New Yorker cover under fire

It's about time

How typical of the left. They are the true bastions of racism and intolerance in this country. Always have been and always will be. They live on false accusation. They keep the fires of racism alive by stunts like the New Yorker cover and then blame the republicans.

Grow up people. Stop listening to the left and start looking at their actions. That is the true measure of their vile intentions. And the measure is very bad.

KKK

How about a cover showing McCain in a KKK outfit alongside his wife who happens to be wearing a dominatrix outfit?

Aren't they white supremicists?

How does the New Yorker get away with it?

Simply awful.

Agree: it's tasteless and offensive. It reinforces prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd, in a sort of stupid way.

New Yorker Staff: closet republicans and/or closet racists, or just stupid and offensive?

This kind of so-called satire is incendiary and insensitive to those of us who see a change in the political landscape. I was recently influenced by a liberal friend to subscribe to the New Yorker. The covers were usually satirizing us all in a way that we all could learn from it. The readers of this magazine already know how ignorant some of those on the extreme right are concerning Obama. We don't need to have this stereotype perpetuated especially in this kind of publication. I am cancelling my subscription today.

Probably done by a sore-loser that supported Hillary-or is a right wing Republican nut case, or even worse an anti-black ( might call a racist) Worse of all it demeans
the freedom of the press for reporting (and in this case-distorting the truth)
the truth

THE COVER IS OUTRAGES AND SHOWS A LACK OF POLITICAL SENSITIVITY.
What ever happened to editorial oversight and a bit of just common sense!

Tasteless and offensive? I find it funny and closer to the truth. Better than that, ole Osoma-Oboma just lost a bunch of votes. Now THAT tastes good. Real Good. HA HA HA Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah ..... (gasp)

Regardless of The New Yorkers stated intent the cover is appaling and a smear politically and racially and promotes exactly what it proposes to expose: prejudice ignorance and stupidity. The New Yorker should be ashamed and publically appoligise.

Hmm. Check out the satire on www.thehumanhybrid.com

I love the cover. Obama better learn how to take a joke.

Oh I am sorry "New Yorker" I misunderstood you, so when you ran all the ANTI-Hillary articles about Senator Clinton it was satire. When you defended oil speculators this past week, it was satire. Come on the only satire here is your explanation. I say this as a long time subscribe, with family members who have worked for your publication!

The reality is, beyond New Yorker subscribers, when the masses see the cover, on newstands, the disgusting photo fortifies what the fear mongers have been beating into their heads. This is not intellectual satire...it's beyond sickening.

Pretty sad when you have to go to the extremes when you don't know about someone...i have heard the "Muslim" "Anti American" statements from these back wood, gun toting sister loving Republicans for too long...(these are all true labels and I approve this message)

Shame on the New Yorker mag! Satire is one thing but this is something else and it is low down and dirty. But then again you will probably boost circulation, is that the real story here?

Regardless of The New Yorkers stated intent the cover is appaling and a smear politically and racially and promotes exactly what it proposes to expose: prejudice ignorance and stupidity. The New Yorker should be ashamed and publically apoligize.

As a life long Republican ... i agree it is tasteless and beneith John McCain and we Republicans.

Satire is an excuse to get some publicity

Art is good at kicking us all in the A..nkles, and fires a deeper set of neurons in our sleeping reptile. Artists do not have to conform to the righteous tyranny of verbal constraints. What makes you mad? What is your deepest fear? What's your problem? I find this no more troubling than the NYT magazine cover portrait of the Rush Meister sucking on a fat one. Both covers are brilliant! Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, or kill the messenger. We have met the enemy and he is...

My complaint is not with the New Yorker, but with the view that the public is so stupid that it hasn't any notion of satire or nuance. It is offensive for the campaigns to feign protecting the public from complexity, rather than educating the public in the same. But this whole election is so vulgar anyway, I've come to expect as much.

Right on New Yorker!!! I love it. Congratulations for your courage, satire, and insight. Tasteless? Perhaps ... but hey! this is politics! If Obama can't stand the heat, then he should go home and let better qualifed candidates step in who are used to "the heat"....

American Insanity:

If Barry Blitt chooses to deal in deranged stereotypes then were is the cover illustration depicting John McCain as a war mongering baby killer-“turn about is fair play”.

Ron P

I will cancel my subscription to the New Yorker. I will also ask my mother in law, her best friend and any other family member and friend to cancel their New Yorker subscription if they haven't already. The untrue cartoon picture of Senator Obama and his wife is awful and not funny. As an American, I am ashamed of the cartoon picture and someone needs to be fired for approving that cartoon cover of the Obama family.

The New Yorker editors are relying on typical reader's enlightenment to recognize
the cover as satire. A very iffy proposition. But now that the media likes of FOX have picked it up, the cover will be seen by millions, who may not have that ready sophisticated/satirical sense of humor, especially if they already have the wrong perception of the Obamas from listening to too much talk radio. So the New Yorker will actually be reinforcing the ridiculous beliefs of a few and spreading it across the country - positioning a negative image in the minds of many. The editors showed bad judgment. That's the problem with thinking that everyone thinks like you do.

I'd say they should have to pull it under the threat of libel, but that just might make things worse. It'll probably sell like hotcakes among the most ignorant and intolerant of Americans. I certainly hope that wasn't their hidden underlying motivation. I also hope the editor isn't a disgruntled Hillary supporter - altho that wouldn't surprise me, being the New Yorker and all. Naw, they wouldn't stoop that low anymore. It was just poor, poor judgment of an editor who thought it'd be funny. I will wage my own little protest by not buying anymore New Yorkers for fun -for a long time.

I am a Barrack Obama supporter. I am also a New Yorker reader. I am not at all worried about this cover. It will have zero effect on the outcome of the election--the only ones who might see truth in the depictions don't read the New Yorker.

Images are such a part of the modern experience of our world. I am not offended, though I think McCain's campaign was astute enough to say they were.

Yeh....that is the kind of spirit that American presidential elections are run on.....a pathetic spirit not befitting the mightiest, the greatest Nation on earth.....An election for one of the most powerful political positions on earth....the most awful display of how not to run what should be dignified process.This cover is offensive and undignified and sinks to the bottom of the muck heap.....satire at it's absolute worse.
We go through this muck every four years...the media love it because it befits their tawdry level of reporting, Americans tolerate it with a shrug and the rest of the world can see our political process for what it is... nauseatingly perverse and more befitting a school playground brawl by a bunch of unruly kids.No wonder we end up with kind of presidents we get.....No one with any sense would ever take part in such a fiasco.

I'm a republican and that cover was in bad taste. I think there are a lot of real reasons that Barack Obama should not be president. This is just Bullshit. We are talking about a person that is nominated to run for the President of United States.

We need satirical cover of McCain in KKK suit.

Fair is fair.

Just kidding, they know they're wrong.

I think the cover in question by the New Yorker preaches the Magazine's position on the Obama candidacy and is an intentional insult to Obama, his wife and the Democratic Party and meant to harm the Obama campaign. Is this the level of the New Yorker? Thanks for letting the U.S. know your your caliber.

It's oil on the racists' fire and Fox News stirs it, just read the blogs on Fox. To think that the average voter will see the satire is absurd. The New Yorker must realize that. Wrong timing, very sad indeed. Sales of the magazine may go up but so will the cancellation of subscriptions. This cover was unnecessary in a racial heated campaign and Obama's supporters are right to be upset.

Racist, despicably, grotesque, and unforgivable.

Is it any different than depicting GW as a monkey, Imus with dreadlocks, or Spitzer with his pants down? (To name a few).

The New Yorker seems to be trying to play it off as though they are being satirical. I say they are calling a spade a spade and B. Hussein Obama was called out.

Is this country honestly about to vote a Muslim terrorist into office when these are the very people with whom we are at war?very people who They have been spilling innocent blood for over 100 years because they hate the idea of Democracy?

Answer me this. Amid the controversy of Mr. Hussein Obama's preachers and church activity, why did no one mention that he was a member of that church for 20 or so year prior to the controversy. Do you mean to tell me that in 20 years, Obama had never heard those preachers preach in that manner. Do you mean to tell me that he did not stand up and shout an Amen to what they said. Give me a break. Are you that blind?

Go ahead America. Join the socialistic ranks of B. Hussein Obama. When he pulls the towel over your eyes, you will be sorry.

Bin Laden is laughing.

I am a Barrack Obama supporter. I am also a New Yorker reader. I am not at all worried about this cover. It will have zero effect on the outcome of the election--the only ones who might see truth in the depictions don't read the New Yorker.

Images are such a part of the modern experience of our world. I am not offended, though I think McCain's campaign was astute enough to say they were.

Blackface minstrel shows were meant as satire too, New Yorker...

Seriously? 95 percent or more readers of the New Yorker subscribe to see this exact form of humor. All the complaints about this are clearly not the typical reader and should not attack the magazine for one cover without knowing the draw of the magazine. Sure it could easily be seen as offensive but true New Yorker fans will see the satire in it immediately. I saw the cover before i read any of the hype and thought it was an attack on negative campaining.

I knew he was Muslim------just what we don't need!!!

Unbelievable!! The lengths that the political left will go to distract voters from what is really important!! This is an insignificant, childish piece of garbage!! I am proud of both the Obama and McCain campaigns for recognizing it for its worthlessness!!

what a coward you can tell your opinion but dont hurt others feeling,totally sucks pic,immoral,drawing by some crack and brainless people.other magazine was better than this, in publishing real matter
new yorker you can explain but you cant stop the CHANGE that coming.
totally coward work by new yorker to obama reputation in the right thinking society

This belongs on the cover of CRACKED... not the New Yorker.

Offensive? No doubt it is to Obama's supporters. But tasteless? Be they satirical or not, Obama and his wife are primarily responsible for these "tasteless" impressions. Their lifelong associations with fanatics like W. Ayers, L. Farrakhan, and J. Wright speak for themselves, as do many of their historical positions on the issues.

All this drama and then I saw the cover and it's really no big deal. People need to lighten up. The New Yorker ran a million articles totally biased in favor of Obama and they did a humor pice that parodied all the candidates except him. They've been fawning over him so maybe they deserve this, but I still don't see what all the fuss is about.

The New Yorker is guilty of requiring its readers to have triple digit IQs. Two alternatives to whining about this: 1/ suicide, 2/ get a life.

The New Yorker cover appears separately, apart from the text that explains the images. Thus, it must be judged on its own merit. The editors may fully understand that "the burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamist outfits, the fist bump, [and] the portrait on the wall" represent one attack or another -- that the images are merely a "mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd" -- but, without the context provided by the article, these images are themselves offensive.
The New Yorker should stop defending the cover art and offer an apology.

Funny how many here will condemn such a grotesque, one-sided charicature of a man and then turn around and do the exact same thing with words about an opposing polictical party. For example, Tom says:

"i have heard the "Muslim" "Anti American" statements from these back wood, gun toting sister loving Republicans for too long..."

I am a John McCain Republican and retired senior Naval Officer. I think your "lame" excuse for your outright defamation of character cover "cartoon" is way beyond "satirical" journalism. With the widespread national distribution of this cover and the unfortunate gullibility of a largely non-"New Yorker" reader base, (39% believe he is a Muslim), your 4th Estate editorial responsibility is lacking in simple common sense and exposes your "elitists" snobbery. You know, as well as I do, that the majority of the US populous/voters "live and vote" by the "sound byte" mentality; and your cover, (without reading the article in the magazine), certainly exceeds common decency and journalistic responsibility. What fool of an editor could allow this to be published in a, up to now, respected magazine?????

Cute? I don't think so. Satirical? Satire is subtle, this is offensive. And, just how left is the New Yorker? It's subscribers have been the wealthy NYC aristocracy, Wall Street traders, liberal? Give me a break. Well, the rednecks out there will now subscribe so it was a good biz move for a rag in trouble.

Freedom of speech, that's why this is America people, there is no space for lefties or liberals, you got 8 years bashing president Bush calling him names, and everything was ok, and it is ok, It's freedom of speech, but you have something like this and you get offended, that's scary, this means that if Obama as president does something wrong, he cannot be critize or ridicule for it.

This is America the land of freedom and that's why liberals and lefties hate it!!!!

GOD bless AMERICA!!!!!

If I said my name was Mohammed Abdul Azim and told you I was Irish, would you believe me? This is what Obama is doing people...WAKE UP!

BRAVO New Yorker! We are one step away from having friggin' BLACK ARAB President, and I applaud you for trying to deter it.

For all the left wing, loser Hybrid Libs, you are all going to destroy this country by voting for this A-Rab. I am NOT a Republican...I was brought up a Democrat, until I reached the age of reasoning.

I hope more magazines across the country put out what Obama is...a BLACK ARAB with ZERO expereince looking to stick the Muslim dildo right up America's ass...

I haven't seen any war-mongering from Michelle Obama. If I were Michelle Obama and I saw the picture of me holding that gun, I'd sue for defamation of character. McCain needs to hold the big gun, not Michelle. The New Yorker got that part WRONG.

It's tasteless from a woman's point of view. Obama, he can take it. He's in the kitchen. But not Michelle Obama.

The New Yorker is suggesting that this is what the Obama's are really hiding.

The statement about Michelle Obama's hair makes that clear. And, it's racist.

It is about time . Who cares if the right or the left extremist got ther way with this one. What really matters here is all beliefs , suspicions, and misunderstandings of obama be addressed ,discussed,and exposed. We can not wait for him to take office and these things be even 1% true.

Great, its about time someone published "The truth and nothing but the truth" the man is a muslim who is campaigning in all 57 muslim states.

I don't mind poking fun at something. BUT ... when troops deaths are over 4,000 due to this trumped up war, it's wrong to show something linking any (Obama) camp to terrorists. Mostly though, to show the American Flag burning in a fireplace is WRONG. I don't subscribe to NY mag and now never will. Thanks New Yorker for saving me $$

"Unforgivable"? Like torturing and denying legal rights to detainees? It's just a magazine cover people, one which depicts something that every sentient being in this country knows to be false anyway. Please get some perspective. Or rather, since I believe you have the requisite perspective, stop pretending to be offended to assure us just how "sensitive" and "aware" you are. You didn't lose a wink of sleep over this, and you know it.

What happend to you libs screaming about 1st amendment rights?

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell concerned a Campari ad featuring a fake interview with Falwell where he confessed that his "first time" was with his mother in an outhouse. Both parodies are tasteless, obnoxious, and offensive, of course, but Hustler directed the parody at Falwell himself, and those who found it amusing were probably contemplating Falwell's supposed flaw of hypocrisy.

Yet here is something different , the author has assembled a collection of bigotry and hate speech into a collage, (somewhat reminiscent of Nazi propaganda against the Jew), has associate it with a presidential candidate and his wife, and a publisher has put it on the front of a prominent magazine. Smells like a Murdock.

New Yorker Correspondence:

Dear David Remnick, Editor, New Yorker:

Dude, I've ben thinking about a hysterical piece of cover art.

What if I did one of those evolutionary charts, showing how primitive man evolved into modern man, but where the missing link is supposed to go... I drew Barack Obama! It could be ironic, y'know, and show how SOME think black people are a lower form of human life!

Oh! And I could draw it so the last figure... the most evolved... looks like John McCain!

Huh? Huh? Funny?

Tell me what you think?

Love,

Barry Blitt, illustrator

Dear Barry:

Great idea, Barry! Great!

But let me try and make it even better. What if... ha-ha-ha... what if you drew a slave ship and sitting at one of the stations, chained to his seat, rowing like mad... was Barack Obama.

That would be VERY IRONIC and VERY FUNNY, because it could show how SOME people still see him as a descendant of the slave trade and therefore, like... property.

You know, like a washing machine!

Funny, right?

Hugs and kisses,

David

Dear David:

The slave ship thing is... my wife and I were HOWLING about it in bed last night.

But it gave me an even better idea.

What if the cover were an image from the south in like the 30's, right? And Barack Obama were running for his life? (I bet you can see where I'm going here!) And chasing Barack Obama where a bunch of Klu Klux Klan members, in their white sheets, carrying torches.

Wouldn't that be HYSTERICAL! And Ironic. So ironic! It could be about how SOME have seen this election about race-relations and how SOME are still dealing in the politics of hate!

I just think... ha-ha-ha... think that would be GREAT?!? You?

With admiration and class,

Barry

Dear Barry:

The lynching cover does sound GREAT, and CLASSY, but what if... what if you draw the image of Martin Luther King on the hotel balcony, but instead of Martin Luther King... standing there is... BARACK OBAMA!

Isn't that FUNNY? And, like, SUPER IRONIC.

It could be about how SOME people who have run in this campaign have made references to people wanting to assassinate the Democratic candidate for President! Wow! Huh? Yes!?!?

With hopes for a better tomorrow,

David

Dear David:

Wait. Wait. This just came to me. What if the cover was NOT of Barack Obama, but of John McCain and the image was from a Vietnam POW camp and the North Vietnamese were torturing him. Knocking his teeth out and water-boarding him.

It could be an ironic commentary about how SOME feel about our OWN tactics during this war, right, and therefore extremely, extremely, funny.

Can't wait to go to work,

Barry

Dear Barry:

I'm sorry, but your last email really offended me. Can you imagine how John McCain's kids might react to such a cover filled with hateful imagery? Can you imagine how Republicans would react if we tried to get a laugh out of the Senator's pain?

Have you no sense of decency, sir?

Look, just go with a cover of Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office. He's in Kenyan garb and she looks like a militant, gun toting black radical. Put a burning American flag in the fireplace and a photo of Osama Bin Laden above the hearth.

You know... subtle... non-inflammatory.

Because, in the end, we can't take a chance that we would stir up hate.

David.

It is only satire if there is reference to the satire. If no one gets it then the artist failed and the editor should be fired.

Whilst the New Yorker may know its readers, this cover fails miserably on the newstand where the greater American public awash with religous hatrred of Muslims have a far more simplistic, stereotyped view.

This cover is totally ridiculous and does not seem in the least bit satirical. The New Yorker should 'cover' it's head in shame and run to the nearest hole it can find to hide.

When will we ever get pass this and actually have the media concentrate on the serious issues this nation faces? When will we ever grow up enough to compare the two candidates on their positions and not concentrate on being "satirical"?

This cover landed like a wet balloon and hopefully it will burst under it's own weight! What a silly waste of time for the New Yorker!!

I love freedom of speach. I love America. I love you New Yorker for exercising your right to free speach. You now have a new subscriber and it is me. I love free speach and the ability to express my opinion no matter how offensive some might view it. So to all you mug wamps, winners and bigots I say to you, "Get over it and stop complaining and do something to promote what you believe in instead of filling this blog with anger and hate." Chuck Hasker

Wow, I'm stunned! It's hard to believe that a respected magazine would do this. Could it be that Jews feel threatened by Obama?

The ability to understand satire and irony is a mark of intelligence. This cover is an intelligence test. The New Yorker editors may have thought the reading public could pass it. Sadly, it appears we cannot. In this way we are more like the Muslim "Mohammed Cartoon" rioters (remember that?) than we would care to admit.

The situation is sad, but they're idea was not a bad one. Sometimes you really can make your point more effectively by saying the opposite of what you mean --- particularly if you do it in an exaggerated and somewhat ludicrous way. It can point out the lunacy of a particular stance without raising the defenses of those you most want to reach and sway.

There is a risk, though. There are a lot of people who will be offended --- just as there were many people who were offended by the Archy Bunker in "all in the family." And, unlike "All in the family" the new yorkers risk is far greater because they may only have one shot at getting it right --- unless they make it a series attacking all of the lunacy surrounding all of our candidates (which could be fun --- and eye openning).

Absolutely deployable, but consistent with the overtly racist society we claim not to live in.

So many politically correct, self righteous, knee-jerk comments out here.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this humor and satire. The far left does it all the time. Obama and his "believers" (as he likes to call them) simply have no sense of humor. Remember how he went ballistic last year when someone made fun of his big ears. He's a synthetic candidate who takes himself WAY too seriously. I think it's high time the comedians break through their wall of fear and let loose on the guy.

Start with some Obama famous lines:
: "I'm a bonehead""I wasn't in church that day""what I meant to say was..."

The New Yorker just printed the campaign poster for McCain and they know it.
The satire will be used by calling out that 'where there is smoke, there is fire' and the old proverb 'that there is always truth in jest'. Even doing a Cindy and John satire cover won't balance the smear; and you can bet the New Yorker won't.

It takes a stupid man to call another whom he doesnot know stupid. The fun has not yet started. Lets wait and see how the Muslim world reacts. I would think that they would be insulted to have this imbicile called a Muslim.

How bizarre that a previously prestigious magazine would consider such a libelous and malicious caricature as clever or sophisticated commentary. It is the basest of commentary on the magazine itself. This is the kind of tripe that would be expected from one of Murdoch’s trashier rags in Australia. Just how low can American journalism descend?

If you don't like FREEDOM OF SPEECH...then LEAVE THE COUNTRY!

Nuff said!

Thats great, alot of people reall feel this way.Keep up the good work

If you have to explain a joke or satire, it clearly wasn't very funny.....

the obamas have been swiftboated by the New Yorker.

Thats great, alot of people really feel this way.Keep up the good work.

I agree with obama the cover is defintely "tasteless" I'm very surprised at this making it past review. your magazine has gone down several notches-past reader

Shame on you "The New Yorker". What a horrible thing to do at this time of a campaign, no, at any time. This man is running for president of the United States of America! What kind of message do you send to the people in this country and around the world. Not a very good one. I will never, never, never pick up your magazine again!! We need this country to come together, NOTdivide any more then what it is now..

I am a full Obama supporter, and i support this Satire.

Only and idiot would think any of this stuff portrayed in the picture is true. That is the point of a satire.

The thing that is really funny, is it is poking fun at the 40% of americans who are completely clueless and think that Obama is a terrorist Muslim with a militant wife.

Jokes on you, and you probably aren't smart enough to see it.

This is the most disgusting excuse for SATIRE that I've seen.
What was the intent?

IF THE NEW YORKER WANTS PEOPLE TO DISLIKE OBAMA AND VOTE FOR MCCAIN, THEY SHOULD COME UP WITH TRUTHS AND FACTS NOT TO SHOW RACISM....WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS UNFORGIVABLE, I AM CANCELLING MY SUBSCRIPTION RIGHT NOW.........YOU ARE TRULY DESPICABLE

Grow up people. This cover is so fantastical that it is obviously intended as a satirical quip at the political tactics we use today. Those who call this tasteless and offensive clearly have no taste in art and are hypersensitive juveniles offended by the smallest of acts. Does anyone really believe that the New Yorker, long a bastion of liberal intellectuals, sought to deceive the public and falsify Sen. Obama's character? We now live in a political environment where every controversey must be "strongly condemned" by every politician and nobody has the guts to say anything risky or take a position that might be unpopular. When did American politics become so sanitized? I have seen far more libelous and unfair depictions in the mainstream media of politicians (i.e. Bill Clinton's promiscuity, Bush's striking resemblance to a monkey, Cheney as the butcher of Pennsylvania Avenue, Bill Richardson as Judas and Janet Reno as a chain smoking lesbian). We need to grow up and learn how to take a joke and an insult.

"Right on New Yorker!!! I love it. Congratulations for your courage, satire, and insight. Tasteless? Perhaps ... but hey! this is politics! If Obama can't stand the heat, then he should go home and let better qualifed candidates step in who are used to "the heat"...."

I wish we lived in a country where the best person became president, not the asshole that can "take the heat" the longest.

Loved the cover.

People who loved SNL ripping into Hillary Clinton and have a problem with the cover can just suck it up!

Hahahaha!!

Barack HUSSEIN Obama true colors shine forth! And his wife's too..
LOLOLOLOLOL!!

I haven't laughed so hard in years.

All you pink-o whiners, shut up already. The whole friggin world is racist you bunch of morons. Pull the scales of tolerance from your eyes and take a good look around you.

Hey Demi's.. take a joke! It's a satire! IF people base their political decisions based on a caricature they see on a magazine..shame on them! It's hilarious when people make fun of George W.. what comes around goes around! Geesh!

FYI.. I am a republican and was GOING to vote for Hillary.. but not for this fool!

Hey Demi's.. take a joke! It's a satire! IF people base their political decisions based on a caricature they see on a magazine..shame on them! It's hilarious when people make fun of George W.. what comes around goes around! Geesh!

FYI.. I am a republican and was GOING to vote for Hillary.. but not for this fool!

The cover is, quite clearly, a satire of what is continuously rehashed on the evening news - a terminally misinformed, grotesquely obdurate, and steadily absurd regurgitation of inaccurate observation lensed through narcissistic paranoia. Every comment is so laced with deriving offense, but it's not because the content of the New Yorker. It's because that content abused your massive delusions. The reaction is the most offensive thing that the New Yorker has conjured. I'm honestly astonished that it has yielded the strongly worded, sanctimonious sentiments that it has. If you're offended by the New Yorker, then your reality testing is due for an over-haul. People more deserving of it are the ones the New Yorker is poking fun at.

Good for you, exercising our freedom of speech. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Problem is a lot of Americans will believe it is true. And their votes DO count. Right wing simply uses the stupid to put their presidents in power. This kind of thing is perfect for their campaign. Not much different from the swift boaters.

American politics have degraded ever since the hard right came into power. Sickening country now, vile and disrespectful of everyone except their business interests.

The New Yorker still does not realize that Americans are not smart enough to understand satire. Most could not even spell the word let alone define it. Thus, by default, the masses do not see it as satire. Just a select few intellectuals who are not enough to win the election.

We New Yorkers love a good joke. Problem is too many people will not see it as such.
Ahh... get a sense of humor folks. True- it's way over the top. A bit. But Obama will actually get some good press opportunites- yet again- to dispell all these stupid beliefs people have about him.

Under the guise of 'jouralism', hate often finds a comfortable niche. The editors of the New Yorker have committed a grave disservice to their profession and to our country. I, personally, preceive the cover as racist. Recall history. Hitler used the media to belittle an entire race of people. America does not need this form of 'journalism' , especially at this time. It is disgraceful.

Is satire achieved with art that does simply and effectively synthesize and amplify false and offensive stereotypes already being circulated by opponents? When stereotypes are presented, but not mocked? Illustrated, but not in context?

The assumption that most people already have clarity about the absurdity and the context of the stereotype is either disengenuous or hugely myopic.

If such clarity exists, then the justification for the insulting depiction does not exist.

The New Yorker....my new favorite magazine! The adult version of Mad Magazine. Well done New Yorker!

Quit your WHINING Anika and Sunny and Tom and Patrick and 'Whys'. Graham was right. This country is full of liberal whiners and others who don't have the intelligence to understand satire. What a bunch of maroons!!

Right On New Yorker!! This issue will FLY OFF THE SHELVES!!

Who or what group was really responsible for this hate seed that the New Yorker has planted? Tasteless? This country has no resemblance to what I grew up in. How dare you print such garbage, such absurd hate-bait? I will never pick up another New Yorker mag again.

Has Obama become so sacrosanct that even a cartoon creates such a backlash against a magazine that is known for its irreverent attitude, that even in US of A? Do we now even have a moral highground to decry against the fatwas of mullah's of Iran asking for Salman Rushdie's head or Danish cartoonist for portraying Muhammad different than their own projection of him?

Say what you want but Obama has to go.......and he is loyal to Muslim's and blacks turn up the heat.......get him out........get the job done.

Anybody notice they depicted old glory burning in the fireplace. That right there alone ought to spark outrage.

Art is imitation... brilliantly done, plays up the Demo fears of Obama's perception.... from Michelle's radical statement-- "first time I'm proud of my country", to questions about Obama's patriotism (refusing to wear the Flag lapel) and family link to the Muslim culture.

Quasi-intellectual cannibalism. Leftists suffer from a mental disorder; they are unable to think things through or ask the second question, they simply act and react. How many cross over "Reagan Democrats / Clinton Republicans" will now vote for McCain (not because of the cover, but because of such bad judgment among the left) ? Here is one.

I am ready for some McCain Alzheimer's jokes. His 'medical report' has nothing on neurology, incipient Alzheimer's testing or short term memory testing.

I am ready for some adultery jokes. How many adulterous affairs did McCain have while he was waiting for his divorce? He married Cindi one month after the divorce was finalized. That would make a neat cartoon. Carole in the hospital, while Cindi and John shag in the waiting room.

Or, former prisoner, waterboarding prisoners.

Welcome to the First Amendment.

Kudos to the New Yorker for having the chutzpah to be real!

Bush as Alfred E. Newman "What me worry" has been done. This newest satire is in line with others. If it wasn't close to accurate, it wouldn't hurt so much. Stand up Obama and take it like a man! And please don't look at the website advertising "Obama's Chocolate Nuts" because it too is insensitive. Welcome to America! Embrace and rejoice... we are STILL free to think bad things!

Unbelievable, and i cant believe my eyes. Somebody better do something about it and exclude that magazines from the shelves. Im ashamed to be an american today.

oh, for chrissakes, it's just a cartoon...

will everyone please stop freaking out?

or download a sense of humor?

gotta go, see if my copy came...

I live in Geogia and do not have time to look at the New Yorker. I'm too busy doing what Obama the Orator instructed us to do in a meeting with supporters last week in Atlanta.............learn to speak Spanish!

Why doesn't someone ask Barak why he was given the middle name Hussein, and what it means to him.

Not that that is a problem. At least not compared to his using Reverend Wright to ingratiate him, a Hawaii-born, Harvard grad, with the inner city electorate who he needed to begin his political career; his shady tactics to bump all of his opponents off the ticket in that Chicago election; his flip-flopping on the issues as he tries to straddle a more middle of the road stance; his rhetoric about change, when he voted with the leftwing of his party on every issue, until recently, rather than standing up for beliefs, as McCain has done when he opposed his party many times; his flowery speeches about bi-partisanship when he has never reached across the aisle, as opposed to McCain who has worked with Kennedy, Clinton and others to achieve bi-partisan legislation, and all of the other signs that tell us Obama is a cold, crafty, opportunistic politician, rather than the open-hearted facade he presents.

Shame, shame, shame on the New Yorker! I used to enjoy that magazine but certainly won't have anything to do with it from here on out! There was absolutely no reason for them to do this. I hope it puts them out of business.

Any remaining doubts about a couple of things?

1. Who controls the New Yorker and the rest of the media.

2. The Zionists and their puppet McShame are getting worried.

Funny cover! Love how they portrayed Michelle "I hate whitey" Obama and her terrorist loving husband. Worst part is we are going to have to worry about the religion of peace blowing getting all "peaceful" on us for portraying Muslims in a negative way.

Most of these negative comments about the New Yorker cover clearly verify the ignorance or so many Americans. At different times throughout history, the average person thought it was fine to discriminate against blacks, own slaves, kill others with different belief systems and numerous other ideals that are now viewed as absurd and inhumane. The New Yorker is one of the more balanced publications in that not only does it contain serious and important topics, it also is not afraid to poke fun at others and itself. If you cannot see the irony in the cover, although you have the right to not appreciate it, it doesn't make your position correct. The majority also approved the Iraq war; that clearly isn't the case now. It's just a cover - go and get offended by something that truly matters.

When is the U.S. going to socially grow up and catch up with the rest of the world?

Not only is it in bad taste, the drawing sucks!

Well, who need Rush now??

"when the masses see the cover..."
"relying on typical reader's enlightenment... "
"To think that the average voter..."

Please, folks, don't try to and imagine what "The average voter..." will do, say, or think. YOU, the commentators are "The average voter." Do you place yourself above these supposed "ignorant masses", as your commentary would lead one to believe?

Do you really believe that you figured out what what the cover 'meant', yet there are a bazillion others in this country and elsewhere that are incapable of doing the same?

We, the ignorant, "average voter" have enough brains to figure it out...

Now, all y'all high-thinkin' uppity-ups PLEASE return to your temple and continue your pondering regarding how to correct the thought processes of us poor, ignorant masses.

Hey Kim,
Don't cancel your subscription, just have it forwarded to me! I love the cover! Freedom of the press at it's best. Good Lord people, get a grip! It's a magazine.

Most of these negative comments about the New Yorker cover clearly verify the ignorance or so many Americans. At different times throughout history, the average person thought it was fine to discriminate against blacks, own slaves, kill others with different belief systems and numerous other ideals that are now viewed as absurd and inhumane. The New Yorker is one of the more balanced publications in that not only does it contain serious and important topics, it also is not afraid to poke fun at others and itself. If you cannot see the irony in the cover, although you have the right to not appreciate it, it doesn't make your position correct. The majority also approved the Iraq war; that clearly isn't the case now. It's just a cover - go and get offended by something that truly matters.

poor judgement by the editors?....yes!
piss-off hilary supporters?...probably!
good satire?....hell no!
will I ever read a new yorker again?...not a chance!

I have been considering subscribing to New Yorker. My interest is now on hold.

Lighten up, America. This the New Yorker being the New Yorker. If you don't like it, move to Iran, where there is no satire.

Unfortunately short-sighted. There goes my subscription to the New Yorker!

Represensible. Nobody capable of reading at an eighth grade level could honestly believe that The New Yorker's cover will be taken as statement against fear-mongering and prejudice, rather than a sly fomenting of fear and prejudice. Ironic distance went out on 9-11.

Americans should demand names of the people who approved this cover. What is their real agenda?

To allow the writer and artist of New Yorker magazine cover showing Barack Obama as a muslim and his wife as a terrorist; IS RACIST, AND A SLAP IN THE FACE OF BLACKS AND WHITES AND ALL AMERICANS. A apology is owed to the Obama's and staff as well as, US Citiziens!!!!!
New Yorker's magazine's intention IS DEFINITELY INTENTIONAL TO BE BIAS, the cover is truly tasteless and offensive.

I WILL NEVER, NEVER PURCHASE THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, EVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disgushed United States of America Citizen

Disguished United States Citizen!!!

I love it!
I was just discussing with my mom how the entertainment industry would and wouldn't be able to make fun of Obama as they have Bush for the last 8 years.. Almost anything will be considered racist simply because he's black.. A very unfair assumption on anyone's part. If Obama wants to step into the Presidential spotlight, he better learn to take the heat - whether its tasteless or not!
He doesn't come from a long family line of Americans, has NO military experience, and is simply a man running on a bunch of popularity votes...

GOOD!!!!!!!! THE TRUTH ALWAYS HURTS!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW IF ONLY THE KIDS COULD SEE HIM AS HE IS HERE THEN MAYBE, THEY WILL VOTE FOR AMERICA. CAN YOU SPELL!!!!!!!! JOHN Mc CAIN !!!!!!! NOW THAT'S AN AMERICAN WHO LOVE'S AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you who are supposedly incensed by the cover...GROW UP! There is nothing special about Obama or his wife that demand satire can't be done about them. Actually it is kind of funny. I need to start subscribing to the New Yorker.

God help America if this is a sampling of its citizens.
First and foremost -- it's free speech, freedom of the press. That's why we live here. Remember?
Second -- it is satire. The drawing takes a sackful of disinformation that is circulating among the vast number of ignorants in this nation and launches from the premise: "What if everything said about Obama was true?" Well, then, this is what it would look like!
So, the satire is of dumb America, not anything else. And everyone is aghast and canceling subscriptions? I doubt very much that those canceling their subscriptions read anything more than the cartoons in the New Yorker anyway. it's just about the smartest, most-informed, probing general publication in America. Why on earth would all you reactionaries be reading it to begin with?
Take your indignation and intolerance to a country -- say in the Arab Middle East -- because in America we're supposed to celebrate the right to do this sort of commentary.
You all act as if you never learned about the foundations that made this country great; instead you want to moralize, intimidate and shame.
Sheesh.

A lot of these comments are coming from the bottom of the barrel, who the media loves to pander to while treating the rest of us as the problems in society.

Why do politicians and the media have to act like we're all a bunch of little kids? Because of people like those who have posted here.

I can't understand such posturing by 'The New Yorker', as it defies rational sensibilities as well as logic.

It is clearly offensive and implies a false sense of paranoia.

I'm not a New Yorker reader, nor will I be. Go back in history and look at newspapers and editorial cartoons throughout American history. Candidates have always been fair game. Heck the "parody and satire" that characterized early Mardi Gras here in New Orleans was much similar. Candidates have been skewered this way for centuries. As I understand it this type of thing is what enlightened the First Amendment-controversial political expression, not porn.

And, hey, John McCain will get his before it's all over too.
But that's just me.

Jonathan Swift must be either giggleing in his grave or shaking his head that people still don't get satire even when it hits them in the face, even when it's something as outrageous as the New Yorker cover -- or the Irish eating their babies to reduce the population and to provide food for the starving..

Too clever by half, but I'm glad they stuck their foot in that pile...

This New Yorker cover is a compilation of Fox News segments, and RNC and vairous right-wing 527 advertisements.

Why the outrage at the New Yorker cover, yet Steve Ducey still has a job at Fox News?

John McCain wants to be a leader, but he has demonstrated he can not or will not stop the various 527's nor the RNC from making the same jokes that this New Yorker cover makes. Either McCain is not a very strong leader, or he appreciates the efforts of "terrorist-fist-jab", "assasinate Obama/Osama", "muslim loving madrasa graduate" crowd. Since I like McCain, I choose to believe he is does not support these tactics.

While I am voting for Obama, I believe that John McCain would be a decent President IF he could control the elements that have taken over the Republican Party under the leadership of GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

Unfortunately, John McCain does not have the strength of leadership to take the GOP back from Cheney's boys.

I like it. It has that Norman-Rockwell feel doesn't it? Don't take covers of mags too serious, look at the humor in it. They are just showing graphically what some Americans really think.
Some of the comment just show how limp wristed and whiney America has gotten. Looks like we need some dipers, foolers, and bottles passed out. Quit whining and grow up America!

Hey, come on, it's no worse than the New Yorker's summer of '98 cover, showing Monica on all fours under a cigar-smoking Bill's desk while Hillary, in the background, tiptoes through a doorway with Vince Foster's body slung over a shoulder! Right?

I can not believe that after all the crap the current adminstartion has put the American people through that the New York Times has not learned to temper their judgement regarding what it prints as "SATIRE". What planet are you living in, your HUMOR is not only offensive, it is without any social redeeming value and as a once honorable publication you guys' reall seem to be flying full speed ahead into the fire of criticism, i guess you feel that any kind of publicity for your magazine is good publicity. I guess you forgot about Honor and Justice, what gives you the right to think and attempt to shape how people react? You are going to feel the wrath of those of us who will not buy your magazine and who still believe that the electoral process is still an honorabal process regardless of how the last adminstration almost destroyed our belief in the system.

I am glad this was published and it's really the possible truth and we do not need a President with this kind of overturns. Also, the black community will go wild if Obama gets in as the handouts will never quit. Good job by the author and artist.

I understand the editor's point that these images are satirical of all the silly propaganda about Obama. Maybe some good will come of this. Maybe this will stir up the haters and bring out the absurdity of all their fears. Yeah, there's even hope for them.

To all of you who responded wth your DISLIKE of Sen. Obama, This is not about your likes or dislikes of him or His Wife, THIS IS ABOUT BEING DECENT....In this country where Decency has gone out the window completely, As AMERICANS we once were a very DECENT People, NO LONGER........And your comments reflect your inability to be DECENT....It make wonder how you are raising your kids...

I'll be waiting for their cover with McCain up on the cross for his POW time...

or Bush as a sadistic priest at the Spanish Inquisition...

or Lieberman with a skull cap and peyos (curly sideburns).

But that will never happen.

Till then... The New Yorker is getting away with offensive material against blacks and Arabs that they couldn't get away with against whites. Given their readership's demographics, will anybody notice or care?

Fact. End of story.

If you accept the idea that this is satirical in nature at least admit the timing is wrong. The baseless ideas illustrated by the cover are certainly nothing new so why pick now to publicize them? More thought should have gone into those citizens who may not or chose not to follow the campaign trail, what are they supposed to think after seeing this cover? If the argument is that those people are not the target audience well then the New Yorker is naive.

this is a very ignorant picture and i believe that the editor of the New Yorker is a very racist at this point...i just dont understand how people can see no problem with the cover!!!

OK, so let me get this straight--The New Yorker is now the literary vehicle for Fox News? All the prattle from The New Yorker's oh-so-sophisticated readers aside, this is just plain stupid. I believe in freedom of the press, but I also believe in responsible journalism, and common sense. This exercise does not represent the latter two.

Hilarious.

Isn't it the Obama camp which is supposed to support free speech and open debate? This Obama response has become typical, anything and everything with a possible negative connotation is a racial abomination. How appropriate, the response is similar to that of the Danish Muslim cartoons.

Good for you New Yorker!

Dear "Reason"

I'd love to know how the left are the true racists. You don't deserve the name you've given yourself, just like all the labels the right uses to bolster itself and attack the left. Can you say: "Elitist": translation: intelligent person wanting to serve the public good. "Moral majority": minority, which thinks that because htey go to church once a week they are moral.

If you're a racist, why be on the left when you can get your jollies by listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? You are dellusional.

Personally, I think this is just the beginning for Obama. Even though the cartoon was very offensive to me, but as we move closer to the presidential election, you’re going to see exactly how many people and so-called reputable organizations truly feel about African-Americans; especially, an African-American who plans on running the country. Obama has a long and dangerous road ahead of him. He and his family just might need that AK47!

I am outraged at the cover of the New Yorker. It is highly offensive and without any merit. This depiction of Obama brings the New Yorker to an all time low. I am cancelling my longtime subscription and in the future I will not buy any more from the newsstand.

some people are striving so hard to be politically correct, they lose their sense of humor.

I'm an Obama fan, and I think the cover is pretty funny. It's a clever way of making fun of the conservative right, with all its prejudices against Obama. This is precisely how the conservative media pundits portray Obama: he's a *foreigner*, *Muslim*, doesn't wear the flag pin i.e. he's not a *patriot*. They called the fistbump a "terrorist" fistbump, so the New Yorker portrayed Michelle as a terrorist.

That image on the cover is precisely how many ignorant and intolerant conservatives see Obama.

As for the Obama fans: there is difference between a fan and a zealot. I don't think Obama likes or needs zealots.

What I love about this whole situation is that all the uneducated idiots that are voting for McCain are poking their nasty heads out.... How pathetic are you people? Very... Let god have mercy on your soul-that is obviously full of hate.

Clearly this cover goes too far. It is time to repeal the first amendment. No member of the press should be allowed to be critical of Barack Obama in any way. We reserve the right to call George Bush a liar and a murderer in any publication we want, but any thing vaguely critical of Obama must be not be allowed to reach the newstands.

I think the editor and artist looked for, and, found, some very edgy satire--but, more than any republicans might secretly enjoy this foolishness, the hardcore Hillary and Bill supporters in all likelyhood are celebrating this--they would prefer four years of McCain, resulting in a four year history that Clinton hopes she can archive and beat upon, resulting in a "we promise if you will just get us four more years out so we can vote for HILL-we WILL !!! "--that this attitude is grasped by enough voters to get her in next time.

Where was your outrage when the New Yorker took President Bush and Vice President Cheney to the woodshed? They took it in stride, no public outrage, now Obama is crying foul! Viva freedom of speech!!!

I just saw a cartoon of Bush on the front page of the Washington Post site, portraying him as an Alfred E. Neuman dunce like character with a caption asking if your IQ is higher his. Acceptable in this case, or a double standard?

Can't wait to buy my first copy of that piece of crap mag. Hopefully they will keep making covers like this one so I'll buy more.

Shame on you!! We have enough "Bullies" in the White House without the media playing "Harry Highschool" too.

I'd love to meet your particular Bully-employee who dreamed up this Cover....it would be interesting to delve into his/her twisted personality.

Whether Obama, McCain or whoever you decide to malign remember you are just adding further humiliation to America with your childish behavior.

GROW UP!!!!

John McCain is an angry warmongering corporatist (those Vietnamese prison camps probably affected his ability to be rational and cool headed).....Barrack is a socialist....my vote goes to Chuck Baldwin--Constitution Party candidate

For over 50 years I have seen more tasteless and insulting caricatures of presidents. I do not remember them complaining, or organizing response clacks
So..maybe somebody hit a dangerously raw nerve ....!?
Joseph P

There is scarcely a magazine I enjoy reading more than The New Yorker. It sets a standard for journalism, criticism, commentary, and cartoons that would be the envy of any publication anywhere. So somebody over there must have really pulled the connectors out of their jacks to come up with this catastrophically offensive cover. I have no doubt that the intent was irony, but, as Sam Peckinpah had a nameless character say near the beginning of The Wild Bunch: "It's not what you meant to do, it's what you did I don't like."

It's not what The New Yorker meant to do, it's what it did I don't like. I may yet concel my subscription.

This is disgusting...Who ever agreed to this cover should be out looking for work in some other career... will never buy another edition again

What we’ve done to Obama, politically (The New Yorker cover) is analogous to what we’ve done to Abu Gharib prisoners, physically – we need to prevent / end this un-American concept!

Tasteless . Shameful . Panders to the most base instincts in too many . Now who is the owner of this formerly first rate rag ? Someone should apologize and then resign .

The New Yorker Finally Got Something Right!!!! I hope they will sell posters!!

The New Yorker servers are crashing--took me 20 min. to send this to the Editor but it got through: " Unbelievable your management team would think this represented a professional depiction of any political candidate. Satirical? Don’t kid yourself. Offensive, racist, and managed to resurrect the term "yellow journalism". Congratulations. (and yes, I read your publication often. I used to, anyway…..) "

After skimming through the pages of an old issue at the doctor's office, I knew long back it was a waste of my time and my money to subscribe to this piece of junk! I am glad I subscribe to other junk, instead!

Type your comment here...The New Yorker cover of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama must be causing the McCain camp to not only fist bump but to roll on the floor with glee in spite of disavowing it. In a shocking effort at cleverness you have reinforced the caustic rumors of those who want to believe that s…! Shame on you New Yorker!

RIGHT ON!!! Its about time that the American public see this idiot for what he is and what he really stands for. A big Thank You to the New Yorker.

and I thought the liberals had all the good ideas. but you should all be annoyed that the flag that our soldiers are dying for today is show burning in the picture. guess what, liberals hate our country.

This is going to play forever on the 24 hour news channels. We won't be able to get away from it. And most Americans will not be able to see it as satire, but guess that it must be true

Pure Racism - Michelle has never donned an AFRO!

If the picture had a caption like "The Right's View of Obama" it could have worked. As it is, it is unexcuseable and hateful.

It looks as though one of the many SNL presidential skits has been photographed. I do not see this as offensive at all. It is a retort to the absurd accusation that have been made toward Obama. Honestly, although I am a Obama supporter, I think the campaign made an issue out of this to gain sympathy then the McCain campaign agreed with them so that they wouldn't lose any ground. In November this will be a long gone issue.

I think it was great! For one reason and one reason only, it wakes us all up from our symbiotic stupor we tend to wallow in for far too long....thats until election year then everyone wakes up. What about our policies and politics between those three years. The American populace a little too worried about who won American Idol and not concerned enough about who's running the free world.

On a second note, yes it is offensive but he does look good in that dress. And for all the posters who scream racism........If your son/daughter came home with someone from the opposite race how would you feel? What type of neighberhood do you live in, diverse, multi ethnic? When you're eating lunch at work what's the color of the skin on your co-workers faces, who do you most often surround yourself with? Don't tell me, in your heart when no one is around how would you feel? Have we really come that far, have we really changed that much????

If anyone writing on this blog had a brain, they would understand that the cover is simply a JOKE and is a SATIRICAL representation of the absurdies thrown at Barack Obama by the right wing machine. Remember, it was Fox News who called Michelle Obama Barack's "baby's mama." They also called a fist bump a "terrorist fist jab." By plastering this image on the cover of their magazine, they are showing that it unfortunatley has become acceptible to portray Obama this way, and I'm sure they love the hypocritical backlash that is being thrown at them. Remember, if we always took satire too seriously, we would be eating babies with Jonathon Swift.

By its nature, satire is supposed to expose unpleasant truths, such as the attempt by certain elements of the Republican party to paint Obama just as the New Yorker went ahead and put on their cover. I don't think many people who actually read the magazine, such as I, would actually misinterpret that; most New Yorker covers are satirical in nature.

Some people might miss the point, it's true; the cover caricatures an ugly distortion that is encouraged by certain fringe groups of the Republican party in order to gull the credulous into believing that Barack Obama is some sort of sleeper for Al Qaeda by emphasizing his middle name.

There is perhaps a point (Obama's campaign made it) that a certain segment of booboisie (not Obama's word, but Mencken's) are too ignorant to grasp that the cover is not satirizing Obama, but is satirizing the potrayal of Obama by certain conservative elements. While this objection is unfortunately valid, I do not propose that the New Yorker lower their standards to the lowest common denominator.

I thought it is hilarious... it is the same as Farwell shagging his mother (maybe grandmother) in the out house in hustler... the question is who is the real butt of the new yorker cover...

this is america... the first amendment was talking about this directly. talking shit about the political machine is everyone's job to analyze all things dealing with our government.

My wife disagrees with my views on the cover, but I say any one who doesn't get the joke than they shouldn't be looking at any political cartoons...

Mocking people's culture and religion (even when it isn't their culture or their religion) is offensive.

They couldn't put Obama up as a monkey like they did with Bush, because that would be mocking his race. There are lines that have been crossed here, obvious double standards concerning culture and race that have been ignored.

Nobody ever made fun of Bush or John McCain by putting them up on the cross or dressed as priests in the Spanish Inquisition just because they use their Christianity as a bludgeon to torture people.

Nobody ever put McCain up on the cross on the cover of The New Yorker for how he uses his POW time to score political points, how he talks about it all the time, despite promising not to many years ago.

Nobody ever mocked Lieberman's Jewish Pro-Israel agenda by mocking his religion on the cover of The New Yorker.

But mocking black people and Arabs for their religion (even when it's not their religion) is acceptable by those who write for and read The New Yorker.

We all know why that is.

I just knew all along he was muzlin. That curch hes in hates america. And that wife, she is terrrist. They do burn flag.
I'm glad that new york magazeen showin the truth.

Go mCaine!

Brilliant cover. I don't have to LIKE the cover, but I appreciate that someone is willing to take a chance on satire (satire is a fine art that rarely is 100% appreciated), even if it may not be spot on. The New Yorker is not afraid of taking chances, nor of encouraging debate. Also, I really wish more of the detractors of this cover would give the American public a bit more credit - we are plenty sophisticated enough to recognize this as satire. And for anybody out there that regularly reads The New Yorker, one knows that the The New Yorker is certainly not an enemy of the Obama cause.

Thanks for letting U.S knows the Truth. muhaideen

The cover was satire. People need to stop reacting long enough to think. And they need to maintain a sense of humor.

PS I am an Obama supporter.

Absolutely WONDERFUL!!! This is how mainstream America thinks of these
racist Socialists. They are totally too inexperienced to be seriously thought
of as electable to the leadership of the free world. We need more of the
liberal-controlled media to stop kissing the butts of these inept newbies.
I love it. I LOVE it. I LOVE IT!!!!! Let's see MORE and MORE until they get
back to the south side of Chicago where they belong!!!

Satire is lost on the born-again, Fox-feeding troglodytes that are still cloaked in fear and ignorance. A split-screen cover should have been used, with the other half a "satire" on McCain and his current wife, or his former wife, or both. Maybe McCain having a temper tantrum and calling his wife a "c***? I mean, it's just a satire on a perception, right? Satire has been around since Jonathan Swift and before, so can we have a little more of this modern-day Swift-boating, please? But in fairly apportioned portions. A "terrorist" fist-bump to the New Yorker for giving pictorial substance to such fear-driven insinuations.

one thing about the media..they NEVER and I mean NEVER admit mistakes of judgment....they will hound and hound a politico or celebrity about a misjudgment but they can never admit their own....advertisers should withhold further business until they do.....because for themedia it is all about $$$$$$

You're looking at their only appearance in the Oval Office.

By magnifying Obama's negative image to the point of absurdity, the New Yorker is attempting to cast light on the idiocy of those unwarranted prejudices. A satirical piece of work is NOT the view of its author; it is exactly the opposite.

For those offended by this cover, open your eyes and stop being so. For those who agree with this cover, the joke's on you.

I have totally lost repect for The Newyorker. this front page is a disgrace, and its something I would see on a tabloid. I always thought of the New Yorker as better then this.The sad part of this, is there are a lo t of people who see that cover and think , well if the New Yorker thinks this then Its true. Im totally disgusted. This country needs to get the hell over it, and it amazes me how many ignorant people there really are. And believe this crap, and The New Yorker just proved to me the people who chose to put this on there cover, are some of the problems that exist in this country. You can call it free speach, I call it showing what you really are. thank you for showing me how stupid the people are at your company I will never buy another one THE END

To call Obama Muslim is to call Jesus Catholic. Jesus was raised Jewish and Barack was raised a Christian...and is still a practicing Christian. If you paid attention to lineage, we are probably all a little Muslim...considering Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

This cover has gone beyond political satire and crossed over into a personal attack. I commend Barack for simply shrugging it off and offering no comment - when personally, he has to have been hurt by it (at the very least for the sake of his wife). Somehow though - I'm not surprised that this is what America has come to. I bet Barack isn't surprised either since this is the exact type of politics he wishes to remove from our society.

Vote Barack '08!!

Get over it you overly sensitive cry babies...

Typical publicity stunt. I haven't even thought about this mag for a very long time and yet it pops up on my home page. Slick. I won't be reading any further, but it did get the New Yorker in my mind. Always thought it was classier though. Guess times are hard for the New Yorker too.

Satire? Sure. Good satire? Not really. I have an uncle who insists on telling dirty jokes in all sorts of company. He thinks everyone gets the joke, too.

This is truly a low point in American history. For a country that prides itself on
racial equality and fairness, the New Yorker is a throwback to all that was
ugly about America during the racial strife of the 1950s and 602. Any African-
American employees at the New Yorker should be disturbed and outraged
to work for such a hateful publication. Every editor should be dismissed
immediately and should be banned from journalism. The New Yorker is
an abomination to everything that America should stand for.

I urge everyone to boycott the New Yorker--cancel subscriptions and promise never to buy another copy. This goes way beyond "tasteless and offensive." The New Yorker joins Fox News (originator of the "terrorist fist jab" idea as well as other Obama slurs) in perpetuating false and damaging images and creating a new level of totally irresponsible reporting.

all this is going to do is continue to promote the incorrect images people who aren't prepared to have a black president have pushed into the minds of those who don't follow the candidates. anyone who knows anything true about barack obama knows he is not muslim, just because his grandfather was, and his wife is obviously not a terrorist. and hussein is a family name in no way associated with sadam or his family. and how anyone can say he is anti-america astounds me. he is pro-americANS. unfortunately, some people don't know any of that, and are using this as a way to say "HA, SEE, WE WERE ALL RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE!" so please, people, do your research, and take all the slander with a grain of salt. i will agree that it was in bad taste for the new yorker to even consider this cover, never mind print it.

Does not the caricature of Michelle Obama look a lot like the 60's radical Angela Davis? This tells me that the the idea behind this cartoon originated with Clinton deadenders, and likely Bill himself. This isn't the style of the Swiftboat crowd. They'll take at least a partial truth or fact and hammer on it for weeks, but there's not an ounce of truth in Michelle being a radical. She's a bit of a lefty for sure, but then she probably agrees with conservatives on a few issues. As does Obama. At times he sounds more conservative than McCain. I'll bet a nickle this is part of the Clinton air war/ground-war campaign. Hillary makes kissy-face while Bill is busy tunneling under the Obamas. Keep in mind, every time these two knuckleheads get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they blame the "vast, right wing" Republicans. Yeah, this has Bubba's fingerprints all over it.

The New Yorker,

will never see another Penny of mine.

you would of done better putting a picture of Bush the true Terrorist.

well like it or not ....it did get you all talking. and is that not there job?what good is any mag or newspaper if they only print the we all agree to be in good taste?we need to get the stuff we dont like out, so as adults we will disscues it.

I'm a republican and I'm disgusted with the New Yorker, its cover page and article ! ! ! We all know they're the "'bull horn" for our party. However, this time they have offened even republicans. DISGUSTING - not satire! Their webi-site contact pages are down -.only the home page is up. I have to agree, the New Yorker went TOO FAR and we need to boycout their mgazines. It takes a lot to offend, and piss-off, this Italian, but they did it. I'm offeded and embarssed for me and the Obama's. THEY WENT TOO FAR THIS TIME. I've aleady sent the Obama campaign an apology for having to be subjected to such. Others might consider doing the same to showing some civility, honesty, inegrity and sense of fair play from republicans! Thank you, John McCain, for condeming the New Yorker magazine!

I'm not going to pretend to get all up in arms with fake outrage. However the New Yorker cover just plain isn't funny and it isn't satire....it' more along the lines of defamatory or inflamatory. I have no problem with The New Yorker making as much money any way it can, but to claim the cover is satirical just isn't correct. Satire uses deft humor and context to make obvious a point to the viewer.
The New Yorker response reminds me of some in the MSM that pretend to show outrage at sexual permissiveness by doing in-depth and very graphic "investigations" into it. We live in a society that tolerates the free trade of ideas, but c'mon....let's be honest. The image may represet one thing to the artist, but it is far too unclear as to what he's saying to be successful satire. Satire requires a broad, common reading by the public.
In the end the publication of this cover will probably be a net advantage to the Obamas. However, it will also be a long term loss to The New Yorker. They'll probably sell a record number of covers, but find very few new subscribers to what is essentially a dull remnant of their journalistic heydey. . Then they will lose the respect of some of those who've read the magazine for years. Poor Judgement New Yorker editor!

"this is a very ignorant picture and i believe that the editor of the New Yorker is a very racist at this point...i just dont understand how people can see no problem with the cover!!!

Posted by Janet Carothers

So, what is so wrong with racism? This country is getting way too politically and culturally correct! I, for one, see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. (Was that a racial pun?)

I thought it is funny. End of story.

HOW CAN YOU HAVE A AMERICAN FLAG BURNING, AND bin laden PITCHER IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THAT SHOULD BE A INSULT TO ALL AMERICANS. I THINK THAT THE WAY THE NEW YORKER SHOW THEIR PATRIOTISM.

The cover of the New Yorker is not only tasteless and offensive it's also an example of this publications true attitude towards the Obama's. Although the publication insist that the satire was done to open up the conversation about right-wing extremist and their misconceptions about the Obama's, The New Yorker instead validated the nuts in this country that take the offensive depiction of the Obama's as reality.

Freedom of the press is supposed to be a right. It was not meant to be abused. Be responsible for that which you print. What if some lunatic crazy out there gets all jacked up by what you've done and takes it upon himself to do the untinkable.

As a person of color, I am insulted. I am saddened and apalled. If any child of color ever asks a parent or teacher if he/she could be President someday, some of these images and things people say about Senator Obama will no doubt come to mind.

New Yorker Magazine, what you've done here (intentionally or not), was fan the flames of racism and sew seeds of hate.

I will NEVER subscribe to this complete trash rag. An apology is abolutely in order.

Art we can laugh about. I guess you guys loved the Maplethorpe "Art" but not so much enlightenment for Blitt's artwork.

The real hypocracy is on the left, always the censor supposedly for open, free debate. The left wants to crush anything that isn't in lock step with Moveon.

Try reading the "Fairness Doctrine" proposed by the left, nothing funny about limiting the 1st amendment.

Obama is unqualified and lacks experience in any administrative job. That's not funny either.

Tom,

Logic dictates that if you believe in responsible journalism then you'd understand that the New Yorker cover is satirizing irresponsible journalism. The worst thing the New Yorker did was to denigrate, quid pro quo, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, et al, each of which have one of the worst track records for "responsible" journalism.

I think it is pretty funny. Though I do not agree with Sen. Obama's politics, I do admire his reaction to this - "[He] gave an annoyed shrug and said he had no comment. " He took the "high road" and dropped it while everyone else is running around like Henny Penny!

"back wood, gun toting sister loving Republicans"!!! People amaze me! Hundreds of you are upset and stating that this was a racially charged cover and then you say that republicans are back wood, gun toting sister loving? How is that statement anything but racial! I believe in the country that my four fathers built and I am disgusted not with the cover a magazine, but with the hypocrites that have now seem to have take over this great country. You should all be ashamed of yourself and look deeper into the faith you have for the country you should love so much!

What is wrong with everybody? This cover is the perfect satire of what is wrong with America. I am more concerned with the issue than the image. I am proud of the New Yorker for tackling this issue that is haunting our election process. These lies are branding a good, smart American who has been working his ass off to try to help our lives and better our country. Why, because some are scared of his race, his culture, his upbringing. If only we were all more diverse maybe we could appreciate how someone like this can help our deflating country.

Remember, getting shot down in a fighter jet does not qualify you to be president. I don't care what way you look at it. McSame will just continue the reverse progression of the US until the middle class is completely wiped out. We need a democrat! How can people not see this???

Having been a sometime subscriber/frequent purchaser to/of The New Yorker for years, and at the same time a social and fiscal conservative, I've laughed while cringing at covers and cartoons vilifying almost everything I hold dear. But I react almost the same way to a lot of the so-called conservative writings I run across. I Even so, I continue to read and be entertained by excellent writing and lampooning wherever I find it--and The New Yorker does it best!!! So why all the whining when someone other than the President or another non-Eastern Seaboarder is the target, excuse me, the subject of the day?

A better caricature would have been that of John McCain bent over with pants down, and Phil Gramm poking it to him from behind!

Dang....It's a toss-up who's stupider: 1) those who are offended by this cover, or 2) the people going, "Hey, everybody's fair game!" If you don't get this cover, you just aren't very smart, plain and simple.

Those of you who think this is funny or believe this as truth, are to stupid to live...kill yourselves now

Risqué, slanderous, and a bit funny… I'd still take him over 10 more years in Iraq.

OK, you can make fun of Obama, but why his wife? Why is Michelle some angry black panther with a machine gun? Why are we becoming tasteless? Why don't we learn from the British satire? Thank God they did not put the two Obama kids somewhere in the cartoon!! I am all for free speech and making fun of public figures, I love it, but never to reinforce a stereotype. I hate Bush and McCain, but I would never try to characterise them as some crazy, war mongers. Its not fair to reinforce a sterotype that still scares a lot of people.

Satire makes fun of something that is true, it does not promote something that is vile, slanderous and evil. Satire that is indistinguishable from what it purports to satirize fails as satire.

If it were about anybody else -- no one would care. If it were Hillary or McCain -- it would have been hilarious. The preceding comments speak volumes people. God forbid if he is ever President -- Good Bye Free Speech. Bad enough he's voted to have us all spied on. It's a cartoon (and I have seen so much worse in my time). Are your lives so empty and boring that you have nothing else to bitch about? Get over it.

Bruce Becker, your comment shows that you are immature, you off subject for one, you attach an honorable man who was a United States soldier who put his life on the line for OUR country. I will defend our soldiers from attacks such as your until I die. I imiage you have never done anything in your sorry life for your country. You know how to criticize a man who spent 5 years in the Vietcon horrible prison. You should be in a field somewhere surrounded by veterans who fought in the Vietnam war.

Do any of you really give a damn about this cover, or are we all just typing out outrage or support just so people can see our worthless thoughts?

This cover is more than offensive; it is one of the ingredients that starts the racism pot boiling and injects us with powerfully distorted truths. This New Yorker cover created its own "Boil, boil, toil and trouble" recipe.

There is a difference between bringing to the table 1) subjects that need discussion and rational action, and 2) guns and knives to influence a particular view.

What the cover of The New Yorker says this month is vile, reprehensible to ANY presidential candidate, and one of the reasons I despair for my country. I despair because of distorted words and pictures, not because of our candidates aren't perfect. I can VOTE for a candidate; I cannot vote for racism and distorted innuendos from a magazine cover.

I've always desired to subscribe to The New Yorker but had to settle for occasional single issues because of finances. I have completely changed my mind; I will never subscribe, and that is due to this Obama cover.

what was the New Yorker staff thinking!?!?

Why would they put this out there in the media?

It's totally idiotic, as they support Obama's agenda and policies as a whole and despise Bush's policies and actions of the last eight years.

Why would they want to covertly sabotage Obama in this way?

OK OK, I get it, they are satizing McCain's attack people. But it's really not funny!

WHEN LIBERALS ATTACK

The worst quality that your typical racist, sexist, elitist, or misogynist person shares is that they are totally oblivious to the damage they cause. They say things like, "I've got friends who are black" or "Let them eat cake.."

I am personally offended by this cartoon. The New Yorker's response that "we're liberal, we can't be racist" makes my stomach turn the same way it does when I hear rappers use the n-word. Not just because of the sheer idiocy required to rationalize the use of hate-speech as art...but because both arguments assume the rest of us are too stupid to know the difference.

News Flash: 1. Your typical liberal was almost always a racist. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would know this. 2. You are the "latte drinking, liberal elite" that the rest of us can do without. and 3. Shit like this really makes me wanna cut someone's nuts off!! %$&^ you.

Has this idiot artist even read the defination of a Satire (goes for the senior editor/s and publishers of the MAG as well). To call it a satire, the depictions on the pictures have to be true ( or atleast the Obama Campaign has to be accused of whats shown on the cover) only then you can create such art and qualify it as a satire. Besides satire primarily applies to literary works, art/pictures were forcefully added/made a part of this by such Idiot artists.

May be it will help this idiot artist if he actually got a degree in literature and see how well he can paint the same portrait with words first. It's easy to show nonsense to get a rise out of people but i would like to see these morons at the New-Yorker back it up with some evidence or apologize to Obama and the entire nation. These are the morons who give a bad name to press and the freedom of press and speech while fueling racism amongst the people of this great nation.

Shame on the newyorker and the moron artist!!!

Welcome to politics, Obama camp. Too thin-skinned to take it? Then it sounds like maybe Jesse Jackson has already done what he said he wanted to do!

I've just read most of the 100-plus responses to-date in this blog. And a majority of these comments prove that this cover cartoon is doing the opposite of what the New Yorker purports to be its objective. Instead of debunking the absurdity of right wing's caricature of Obama, it is reinforcing and purpetuating it among the masses (and right-wingnuts).

The people spreading and fanning these malicious rumors do not see this cover as lampooning their baseless inuendo. They see it as validating their beliefs! Look at all the praise for this cover coming from the right-wing!

A mirror to the truth or a tasteless reinforcement of existing sterotypes? Kinda hard to tell, therefore not too bright of a move. Guess instincts aren't as well honed at the New Yorker as its members would like to think. Face it, New Yorker, you screwed up and should apologize...or are you above that?

Kind of gives new insight and and better meaning to some the many quotes we see as taken from his book and from his wife during some of her interviews. I agree the cover is pretty tasteless but nobody squeals when articles and cartoons are directed towards republican candidates. Unfortunately, politics is a very rough game. Get out if you can't take it. If this is the worst the canditate has to endure then he will indeed be most fortunate.

I like the cover. It's just a cartoon!!!!!!

Brilliant satire. It works because it resonates on multiple levels. It's interesting how Libs become so indignant when there causes are lampooned.

Kind of gives new insight and and better meaning to some the many quotes we see as taken from his book and from his wife during some of her interviews. I agree the cover is pretty tasteless but nobody squeals when articles and cartoons are directed towards republican candidates. Unfortunately, politics is a very rough game. Get out if you can't take it. If this is the worst the canditate has to endure then he will indeed be most fortunate.

I'm with #75 and #87 here.

I personally do not find it offensive and get it that it is satire. How others will perceive it (all the "average" voters that some comments are concerned about) and whether I should be offended because of that is irrelevant.

Regular New Yorker readers can see the cover for the satire it is (everything rich, white, male Americans fear, all wrapped into one), but that doesn't mean we all approve of it. The magazine has NOT taken an obvious pro-Hillary or pro-Barack stance, although it has been pro-Democrat in its stances. But most people in the country are no longer "readers"—at best they are nibblers on sound bites—and thus the subtle spices of satire are lost on palates with a taste for the sour, the over-salty and the excessively sweet fare fed to us by mainstream media, both right AND left. So I see the satire, and yet abhor its existence because I know that it will engender not useful dialog and in-depth discussion but a partisan pissing contest and a string of misspelled and mistaken "snappy comebacks" (see above). Nothing is gained; much is lost.

This cover shows up The New Yorker magazine owners, management and staff as vile, bigotted, racist, evil, despicable lowlifes who stoop to the dregs of gutter journalism in the most disgusting and shameful exhibition of sleaze and mudslinging in living memory. An utter disgrace to everyone who was involved and all who continue to be involved with it. Shame, shame, shame on them all.

An abhorent attempt at humor that missed its mark completely. If the intentions of the artisit were to extrapolate upon the "use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign," then he should have actually focused an drawing something along those lines. Instead he drew a cartoon that is neither funny or appropriate.

I am canceling my New Yorker subscription.

Please join me.

Barrack Hussein Obama sat in a clearly racist church for 20 years. Here's a guy who is offering CHANGE. He's also offering LEADERSHIP, and claims that he's qualified to make critical decisions for the country as president. But after hearing Rev. Wright's hate- preach, Obama just sat there for TWENTY YEARS! It doesn't take a wrecking ball to see that if Obama couldn't pick his rear end up and leave that church 19 1/2 years ago, that he is no leader. He didn't CHANGE his church or his racist political affiliations. He didn't CHANGE his support for people who awarded known anti-semite & anti-white racist Louis Farakhan the 2007 "Man of the Year Award." Obama didn't CHANGE ANYTHING until the media & public opinion FORCED him to. And STILL, it took him several more weeks until early June 2008 to withdraw his membership from the church! As far as his politics... he has nothing but vaporware.

I don't remember any out cries from the left nor the press when people called Bush a Nazi? In fact, they cheered. It is time to stop the wining. Every time someone attacks Obama, he and the left wines. But then they turn around and do the same to others.

The only problem with this cover is there are 100 other publishers wishing they had thought of it first - after all it's all about eyeballs and sales -

While I commend the New Yorker for it's expression of free speech, this was a little bit too far. When you do satire...make it good satire please. Racial satire is NOT good satire...ever. It just perpetuates the (nonexistent) differences between races that we have been trying to overcome for the last few decades. There is a black man running for president for God's sake! AND HE'S WINNING IN THE POLLS! If nothing else, that proves that race is not a big issue for American voters, and that voters don't subscribe to these views of obama. So please New Yorker, while your intentions are noble, just leave it alone. We don't need media talking about racial differences, even in jest. Go back to bashing Bush...the media has had a great time with that over the last 8 years.

How about showing a pic of two well known amle gov. officials wearing make-up and dressed in drag? A cover like that would be more honest!

Poor,poor Hussein Obama. There is much more truth to that cover then people can imagine. All his kool aid drinkers,and robots are offended. Too damn bad. Maybe if these hypnotized brain dead Obamabots did some research, and take their heads out of their ass, they would see this guy and his wife for what they are.Two people who hate America, love people like Wright, Ayers, Rezco, Plagler,and are loved by the most despicable countries in the world. They hate freedom loving white people. hate guns, hate winning wars, hate low taxes, hate the best health care in the world,hate giving life to babies, hate drilling for our own oil, and hates voting in the Senate. I could go on and on. Hussein Obama is taking millions of people for suckers. He is as phony as a three dollar bill. No,no no to Obama!!!!!!!!

I think people are sensitive to this issue because it reveals many of the subconscious prejudices we possess. Naturally, we prefer to maintain the subconscious shrouded. Once viewed, we hide our prejudices via rage, laughter or mimicking the responses of others. I prefer the formers and despise the latter.

There is an old saying: "There is no such thing as bad publicty" the NYer will sell millions of copies because of all of the "buzz" this story will generate. But ask yourself: What if a conservative publicaton like The American Spectator or National Review had run this cover? They would not be able to get away with the satire excuse. And, what if a white public figure had said what Jesse Jackson had said about cutting Barack Obama's genitals? They would have probobly been charged with a "hate crime" Liberal's tolerance of free speech ends with themselves.

Perhaps the many of you who are so offended by this 'political cartoon' should go back as far as Lincoln if you really want to view some vicious caricatures.

This type of nonsense has gone forever and it will continue in the future. As a nation we have long since lost our moral and ethical compasses, particularly with the advent of the '60's 'hippies' who are now the group attempting to run the country. Their motto - 'if it feels good do it - if you wish to say it, say it, without regard to what harm it may cause others.'

My one great question, however, from all Obama supporters would be - 'where was all your indignation at the numberous political cartoons showing GWB with mamouth ears looking almost like a monkey?' Could it be that you are only offended if 'your ox is gored?'

good for the new yorker. this is politically correct. it reflects what many americans think

What is more scary than the supposed effect of a magazine cover on our pick for the Presidency is the obvious lack of common sense and basic intelligence of many people making comments. Somewhere between comment nos. 1 and 103 are voters who can neither spell nor construct a sentence. And these people are voters. That is the really scary thing, not any cover of a magazine,no matter how tasteless.

"Hey Larry, look at that there cover of the New Yorker. It's a picture of that Obama feller and his wife. It says their Muslims."
"Yeah Chuck. I heard some rumors, I guess now we know the truth."
"Yep. I'm an average voter, ya' know, and as an average voter, I can't help but believe what's depicted on any magazine I run across, especially if it's a cartoon drawing."
"Well Larry, I'm one of the masses, and the same goes for me."
"But d'ya suppose it might be a joke or somethin'?"
"Nah. Since all them people in the cities got so upset every time anyone told a joke, they don't allow them anymore. One day someone said 'Someone's got to get this thing off the shelves,' and so the government has done that for us."
"Well, thank God for that. Now we know that the only things we're allowed to read are true. I guess I'm votin' for McCain."

To me, this picture is not funny and subsequently fails at being satire. The picture does not make me laugh. Satire should make the viewer laugh or at least evoke a wry twist of humor. This picture horrified me and made me want to cry.

Effective Satire is directed against the foibles and imperfections inherent within a person or situation. The media can effectively satirize a lying, deceptive politician, but an attempt at satire falls short when directed against an honest and inspiring visionary such as Senator Obama. How can one satirize a man with such integrity and grace, such dignity and earnestness, such calm and strength in the face of criticism and adversity.

If the objects of this satire are the ignorant, lying media pundits and their stupid followers as the New Yorker claims, then these pundits should have been the victims in the picture for this picture to be true satire.

The Obama campaign already has such a fight to ward off the misconceptions and lies that are being perpetrated by his opponents. Now, this picture will be used against Obama, circulating the internet into perpetuity. The only people laughing are the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove puppets.

Shame at the racist caricatures evident in the picture - Racism against both Blacks and Muslims. This is not satire. Shame, shame on The New Yorker.

Lot of Americans would think same but wouldn't say. I always love New Yorker covers. This is a keeper.

Great cover---I'm buying several copies!

In high school, I was an aspiring writer, a rural California country bumpkin. My sophisocated, very east-coast mentor/teacher, Mr.David Moody, wrote in my yearbook, "...looking forward to seeing your work in the New Yorker." I always considered that the greatest compliment I ever received, but no more. Where has common sense flown, not to mention common decency? Satire is supposed to wake up the conscience by pointing out the ridiculous through exaggeration. Instead of pricking the bigot's conscience, this cover energizes his cause. Worst of all, it burns a visual image of doubt into the subcoscious of all those who fear tht Obama to be,"not quite American enough to be President." Shame on you, New Yorker, for exploiing the power of visual imagery for private amoral gain. You are worse than super market tabloids-- at least most people don't take those seriousy.

Great cover. The Obama's and their supporters have zero sense of humor. I'm going to subscribe and I'm going to get all my family and friends to subscribe too! Way to go New Yorker.

Beyond Tasteless......Pure Junk
ex-subscriber

i'm from Texas, i seen this on the internet. i love it. i tink it fits GREAT. i DO NOT WANT this JERK. (trying to be nice) in the White House.

It is my understanding that the definition of satire is to employ irony, derision and or caustic wit to expose the folly or wrongdoing of an individual or a situation. Whose wrongdoing or folly is this cover exposing? It is not clear to me. I do believe that this was the point of this genuinely offensive piece of artwork. It is so easy to send mixed messages. The magazine's representatives say that the cover was clearly satire. It, I repeat, was not clear to me. I believe that this cover was meant to fuel the fires of racism and fear but justifies itself by calling itself "satire".
This reminds me of courtroom comments made by lawyers that raise objections.
When the objection is sustained by the judge, he will sometimes instruct the jury to disregard the comments. Unfortunately most jurors never do.

I thought it was truly funny. The New Yorker has guts to put that on the cover when the majority of the media world is gushing and falling over themselves to bow at his feet.

Rach Hay are you sure you're an American citizen? That English/spelling was piss poor! All of you may be canceling your subscriptions, but the New Yorker just got a new subscriber...ME!

Simply put....the cover is racist, offensive and in no way satirical. This cartoon is exactly how the editors at The New Yorker magazine think about Barack Obama. Are they that scared that he will probably be the next president, that they print this type of Garbage. Whatever political party you belong to, you should find this cover indecent.

Guys, satire is about being so radical and far from the truth that everyone can laugh.

The Obama camp needs to learn on how to take a joke. Lets not forget that we are all free men and women protected by the Constitution of the United States. This is why we live in the greatest country in the world. We are free to express ourselves how we wish. Polotics are what they are and those who throw their hat into the ring need to prepare themselves for what will come,
The cover of the magazine may be offensive and tastless to some and not others, but this is what comes with polotics. Everyone needs to get over it and go on with the business at hand.
Lets not forget that we all need to tolerant. Are you listening Liberal Left. Get on with your business.

How poor and tasteless. Its truly sad to see how America News/Media attempts to manipulate the public. There has to be a better way of communicating and making up of a story.. I consider this front page of the New Yorker offensive, disruptive and simply, arrogant. It never seems to amaze me how "some" writers and reporters still have a job. Its beyond reproach. Sadly, by purchasing such magazines, we all contribute to the popularity of such celebrities and the publishing companies who day in and day out make a buck from us all. This has nothing to do with our constitution at all. This is not the America I know.

the new yorker's point is obvious, and it's a pearl. may the swine continue to rant....

perfect .. this seems interesting. Anyways why get offended ? If you get offended muslims will get offended. Anyways the point is that radicalism was there in his church too, its pretty much similar hence the comparision seems justifiable.
Someone who has endorsed the church for decades, now says he is not associated .. well thats funny, you need to live up to what you are and not what you want to be ..

I bet David Remnick is longing for the good old days in Moscow.
It may have been tasteless and not funny at all, but it's only a magazine cover. And it appears in a country in which there is a certain value given to freedom of speech.
So what is the big deal, really?

If Obama can't laugh at himself from a harmless satirical cartoon that's meant to be funny, then he's way too serious to be president of the U.S. As a Democrat, I have grave concerns over Obama's ability to lead this country, especially through the war on terror. The fact that he's unhumorous, and to be frank, rather grim at times, only confirms my belief. I don't think I've seen the man smile more than once or twice. He needs to lighten up and learn to take a joke.

OK, let’s try Curious George and her as a Black Panther…I am sure either rendition would be true…I mean he is a Muslim, so that part is true…

I guess we can expect a fatwa to be issued against the New Yorker pretty soon........

If you don't think this cover will be taken as "real" as opposed to satirical by the racist fringe, read No. 48 above.

bush is called a dumb adolph hitler and that was funny.
b hussain and his wife are depicted as unpatriotic muslims and america haters and that's bad taste. can't have it both ways!

While it may seem tasteless, I think it's revealing. I've noticed the"company" that Obama keeps, and I think there will be a great deal of "buyer's remorse" should he get in the White House. For the first time, I am greatly fearful of this candidate. While not everyone is theological, and I understand that, it appears that quite of bit of prophecy is coming to pass. I am not a fanatic, just very cautious regarding a man that has no experience, that has wormed his way into the political arena, having cut his teeth on Chicago politics, which is probably the most corrupt state government after Louisiana. While working the elections as judge during the primary in Texas, I was faced with a lot of the voters who turned out who didn't even know which party he belonged to. It was pathetic. If he gets in, I hope he doesn't let people down, but I'm not holding my breath. Hopefully, in four years, it will be apparent that he's not suitable for the Presidency. I won't vote for him, and I will have a hard time voting for McCain. The VP choices are really going to be very important this time.

I've never been so embarrassed to be an American as I am today. First I learn about elected officials in dallas being offended by the phrase, "black hole" and now this. This is great satire - it was in no way a smear against obama - it is a smear against his fear mongering critics and it's as clear as day. thank you john and john s. for saying what needed to be said.

ps- i'm not an obama supporter and wouldn't even think about voting for him - still doesn't make me too stupid to understand the cover.

I fully agree with whoever wrote comment No. 243. Most Hussein Obama's supporters can not spell English sentences coherently. Instead of encouraging Americans to learn Spanish, should Mr. Obama encourage his supporters to give up Ebonics?

I fully agree with whoever wrote comment No. 243. Most Hussein Obama's supporters can not spell English sentences coherently. Instead of encouraging Americans to learn Spanish, should Mr. Obama encourage his supporters to give up Ebonics?

This cover IS an asuming satire of the right-wing attacks on Obama, at least to those who know enough of the New Yorker to realize it isn't really a US version of Der Stumer. But I think it unwise -- there are too many who won't understand and take it literally.
And to those who are offended by my thinking I have greater insight than many of our fellow citizens, I just suggest you read some of the other comments: a good half of the writers DO take the cover literally, and many are silly enough to agree with the pretended meaning. Amazing, but true!

I fully agree with whomever wrote comment No. 243. Most Hussein Obama's supporters can not spell English sentences correctly or coherently. Instead of encouraging Americans to learn Spanish, shouldn't Mr. Obama encourage his supporters to give up Ebonics instead?

I love it! I'm subscribing to the New Yorker after this comment!

I fully agree with whomever wrote comment No. 243. Most Hussein Obama's supporters can not spell English sentences correctly or coherently. Instead of encouraging Americans to learn Spanish, shouldn't Mr. Obama encourage his supporters to give up Ebonics instead?

Loved it--how do I get my copy?! People wake up the only reason you're pissed off is because as the old addage says--THE TRUTH HURTS!

I showed this to my government class today - and all were offended by it. It made for a great conversation - images in media, and the reasons for them. We talked about the comments that have been made about the Obamas - flag hater, Muslim, anti-American - and how these comments have been incorporated into the picture. I wonder - is this picture making fun of Obama, or the people who make ignorant comments about him. Why are we offended at the picture, but not at the words that have already been said?

I think this cover is tasteless, but I think it allows for open conversation about our values and tolerance for political trash talking. I wonder how long it will be before McCain faces similar stories/pictures, and if we will be as offended then.

I think the cover is hilarious. Obama, like so many of his ilk, cannot take a joke, much less any form of criticism, without crying racism. I'm one who happens to believe the cover isn't that far from the truth. We won't find out for certain until after this inexperienced junior senator is elected. Maybe his own thin skin will bring him down; the only problem is the alternative isn't a whole lot better. Still, McCain isn't the muslim anti-Christ. To paraphrase Churchill, (Obama) is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enegro.

If anything this will only improve Obama's candidacy by bringing to the forefront that he is in fact not Muslim. Those who find it offensive are probably already voting for him, and those who see it as reinforcing their views are probably already voting for McCain. Ignorant people want him to be a Muslim so they can say that's the reason they aren't voting for him, instead of underlying racial reasons.

As a conservative I am happy to see Obama exposed for what he is. He and his wife have a hidden agenda. Watch out!!!

there is no way that any obama supporters should be offended by this cover. it in no way is making fun of Obama. What it is making fun of in the right wing nuts who have in their mind that this is a true depiction of the Obama's. This could be good in helping some of this people realize how ridiculas their beliefs are and how they are worthy of satire.

What? The New Yorker was just "expressing itself", what the harm in that? I think a "diversity" of views in the "rainbow" of "multiculturalism" is a must for a country in which free speech and freedom of religion is important. Lighten up Liberals The New Yorker is just having a little fun, besides it's not unlike what the Left has done to the symbols of Christianity.

Uggh...what continues to make headlines about this whole election in NEVER the issues. It's a dizzying series of reports on reports...in this case, The New Yorker is taking shots at Fox News...who cares what either media think? What about the candidate positions on the economy, the war, Freddie Mac...what the heck are the gonna do about these things? Enough about whether tears are real and what hand gestures mean...let's get on with the freakin' campaign---enough of the media immersing themselves in their own analysis on analysis.

Don't waste your time on vitrol.

(a) Save your strength, (b) cancel your subscription to "The New Yorker", (c) pull up a chair to tonight's evening news to watch the advertisers pull out their money, and (d) have a good relaxing laugh! Tonight the joke's on "The New Yorker"!

Because what goes around, comes around.

Bye-bye, Editor-in-Chief ;-)

Some of you people are . . . amazing! The first thing out of your head is . . . it must have been those Conservatives . . . those bigoted Republicans, . . . ! Have you never seen the same type of irreverent and disrespectful type of 'stuff' about Bush, or Cheney . . . oh, I know, they deserve it . . . right? No, no one deserves it! You folks have been laughing at this type of 'stuff' for years when it is presented against what you perceive as the bigoted, anti-this, that, and the other thing the you don't happen to agree with facist Right! You are truly amazing!! How wonderful it must be to be so in love with your own ideals and values that you can lambast the people that you either don't agree with or simply don't understand and are unwilling to try to . . . and then put them down in the same ways and means that you accuse them of being or doing! The problem here is that Americans don't have any critical thinking or depth of meaning, thinking, and character or integrity. As long as you get 'your way' and 'you are safe' to hell with anyone who disagrees with you. It's true, this type of 'stuff' shouldn't be happening, however, it does! And it is because we have had a good long bout of it for a long time but typically it is expressed at those on the Right from those on the left. No, I am not a bigot, nor anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti . . . anything other than intolerance 'from any source or sense of reason! I have legitimate reasons and thoughts as to how and why I get to my beliefs . . . and just because they don't agree with your 'agenda' doesn't make me a facist! So where this magazines cover well . . . you on the left help create it! How many times have you laughed at the President being portrayed as 'stupid' or being a 'liar' or Cheney being of low character . . . you eat it up!!! You can dish it out but you can't take it. Try being the progressives that you advertise to be and being the 'uniters' that your Obama purports to be and wearing a little bit of the same 'stuff' that you have been dishing out on the Right for years . . . decades!!

It’s disgusting, but it is also irresponsible. They may claim this is satire, but is it really? Generally, real satire does not require an explanation. What is wrong with the New Yorker’s editorial staff? This issue needs to be pulled from circulation.

Fron Europe we see this cover like very BAD

I'm with Chrissy! Obama scares me a lot!

The saddest story here is that quite a few people will not understand the image as satire, but as a political cartoon, mocking the couple in an intentionally slanted way, not mocking the political system. This will hurt their campaign because an editor has failed to not understimate the ...................... (fill in the blank ) of the American public.

After reading all the comments here, we can see three groups emerging:
1) Right wingers who believe that the cover's intent was to reveal the *truth* of Obama's devious ties to Osama Bin Laden and therefore applaud it.
2) People who are outraged at the cover because they think its a racist, dishonest depiction of Obama.
3) People who actually get the joke behind it.
Category 1 people have the brain power of slugs and plankton. Category 2 people have their hearts in the right place but need to learn a little bit about sarcasm and irony. Only Category 3 people should be allowed to vote.

The sad thing about this supposed satire is that the only people who like the cover are those who are to ignorant to even be New Yorker readers or subcribers. Maybe they will get a temporary boost in circulation from the hillbilly constituency.

It is just the New Yorker being the New Yorker. Sophisticated satire: that is what they do.

Frankly, I couldn't care less. And it amazes me anybody else cares about a magazine cover - something that lasts about a week - when there are much bigger things to worry about.

Where is the outcry about Obama calling for more troops, helicopters, "intelligence-gatherers" (i.e., CIA) for Afghanistan? Six years of war with no resolution means time to make peace, not more war. The suicide rate among vets ought to be enough of a hint, don't you think?

Where is the outcry about the FISA vote? About marines and soldiers being acquitted for atrocities committed in Iraq, even when there's incontrovertible evidence, EVEN WHEN THEY PLEAD GUILTY?

Where is the outcry about immigrants being rounded up in Iowa, prosecuted like criminals, and sent to concentration camps? Where is the outcry about Blackwater building huge private military bases- in the US, and in Canada (Ontario)?

Has anybody asked Obama and McCain their opinion about these things?

Let's start putting attention on the really important things for a change.

How could you, New Yorker? Yes, it's political satire; yes, it shows the absurdity of the unfounded rumors and lies purposely being circulated about the Obamas. But not everyone--dare I say most of America--is not politically sophisticated enough to "get it.." Out of the five of us in my family, I am the only one who understands political satire. Joe Shmo in the supermarket who sees this cover is going to think that you're actually agreeing with the NeoCons who are perpetrating this hyperbole! How many people are there in America? What's your circulation? Take the difference and you've just reaffirmed for middle America what many people may have thought, confirmed what many people may have been suspecting, and put the idea in the heads of those who haven't been paying attention yet. You've given the Right a big fat gift and perhaps screwed America out its best hope for the future. Is there any way humanly possible that you can scrap this cover and use another one?

I want to speak to the many people who have responded negatively to the article (meaning they applaud the efforts of the reporter).

This country has come so far - getting no where. We are where we are because of the actions we have taken in the past. I learned a long time ago that the only way to change the results that you're getting now - is to change what you're doing. Every person in America makes up America. I am sorry to all of the people who STILL hate African Americans - this is that way things are. How quick do we forget when an African American nursed my sick baby for the first 6 months of life because i wasn't able too, gave my choking friend CPR when they were dying, spoke up for the not so popular child that was being picked on when I was in elementary school, and an African American showed love to the homeless man that stands on the streets everyday, begging for a nickel to add to his other nickels hoping to make a dollar for a cup of coffee. If you are following me you should see that as much as some people do not like African American people - guess what, they are apart of America and they do contribute. African Americans are loving people and I am sure that the people who hate them, have been shown love by one of them in the past. A african american man, womam or child might have given your homeless aunt or uncle a dollar, when you walked on by and didn't listen to their pleas for help. Stop hating African Americans and start loving people. When we all do that - then America will change. Finally, remember these famous and true words - Together WE stand, but Divided WE fall. That includes everyone!

What I find truly remarkable about all this is the reaction. So many people really are too stupid to understand irony or satire. The only bad thing about that cover is that it portrays the ACTUAL BELIEFS of many Americans, some of whom I have had the bad fortune to know personally. To expose the absurdity of many claims made by the right is a good thing, in my humble opinion. It's too bad so many people are too ignorant (this applies to both left and right) to get the joke. Bravo, New Yorker!

farrakhan for vp sounds great obama/farrakhan 08

"... how do I get my copy?!"

If you were so brilliant, then you'd know you can go to most any grocery store and all newstands to find this and many other expressions of (apparent) American wit.

Do I like it? Not at all. I've never cared for tasteless satire. In fact, I stopped my New Yorker subscription when Tina Brown came on. She's long-gone but the magazine never recovered.

I've read a good deal of these letters and it seems to me that the only people who find it funny are the anti Obama crew who are sa;livating as that offensive image not only shines on the newsstand, but becomes an indelible iplant as it gets shown over and over again on TV like reverend Wright.

Cheap shot New Yorker.
You don't hit a man when he's down or where he's vulnerable unless you are a bully. Serious lack of judgement here.... May your subscriptions wither....

Hot Nickels is a genius.....

They should have included a hammer and cycle to Obama's hat.

It is really time for CHANGE, RIGHT WAY!!
Wake up, folks, ! Do you still think, that color of skin and religious are important thing to any prosperity in this crazy world?Do not forget ,it is era of globalism! Let s go together and unified , do something smart.! It is time for change!
Its that cover satirical? No way, that is very offensive, specially for the man who is more than smart and intelligent!!

My My how shallow and easily offended folks seem to be in the new political correctness.

Remarkable correlaries to the political correctness that preceded the rise of the Nazi Party and Hitler.

When we narrow the acceptable, lose our sense of humor, and penalize and chastize anyone who is outside our narrow politically correct nominal target zones ... we are in essence endorsing both censorship and totalarianism.

Much like nudity in your neighbors yard ... if it offends you, put down the damn binoculars and get a life!

Good taste or bad taste, we ALL ought to be laughing and defending and celebrating the rights of free speech and free press ...

That is what is important ...

Keep your eyes on what matters ... not the trivia of some editors art or comments on any individual issue or publication.

And if you dont have a sense of humor, try to graft one on, they are kind of useful, especially in politics.

HA

The New Yorker editor should be fired. This is not a satire, it's a very poor depiction of defamation blunders that have been against obama since the start. It's a tasteless art and a mistake. I think someone needs to pay for Newyorker's poor, unprofessional action.

Even if Obama doesn't become the first black U.S. President; it is evident he (and his racist wife) have already divided the country along racial and religious boundaries. I would not vote for Obama even if my life depended on it. I would have voted for Hillary, though! And, one more thing...The New Yorker should give Barry Blitt a substantial promotion if they haven't done so already!!!

Whatever the intent, it is, and let´s use the right word here, stupid.

THIS COVER IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE, - ANOTHER SCARE TACTIC USE TO FUEL THE NARROW MINDED IGNORAMUSES OUT THERE.

TO CHRISSY AND HER KIND - BUSH IS THE ONE YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF. THE WORLD HATES US - ALL YOU HATERS YOU BETTER WAKE UP - OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ARE GETTING KILLED AND MAIMED FOR THIS COUNTRY AND ALL WE DO IS HATE EACH OTHER. WAKE UP.

Bravo? Bravo? I hardly think so. Freedom of speech doesn't include causing harm. This is harmful. Not only in the misleading nature of the visual message, but also for adding to the harmful nature of these stereotypes in our country right now. Irresponsible and defaming of the character of an inspired public servant. Shame on you New Yorker. McCain may have publicly discredited this cover but you can bet he is wishing he could still do jumping jacks over this.

Come on people, what GOOD satire has ever been tasteful?
May I reference the classic: Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal,"
which was written almost 300 years ago in a time where that sort of talk would probably be much less accepted than it is today.

You guys are silly.

I'm as strong an Obama supporter as you'll ever find, but I have to admit that this cover cracked me up. It might have made its point a bit clearer if it'd depicted either Karl Rove or some right wing preacher painting the scene, but that's hindsight.

And it's not going to change a single vote one way or the other. I hope Obama doesn't give it any more reaction than a grin and a four word statement: "Yeah, they got me." And then go on to the next question. Four words and a grin is about all this thing deserves.

THIS COVER IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE, - ANOTHER SCARE TACTIC USE TO FUEL THE NARROW MINDED IGNORAMUSES OUT THERE.

TO CHRISSY AND HER KIND - BUSH IS THE ONE YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF. THE WORLD HATES US - ALL YOU HATERS YOU BETTER WAKE UP - OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ARE GETTING KILLED AND MAIMED FOR THIS COUNTRY AND ALL WE DO IS HATE EACH OTHER. WAKE UP.

Frankly, I couldn't care less. And it amazes me anybody else cares about a magazine cover - something that lasts about a week - when there are much bigger things to worry about.

Where is the outcry about Obama calling for more troops, helicopters, "intelligence-gatherers" (i.e., CIA) for Afghanistan? Six years of war with no resolution means time to make peace, not more war. The suicide rate among vets ought to be enough of a hint, don't you think?

Where is the outcry about the FISA vote? About marines and soldiers being acquitted for atrocities committed in Iraq, even when there's incontrovertible evidence, EVEN WHEN THEY PLEAD GUILTY?

Where is the outcry about immigrants being rounded up in Iowa, prosecuted like criminals, and sent to concentration camps? Where is the outcry about Blackwater building huge private military bases- in the US, and in Canada (Ontario)?

Has anybody asked Obama and McCain their opinion about these things?

Let's start putting attention on the really important things for a change.

The reason people are so worked up about this is, that Barry Blitt is such a great artist. Maybe the result is more powerful than he intended. A grabbag of laughable prejudices is turned into alternate reality. Still, I don't feel that great worry is merrited. How many voters will vote against Obama now, even though they were for him before? Surely not many.

So, when the T-shirts came out that said Bro's b 4 Ho's as an anti HRC message,
when the HRC nutcrackers hit the stands, when Obama said that 'periodically when she's blue she...', when Keith Olberman said someone (a man?) should take her in a room and only one of them come out, when a member of the audience at an HRC town hall held up a sign saying Iron My Shirt, when HRC was called a bitch etc by pundits, all of that was just okee dokee, right? But print one cartoon about the Obama's and everyone goes into a whining snit. Get a grip. Oh dear, it's racist; oh dear it's reaffirming misconceptions; oh dear, it's offensive, lions and tigers and bears oh my. Maybe that's a bit of projection, usually the ones that complain the most are the ones that actrually feel that way. If the guy can't take this and laugh at it and himself maybe he can't take anything. and doesn't deserve to be president

I love the cover. It's great satire and very funny. Unfortunately, I've learned that my sense of humor does not match the more literal-minded balance of the country, so it will be widely misunderstood. That will hurt the Obama campaign.

The problem with this type of sensatioanist and inflamatory journnalism is that it obscures voter focus on the real issues of the Obama vs MaCain camapign,
such as when and how to end the Iraq War, enhance America's image in the world, provide affordable health care for all, save Social security as private pensions disappear,prevent more jobs going off shore, fixing the financial crisis
of which mortgages are only the tip of the iceberg, finding new energy sources etc.
This is the real tragedy with what you have done with the "Obama" cover.
If that was your objective, you probably succeeded

Loved the cover it's how true Americans view this duo, hopefully intelligence will win out and the candidate with truth in his heart will win out. B.Hussein Obama is the evil incarnation that the God fearing people, that have made this country the greatest place on earth, so dreaded would someday appear. Not since another ruler named Hitler came and deceived have we seen this level of evil that could befall and ruin our way of life, liberty and the freedom of speech we so now enjoy. I was not a subscriber before but if this was truthful reporting and not just satire then sign me up for a long term subscrition.

Think about how Balack Osama said "Typical White Person". Think about
how his wife said "I've never been proud of my country". Think about how they
attend a Black Church. Think about how he said American kids must learn
to speak Spanish. Think about how her thesis at Princeton was about how
she felt about the White students there. Think about how their pastor preached
to them about a "Black Value System". Then think about what it would be like
to have these inexperienced newbies living in the White House as leaders
of the Free World. This is one SCARY thought!!! Send these racist socialists
back to the south side of Chicago where they belong!!

Looks like riots are already breaking out over this cartoon:

Rioting Erupts Over Obama Cartoon Controversy!

Gunfire and rioting erupted throughout the US on Monday as hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest the publishing of a cartoon satirizing the venerable Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama.

Down, down, New Yorker Magazine," chanted a large crowd of Obama acolytes outside the New Yorker Magazine headquarters in New York City.

City streets were closed for traffic as hundreds of buses and trucks brought in protesters from all over the country.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson addressed the overflowing crowd, and pledged to personally neuter all those responsible for printing the despicable cartoon.

"They have no right to look down upon our revered Messiah that way," the Rev. Jackson said. "Thus, I swear that those who have depicted our prophet as an Islamic terrorist will be duly punished by means of castration!"
obamareport.blogspot.com/2008/07/rioting-erupts-over-obama-cartoon.html

I'm okay with the picture, because it's absurd and everything in the picture is ridiculous and should never in a million years be taken seriously... YET... some people will actually take it seriously.

I can hear them now: "I've been sayin' it all along.. OBAMA'S A TERRORIST!"

The potential reactions and not the image itself is evidence of the sad reality that ignorance still thrives in this nation.....

The New Yorker, just like so much other media, knows whom they can pick on.

They never would have put a Klan hood on Ronald Reagan, but there was certainly lots of talk about his racist tendencies.(e.g. oposition to every major piece of civil right legistration, opposition to open housing legistration when he was governor of California, a presidential campaign kick off in Philelphia, Mississippi, which is only known for one thing, a brutal civil rights assassination.)

How condescending! Yes, most educated Americans remember Charles Dicken's suggestion for solving the starving Irish during the famine but that does not mean that the timing and intent are not wrong. But not even your average over-educated American will approve of the timing or backlash of this particular satire.

Why not depict McCain in Hanoi with Jane Fonda? Or the Bush Family at the Bin Laden Family picnic?

Will most Americans understand that the New Yorker is a publication seeking sales and not the bastion of literacy it once was?

America has lost its sense of humor. I'm only 31 years old, but I remember a time when a magazine cover or political cartoon characterizing a public figure in an obviously satirical caricature would spark intelligent debate amongst the intelli. . . intelliten . . . intellig. . . smart people. In fact, all we need to add to the cover is a talking cigarette or a bitter Fox News field correspondent, and we've got Doonesbury. But, nothing's funny anymore, and everything is offensive. It's a shame political thought has become so reactionary and polarized.

BTW, I'm for Obama.

What can you expect from the defense of this cover by a New York magazine!! They think that people from other parts of the country lack the sophistication to 'get' their clever satire. Well guess what we get your message behind the so-called satire which is to reduce a presidential candidate and his wife to scarey cartoon characters. Could the Billary Clintons have had a hand in this? Plays right into their victim stance on the primary results which is the Obama's are to be feared therefore ridiculed!!

My hats off to McCain for denouncing this. Perhaps because since he is from Arizona he gets what is offensive!

You should read the article......that is where the REAL news is.

It seems to me that the main reason for this controversy is the New Yorker's overestimation of the pervasiveness of these rumors. It has been apparent to me that the mainstream media and the Democrat party have been the primary communicators of these rumors, in order to "debunk" them.

This is why we have a controversy; many people don't get the joke because they haven't ever heard these rumors.

Ok. The cover seems to be a failed attempt at satire (I'm assuming, of course, a couple of things...).

The big failure, however, is the 'brains' at TNY didn't have the vision to look outside their target, supposedly 'enlightened', demographic to realize a large portion of the population can't even spell satire (no offense intended). That kind of oversight will deepen a wound within an already aching country and will likely cost one person at TNY his/her job.

I am, however, finding a little humor in posts from people professing to subscribe to the magazine now. I'm afraid once you get someone to read you the articles you will not be too pleased with your purchase.

More than 12% of the whole US population need help to have their screws put right! BE it in churches, in schools, in media, in malls, in internets, in hell perhaps!!

Thank goodness we've finally advanced to the point in this country that we are not only able to accept the possibility of having a black man as our President, but an Osama Bin Laden led radical Muslim terrorist black man to boot. We still have a long ways to go, but I think we're finally beginning to become the accepting people that has been our destiny. God Bless America!

Note: To ignorant people….. I'M JUST KIDDING!!!!!! THIS IS NOT REAL YOU DUMB IDIOT!!!! THEY'RE NOT REALLY RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORIST'S WHO SUPPORT OSAMA BIN LADEN for God's sake!!!! Yes, Barack and Michelle Obama are black (if you haven't noticed). For that matter I'm white, my mom is white, my second cousin is Jewish, my best friends parents were born in Mexico, and I work with white and Asian guys and black and white women. But I digress. For some of us this is a satire, meant to be sarcastic and funny. However, in the presence of someone a bit less ignorant to interpret the meaning for you, it may also serve the purpose of helping you to realize that you may have jumped to conclusions slightly about Mr. Obama and his political and religious leanings.

Must be most people consumed corn syrup to think alike that Obama is Muslim Sorry! No corn syrup for me, so I still can think and I say he is so far the brightest of the bunch!!

The New Yorker is elitist and only the elitist upper class reads it, and the statements released by their representatives only serve to prove how out of touch they really are. To the already apprehensive Americans (see West Virgina: "Enough of the Hussein thing") this will simply add more fuel to the fire.

When you take this out of context (as they did by putting it on the cover without accompanying text) it is libel, simple as that.

The absolutely astounding fact of all this uproar is that there seems to be an inordinate number of comments posted by readers(?) who seem to be unable to master the most basic of skills; ...spelling... Try counting the mistakes, if you have the patience...or is it "patients"????? Oh well, maybe they don't really reed, just look at the pitchers...

Hey it sure does appear that the cartoon has people talking ... so I guess it's effective; a bomber pilot knows s/he's over the enemy when the flack starts! --now we needcartoons to get us talking about the national debt, nuclear proliferation, poverty, -oh yeah, and to our neighbors for a start.

The thing I find most offensive is that this is just another distraction away from what may be the most important presidential campaign in 80 years. There are more important things to discuss like energy policy, health care policy, foreign policy, economic policy, supreme court nominees, and on and on and on. People spending more than 30 seconds considering this are wasting their time.

Well, it looks like we are finally having a "dialogue on race," but it appears to be a rehash of all that America has been about since 1619. It is impossible for a leopard to lose its spots.

The current election and all the associated machinations will provide the world an opportunity to see exactly what America is about. The revolution is being televised.

For those of you not familiar with the 1619 date, it was the arrival of the first African Americans: Antoney and Isabella, who happened not to be slaves but indentured servants. I might add that their arrival was 2 years prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims (see Before the Mayflower, 2003, p. 33).

One word: Satire. I agree with most of the posts about previous covers being equally sarcastic and bordering on offensive. But when Madonna or someone equally silly does something bordering on offensive, where is the outcry? When Bush is portrayed so hatefully, where is the outrage? Do we have no sense of irony anymore?
My question is: how does a piece of artistic commentary end up becoming labeled propaganda from the right? And why do people automatically make conclusions that Fox News, or any other conservative group has something to do with it? STOP POLITICIZING everything you see, people! Sometimes artists, individuals and politicians do things we don't agree with, No conspiracy, just human nature.

I agree with previous comments indicating this is a disgrace for the New Yorker in that it revaeals an underlying fear and racism unbecoming of any enlightened, thinking person or establishment.
I know enlightenment is much to ask for but ,at least, thinking?!
There's just so much that was not processed before printing that cover, unless you are a McCain supporter.
SAD!

It is unfortunate that this New Yorker illustrated cover of Barack Obama in a turban and Michelle Obama with an afro and machine gun is considered satire. The definition of satire is the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. How is this cartoon exposing a vice or folly of the Obama’s? They are not closet Muslims, or machine gun toting anarchist. Also, why is the afro utilized as a symbol of anarchy? The truth is, most of us work hard, and get along with one another. The media, along with a small minority of the population would like all of us to believe we should dislike each other based on unimportant metrics like the color of our skin, the texture of our hair, what we wear, how we chose to worship etc. I choose not to believe this. I choose to believe that we can be better human beings. Unfortunately, this is nothing more then someone- marked by a lack of intellectual acuity- taking advantage of 'free speech' to denigrate specific religious groups, intelligent women as well as, using it as an opportunity to take a couple of pot shots at African-Americans in general. The hope is that we will begin to rise above this and move into a place where we can have intelligent discourse regarding our politics, religion and yes even freedom of speech.

I just watched the news and numerous democrats are denouncing this.. All i can say is FREEDOM OF SPEECH

do they hate free speech? It certainly looks like it. I certainly don't want a party in the white house that is so blatantly against free speech, our most important of freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

Relax, its a cartoon, i've seen some bad ones about McCain too, don't fly off the hinge liberals, its ink on paper.

I especially enjoyed the "BRAVO New Yorker! We are one step away from having friggin' BLACK ARAB President, and I applaud you for trying to deter it" comment. That was a steak and baked potato. I lot of people from back home were brought up Democrat until they came to an age of reason-see George Wallace. For some being an American will always mean a white president and a certain look. For them I give appreciation for at least I know from where they're coming. It's sad but hey it's your life to live. I am still going to vote for Obama because of you...not in spite of you. By the way, I believe his dad is Kenyan which actually makes him African. You came from Africa too but you probably dragged your knuckles a little longer.

is America being dumbed down?
can`t we read what we choose?
it`s our money.
just look at the language today.what a discust and i quite school in the 5th grade.
because we think we have lost the need to read.
THE NEW LANGUAGE May BE------DIS and DAT and a few adodas.
NOT MUCH MONEY IN THAT.
UNLESS IT`S IT`S DATA.

This cover page is right on! Obama is the true modern day Manchurian Candidate I don't care what color the candidate is, just that both the President and the First Lady are proud to be Americans first.., not just for personal gain.

My concern is not what intelligent U.S. voters will conclude from the New Yorker cartoon but that the large numbers who would never read the New Yorker or even see it, will be influenced by conservative talk show hosts who will tell them about it. The commentators will tell the gullible that the cartoon proves you can't trust Obama, that he really is an undercover threat who should not be president. The potential of destroying a man politically by spreading false stories was demonstrated by what happened to Kerry and Dukakis.

The cartoon was intended to make sophisticated readers laugh about it. Its unintended effect is to endanger Obama's campaign to create confidence. candidac

This cover made ink because the religious conservative republican left (or is it right? I always get confused when people dodge arguments by using 'the left' or 'the right') is running scared. And I hope to god (even though there is no god) the sheeple are smart enough to know better the 3rd time around.

9/11 was an inside job by our own government to justify invading Iraq so we can steal their oil, and the repubs are doing everything they can to make people hate 'teh mooslims.'

This is sickening and i'm embarassed to be white right now.

"Don't judge a book (or a magazine) by its cover."

The New Yorker cover is racist, in extremely poor taste, and is an affront to New Yorkers who survived 9/11. Insensitive hardly covers this sophmoric bit of non-humor. Such a Cover trivializes the importance of the challenges we are facing as a nation. Tastelessly mocking a presidential candidate (despite the unconvincing claims it isn't mockery of the Obamas) is both juvenile and a waste of a valuable resources, the voice and credibility of a normally well respected magazine.

Banks are failing for the first time since the 1930s, forclosures are rampant, stock prices are tumbling, consumer confidence is very low and gas is high, faith in the future is falling like dominoes all over America.

If satire was the aim of the New Yorker........ perhaps a more appropriate satirical Cover would have been Bush fiddling while America burns to the ground, with Cheney gleefully pouring gas on the flames.

"DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK (OR A MAGAZINE) BY ITS COVER"

I thought it was funny!

If the New Yorker is this tasteless to Obama, what on earth do they have planned for McCain? It will no doubt be even worse. I am a long term subscriber, and the New Yorker makes no secret of its leftist leanings. What is next?

Mr. Remnick reaches when he justifies this cover as a response to "lies that have fed into the politics of fear." Might Orson Welles have said the same about "War of the Worlds"? Or perhaps this is just retro Tina Brown moment at The New Yorker?

Right on......All one has to do is read his books to see where this wannabe is coming from...can't seem to find a Christian church he can relate to...once a Muslim...always a Muslim.

Does anyone have a copy they aren't keeping??? Please forward any cancelled subscriptions my way.

I am still waiting for the News of J Jackson's comments of which they are covering-up. I am surprised the Times didn't have Obama's nut's hanging too.

I do not support Obama so I think this is great and makes people think
about who he really is. If Hillary could take all that was thrown at her, then
Obama should be able to take the heat esp. since he may be President.
He will have many bridges to cross before and if he is elected.
Hillary supporter!
I am going out to buy the New Yorker just for the cover, but I do like the magazine!!

This makes me so sad. . .I'm totally canceling my subscription. This was not only in poor taste and bad form, but further perpetuates the negativity it supposedly seeks to dispel.

Shame on you, New Yorker.

"My concern is not what intelligent U.S. voters will conclude from the New Yorker cartoon but that the large numbers who would never read the New Yorker or even see it, will be influenced by conservative talk show hosts who will tell them about it."

Paul, and this demographic of American voters you describe and are concerned with - how likely are they to vote for Obama in the first place? Aren't they already most likely to vote for a Republican candidate anyway? And it's not as if the conservative talk show hosts haven't already talked about Obama in terms of what's depicted on the cover - so I'm not sure what the logic is to not have satire. Admittedly, it was not a successful attempt at it, and it was targeted at a crowd that's in on the joke. And the cover is not providing any *new* material to conservative talk show hosts that they haven't already said.

This reminds me of Nazi caricatures of Jews. So this is what the New Yorker has come to. You are too "sophisticated" for me. Were the Nazis' caricatures irony?

I cancelled our subscription. I hope Mr Hersh publishes elsewhere as I've enjoyed his pieces over the years.

Ah Bill, finally, at comment # 356, Godwin's Law is invoked. :-)

Don't cancel your subscription - I'll be happy to take it over for you.

Very truthful cartoon...May be it will open eyes of some naive babies and professors.

When I glimsed the cover of The New Yorker at first I snickered, then I chuckled, and then I laughed! That cartoon hit the nail on the head about every hateful imagery the left wing have spewed over the airways and placed in the heads of the undecided white voters.
But at the same time It also ask the questions that need to be ask! Take off the kit gloves when it comes to Barack Obama folks.
It's a fact He was born and raised a Muslim; why is he not a Muslim now? Is the reason spiritual or political?
How does he feel about America being he's a first generation immigrant's son? He has no Black American ancestors living here. His ancestors are from Africa and were not slaves in America and who knows if they didn't sell other Africans to the European slave traders.
His ancestors did not go through the lynching and hanging in the south during reconstruction, or the termoil of the 60's civil rights movements or the Assinations of our most trusted leaders Malcom X, MLK, or the Kennedys. Michelle Obama can wear the Affro and tote the gun but what part of Black America does he represent being he was raised an African muslim?
And what would he do if Osama Bin Laden was captured on his watch? Hmmm!
How would he and his wife represent America when foreign dignataries come to visit. What would they serve for dinner? Chitlin's
As satirical as the cartoon is and it is funny.. people! I would also like to know the answer to the questions the cartoon ask.

I am apalled by the New Yorker cover. This goes beyond satire. It is inflammatory. I urge everyone to boycott this magazine and to cancel your subscriptions.

Has anyone out there ever read Swift? He suggested that the British eat Irish babies...Why? The literary term for this type of humor and irony is called SATIRE.

The New Yorker magazine, especially this ingenious political cartoonist, created an excellent and insightful version of satire. It is, however, disconcerting, that so many media "experts" and political analysts think so little of the American people--these propagandists push their own agendas and biases, and they treat us with such monumental condescension.

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, among other uniquely Amercian rights. I have noticed, as has much of the quiet public, that many of the ultra liberals, while they bellow for more rights and more taxes, seem to believe that their beliefs are always superior to ours. If the rights of a small minority outweigh the rights of the majority, the idea of a true democracy is dead.

If the New Yorker had depicted an ugly, offensive and inaccurate political cartoon about President George Bush, the liberals--especially those who deify Obama--would have endorsed and lauded the magazine.

It is my fervent hope that whatever retaliation occurs against John McCain, that the magazine does remember that McCain, unlike Barrack Obama, served his country and risked his life for almost six years in a vile and cruel concentration camp in Viet Nam called Hanoi Hilton. Whatever may be said of McCain, he is a true American hero, and he, as Tom Hanks said, "returned with Honor."

Very imaginative indeed! Barack should hire Barry Blitt right away and have him help the campaign by drawing cartoons of Republicans silliness.

Perhaps New Yorker subscribers are intelligent enough to get it, but most people aren't. The nuance and depth of satire like that isn't caught by our 5 second sound-bye fox "news" audience.

I'm a long time NYer subscriber and usually admire their boldness. I WISH I was less cynical so I could believe what editor David Remnick said about critics of the cover underestimating the intelligence of the American people, but I think the average Joe or Joella, should they ever even happen to pick up a copy of this magazine, will just see the depiction of Obama and his wife at face value and it will confirm the same irrational fears of "otherness" the Republicans are trying to foster. In fairness: howzabout that same wit and satire applied on the NEXT cover to war-mongering, ancient, loose-cannon McCain??

Tasteless, offensive, prejudice...etc... but quite accurate

Remember who DID NOT salute the flag during the national anthem

Remember who would not wear an American Flag pin as it is offensive to other repressed nations.

Remember who is not proud to be an American and admitted it.

Wake-up people ...

I am shocked...we call this freedom of speech...I believe that the New Yorker Magazine just opened a can of worms they they won't be able to control. How fast have we "Amercans forgotten 911. Have we forgotten or military men and women at war...We are a sad bunch and this country is such a joke....Only in America

The reptilian underbelly of gutter swirl profile politics has slithered on the editorial pages of modern day journalism leaving a trail of distaste, disgust and mistrust of what used to be iconic media status of respectable and responsible journalism.
A sad day of the media. Some people just don't know where to draw the line between editorial sensational media gutter garbage and good editorial sound judgement. A few resignations may be in order from those responsible for smearing gutter mud swirl on the banner of freedom of the press and shredding good editorial judgement versus low taste perverted satirical comedy to control the damage the media credibility has suffered.
The red flags on this “...journalistic boo boo...” is egg on the faces of all those that had their laughs around the editor's coffee table when he approved this cartoon picture of the politics of fear.
Word on the street is that some media agencies have no respect for the good taste of their subscribers and that such media agencies have a hidden agenda to brainwash targeted sectors of the community so that they can impose a predetermined mindset that is stereotyped to be offensive distasteful and down right mean and dirty.
There was a serious breech of good sound judgement by the editorial department of the New Yorker Magazine.
Were a few giggles and laughs around the cartoonist's coffee meeting table worth it?
This hidden agenda to derail Barak Obama and Michelle Obama's respectablity is downright dirty and mean and represents the reptilian underbelly of gutter journalism .
People have integrity and high moral standards and are tired of trashy journalism.
If certain media agencies want to continue to sensationalize swirl and stereotype certain high profile people including Barak and Michelle Obama with patchwork profiling that stretches the credibilty of good journalism just for a few giggles and a few laughs by a few staff members employed by such media agencies, then mass cancellations of subscriptions to bankrupt trashy journalism may be the panacea to such irresponsibility.
Respect should not be just a by word. Moral principles should not be compromised for a few laughs in some demented twisted dark rabid hatred and tormented pseudo sanctuary of respectability of bygone centuries.
Falling standards shred and tatter the banner of respectabilty and corrupt responsible journalism and throws gutter mud on the respectability and patriotism of all American citizens and is disrespectful and downright mean and dirty to all patriots and American citizens including Barak and Michelle Obama .
Time for a change in Editorial policy . Freedom of the press can only be a defence for good accurate responsible journalism and not for bad inaccurate irresponsible journalism that is devisive and incites racial prejudice and is a threat to tasteful respectful and credible journalism. Errol Smythe.

I love it! Finally a accurate representation in print. Why is his middle name, Hussein, not publicized, liberal censorship or sophistry?

"Mission Accomplished" At least in the circulation department. Here in Tucson, a copy of this classic cannot be found.
If the caricatures were not so accurately portrayed this message would be merely entertaining, not almost frightening. How can such a seemingly large portion of potential voters even pretend to support this charlatan?
The New Yorker lost its way years ago, but has stumbled on a new ploy. Outrage for the few NY fans who survive. Pathetic tactics. Pathetic subject. Pathetic situation.

You ALL remind me of the so called "radical" muslims getting ALL worked up and protesting CARTOONS in Denmark. OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE!!!

Everyone who made a negative statement toward Obama and his wife are just threated by a strong black man and woman. All yall hater need to sit back and relax ( and not be afraid of change) Thanks to you guys poor judgement for our recent president the world than when to HELL and never came back. And for you The New Yorker, I guess yall little brains did not have anything better to do but to make a joke toward the expense of others. When yall be out of a job I bet any amount of money yall will be voting for the one yall made fun of on the cover.

PEACE

Regardless of any negative blowback to Obama I don't think The New Yorker is too upset. They are a business after all and they did sell every copy of the magazine in question in record time. Also if you visit their store site you'll find matted and framed copies of the cover alone for $100-280.00. Sounds to me as if they're doing pretty well.

The man won't say the Pledge; won't say in God we trust (even muslims have a god, right?) and there is some question about him being an actual US citizen. Satire or not, I think they got it right. Originally I liked some of what he said, but the more I hear about his background and work accomplishments (only 126 days in congress in how many years?), the more I dread thinking he might get in.

I want to express my pleasure to the many who posted. I thought Fox News and talk radio would have been blamed immediately. It took 24 posts before that happened.

THIS IS HILAROUS GO MCCAIN

I think Barack Obama will win put I have seen the polls and it does not look good. do you think Jhon Mccain will win the popular vote but Obama wil still win