Is the New Yorker's Muslim Obama cover incendiary or satire?

There are always at least two sides to everything in politics. The up-side for Barack Obama of the persistent controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black militancy and racist sermons was that it sure drove home the point to millions of thinking voters that the Illinois senator was attending a Christian church, which countered the even-more persistent online rumors about Obama being Muslim.

Remember the native costume photo that was or was not promulgated by the Hillary Clinton campaign way back when she thought she had a chance to win the nomination? It's still going around online.

But now comes another unwelcome development for Obama's camp.

The cover of this week's New Yorker magazine depicts Obama in one-piece Muslim garb and headdress fist-bumping his booted, Afro-wearing wife Michelle in camo clothes with an AK-47 and ammo-belt slung over her shoulder beneath a portrait of Osama bin-Laden while the American flag burns in the fireplace -- in the presidential Oval Office.

It's got everything incendiary except a vest bomb. Which is what should telegraph to most people that it's way over-the-top and, therefore, satire.

But politicians don't like satire because it's subject to differing interpretations.

Obama declined comment today, seeking not to elevate its importance. But, in a move that certainly drew more attention to a commercial decision with no hope of changing it, his campaign issued a statement by Bill Burton which Mike Allen of Politico.com reported as, "“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."

The McCain campaign immediately e-mailed a similar statement from Tucker Bounds: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

Of course, the McCain people must say that, despite some staff no doubt chuckling behind closed doors over their opponent's new challenge. That's the problem with satire. A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't the New Yorker's fault.

A problem is there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone gets the ha-ha-we've-collected-almost-every-cliched-rumor-about-Obama-in-one-place-in-order-to--make-fun-of-them punchline.

So you'll no doubt see this image making the internet rounds in coming months by people who don't want to see the satire. And won't include the magazine's press release saying, "“On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘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.”

In that issue is a non-satirical piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama's political start in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune respected columnist Clarence Page, an African American, said he found the cover "quite within the normal bounds of journalism."

Little doubt the incendiary magazine cover accomplished its intent of attracting attention on an otherwise slow-news summer Sunday. It'll probably sell more magazines too. And more Mylanta for the Obama offices.

--Andrew Malcolm

(By the way here's the actual article that goes with this satirical/incendiary cover. Warning: It's very long.)

Comments

[John Stephens]

Definetely satire. Its only offensive to those who can get attention from it.

[:-)]

Leave it to NYC to "ahem" uncover the truth about Obama. Well done. Thank you!

[Michael]

The problem with this "satire" is the form. If it was put in context (let's say, it was on a canvas being painted by Karl Rove or a stereotype of someone who might believe the rumors), now that's satire of the rumor. However, generally when an editorial cartoon dresses up a person (Engelhart over at the Courant comes to mind - Gov. Rell as Snow White, former Gov. Rowland's weathervane beanie), it is meant to satirize the person.

It's one thing to be in the editor's room and have the satire explained to you, and then say, "Well, I get it now, that'll work." It's another when you are reading the paper (which should stand on its own - no paper should require being explained by a press release!). You know how some college newspapers have published horribly out-of-bounds "satires"? I bet it's because the editors rationalize the decision so they don't feel anti-1st-Amendment and so they can use the material their staff creates.

With art, the artist can be snobby and say, "This is the correct interpretation." With the media, the people interpret it, so the editors can't play tricks on the people. Because if the people miss it, and it's not April Fool's Day, the editors don't win anything.

[Tom J]

I didn't realize Rupert Murdoch had bought The New Yorker.

That's a satirical comment referring to his 'fair and balanced' Fox News - you think everyone will get it? Or..."A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't my fault."

[David Adams]

Aw, c'mon, are we going to get into the same frenzy as the so-called muslim fanatics do every time they see a cartoon they don't like? This is America and satire is our best form of FREE SPEECH.
Lighten up, Obamamaniacs - and just shut up McCainiacs!

[Adrien Vargas]

Racism is as American as apple pie. I'm saddened that such a tasteless image is going to be given so much publicity. I'll never read the New Yorker again.

[TJ]

Standing alone, it is probably incendiary. In context with the accompanying article, it is probably satire.

With America's "fast food" news for info, many will never read the article and, instead, use the cover to promote their own ill-informed opinions, either pro or con Obama.

Who really cares? It is too late. Articles such as what is inside this magazine should have been printed during the primaries. People should have been given slow cooked, full course buffets of information with which to make their choice. Now the choice of the 2 is abysmal. The campaign is dull. A boring tale of two men with lots of sound and fury about nothing. A stumbling, mumbling press that has been made the biggest loser of all.

[Vinnie From Indy]

I think the New Yorker is full of it! Why is THIS caricature of Obama acceptable? I doubt seriously that The New Yorker would have the cajones to offer a cover of Obama swinging from a tree in Georgia at the end of a rope surrounded by caricatures of McCain, Phil Gramm, Bush and Cheney. There is the rub! Until the New Yorker offers a similar slam against McCain I say they are tasteless, right wing bastards.

[Daniel Neumayer]

But isn't satire supposed to be clever? This cover fails that test.

- Daniel N.

[joseph marcucilli]

What the new yorker should be showing and explaining is the enron loophole and the deregulation of the mortgage industry promoted byGramm and his wife wendy but the public's eyes will glaze over if the need to think about anything substantive.Better to address this cover which has no impact on americans whatsoever.

[Raul Domingo]

The satire is too smart for most people. It's bad enough that Obama sounds so much like Osama. Now this image will be misinterpreted by a lot of people who don't like Obama in the first place. They will say "See the rumors ARE true! It's on the cover of that "Liberal rag" the New Yorker!" Bottomline is people who are supporters of Obama will see it as Satire. It's another story if they will like it or not. My guess is they will not like it one bit. But hey it sells magazines - does it not?

[Jim Martiini]

With Obama, who really knows?

[James McDouglas]

"Hey look how smart we are. We're smart enough to make fun of something that others are making fun of. That's a double super duper secret backwards joke that only smart people who read The New Yorker are smart enough to get. Get it?

And we're so smart we can do it without explaining it. And because we're so smart... it's certainly not racist... smart people like us can't be racist.

Just look at our monacle! We've got a monacle for chrissake! So we can pretty much do or say anything and it's clever...

again, not racist."

-The New Yorker

America is tired of this kind of elitist dumbing down of the political discussion. This isn't clever, it's just the brand of cocktail party circuit humor that appeals to the sorts of columnists they have inside... columnists who are writing about how Obama is dangerous because he's been at the same conference as an academic who thinks AIPAC has too much power over America... an assertion of fact in my opinion by the way.

It shows how out of touch The New Yorker, it's readers, and the people who edit the rag really are... and it hints at their real beliefs and their real political and cultural agenda.

They'd better be careful, lest average Americans catch on to what they're really about and take steps to reject them and what they stand for.

[Chuck-in-Wichita]

Just confirms to me exactly why I would never even visit New York, let alone live there.

I really fail to see the humor in that rag they call a magazine.

I am truly disgusted that they could publish such a thing about a future POTUS.

Shame on you!!!

[jon]

I realize the New Yorker's market, is more to a thinking audience, thus, the intended market will *get* it.
But, I do think they were a bit irresponsible, as they knew how it will be used by the Right-Wing.
Some sort of tag-line would've been appropriate, suggesting its meaning, to those less inclined to thought - - probably a majority of Americans, sadly.

[Sam D]

Niave and reckless on the part of New Yorker - they should and probably do know better - but knew they'd get publicity from doing it.

[H]

Who the heck cares! Is this important? No! Why is the media so fixated on trivial, irrelevant nonsense?

[Paul Stewart]

Tasteless, offensive and plain stupid. It is feeding a stereotype that is completely off base.

[Otis]

This is why from time to time I hate American culture. We all ended up here from some where in the world either by boat, plane or connected land mass. But some how the master races, Hebrews , Whites or Orientals or anyone other than native peoples and African based races outside of Africa, get in there heads that they can produce the most insensitive policies and messages in such opportune and historical moments as if in a vacuum of some sort and call it freedom or a Right. I guess if I depict Yitzhak Rabin in Nazi garb, or Pres. Washington in a compromised position with an American slave, or depict Hiroshima victims as 1930 American Chinese caricatures. It would be considered Free Press, Huh. Lets show Hitler or Ahmadinejad in the form of the crucified Jesus on the cross, savior of the world. Wanna read that article. Care to depict the Pope in some way on a cover of a mag of some sort. Can you say R Kelly. DISGUSTING, SHAMEFUL, LURID, SHAME…SHAME….SHAME. The bottom line is that the abuse, though so artfully rapped in the Bill of Rights and freedom demeans the people. The New Yorker is Garbage and if you disagree imagine your ideal or moment that means something to you personally or your rank and file displayed this way so contrary to reality and see if you can enjoy such blissful detachment from the moment, a moment, some great monumental moment that means a lot to others of greater number, need as to historical, personal and truly national importance. Oh yeah I would never intentionally depict the people, groups or organization mentioned above in such a shabby fashion. Just wanna make a point!!!!

[Ann Shannon]

This is inexcusable. Distasteful and repugnant don't begin to convey the magnitude (or the nature) of the offense here. This cover is obviously designed to sabotage a legitimate and very worthy candidate by adding energy and credibility to the most loathsome expressions of our national political life. It contains no allusion whatever to Obama's right wing detractors. That is impossible for anyone to miss.

[VJ Machiavelli]

If seems that, "Bills & Jesses Monsters of the ID" have taken control of the Editors of the New Yorker. But with that said. If you can't take the heat then get out of the Kitchen. Both campaigns are going to see a lot more of this

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

[Willie Graham]

I don't even have words to describe my feelings about the cover ov the New Yorker, I can only tell you very simply I will never read this paper again.

P.S. To think that one black person feels this is within the limits of being ok, is a major mistake for both the New Yorker and the token black respected columnist. LIke I said, never again. I hope it was worth the many copies and bad press your about to encounter.

Sincerely,

Willie

[Brad Edwards]

Beyond funny. I laughed out loud. After Sen. Obama's spineless performance this week... this strikes me as quite mild. He should be on the cover as the coward he is. That vote this week took away any consideration many democrats had for him being a " man of his word ".
He should be a wolf on the cover hiding under sheeps clothing would be a more accurate depiction of the Sen. who spins and spins and rarely keeps his word or votes with the integrity he so vigorously defends.

[Skip]

Very funny satire! :-O

[Manny Santos]

This is the most disgusting thing Ive ever seen, and this is WAY under the belt!

[Dan (Fitness)]

Clearly satire, of course. To you and me. But there are some who will view that cover as confirmation of the nastier rumors that have been flying around about the candidate.

In one effect its basically a soft push that benefits the Republican whisper campaign.

That said, I in no way condemn it or anything, I just understand why the Obama campaign would want to speak out on the subject.

[Badazzz Backarat]

He's a terrorist, people. A terrorist!!!

[Charlie Lopez]

"Of course, the McCain people must say that, despite some staff no doubt chuckling behind closed doors over their opponent's new challenge. " - Andrew Malcolm

Apparently Andrew Malcolm is a mind reader. He knows what McCain's staff is doing behind closed doors. How does tripe like this poorly written blog make it in a national newspaper like this?

[kim]

"A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't the New Yorker's fault."

It certainly is the New Yorker's responsibility to consider how their material will be used. And that cover is irresponsible, because it will have the effect of propagating all the misinformation about Sen. Obama.

[Chagrined]

Racism and ignorance are synonymous! There is no shortage of racism in America. Many brave people, including African Americans fought, sacrificed and died for
the freedoms that too many insidious ingrates display little respect!

We expect this type of racism from Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and many insidious people on the Right, the ugly Americans, but the New Yorker is supposed to be more cerebral! Shame, Shame!

Chagrined

[Nick Fortis]

Yo, Daniel:

Yup: Satire should be "clever"; it should also be subtle.

That cover is neither.

The folk at New Yorker blew it (A High School newspaper could do better.)

Mercy

Nick F.

[oh boy]

Magazine editor from Manhattan: "Come on, this is satire!"
Average American from Nebraska: "What's satire?"

[Tim McGarry]

Satire sometimes seems a lost art. It's nice to see evidence to the contrary on the cover of the New Yorker. Here's one Obama supporter who couldn't resist a good laugh over it. I think the Senator was wise to decline comment. The campaign brass should have followed suit.

[Jacob Wood]

Of course it's a joke... a terribly racist and offensive joke. I understand what The New Yorker is trying to do, they've just failed miserably at it. The average reader of the magazine will understand the point, the average FOX or CNN viewer that sees the image plastered across their TV screens repeatedly over the next week, purposely referenced out of context by sensationalist members of the TV media, will not. It will have a much different effect on the majority of those who view it than The New Yorker intends.

[Jonathan Cohen]

The people who laughed deserve to burn in Hell. Whats funny about it? Be a real man instead a punk, to the guys who thought that cover was funny. Your mommas boys, and it will come and punch you in that feminine ass of yours- wake up racist. And I'm a Jew.

[DIANE L]

In the above comments, "He's a terrorist people, a terrorist, and "Leave it to NYC to "ahem" uncover the truth about Obama. Well done. Thank you!" we can see the ultimate stupidity in publishing this "satire". People who made the above comments are stupid enough to believe it, and unfortunately, the New Yorker also may have a few readers who don't get it, even if the majority elite do get it. This is a dangerous picture in many ways. It"s tasteless and the satire is missed without the explanation and how many of us have read the explanation? The fact that this newpaper is publishing this may give hope to explain what the satire is supposed to be, but to the average American citizen, who is not all that informed, the magazine leaves the wrong message, and a picture states a thousand words so that the explanation will never be read anyway. Not the best choice you've made "New Yorker".

[Dora Glasberg]

The New Yorker has attempted for years to be contoversal - the Tina Brown influence and the the lame Art Spiegelman student level covers; both ideas and execution.

[tony]

well, i have yet to read the article. nonetheless i think the cover is a hilarious parody of a notion that has been promulgated through the media for months. it's a real laugh that anyone could seriously think that Michelle and Barak are Un-American. the new yorker has created another classic cover - one of the best ever!.

[Jack Lee]

Some folks can't take a joke about their hero--the Obamessiah. It is satire and it is funny with a lot of truth to it. He has been sold as a black version of Paris Hilton in an empty suit. The man has never had a real job or made a tough decision in his life. He is not fit to be a Senator--much less President. HaHo!

[Bev Goddard]

I am shocked and outraged at the incendiary nature of the cover on the New Yorker of Barack and Michelle Obama. I am canceling my subscription immediately. It has the possibility of placing their lives in great danger.

[Reality Check]

Let's see...it's the knuckledragging wingnuts who are being satirized. That won't be so obvious to them. Will someone please tell them? 'Cause they will use this "satire" of their fear-mongering and smear-mongering against the Obamas until the cows come home. They'll even enhance it over and over and over again, turn into an all-occasion smear.

Hey, New Yorker, ever hear the word "backfire"? In case you haven't noticed, wingnuts aren't into nuance.

Dumb, destructive move.

[Jaques]

well what did they expect?! The Osama-Obama coincidence is ironically comical, but less comical is the fact the the leader of Iraq's surname is El Talibani. So we have the leaders of 2 countries with VERY similar last names to their most hated enemies. Conspiracy theories on the back of a post-card, please....

[Enron's Ride of Broken Dreams]

'mmmm, thats good satire'

[Silus]

I have two comments from two different perspectives...

1. Accepting the magazine cover as a work of satire, its one of the worst, most ambiguous illustration I have seen in recent memory. So hiding behind the "satire" rational doesnt necessarily work.

2. Everything displayed in that magazine cover has traction, and Obama has had to spend countless hours separating himself from a perception associated with the things displayed in the illustration. So clearly the cover is doing him no favors. He's screwed.

[rhc]

It’s about time Teflon is striped from the campaign. Thanks

[Matthew]

Have the humorless people here figured out that the artist is lampooning conservatives more than he is Obama?

I don't think it's repugnant or offensive, just not that funny.

Odd. I don't remember so much uproar when Condaleeza Rice was portrayed as little more than a street-walker by the L.A. Weekly.

[J]

Frankly, this cover depicts a no more shocking betrayal than the one Obama has already perpetrated on his supporters on the left. He's already shown his true colors as a right-winger. If he were a crazy fundamentalist, too, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Jimbob]

what has the Mylanta bottle got to do with the article? no description about Mylanta or nuffin'!

(If you'd read the entire item, Jimbo, you'd know.)

[wilderrr]

Only illiterate dumb-as-cows un-American hatemongers will look at this cover and think it actually confirms their weird racist paranoid delusions about Obama.

Unfortunately - looking at the polls for George W McCain - that's about 41% of Americans.

[Margarita]

FINALLY SOMEBODY GOT IT.... WHO SAYS YOU CAN'T ,MAKE FUN OF OBAMA... CONTRARY TO SOME PEOPLE OPINION... HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH.

[William Cornelison]

When will they make a cover showing McCain using a walker and wearing a hospital gown open in the back, with his millionaire, junkie wife stealing drugs from her charity?

[Anne Russell]

The New Yorker should be ashamed of itself. It's a wonderful magazine I read each week, but as an Obama supporter I must protest this "satire" which feeds the prejudices of a large number of voters. It is unfair.

[Derrick Schultzer]

The reaction of Obamamaniacs to this cover art is a preview of what's to come should Obama be elected: if you disagree with Obama, shut up. If you want to poke fun at Obama, it's not funny. If you say anything not approved of by his handlers or his party, don't say it.

Obamamaniacs have no objectivity. And no humor. Which is why they can't see that their candidate is not even the same person who ran for his party's nomination. It's all just about winning now. Could it be that they're afraid of loosening up, because they just might see things about their candidate they don't like?

Actually, I thought this cover was timid. A picture of Obama fist-pumping Cheney, with a photo of Reagan over the mantle and copy of the Constitution in the fireplace ... now that would've been biting!

Derrick

[PumaKAT]

It's just satire. American political cartoons are notorious for being hard-hitting, since wayyyy back when America started.

Why should Obama be immune--he IS a politician. Gimme a break, all those cartoons of Hillary were insane, and none of you seemed to care then. Ah well.

The weird thing about this cover is that it sort of...cuts close to some truths....

Anyway, read the article inside to learn about what an opportunistic ruthless politician Obama is.

It's 15 pages. Wow.

[Carol]

I think the cover's funny. So was the cover of Cheney blowing on his gun after shooting Harry Whittington in the face.

Satire is often tasteless. That's part of what makes it funny.

[Ken]

I suppose by the New Yorker's logic depictiing the Obamas as Little Black Sambo and a crack whore would be harmless satire, too. Good satire never requires explanation -- something which the editor of the New Yorker is busy doing as fast as he can. Their feeble attempt at satire is a blatant racial slur. I am saddened that a magazine I respect so much would exercise such offensive misjudgment.

[Jimmy Jam]

I swear this country is filled with over sensitive idiots, it's a cartoon!!!

[RL]

Hmmm. Remember the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed? So, have we sunk so low in America that we are so incensed and outraged about a cartoon? Wow. This was a great opportunity for both Obama and McCain to show the world that we believe in and honor the freedom of the press. This is a free speech issue. It doesn't matter if you or I appreciate the satire or disagree with the decision to publish this particular cover. We have free press in the US and I for one am glad we do.

[Lynn]

Intended or not, this is a hate-engendering image that has a subconscious influence, just as America's depictions of the Japanese during WWII did.

[Marc Trius]

Ha =]
Frankly, I think that the appropriate response from the Obama campaign would have been something like "Yup, that's us" with a smile and a chuckle. The public arena in America is in dire need of a sense of humor. I mean, I laughed when I saw it and nobody explained it to me, and I'm a damn foreigner. Don't tell me that some smelly person from the Middle East can take a joke better than a good honest American.
Marc Trius (Leningrad, Haifa, Minneapolis)

[malach hamovess]

There's a lot of education left and Obama may have to further participate. His middle name, Hussein, is among the most common in the Muslim world; Hussein is actually as ubiquitous as John or Thomas (Tom to the rest of us). Hussein was part of the founding family of Islam, just as the names of th Apostles are still among our most common. Just as widespread in the Western world are the Old Testament names, used by Jews, Christians, and non-believers as the gold standard in authenticity.

Not every Hussein is a militant anti-American dictator; just as not every Jesse (the father of biblical David) is a racist hate-monger like the late Helms, not every Timothy (a significant saint) is a terrorist (McVeigh).

This short speech needs to be made - preferably by John McCain who shares a name both with Jesus' original Gang of Twelve and with our local mensroom (the John).

[Arthur Lemay]

The New Yorker is a magazine for intellectuals, or at least for brainy people. So, it is too easy to say that this is a satire because, in fact, in may be a satire on a satire.

Now, pray tell, what is that? By this, I mean, it may be the true opinion of the artist (perhaps a disgruntled Hillary supporter), who revealed his true feelings, but disguised it as a satire, and the real satire is that brainy people will dismiss it as a single satire, but those who don't see either satire (the majority of people) will see it as an anti-Obama piece which is exactly what the artist intended. And, those, like me who think it is a satire on a satire will also get the message.

Yes, it's far fetched, but not impossible.

[chris]

Please write to the New Yorker to protest this cover, if you find it offensive or even simply in very bad taste.

[Eugene Bell]

Let's see...racial stereotyping, angry black woman, flag on the fire, Osama on the wall... I think we have the
Repubs campaign summarized. And the MSM will provide lots of free publicity while it staunchly defends the first amendment (especially if it sells magazines), right Clarence. Wrong! LA Times, sterling member of the MSM that you are, The New Yorker is responsible!

[Richard]

The Cartoonist is childish, The editor a fool. It equates no better than the Danish attempts at lampooning Mohammed.

[Tony Navarro]

This picture is not a satire. It is very plainly a blatant attempt to sell this rag disguised as a responsible, intelligent magazine publication. But, it is also an outright attack on the character of an individual who, as far as I can tell, has done nothing to deserve the attack. Let me add that it is a cowardly attack; the writers and the artist, like a group of adolescent bullies sling this garbage into the public realm and them rush to hide under the coat of Mr. Freedom of the Press, and Mrs. Just Kidding it's a Satire. The written piece might be a good one, but I cannot excuse the lead up cover. It is disgusting.
Why do I say it is not satire? To attack the candidate is one thing. To attack his wife (who is not running for anything) is inexcusable. I can imagine the near unbearable restraint it took to not include the children as some snide commentary. Then let's look at what's burning in the fireplace. Has the candidate ever done anything as deplorable as this act? I can remember a lot of loyal Americans doing the same thing during the Vietnam Years and being lauded for it at the time. No, this piece is not satire, let alone art. This cover is thinly veiled hatred and the magazine bears full responsibility for approving it.

[Husein El Hamam]

It's refreshign to see the media do something besides swoon. in the end BHO doesn't need to worry, the boys at newsweek and time won't let this msm "standards" infraction go unanswered. Joe Klien and the others will come devotedly to his defense.

[dave]

'we completely agree with the obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.'
...and no doubt comments like these show that on both sides of the ostentatious 'party divide,' the neocon/neolib mobsters are not only chuckling, but outright mocking the people they believe to be their property and stupid voting livestock: the winking undertone of the comment of course being, that same can be said about the neocon campaign: it's also 'tasteless and offensive' - and you can be sure their 'democrat', or neodem counterpart in turn also 'completely agree' with that, and the neocon campaign, both following the same agenda...
so it's time for serious and fundamental change. with the legitimate republican candidate for PRESIDENT, RON PAUL - to stop forever hoping for...wake up, start being change, reclaim the constitution for the people, return the country to the constitution, and to integrity.

[Seymour]

JESSE JACKSON made them do it.

Deep down inside some Dems must Really hate Obama.

[rmem]

Anyone with functioning brain cells can tell immediately that this is actually a pro-Obama cartoon, so the complaints by the Obama supporters are bizarre.

I am also mystified as to why the Obama campaign would find it "tasteless" or "offensive" to ridicule those who are slandering Obama?

[The Decider]

This photograph confirms my suspicions about the Obamas.

I've made my decision. I'm voting McCain in 2008.

[Chris Brown]

The cover is mildly funny and clearly not to be taken seriously. The uproar, hurt feelings, and worries from the Obama camp that most Americans won't understand that this is a joke are laughable. This confirms it for me; the majority of Americans, for whatever reason, have problems understanding irony, satire or any humor more sophisticated than pies in faces and slipping on a banana peel.

[Soon-to-be-Former New Yorker Subscriber]

Satire? No. That will be the phony pretext used to get it by the public. The definition of satire that I have at hand (Oxford American Dictionary) says it's "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." What is Obama's "stupidity" or "vice" that is being exaggerated or exposed? Not being pro-Israel?

It should be made clear as a point of obvious fact that this is yet another instance of a person in power using his position to advance his personal religious cause. It's become a taboo worse than any other to admit it, so you won't see this stated anywhere in the press media: Since Sen. Obama is deemed to be not unquestioningly pro-Israel and is poised to be the next President of the United States, expect every Jew in power to launch an ugly, relentless, no-holds-barred attack on the candidate. The editor of the New Yorker David Remnick is of course Jewish, so he will use his magazine as a weapon for Israel. Note that he's following right in line with the others, e.g., Sen. Lieberman attacking Obama earlier. Even the liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz suddenly defended torture a few years back against the forces that threatened Israel. Mark my words, it will be okay in the press to label Obama a Muslim (even though he is not), but it will forbidden to call out that those people making the statements are Jews and pro-Israel (even though they are).

[Thozmaniac]

You people sound like the Muslim extremists who were calling for heads to roll after the Muhammad cartoons were printed in a newspaper in Holland.
Scary...they are you.

You people only accept free speech if it's coming from your own mouths.
Looks like another case of liberal moonbattery.

[Bostonian]

Truly SAD!

[bekbek]

I think it's clever and well-done. I agree that some sort of tagline would have been a good idea, but the style is in keeping with decades of New Yorker art/comics that didn't need a tagline. Readers (note, I said "readers") were expected to look and look again, and think about what they were seeing.

The majority of the comments here, however, demonstrate why it's an unfortunate "joke" for the Obama campaign. It seems the vast majority of the American public are unable or unwilling to just plain too ignorant to think this one through.

We have here comments from people who say they'll never read that paper again. Um, what paper? The New Yorker is a magazine. I'm guessing those commenters never read "that paper" in the first place.

We have comments here from people who are shocked and appalled that anybody would publish such an image of the future President. Huh. It's a tradition that goes back a very long time and is actually one of the cool hallmarks of a free society, where we can examine our leaders and their opponents publicly and critically. That's that "freedom" you keep waving your little flag about.

And we have comments here from people who think it's racist. But... the point is that these are the tactics being used against Obama, and yes, those tactics include an appeal to racism among voters, not to mention emotion-charged, knee-jerk reactions to anything in any way "foreign" to middle America. The artist is shining a wry light on those ugly tactics. It it racist to talk about racism???

So, unfortunately, the artwork will only help spread fear among ignorant voters, when its intent was to point a finger at the ridiculous range of ugly tactics (and STUPID rumors that nevertheless spread) being used. It was drawn for the New Yorker's audience, which used to get such things, or at least was willing to pursue an intelligent discussion about them.

[rhonda]

nice MYLANTA commercial

[EastCoast50]

The New Yorker, like most print media, is suffering from irrelevancy and the progress of time. They are getting the attention they want because frankly most people wouldn't buy the darn thing...

[Robin Larner]

If we had a n Asian candidate, I have no doubt the New Yorker would draw up a grotesque cartoon of a pointy headed yellow slant-eyed creature eating a rat. This goes beyond satire, and beyond good taste. I just think about all the ignorant people who already think anyone from the middle east has terrorist ties.

[morgan]

The New Yorker is not what you would call a mainline magazine. A very few people will read it. Most Americans don't read that much and many do not read anything at all, other than local sports pages.

However, a picture is worth a thousand words. Millions will see the cover, without ever holding an issue of the New Yorker. Those who don't read that much are the most likely to be influenced negatively by the image.

I do not personally like Obama and would never vote for him, or Hillary. I am a McCain person. Having said that, the cover is a low blow, effective, but a low blow.

[Will D.]

Reminds me of when Fox kept saying 'It's probably not a good idea for anyone to use Barack's middle name HUSSEIN'... Well they kept saying it over and over in the guise of questioning if it was proper or not, by that time- "PERCEPTION CREATED and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". Despite the New Yorker's attempt at addressing Obama's media distortion by the right wing media, this has a similar overtone to it. "ENFORCEMENT of already created DISTORTION". This is very much the same.

[The Real Issue]

The New Yorker is not doing itself justice or it's readers. By making racist charicatures, it has positioned itself as a magazine that does not speak to the real issues....The Real Issues in case people have forgotten are: The ending of the Iraq War, the basic economy---recession or all right; the amount of foreclosures; the higher and higher prices of gasoline and food; the drop in the prices of homes; unemployment; job eliminations; corporate bankruptcies, Bears and Stearns/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and the California Bank Indy/something.....

What is it? You can't write about the issues or you do not want the public to know about it publishers of the New Yorker...... After all, if the media was really doing the job, then there would not be polls saying a candidate is Muslim......

The American public can be gullible but we are not stupid. Stick with the issues...there is plenty to write about during this campaign.

[Sam W]

The problem with the "mainstream" media like New Yorker and Don Imus is that for their "little world," blacks simply "do not exist" and do not read or listen to their publications. Note that in "their" world certain minorities DO exist and they think before they speak. Just imagine if the New Yorker had a Cover Page drawing of an obese "US Politician" man with an oversize nose and a Star of David on his lapel and a mezzuzah on his doorway and the US Flag in the fire and the Israeli flag waving. What would happen? The editor would be fired. Abe Foxman would demand and get reparations. Charles Schumer would hold Confressional hearings. That's all that would happen.

[Gene Stevens]

Great Job New Yorker, I love it!!! Sign me up for a years subscription.
Gene

[Tony]

I like the The New Yorker even more now.
and I will never stop reading it.

Get Over It People it's just a cartoon.

[Kathy]

Some of us are smart enough to realize the what goes around comes around. A child that kicks another child-gets kicked back and runs crying to Mama is a brat. Stop acting like brats Democrats.

[DV]

For years we have seen cartoons of G.W. Bush, his wife,and various members of his staff. I heard no moral outcry from our esteemed 'left' over those. Now a cartoon of Obama and his wife seems to awaken the moral sensitivity of these same hypocrites. You sound like the Muslim equivalent of those who issued the death sentence on Solomon Rushti and Theo Van Gogh. Just another political cartoon by a free press -- get over it.

[shaamex]

If I understand exactly what the artist wants me to then I am insightful and enlightened. That mechanism isn't working so well this election cycle (Look how well the Clinton's were understood) As an adult I gain insight into what the artist is trying to convey. A disclaimer would be helpful to suggest this is not another slam against Muslims. But the operative word here may be adult...as a child I may miss the meaning entirely and take it literally. We have a mixed voting public.

[:+(]

Satire? I get it... not funny.
Incendiary? Most definitely.
New Yorker mag intent?: Lost respect as a source of reliable content? & Lost readers? Definitely Yes!
Fueling ignorant right-wing opinions? Definitely.
Smeared (fringed on slander/libel) of the image of a very viable presidential candidate; providing no accompanying satirical commentary under the picture? Stupidly done.

[EJB]

The New Yorker has softly expressed it's views and the views of many
Americans in what can be labeled as only satire when the backlash of the
caricature arises.

Yet the reality of Barrack Hussein Obama being in the White House spells trouble
for the American people.

It will eventually undermine everything that America stands for. He sees the
Presidency as a PRIZE.

Typical Politician, Tells you everything you want to hear.
His patrioitism is without a doubt questionable, as well as his motives!

His relationship with Louis Farrackhan is absolutely disturbing &
one that has been kept quietly in the background, but none the less still REAL.

We can only wonder what the true relationship with Israel will be, given
the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama wants to be friendly with HAMAS, etc.
even though he has stated that "Israel is our FRIEND."
Will he also want to negotiate with Bin Laden?

Wake up America! I know that this time around the pickin's are slim
again for President, but this is certainly not the best choice.

With this being said the question remains....

Satire or Vision of thing to come during his 1st
four years?

[kaymar]

Finally the New Yorker Magazine got it right.

[Bill]

A psychologist will tell you that even satire, even failed satire like this, comes from genuine emotions and motives, however unconscious. It's hard to blame people for being un-self-aware, but you would think that at the New Yorker, there would be adults in charge, somewhere.

[glib spectator]

This doesn't surprise me in the least. I mean a New York magazine bashing Obama and Hillary being from New York and all as the home grown favorite. I will bet 10 to 1 Bill and Hillary are clandestinely responsible for the idea as she has only "suspended" her silly campign mind you.

[C.D.]

There is a reason intelligent people read and will continue to read the New Yorker. Satire always is easier to swallow when seasoned with humor. The cover with Obama is just one more brilliant cartoon that pokes fun at what everyone who's honest with themselves knows to be true.

[Alex in DC]

Tee hee hee. The irony here is that the liberals at the New Yorker consider the cartoon to be so outrageous that any person of any political persuasion would immediately recognize it as humor. But the fact is that there is already a perception out there that the cartoon "Oh, look how the conservatives portray our heroes, isn't that so preposterous that it's funny!" holds some deep seated truths about the magical couple that liberals ignore.

[R. Wiulliam]

Isn't it interesting that one of the most liberal magazines creates this cover and story and many are attempting to lay blame for this trash at the feet of John McCain, Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch, et al.

[KMcD]

Satrie is only permitted when applied to Conservatives.

[Vivi]

This depiction is strictly satire. Have we become so sensitive that satire should not be employed anymore ? What happened to appreciating different forms of expression? McCain and Obama should take a deep breath see this for what it is.

[Quentin Kirk]

I used to like to read the jokes. I will never glance in the direction of that magazine again.

[Dsl]

Quiet simply, the upcoming cover of the New Yorker that depicts Senator Barack Obama and Michelle Obama is not satire. Its pure and simple racism.

New Yorker, deed your coffers with the publicity. And send America two steps back with your despicable actions.

Everybody who was involved with the decision to approve that cover should really consider resigning and apologizing to the New Yorker's readership, all Americans and citizens of the world.

[Tim]

It's obviously both, smarty.

[Felicia WODS]

The New Yorker ( HATER'S ) Obama 08

[Amarissa]

Read the 15 page story inside the magazine and stop talking! Find out how he became a politician, how many people he stepped on! Things that intelligent people have been saying all along and no media took the time to investigate! and believe me, they were soft in the article! everything blogs have been saying for the past months has finally started to come out! The thing is Obama fanatics just want to hear him say there's "Hope", Hope for change, all the rhetorics he keeps on selling you. But the only change we have seen is only in his promises of being a new kind of politician! Reverend Wright said it after he was thrown under the bus: "Obama is a politician and he is doing what all politicians do"... didn't that get through to you? He knew Obama for 20 YEARS!

[John Dyke]

Woot! Running out to get a copy now :). Framing it and hanging it up in my room, lol. This will be a classic!

[Monk]

This "satire" is nothing but fuel for FAUX news and all the nascar watching white trash who kneel at the altar of rupert murdoch.

[semtex111]

its a good time for obama to educate us on satire,seems the obama camp thinks most of us are not stupid to get it.would there be all this outrage if the picture had mccain and his wife in it.where do i sign up for a subscription?

[Little Old Lady from Pasadena]

The New Yorker's humor has never been everyone's national cup of tea. Many Americans just don't get it, similar to their reaction to Woody Allen's movies. Americans have never been very good with satire or irony (to the extent that the British, who are champions at it, don't believe we understand the concept). Then, of course, most Americans don't read, if they ever have.

Reaction to the cover is a good litmus test of the individuals looking at it: I can imagine another New Yorker cover showing their various levels, from motionless slugs with glazed eyes to stereotypical New Yorker readers, consumed with delighted laughter and wearing the T-shirts that say "So Many Books, So Little Time."

[Storm]

You know we American's should be able to look at the picture and say yes its a satire. Personnaly I think it is funny that they captured almost every poke at Obama. And obviously those that say thank you for telling the truth does not realize its a satire which do not hold truths but is meant to show how ridiculous something is. I don't care what religion obama is. What I care about is can he lead our country. From looking at his voting record and experience the answer is NO. He is exactly what he claims not to be. At least McCain is honest. He said he did not know much about the economy. Yeah someone who tells the truth but at the same time he went out and found the people who could help find resolutions to help the economy.

[Chris Laz]

Dude this is so funny. If Obama cant be a man and laugh then this cover must be true or else it would not offend him. Its ok for everybody to make jokes and poke fun at any republican but oh when someone does it to a democrat then its all of a sudden "Tasteless and offensive". Grow up people its just a joke. Laugh, it makes the world a better place rather than complaining.

[widollar]

Lets see the same artist do one of McCain and his wife Cindy on the next cover of the magazine!

[Bill Richardson]

If it aids and abets the enemy, is it satire? Whose side is the so-called liberal New Yorker on?

[joey64]

THE NEW YORKER DID DRESS UP IDIOT GEORGE AS CESAR, BUT THAT WAS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH, THIS IS NOT, sad day for the new york mag.

[Jeep Helm]

Do the New Yorker editors live in such a bubble that they don't know how much of our country is not going to understand the satire? Count me among those who see the cover as inappropriate and not funny.

[Malick]

I have a great sense of humor and believe me this wasn't funny! To fabricate an image that epitomizes the worst America has to offer, is insuring that it will be used for propaganda around the net, which was the true intent of the New Yorker. Barry Blitt, the cartoonist, has smeared Sen. Obama and his beautiful wife and an apology wouldn't work because the artwork is out. However, Sen. Obama, a Champion, will still win!

[Hosea]

After 9/11, I find it unbelievable any clear thinking American would consider it satire. The most fitting and truthful word would be blasphemy. The front cover of the mag devalues the lives of all Americans. The hand bumping (dap) depicted as counter American is a huge lie. White American soldiers died in Vietnam in the arms of Afro-Americans: tears, daps
then taps. Flag draped coffin then flew home to mama.

[Rhonda]

I don't have a problem "getting" satire, but this is such a sensitive subject, and the New Yorker has fallen woefully short of their intended message. As evidenced by some readers' comments on this blog and others, there are too many ignorant people that take it literally, and it only stokes their ignorance. Very poor judgment on the part of The New Yorker.

[GWPDA]

Amazing.

Somewhere Harold Ross is laughing himself silly, James Thurber is astounded and Charles Addams is chuckling, mordantly.

[Kathy]

Am I to believe that every cartoon of Bush being made to look like a monkey was actually satire aimed at the left for suspecting that he's not terribly bright?

[Kate]

I'm glad some magazine in the MSM has decided that Obama is 'fair game', just as the President of the U.S. has always been fodder for blasphemy.

What is wrong with Americans all of a sudden? WHY can't Obama be critiqued like all the other candidates have been and continue to be?

All of this whining from the pro-Obama clan is just downright insulting to Americans (and there are millions of us), who are sitting here wondering what the heck is going on -- all of a sudden, the N word is okay to be used by only ONE group of Americans (and they even market it in their songs and comedy routines, publicly and nationally), all of a sudden, long-time Democrats who have fought for years for Equal Rights, are being condemned as being Racists, all of a sudden, the MSM is terrifed to even mention anything truthful about Obama if it isn't complimentary to him, so of course, anything truthful about Obama that is NOT complimentary to him, is avoided like the plague.

Congratulations, New Yorker -- I applaud your ability to treat ALL candidates the same -- isn't that what Civil Rights was all about?

Now, if we could either erase the N word from everyone's lips, or add it to our politically correct vocabulary for ALL Americans, we would be on the right track for equal rights for all of us.

[Doug E.]

I like these 2 people so much I thought the cartoon was a very funny inside joke. Remember The New Yorker put Obama and Hillary in bed together reaching for the 3 AM phone call on their cover just a few months ago.

[Norman Hall]

Clearly satire.
Clearly tasteless.
I can't wait for the cover showing the worldwide Jewish conspiracy that controls the media...
Clearly pathetic. They need an adult to decide cover material.

[David Paris]

Reminds me of he the great 1970's National Lampoon covers...
too bad everyone is too darn thin skinned and PC nowdays to appreciate fine prankster humour.

I will be they will do John McCain in the same tough style manner - as a wacked out vietnam vet a la Rambo... eye patch with a big knife chasing civilians?
or how about in a Navy jet doing a combat strafing on My Lai ...

[James Bailey]

When is a racist slur a satirical joke? When the left-wing press uses it to sell magazines, etc And how are they able to excuse themselves for their racism? By blaming the right-wing.

[KETURAH]

re- FINALLY SOMEBODY GOT IT.... WHO SAYS YOU CAN'T ,MAKE FUN OF OBAMA... CONTRARY TO SOME PEOPLE OPINION... HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH.

Posted by: Margarita | July 14, 2008 at 12:01 AM
444444444444444444444444444444444444444
U
R
RIGHT!

he aint but his daughta iis
OBAMA is a politician a businessman a great husband and a humble dutiful father

the mag cover
is
outrageous art
if anybody changes their mind
to not vote for him based on this sillyness
well they still not ready for this country and the world to heal
YES! MYLANTA 4US ALL!!!
cause this country thrives feeds on chaos
hatred
toxic bloated bellys
TSUNAMI SEA-SON!!!

obama just go on madtv
or saturday night live and give this joke its formidable in ya face skit
but let it be brillant
bring back chevy chase and dan akroyd and eddie murphy and jane curtan to be his cabinet members
give it shine
bill clinton breaks out with the sax
hillary comes in wearing a chefs hat planning the bar-b-que cook out menu

come on folks
bring the troops home
cause thats real
lets heal cause mothernature just mirroring
pain

[James of Indiana]

A Black columnist who may or may not support Obama thought the cover was satire. Obviously that makes it OK. I guess the implication is that the columnist has special credibility because he is black. Additionally, using the comment must mean that since one black thought it was OK then all blacks should see the cover the same way. Of course it misses the even bigger point that most of Obama's supporter are white and that most of Obama's supporters are not supporting him because of his race.

The fact that race factors into the justification for the cover proves that there is an editorial bias not so well hidden in the cover.

[Nancy Drew]

I wonder when we will see the "satire" of the scourge that is Rupert Murdoch and what he is doing to this country.

Talk about a stereotype that gives Jews a generalized bad name...RUPERT MURDOCH.

He only has America's best interest at hand ...that's SATIRE!

[Ed Staats]

Liberals can dish it out, but they can/t take it! WAAAAAAAAAAA!

[A former fan]

I am really shocked and outraged at the incredibly bad taste of a magazine I once revered. I first started reading the new yorker when I was 8 or 9 at my grandmother's house, 50 years ago. I am going to cancel my subscription. What were they thinking?

[Ronald W. Sprague]

I personally don't know if the Obama's have Muslem indoctrination or not.

But the one thing that does bother me is Barack's stance on wealth distribution, and Nationalization of US corporations. etc., etc., are political isms taken from the Marx Communist Manifesto.

America had better wake up!!!

[Trueblue]

It's hilarious.

[HighwayHome]

The New Yorker chickened out with the caption, "The Politics of Fear". I would have liked to have seen a caption like:

"Como se llama Obama?"

Especially since the Latin American issue is currently at play. Nothing wrong with an artist confronting a taboo issue like racism. Especially since everyone else is treating the issue like the Pink Elephant in the room.

[Roger]

Now whats odd about this cover is that the same media who refused to show images of Mohammad (the religious prophet) are compelled to show Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as "Muslim Terrorists"...

Well done NYC for proving to the world just how hypocritical the American media has become. In one failed attempted at derailing the political progress of Barack's campaign, you have literally exposed that America is still by far extremely racists and prejuidice of other cultures. Whats next, you plan to show John McCain as a robot being programmed after he has come from being a POW in Veitnam???

[sketchartist]

Just think how "helpful" it would have been during World War II if, using the New Yorker's same logic, major American and European publications had run covers showing only the worst Nazi smears about the Jews. That would have shown 'em, huh?

[Robyn]

As a New Yorker I will never read "The New Yorker" again. Their agenda and lack of tastefulness (as evident in this cartoon) is something that I refuse to support.

Please, if you feel the same way, let the magazine know...
You can do so by following these directions as found on their website:

To submit a letter in response to a New Yorker article for publication by the magazine, you may send an e-mail to themail@newyorker.com or

Fill out our Letters to the Editor form

Alternatively, letters may be sent by post to:

The Mail
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

All letters should include your name, postal address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. All letters become the property of The New Yorker and will not be returned. We regret that, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot reply personally to every letter. Publicity materials and submissions should be sent to the addresses below and will not be forwarded if sent to other addresses.

[Roy Jr]

I did not know that the New York was owned and enfluenced by Fox TV. This satire plays into the hands of those whose lack the brains cells to tell the difference between satire and reallity(appearently there are many). This cover will be framed and placed on the walls of every person who believe the lies that run unchecked on the internet. I shure if the editors of this magazine was not one of the idividual mentioned above, The New Yorker could have found a different way of visually expressing the article. I thnik this was intentionally done to hurt the Obama campaign. This is the last time I buy the New Yorker.

[Frank]

This is supposed to satirize those who would paint Obama as a terrorist?

Odd, I don't see any reference to those who are supposedly the butt of the joke anywhere in the illustration...

From "The Elements of Style," Strunk and White: MAKE SURE THE READER KNOWS WHO IS SPEAKING.

The New Yorker here fails the most basic Style Test. F-

[Camarriott]

When do we get the obligatory apology?

[Michael]

OK, the cover is satire. Just who was supposed to get the joke? The more liberal among us will get that it's a joke, but will be offended nevertheless. The right wingnuts it is supposedly satirizing tend to be literal-minded and have little sense of irony, so they won't get the joke. Stupid.

[tony from orlando]

bad bad your bad dont forget 911... there the ones trying to get the u.s.a better so this is not the fight.
are the way to fight that is why we cant get nothing right (o this is the u.s,a )free press(black white )white black)not u.s.a

[todji]

As someone who spends time posting in various on-line forums, I've seen posts where conservative wing-nuts have claimed that Obama is a radical Muslim intent on imposing sharia, a Marxist working for a one-world government, a radical black-African theologian, and worst of all- a secular humanist. Sometimes all in the same post. As an ardent Obama supporter since I first heard him speak at the 2004 convention, I find this cover to funny and right on point.

[Marla Hill]

William Cornelison writes: When will they make a cover showing McCain using a walker and wearing a hospital gown open in the back, with his millionaire, junkie wife stealing drugs from her charity?

I don't know, but when they do, I'll frame it. Brilliant!

RealityCheck and wilderrr have got it right. An electorate that voted "W" in twice ain't smart enough for satire.

[Goldie]

And Jewish people would be in an uproar over anything slightly anti-semetic, but it is okay to slur the black candidate. That is humor I guess to the white world. I am white and I am horrified. White people, we just don't get it. I am shame-faced. This white media world is really pouncing on the black candidate while protecting the white candidate, McCain. I don't think it is right, but us white people, we don't have to police our biases. We can make hay and escape condemnation though when the likes of Reverend Wright lashes back at whites it is terrible. To the white world, Wright is awful, but when we do the same we are just being funny. It's just a joke... don't worry. It's all a laugh.

[Gina]

Since the beginning of the primaries, I have read the most insulting blogs about Hillary and about McCain from Obama supporters. For the first year of the campaign, Obama was never vetted by the press, and was given a virtual free ride. To this day, Obama bloggers still use a litany of disrespectful names for Senator John McCain. Obama, and his angry supporters can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

[Susan]

Yawn, next please.

[Blair Zarubick]

I am not going to spend alot of space on why this fails as satire. Many here have already pointed out the cartoons many flaws. What amazes me is the argument that satire is somehow immune from criticism. The minstrel shows of the nineteenth and early twentieth cetury were satirical. They also were racist, vulgar and hateful.
The first amendment protects the press from the government not the marketplace. No one is threatening the New Yorker with either sanction, or violence, so these comparisons to the Danish cartoons protests are really over the top.

[not so goood]

This is called capitilist money power. These people think if they have money, they will buy the people thinking, sway them from real issue america is facing. They are firing all they have to prevent the common man from learing who they are and they are stupid if they think it is unnoticed.
Please we can do better. As americans we should be focusing on real issue of day to day life and how to solve them.

[Lonnie]

No, the cover DID add more to me than a satirical chuckle. It actually depicted in no uncertain terms a traitorous, terroristic black Muslim occupying the White House with his well-armed radical terrorist woman about to leave the Oval Office and kill American citizens. And the artist used the precise iconic image of Michelle greeting her husband at the historic moment when he clinched the nomination!

[Frank]

I suspect that Hustler could use something this obvious and it would be seen as satire. It has a long history of blatant and crude illustrations. I am in the mind-set that seems to find this problematic because, yes, it is the cover and no text is there to clarify its intent. Call me a wimp but I would have never put this on the cover. Inside with loads of explanation, maybe. I get it but I wouldn't expect it to go over well.

[nazcalito]

The cartoon is really poorly drawn compared to other recent New Yorker covers.

[victor knopp]

i stand by all my remarks about draft dodging,flag burning liberals,and i offer that an intire voting generation has grown up under the cloud of the falling towers and islamic terrorism,i cant help but think that an obama/asama vote is nothing more than a colective heilsinki vote,the captives beginning to empathize with there captors,a surrender vote,say what you will you college puks,is obama/osama as far as you can go to denonunce americas ways,buy the way who says were wrong except those who are allways wrong,america must remain a contraian nation,if the retards are going left we have no chioce to go right,america

I am a New Yorker subscriber and resident of New York City, and would like to clear up a few things:

1). The New Yorker is a magazine, not a newspaper.
2). The New Yorker's typical readership may be small because it's a magazine devoted to literature, arts, and culture (which includes politics as related to culture), as well as the arts scene in New York City.
3). The New Yorker is popular here in New York City, and this is because many people who choose to live here want to be informed about these topics; because we all spend a lot of time on the subway, many people read novels, short stories, and arts & culture magazines.
4). If the New Yorker's readership is down, or it's not bre