Obama killed the flip-flop/surrender meme with that op-ed.

And then folks wonder why Michelle Obama said 'for the first time, I am really proud of my country"...with mag covers like this.

What I find most offensive is that not only is it a caricature but it is not even a caricature of their ETHNIC group. Rather it seeks to depict them as 'terrorists'...WTF?...The Obama's are now ARAB and BLACK militant...unbeliiiiievable.

Can anyone dredge up tasteless/offensive pics of the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedy's that depict them as other than America or as AmeriKKKA?

This is going to be a very looooooooong campaign.

i wish i was subscribed to the new yorker, so i can unsubscribe... they have let themselves down...

David, your use of the phrase "gets in a lather" implies you think they're blowing it out of proportion. Can you say so openly, please, if that's what you think?

I look forward to the New Yorker's satirical take on the attacks on John McCain.

The blank page cover, in other words.

uh, have you seen some of their GWB covers? get a grip.

Please. Get a grip, and that includes the Obama campaign. Sure, it's over the top, but so is the conservative campaign along these same lines, and that cartoon very effectively robs the swiftboaters of all their ammo. I'm disappointed that the Obama campaign felt they had to condemn it. A belly laugh would have been a far more effective response.

I must say, I find the cover hilarious. The one thing that I find a tad over the top is the American flag burning in the fireplace, and I think that's just because I was a boy scout. But the "terrorist fist bump" in center stage is a gut buster. And is that supposed to be in the oval office or just another circular shaped room?

I cant believe the New Yorker, they don't even have an article clarifying the picture, for those who might no see it as satire.
And is McCain bored or something, why is he focused on where Obama should go. McCain needs to be registering for classes I suggest Economic 1010 for him.

they caught the guy who vandalized cars with anti-obama statements back in june

there are a lot nuts out there that don't read the new yorker but will just see the pic.....its never a good idea to promote ignorance because it can be dangerous....

Free speech is always dangerous, partly for that reason.

it's the limbaugh-hannity ditto-head fantasy nightmare:

THE DATE: january 21, 2009

THE SCENE: a large outdoor prison labor camp, manned on its perimeters by doberman-walking, heavily-armed, aviator-shaded, afro-&-sideburn-sporting, toothpick-chewing, purple revolution-jumpsuited soul-brothers.

behind barbed-wire, under the hot sun, bent over rows of cotton, wretched white slaves toil in close chains as strains of parliament funkadelic waft out of the guard towers.

one slave curses himself for having been a brainwashed libtard dumbocrat tricked into voting for barack obama. enraged at the confession, another slave throttles him with his own chains. the guards fire into the air and bark for order as the slaves scatter and the victim's last spasms subside ...

I've taken the New Yorker for close to 30 years now and I can't believe they were that brain dead that they chose that cover.

*sigh*

One of the dumbest things I've seen - I just can't believe that all taste flew out the window at the one publication that has always been in good taste.

Now that this is cable news fodder, one can no longer say, "well, people who would be likely to believe these disgusting rumors don't read The New Yorker anyway". Now they'll see it while flipping past FoxNews on their way from, So You Think You Can Dance? to WWE Raw...and all they will remember is the picture itself.

But even if that is the case, people who, at this point, are still open to believing all of the wacky rumors about Obama are probably never going to vote for him anyway.

I don't agree with you who say this is a big funny joke (or a big nothing) and let's just have a good smile about it. There is a huge, serious, smear campaign going on in the States against Obama. (Anybody read the woman on here who said her Jewish ex-boyfriend couldn't consider voting for Obama because "I just can't vote for a Muslim."?) When you repeat the smear in pictures, you have no right to assume that the audience "gets the joke." For example, I don't. What joke? Sure it's innocent, but it is harmful and *really* asinine.

Very offensive to me at first glance. Let's see McSame stubbling around in a walker in the nursing home, wearing an American flag for a diaper, drooling or something along those lines.

some of the things you left out of your morning roundup--

The question of where Mccain gets his porn by some right wing radio loony was tasteless. All he has is a small collection of shots of the Pittsburgh Steelers' wives---he is a huge steelers fan.

McCain advised Obama to travel to Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville so that he can learn more about the history of the NFL.

McCain was able to show how good his relationship is with carol, his first wife, as he was able to get her to autograph a wedding picture from 1964 for Nancy Reagan in gratitude for her enthusiastic support.

The problem with the cover is, and I get that it is satire, that the satire isn't in the image itself. I agree with elvigy... if you have to explain the joke, it isn't funny.

From a visual communication standpoint, it fails because it ONLY depicts the smears and not the smear-monger. Where, in the illustration, is any depiction of them, or anything that communicates that this is a PERCEPTION versus reality? Its not there.

What is held-up for ridicule isn't the right-wing noise machine, but Obama. To get anything else, you would need context... none of which is offered in the VISUAL. It can't stand on its own and thus becomes amplification.

Satirical illustration works via depicting its subject in such a way that its flaws, contradictions, irony and hypocricy is highlighted. Yet, notice, the Obamas are the ONLY subject.

As satire, it is incompetently done. As visual communication, it is ham-fisted and clumsy. Then again, I've always thought the New Yorker had a higher opinion of their wit than they've ever earned. This is particularly true of their editorial cartoons.

A Point of Clarification here... By flushing all these attacks on Obama into the open, this opens the whole thing up for discussion.

As it stands now the GOP benefits from a smear campaign that they can disown (ie: "we don't know where that comes from"). Whereas once the content of these smears is opened up for Questioning, then there is good reason to ask the GOP punditocracy "well do you believe that Obama is this or that or the other thing??" I think there is the potential to put THEM in a Box either Own it (in which case they look stupid) or Disown it and say that they don't believe these smears either and discredit the basis for the rumors (from their own side of the discussion).

I hope this is more clear as to my thinking in my previous post - thanx ;)

TOP TEN REASONS WHY NEW YORKER WON'T PUBLISH A HUMORLESS "JOKE" COVER ON McCAIN:

Here's a key one, file it under loutishness:

"Oh, are you kidding, we work on those covers so far ahead in the game that we are already working on the covers for July *2009* right now!!"

Here's the problem, those who do not purchase the mag will look at that cover. The (holy $#!+)impression will be made without reading the article by Ryan Lizza.

I'm not African-America, but I wonder how many African-American editors vetted this cover? I kinda get the feeling that the answer would be none.

I would, but I gave up on reasoning with her. If she hadn't been a family friend who helped me in a significant way once, I don't think I'd still stay in contact. She is a hopeless Fox news junkie et. all...

But the good thing is, she inadvertently helps me keep tabs on the crap flowing-forth. Might be a reason I worry: I see the sheer tonnage.

Wow. The ability of Obama supporters to become outraged continues to amaze me. You people do know that you have a lot in common with the right wing talk radio audience, don't you? Declaring your candidate off-limits for certain kinds of satire is just sad. And all of the suggestions for what they could have done to make it acceptable are even more laughable. Yeah, they should put a title on it, or some explanation that of what exactly it's mocking. All great ideas, because everyone knows the best jokes all come with an accompanying explanation.

Really, if this cover wasn't about Obama, none of you would give a shit. It's a satire. The New Yorker is under no obligation to edit their magazine with the idea that some Highlights for Children subscriber would see it and not understand. Like every magazine, it's aimed at their readers.

And you won't see a similar cover about McCain, simply because there's no corresponding rumor to satirize. The Muslim rumors have been a big part of the campaign, making them an an appropriate subject for satire. The New Yorker isn't going to publish a cover satirizing rumors that no one's even heard.

I'm a long time subscriber, and the magazine's Hillary-bashing and Obama promoting was sickening. Believe me, they're the least of your problems. It's funny to see you people eating your own.

As for the Republicans e-mailing the picture and saying "even the New Yorker believes it," really, do you think they don't know it's satire? But when Obama supporters will predictably squeal in anguish over every real or perceived slight to their candidate, of course people are going to tweak them. That's what happens when you're so predictable.

I remebr reading all of you claiming that every Hillary criticism of Obama was a "sound bite." People would pontificate knowingly about how "she just gave McCain his next commercial." I'm still waiting to see one of those ads. The sky isn't falling this time, either.