Most people will understand that it is poking fun of those individuals that believe the more outlandish rumors about Obama.

In the future, I say presidential campaigns are suspended at the end of primary season and not started up again until October. Much more of this crap and I'll have to start watching baseball.

Remember Thomas Nast!

I think this is a really interesting occurrence. It is clearly satire aimed at illustrating the attacks that will come from the ignorant and politically motivated far right.

On the other hand, the image is getting air time on cable news and other outlets that reach the ones it intended to make fun of and only serves to reinforce those false stereotypes it sought to satirize.

The New Yorker's readership was probably 99.99999% Obama voters anyway. But now the cover they put out to make fun of some of the people who would never read the magazine is being put right in their faces.

File under: "Unintended consequences"

I think the controversy benefits Obama.

All but the least sophisticated among us understand satire: it's just a highbrow version of a MAD Magazine cover.

And satirizing politicians with cartoons is as old as the 13 colonies.

Mr. Tee,

I agree with you....but satire is often about subtle nuance, not overt reiteration of established falsehoods. Watching CNN, they recently conducted a poll that showed that of the voters who think Obama is a Muslim, 50% were Democrats. Yeah, it SHOULDN'T matter, but unfortunately does.

I don't know why there is a fuss about this? Seems harmless to me.

If Obama doesn't want people questioning his patriotism then he shouldn't be throwing an American flag in the fireplace.

I laughed out loud when someone sent me that link, and several folks took umbrage at that ... I told them I would also have laughed at a New Yorker cover showing a drooling John McCain in a diaper in a nursing home, so I asked why Obama is sacrosanct.

I thought it was a mistake because:

1) intelligent and informed readership will take it for the satire that it is, and they actually might read the accompanying article (I haven't, by the way), which will demonstrate (presumably) that it is satire BUT

2) the nutjob, right wing blogs that already are pandering to the ill informed will take it as evidence that a respected liberal magazine recognizes that Obama is a muslim and his wife is a throwback to the black panthers.

Basically the same idea Butch had, but not so well put on my part.

I think it was a mistake and it will fuel the Swift Boat types already on the march.

The picture is art, just as as his Ahmadinejad cover was. The New Yorker is not written for the lowest common denominator in this country, and even if some take it out of context, you can't sensor everything in this country out of fear for nut jobs and swift boat ads.

It's pretty tame compared to past bigoted 'satire' aimed at Condi Rice.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pair-obama/

Of course you don't care, and neither does anyone else, except for the political spin machines that have to care about it, or else not caring about it would be the story.

Simply put: Obama's campaign has to show the proper disdain for this, otherwise there would be a massive story about him "not challenging the assumptions being made" or some such.

The New Yorker Magazine will publish things like this, the target of the satire will respond as expected, it will be a story for about 1.5 days, and then it will be forgotten.

That's how it works.

"Obama's campaign has to show the proper disdain for this, . . . the target of the satire will respond as expected . . . ."

There seems to be widespread misunderstanding about who is being satirized by the New Yorker's cover piece. Perhaps that's something to care about.

The actual illustration is good. The satire falls flat. It's just kinda dumb in my opinion.
Real satire would have showed John McCain and Rush Limbaugh in the nursing home and the illustration would have been in a bubble over their heads.

"Sensor" the magazine? Good grief!

There seems to be widespread misunderstanding about who is being satirized by the New Yorker's cover piece. Perhaps that's something to care about.

Oh, this isn't being argued. The majority of people are going to look at it and figure that it's Obama that is being satired here, when it's actually the morons in the echo chamber that keep spreading the baseless accusations.

My previous post was just following the common path taken, not exploring the nuance demonstrated by the artist.

No. I don't care about that.

If the caricature had appeared on the cover of Mad Magazine or the old National Lampoon, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that it appears on the cover of the New Yorker, which I have only read sporadically over the last few years. Have the New Yorker's standards fallen so low?

I don't care about the New Yorker, period. What a tired and tiresome magazine. The Atlantic is a much better liberal rag.

The only reason it might be misconstrued is it has been republished to a much larger audience who lack familiarity with the satirical nature of the covers. The Onion and Borrowitz contain much more incendiary satire. That the cover is considered newsworthy is a product of the dearth of real journalism out there. Kinda like if a headline from the Onion made the 11:00 o'clock news. Thus the unfamiliar might confuse satire with reality. Set em straight - gently.

"Tasteless..." blah, blah, blah; "Offensive..." blah, blah, blah...

Whatever.

Bottom line here is that, in my opinion, even though the liberally slanted New Yorker Magazine was using the image in jest for the reasons stated, and therefore the Obama camp should have had absolutely no problem with it, (the New Yorker is solidly behind Obama) the real reason Obama has a BIG problem with it, as everyone knows, is that all good comedy is based in fact and THIS is EXACTLY why the Obama camp is hacked off.

Time will tell if this "comedy" is based in fact or not...

There's a sequel.

On a similar note, are people ever going to get over being offended over something that has nothing to do with them whatsoever?

Whenever anyone in my earshot ever says the words "tasteless" or "offensive", and in an indignant way, especially when it has nothing to do to with them personally, I make sure that they are never again confused as to what being personally "offended" by something "tasteless" means.

This country would be much better off if people just minded their own business when the issues at hand have nothing to do with them or their lives. I'm all for open discourse and the trading of opinions on any given issue, but that's as far as it goes.

After all, life is far too short to sweat the small stuff that has no bearing on your day to day life.

Just my opinion, although I could be wrong...

What is this 'care' that you speak 'don't' of?

It took a little drilling down, but I found out that the P&G in the terms and conditions at the bottom of the page refers to...

Proctor & Gamble.

Eh?

What's up with that?

Ooopsie ... I was trying to comment on that Apathy Party thing. My bad, sorry.