Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

If Muslim Obama New Yorker cover's outrageous, check these out

Our friends over or up or wherever they are on the Entertainment section of took one look at today's new New Yorker magazine cover and plunged into researching nine other outrageous magazine covers that are rather eye-popping.

Thousands have read The Ticket's report from yesterday on the either incendiary or satirical cover of the Obamas -- Barack and Michelle -- in Muslim/freedom fighter gear, armed to the teeth, in the Oval office beneath an Osama bin Laden portrait while they burn the American flag. Other than that, what's to get excited about? That Ticket item is right here.

The new cover story photo gallery is also a hoot -- many political, some not. Remember the Yoko Ono/naked John Lennon cover that made you want to take a shower? Is peace political? Or the Time magazine cover story about Bill Clinton's extra-curricular troubles that perhaps accidentally had a pair of devil's horns coming out of his head?

There's Entertainment Weekly's nude Dixie Chicks cover after they said those naughty things overseas about President Bush and lost so much of their music sales in Tennessee and Texas.

Our personal favorite is the cover story in Vanity Fair titled "Is Barbara Bush as Tough as They Say?" that had a nicely-dressed photo of Demi Moore on the cover instead of the former first lady. Demi, Barbara, hey, it probably made sense at the design meeting. Except when you look closely at the photo, that's really not much of a suit on the Demster.

We actually recommend two places to check out. One is our blogging colleague Elizabeth Snead, over at Dish Rag, who's a lovely lady unless you're a celebrity and since we're not, she's good and has an alternative New Yorker cover some might like better.

And the other spot is the aforementioned, semi-political photo gallery, which you can access by clicking on the also aforementioned New Yorker cover below.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments () | Archives (82)

The comments to this entry are closed.


Satire has been a political and social tool for thousands of years, but the New Yorker cover is not satire. It looks more like Nazism.

Your article about the top 10 mag covers says "attempts at fun-natured satire are sure to be lost on the involved parties." There's no fun here. There's no satire here. And yes, my sense of humor is just fine, thank you.

Truly inexplicable.

Hilarious. The attack here isn't on the Obamas.

It's on the meatheads who believe that this really shows who they are.

And right on cue, you right-wing nuts show up and say things like "Democrats can't take it, stop whining." "They showed Bush negatively." "Good for them for showing them like they really are."

YOU are the butt of the joke here. Not the Obamas. Thanks for stretching out the laughs.

The New Yorker takes a high level of cognition to 'get it.' Try subscribing sometime. Might engage the ol' melon more than, say, a 30-second sound bite from Faux News or a 30-minute tirade from your windbag Limbaugh.

The Obamas will represent the United States with more grace, vision, humility, and LEADERSHIP than this country has suffered in nearly 50 years.

No one has mentioned that yet, and amid the braying and bellowing, I felt it important.

For background I'm a (very)n occasional New Yorker reader, and I just looked at the cover again - and laughed out loud.

I think we can all get over this one and take a look at how much money we all owe because the executive branch took a wild, fratboy hayride through the mideast on our dime during this administration.

Then picture Bush riding a dead elephant across a broken amusement-park/oil derrick punctuated landscape with open fires on the horizon.

Maybe the Derricks are inverted crosses, perhaps they're connected with razor-wire and fencing with machine guns mounted along side.

Put that on the cover of Vanity Fair and see what the reaction is...

The squealing of the Republicants would interrupt submarine communications worldwide.

Lots of noise, no net effect.

More amusing than the economy, though!


Cerebral filth.

The current definition of freedom of the press is for the owners (neighbors to the top politicians and wealthy, and sending their kids to the same unaffordable [for most] schools) to be able to include whatever will help them and their buddies continue to remain in power and add to their ever-growing wealth and influence.

Who needs the Swift Boaters when you've got The New Yorker? To the New Yorker Editor: Your smug satire has backfired. Take it off the stands.

All your examples of controversial covers did NOT COME CLOSE to the ugliness depicted on The New Yorker. The Dixie Chicks themselves posed for that picture.It was THEIR CHOICE! Barbara Bush was not depicted naked dressed in body paint. Demi did and it was HER CHOICE!
John Lennon and Yoko Ono posed for that picture. THEIR CHOICE!
Michelle and Barack were CARICATURED in the cruel cartoonish way middle schoolers do to make fun of their worst enemies.
The high brow New Yorker apparently has the heart of a cruel adolescent.

By visually representing several of the rumors that we all know have been spread about the Obamas, I think the cover shows the silliness of these false claims and the cowardice, ignorance, and malaciousness of the forces behind their propogation.

strange, weird, schizo? - how the same people who cheered bush publicly though verbatim, to his burning of the american constitution, and are supporting those actively engaged in selling them out this very moment (see FISA etc) - and the long list of traitors knows no party divide, and includes those they would attribute with integrity, as well as those they would demonize - will now tremble in paranoia at the sight of a caricature depicting an arabic if the candidates pushed on them had not been vetted and carefully picked and groomed for their very qualifications, i.e. their complete lack thereof; as if these phony candidates running for a puppet presidency, and whom many people will unquestioningly accept as theirs despite this, rejecting and ignoring the legitimate and qualified ones (like RON PAUL, with integrity and viable solutions to the country's problems), could do or would do anything that was not scheduled for them and approved by their bosses, or not consistent with their agenda. the only change either of the frauds offered to the people to choose from can bring about, is colorful delusions, dreams to believe in to fill people up with hope while stealing their liberties, their wealth and future, right from their hands. time to look to the real mccoy?

Many white Americans are so racist, they will not vote for a non-white candidate, no matter how well-qualified; they are also so cowardly that they will scour the earth to find a stealth reason to justify their bigoted decision.


Maybe the Satire is about the People; not Obama, seems like we need to evaluate our perceptions. Do you think that might be why the public reaction seems so strong?

Have we become so stupid in this country as not to recognize...satire?

All of the negative comments about publication the New Yorker's cover of of our next president and his wife speak to my condition.The cartoon is in execrable taste and certainly is not satire. I think perhaps that the worst thing about the cover is that it is sophomoric. This speaks poorly of The New Yorker's editorial judgment which is not surprising to me. This is the magazine that I loved to throw across the room in fits of disgust as I watched its decline in the the fifty years that I have been more or less reading it.

H Bosch

i bet if the new yorker (if they haven't already done this) made a cover of george bush morphed into a monkey or looking like an idiot no one would complain.....

liberals are cry-babies....

the cover would have been better if they drew obama running back n forth on a political teeter-totter with radical libs whining on the left, religious fanatics hollering on the right and average americans sitting in the middle getting sea-sick and bailing off

1. It is funny.
2. It is pro-Obama, not anti-.
3. Some people need to lighten up.

As POTUS, Senator Obama will be subject to far more viscious attacks than humor by some supporters. If he can't take it, maybe we still need to send Hillary. Wouldn't it be funny to see Bill putting on her slippers and acting obedient while in the background Monica is peaking around the door in a negligee?

There really isn't a candidate until after the roll call is taken, right?

Since my comments were not posted the first time around....

If you don't want to be portrayed as a sympathizer of Muslim terrorists, try not sympathizing with Muslim terrorists. if you don't want to be portrayed as an Angela Davis wannabe, try not talking like Angela Davis.

Senator Obama is running for the Presidency of the United States of America. Whether the cover of The New Yorker was satirical, supposed to be satirical, or an attempt to send some other message is merely representative of the tip of the iceberg.

During this campaign, and, if he is elected to the office of the Presidency, even after his inauguration, these types of images will continue and even be worse. And they will not be relegated to just being published in the United States, such images, and worse, will be published world-wide.

He and his wife . . . and his supporters need to get thick-skinned. If they, or you, find this offensive, get over it. He put his hat in the ring and he shouldn't expect to be handled with kid-gloves. Politics, if he hadn't caught on to it by now, is mean. Its a pit of snakes. And politically correctness just don't work in a pit of snakes. No one's going to care one iota about his feelings, the feelings of his wife or anyone close to him now that he's in the political arena.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

"Not satirical. Not funny. Not smart."
--On the nose there.

The reason the cover is "not funny" is because it is not smart or responsible. It would be great if in America we could joke about stupid people thinking the Obama's are muslims or if we could just write-off the unenlightened masses of Americans who don't understand how in America one man's "good old days" is another man's Jim Crow.

It is irresponsible because we have nuts in America who think it is okay to joke about a potential American President being assassinated. This image does nothing but stoke the irrational fears of dangerously crazy people who don't take African-Americans seriously as presidential candidates, citizens, and dare I say as human beings. You don't have to read a history book to know that -- just watch the debates to see which candidate had to have Secret Service agents on stage with him.

New Yorker editor Remick says that the cover is satire "like The Colbert Report." Colbert makes fun of right wing tools. This cover doesn't make fun of anyone.There is no context. In satire, you typically don't ridicule the target of lies and hate by repeating the lies and hate out of context. In an image heavy world, the New Yorker has generated a horrible Karl Rove dream image of Mr.Obama and his wife. The New Yorker editorial staff must be so ensconced in the bubble of the New York "snob/art" scene that they don't realize what they have done. One can only imagine the meeting where this cover was unveiled and the conversation they had in reviewing and giving the green light to this idiocy. Is there anyone on the mag who is not rich and white? I have subscribed to the New Yorker for many years. If Remick had apologized I would consider continuing to subscribe. But his response speaks volumes. They just don't get it.

Liberals are a bitter, humorless bunch. No one must gaze upon the Dalai Bama. He is too pure. Since when is satire out of bounds in American politics? Is this your first rodeo? Maybe there is a government program that can provide you with a clue. Just Google "bush hitler" or "mccain nazi" and then get back to me. Not only a thin skin, but no skin. This guy is an amateur. No touchy the Messiah.

"The only reason the Obama campaign and those of us who support him are so disappointed by the cover is that it hits too close to home; not that he is Muslim, but that so many ignorant people - even well educated ones, believe that he is"

and if "so many ignorant people" believe he IS muslim, why would that disappoint you!?!?!?!

simply because he is not? or because being a muslim is synonymous with being evil? who cares if people think he is muslim? there's no crime in that!

Effective Satire requires Irony and Wit, both of which are missing from this cover. It is not like "the Colbert Report in print," it is more like "Dick Cheney with a hunting rifle." Like a bad comedian telling the wrong joke at the wrong time in the wrong way, they offended their audience and are rightly getting booed off the stage. GONG!

I *heart* Barry Blitt!

I am giving the link where you can buy a print of the New Yorker’s Obama cover in archival quality, matted and framed, as well as, boxed cards (in sets of 20) for only $29.99 that they will even personalize for you.

If you REALLY love this cover, you can get it in 24″ x 30″ poster size as well.

If I were a GOP supporter and had already given the max to McCain, I would buy these boxed card sets and have them personalized to send to all of my friends

Brilliant! Bravo New Yorker and Barry Blitt!


I Love it! I'm signing up for my subscription today!!

Wake up people....Obama makes his own reputation. He is anti-American in all he does!

I'm sorry, I could never support anyone who makes such a mockery of the Christian religion, or demonstrates such disrespect for the American Flag and our Great Country's National Anthem....Obama's done all three......

Go Red, White and Blue
God Bless the USA!!!

20 years from now, even 100 years from now that picture will hang in a museum all around the world, appear in a textbook, and become part of the living proof of the racist history of the United States of America that is still prevalent in 2008. Its a big joke to some of you now but try looking further ahead. Thanks New Yorker.

So what if the guy is a Muslim ?Better that we know now
before the election.We can decide accordingly. Why the
Obama gave his blessings to those protestant Order of
orange marchers in Northern Ireland is one other good
reason to vote against him. His closeness to that radical
Rev. Ian Paisley baffles the mind....but then he is famous
for picking the feisty extremists when it comes to pastors. This guy will clinch defeat from the jaws of
victory just like that other flip flopper Kerry.Hey, one
Joseph Stalin per millenium is enough.

What I don't understand is why people must make 'being Muslim' out to be the worst thing in the world. There are over a million Muslims in the United States (some studies say over 2 million), and Islam is the second largest religion in the world. It is also growing at a rate of 2.9% per year, which is faster than the rate at which the total world population grows (2.3%). With so many Muslims out there, the majority of which are peace-loving and caring individuals, it is unfair to use Senator Obama's possible Muslim background as a negative aspect of him. Even if some of his family members are Muslims, how is that detrimental to his ability to lead the U.S.? Personally, I believe that would only strengthen his abilities, because it would allow him to understand the Muslims living in his country and around the world better than any other U.S. president has ever been able to. And I do not mean the kind of so-called "Muslims" being portrayed by the American media that are really just dangerous extremists that use Islam as an excuse without having any true Islamic beliefs. If they were true Muslims, they would understand that Islam is a religion of peace.
Also, the clothes on this depiction of Senator Obama which people are referring to as 'Muslim clothing' are traditional clothes worn by some people from countries such as Saudi Arabia. However, Muslims in Europe, Asia (including Iran), North and South America, Africa, etc. do not wear that type of clothing; they wear clothes relevant to the culture of the country in which they are living, just like any other human being. It is therefor incorrect to label such clothes as 'Muslim clothes'.
Please, try to understand other people, especially people that make up so huge a percentage of the world's population. It is only hurting you and others like you when you refuse to set stereotypes aside and learn for yourself about your fellow Americans and human beings.

I am a hard-core liberal, if that makes any sense. I laughed out loud when I saw the cover. If anyone fails to see the irony in the cover, they are obviously idiots.

I really don't think we need to perpetuate division and racism within our country. I'm truly appalled by the cover, especially since it doesn't convey any truth and tends to endorse misconceptions.

Concerned Citizen from the Mid West

Bottom Line: The New Yorker Magazine must need to increase its circulation or it wouldn't have published this cover which it knew would be controversial. This cover says more about the magazine than about the Obamas.

I can’t understand why any intelligent person is upset by this depiction….
Let’s keep in mind that both M. and B. Obama have made it obvious and abundantly clear on just who and what they are…..
Right on New Yorker Magazine…..

As a member of The New Yorker's intended target market, I 'got' the cover (even sending a 'right on' to Barry Blitt for being one of the most talented satirical cartoonists around today--his Ahmedinejad getting toe-tapped cover is one of my favorites) and didn't even really think twice about it after my initial chuckle.

What astounds and offends me is the staggering display here among the commentors of an extreme level of denseness (on the part of pro-Obamans who are deeply offended by this cover) and stupidity (displayed by those who are saying 'I knew it, he's a terrorist!')

People, the Obamas are not the ones being made fun of here!! Helloooo, McFly!!!

I can't stop reading these comments. It's like watching a train wreck. I am appalled that, as a previous commentor suggested, it seems our populace is indeed brain dead.

« | 1 2


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: