Barack Obama and John McCain: New Yorker cover is 'tasteless and offensive'

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign is furious over a New Yorker mag cover illustration of a Muslim-garbed Obama fist-bumping his wife, Michelle, wearing an Angela Davis afro, a camo jumpsuit, and a rifle slung over her shoulder. An American flag burns in the fireplace.

Obama's camp calls it "tasteless and offensive." So for that matter does presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain's camp.

The New Yorker insists it's just satire.

The issue, which goes on sale Monday, contains a story about Obama’s political beginnings in Chicago politics. The New Yorker press release says: " ‘The Politics of Fear’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

OK, but does everyone get that? I mean, average folks, outside of the select, elitist group of highly educated, intellectually superior (irony alert) New Yorker readers?

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

According to Politico, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds e-mailed, “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.” Hmmm. Do I hear a suppressed gleeful smile? According to an AP story, McCain told reporters that he had seen the cover on a television report and that he agreed with the Obama campaign.

"I think it’s totally inappropriate and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive," McCain said.

What do you think of the New Yorker's Obama cover? Is it a satirical commentary on election-year scare tactics, incendiary racism or just in poor taste and designed to increase magazine sales? Kinda like that Miley Cyrus bare-back photo in Vanity Fair.

Click here to read a thorough and thoughtful perspective by intrepid Top of the Ticket blogger Andrew Malcom on the cover, the controversy and what it may mean to the Obama supporters. HInt: antacids.

Photo: cover courtesy of New Yorker.

Comments

[theRealIssue]

The cover is insensitive, tasteless and about as amusing as 9/11!

[jbdsm]

If it was the same picture but with me in it, I'd be offended, too. I'm sure it caught a lot of people off guard.

[Tracy]

I am highly offended by this depiction of Obama and believe the New Yorker intended to defame and ridicule him in the eyes of the American public. I believe the New Yorker is guilty of defamation and libel and should be sued. The definition follows:
Libel is published material meeting three conditions:

the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly;
the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and,
the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published, as distinguished from slander.

[Chris Troy]

LOL. Did John McCain make these statements with a straight face? I don't believe for one second he and his crew aren't savoring this.

[nilda]

it is awful and racsist come give that man a chance

[James McDouglas]

I'll be waiting for their cover with McCain up on the cross for how he uses his fake Christianity and his time as a POW to score political points.

Or their cover with Bush dressed up as a sadistic priest from the Spanish Inquisition, using his self-righteous brand of Christianity to legitimize torturing people.

Or Lieberman in a skull cap with curly sideburns and a machine gun blazing away like Rambo in the deserts of Palestine.

Oh wait... those things are offensive to white people.

They have no place on the covers of major magazines in America.

That space in America is reserved for mocking people who happen to be the same color as Black Panthers and Arab militants.

America's racist double standard on display for all the world to see.

Congrats New Yorker.

[nilda]

it is awful and racsist come give that man a chance

[Bridget]

It's the New Yorker ... it's so obvious it's just satire.

[d.lee]

It's about time someone printed this. No one was touching this subject because they were afraid of getting dirty. And Obama is getting away clean because he is black, didn't serve in the army, has no real experience. Would you give a CEO position to someone who just came out of college and has no real experience? If NO, then why would you give a college grad. a position of CEO to the most powerful country in the world?

[fred]

The truth at last!
Regardless of their liberal intent, the lefties at New Yorker once again show their elitist density.

[Edna]

Geez, it was supposed to be SATIRE. People are having a fit over something designed to highlight the precise phenomenon they are having a fit over. Too bad so few people have the brain power to understand SATIRE.

[Jeffrey]

Just missing McCain and the rest of the Keating 5 sitting around the fire playing poker with blue chips.

[Paul]

The Picture tells it all. No need to elaborate...get used to it!

[Michael]

Oh, perhaps we can ignore the constitution and start banning things that hurt our feelings? Socialism, here we come!

[Robert Powell]

I've been a reader of NY for years, and their cartoonists always find a way to do something incredible like this. This is a great cartoon, but not for a cover, this is highly offensive to put on a cover with no explanation, they should know better.

[Ted Rogers]

The cover is absurd. It is a fear mongering divisive stunt by a magazine I used to respect.

[Art Peterson]

It must have come from warped thinking. It certainly is not creative or appropriate

[kevoh]

I dont see why they are so upset, Mrs. O hates america as much as the next radical Muslim, and as for Mr. Barack HUSSAIN Obama, i think the name says it all

[clear voice]

Is it really offensive?
If you are not of the faith or have no ties, you should just shrug your shoulders and go on your way.
You have something to say?
You must be feel ties to the picture. Was it the wrong color turban? Was your wife's rifle not big enough. Maybe you were missing your suicide belt...

[shane]

it is just a joke. I got it. the people who bought in to all that was spread around the net will think it is real. but the rest of us will see it as the joke it was meant to be.

[Ronaldo]

Screw the New Yorker Magazine forevermore! Nobody, could be so stupid to publish this crap. This is a calculated attack, pandering to all the fear politics of today. I'll say it again; Screw the New Yorker Magazine!

[roseman]

Would it be satire if we showed a copy of the New Yorker magazine burning in a fireplace?

[JL]

The New Yorker routinely prints satirical cartoons on the cover. This is nothing new. My bet is that when they decided to print this one, they didn't anticipate the storm of infotainment from the "news" media that would follow.

Most New Yorker readers will look at it, chuckle, and go to the table of contents. ABC, CBS, Fox etc will instead try to make a controversy out of it, move real news about real issues off the front page to make room, and consume millions of tons of oxygen windbagging and bloviating it to death with their useless, blathering talking heads.

[C. M. Harding]

Definitely "tasteless and offensive." Such a cover blights the magazines reputation and calls into question the judgment of those in charge. I won't be buying such a publication. "Average America" is tired of the manipulative motivations of politicians, the news media, and "Hollywood" entertainment.

[colin barton]

the new yorker cover borders on being a hate crime. the new nazi symbol is osama bin laden and his crew. the new yorker editor and publisher should go on trial for hate crimes, and i hope they rot in a cell for 20 years.