picture aren't going to read the article. Their impressions are going to be based on the image and whatever context in which they observe it, be it on the newstand, the internet or TV.

The question naturally arises as to whether or not the satirical character of the cartoon is apparent separate from the New Yorker article.

The answer to this question will vary depending on one's knowlege of and existing attitude toward the Obama's.

What's striking about this exchange is the alacrity with which folks who imagine themselves politically savvy sophistics are willing to dismiss anyone whose reaction doesn't parrot their own as stupid or incapable of appreciating irony.

The suggestion seems to be that any reasonably intelligent person who glanced at the cartoon would "instinctively" recognize it as satire. Why? There is literally nothing about the cartoon itself to distinguish it from a partisan anti-Obama caricature.

Presuming that anyone not familiar enough with the New Yorker to guess the drawing's satirical intent is some sort of idiot is hardly an intelligent judgement. On the contrary, it apes the most derogatory right wing caricatures of Liberals as arrogant, clueless, elitists.

I've held off commenting on this because I remain rather ambivalent. I like Barry Blitt's art work, the sketch accomplished what good political satire should in my opinion, it provoked reactions, varying interpretations, and vigorous debate. So many people have weighed in with different perspectives, the way I see it, almost none of them are necessarily wrong. I think this piece of political art tells us something about ourselves through our reactions to it.

I also like it because it pushes the boundaries, and I'm a boundary pusher, or so they tells me. :-) I was just banned from the Kos affiliated Mothertalkers blog , first blog I've ever been banned from, without actually trying. Some of those Kossacks have got it in for me. Hard truths are not something they are prepared to hear apparently, but it's my attitude that bothers them most, I get that a lot.

I understand the Obama campaign's reaction, but I have to wonder if Barack and Michelle didn't laugh when they saw it. It's more than over-the-top, it's outrageously subversive in its inception. In a very real sense Barack Obama is the insurgent candidate, he is attempting to remake American politics on some fundamental level. And it's obvious many people on both sides of the aisle aren't too comfortable with the idea of change and the unfamiliar. It's been a long time since anyone's broken new political ground in this country, an unfortunate reality that has led us into stagnation and regression. It seems fitting that these changes come at the beginning of this new century and at the end of the abject failure of the GOP and their contrived conservative revolution. This caricature pushes buttons on the monied right, buttons they don't like having pushed.

Just imagine if George W. Bush had actually been a competent President, a Republican president who prevented 9/11, then taken us to war in Iraq anyway, achieved total victory and transformed Baghdad into a favorite American discount getaway tourist mecca like Mexico, and we had 70 cent a gallon gasoline. In that unlikely scenario I imagine Hillary would be the Democratic nominee right now, and she would be looking at a landslide loss to that abusive racist southern Republican George Allen in the general election. So let me just take this opportunity to thank corporate America for installing their hand-picked utterly incompetent puppet lackey in the White House, and awakening the sleeping giant that is the American electorate. I promise you are going to regret it boys.

The minimal danger of this image is that it gives the Republicans exactly what they want, a portrait of Islamic fundamentalism triumphing over America, and the Democrats responsible for that triumph. The image is already on every conservative site around the net, being used to instill fear in the faithful, a last desperate attempt to consolidate what's left of their rapidly shrinking base. So I'd say there is some real political cost to the Obama campaign just for having that image out there. And it's not the campaign's reactions to the image which is the problem, as some would assert, it's the image itself on the cover of a common newsstand magazine, which was bound to create this controversy.

I suspect the magazine's editorial board decided to make it the cover for entirely self-serving reasons, but then again you have to think that a lot of discussion went on about the larger ramifications. It seems the more sophisticated as well as the monetary arguments won out, deciding that Obama's campaign was strong enough to take the hit, and I would have to agree with that assessment. Doubtless the New Yorker has had plenty of extra copies printed up to meet the demand

But fair is fair, I think the New Yorker should have Blitt create a cover depicting John McCain in a North Vietnamese prison cell spilling his guts, giving the Commies every military secret we had, and agreeing to become the Manchurian candidate, who once in office abolishes the Republic and seizes America for the Reds. Of course it wouldn't have the same impact, given that Vietnam, Communism and John McCain are all ancient history relatively speaking, but still.

They could do a whole series, how about Hillary Clinton as a dominatrix in the Oval Office clad in black leather, whips and chains, her stiletto heels digging into bill's back as he looks on drooling while she gets head from her beautiful personal assistant. At the same time Mistress Hillary is on the phone calling for the round up and eradication of everyone who voted against her. Two can play at this game Billy boy, *cackle cackle*. :-)