That New Yorker cartoon: The Times tells Obama to get over it

I heard that Barack himself was upset at the cartoon.

Why?

Who get's upset at a cartoon?

Well, Muslems get upset at cartoons.

In fact radical intolerant Muslems get upset at cartoons.

Hmmmm.

http://TheJohnMcCain.com

Yawn. He's going to be the next president. Old Man McBush knows it. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

Yawn.

The first comment made about this post is the exact reason why its a bad idea retard.

Your spelling is as twisted as your logic.

The New Yorker cover isn't satire, it's outrageous. If they have a shred of decency, their next cover with one of candidate McCain shoveling money at rich people his wife boozed up beyond rationality with him recording a POW message in Vietnam.

Satire conveys messages of truth in a way that is meant to be entertaining. All the New Yorker cover does is depict Republican talking points, none of which has a shred of truth to them.

One can only imagine that the editorial board of the New Yorker was channeling the dreams of the RNC. Now we know what the magazine is REALLY all about.

After all, their logo with a monacle is exactly the kind of rich that the Republicans are so eager to destroy the country for for the rest of us.

No wonder the internet has become such a hotbed of political activity. The corporate media is just another lobbyist for the corporate cause against the people.

Shame on the New Yorker. Shame on the LA Times for defending it.

What a racist double standard.

When they start mocking Christians or Jews on the front cover of a national journal, then we can talk.

Until then, anyone who doesn't see the racist double standard are themselves racist.

Obama isn't a Muslim, but that's not the point. The point is that American journals feel it's OK to print images that are incredibly offensive to blacks and Arabs, and no matter what their not very clever meaning was, they simply don't have the stones to do the same wrt images of Jews or Christians... not on the covers of major journals.

Period, end of story.

This is the NEW YORKER, a sophisticated literary magazine, not the N. Y. DAILY NEWS or even the N.Y. TIMES!!
Complaints by people who would otherwise never look at the
NEW YORKER are tantamount to over-reacting!
Would there have been the same reaction if the same cartoon, reduced in size, were on page 65 and surrounded by the continuation of a book review? I doubt it!

First, "muslem" is spelled "muslim."

Second, your statement is absurd. An offensive cartoon is offensive, regardless of the religion of the reviewed.

Guess who else was offended by the cartoon? John McCain himself.

In fact, McCain condemned the cartoon. In his own words: “I think it’s totally inappropriate, and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive.”

Opinion says:
"Obama's campaign is deeply worried about the legions of morons who they apparently believe make up the heart of this great nation".

They should worry about; what is the lesson from 2004 election? there are enough morons in this country who can believe propaganda material (swift boats and all) and can even give a second term to one of the worst presidents. So yes Obama's campaign should be worried - there might be enough morons to believe false info and elect back another republican.

It is satire. There is free speech in this country to protect just this kind of thing. If you're offended by this, who cares? If you don't like it, don't like it. This isn't news.

This is just some more flag pin, fairy tale, Monica Lewinsky, RIAA lawsuit nonsense. Grow up and why don't you start reporting the true story. People are so dainty that they are willing to give away our freedom so that their feelings don't get hurt. Grow a pair.

"... it’s like holding a satirized Klan rally by holding a Klan rally...with a laser show that makes a three-story image of a burning cross. A bigger, badder, better version of the thing you’re attempting to mock doesn’t constitute mockery, it just constitutes a gaudier version of the thing you’re addressing."

If David Duke was the rally's center of attention, perhaps; not MLK.

I can understand Obama's campaign worrying about fanning the flames of ignorance, but the morons willing to buy the B.S. about his religion and intentions aren't going to vote for him anyway (see comment #1 above).

The cartoon was priceless as satire! BUT it just goes to show you what the Dems are made uo of. Cry baby, snivelling,finger pointing, spoiled idots that can't even accept a drawing that might have some criticism in it. How did the majority leadership of our do-nothing shameful congress get elected? If they get their way, we will lose our freedom of speech. Kudos to The New Yorker!!!

I think its great that some one finally printed what so many people really think.

No one is saying every American is a moron, but 13% of the population still believes he's a Muslim... There are a bunch of Americans who don't even know where Iraq is and still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11... How do you think Bush got voted in twice if not for some misinformed voters? It is what it is, and everyone knows someone who is difficult to talk to about world issues or has so many preconcieved biases that they buy into everything... we're trying to get away from this stuff, not put it out there for everyone to look at and post on their fridge if they like the art... yeah it's satire, but it hits home... if there was no explanation given, I would think they were trying to promote this line of thinking, not make fun of it.

Tittering at a cocktail party about the lack of "a pair" for Obama's objection to the cartoon is sooooo far removed from the ignorance of a portion of our electorate.
Informed readers realize 30% of our fair citizens already believe Obama is/was a Muslim...
The cartoon was at best unfortunate, at middle elitist and at worst ignorant.
It is an easy joke any semi-informed, ironic commentator could have made.
...and perhaps quoting sage "Mishrill" Malkin is an indicator of this paper's leaning...
What could Obama really do???

So 48% of Americans are either humor impaired or such idiots that they can't tell satire from reality. Not surprising considering how many people believe Stephen Colbert is a real journalist.

Inspiring that... NOT!

If he can't take this kind of stuff now how in the world will he be able to handle being president! It only gets worse from here. Get over it.

Who cares, the New Yorker portrayed him exactly as he is. If he cannot deal with the truth, get out. Don't need him anyway, as he will be a detriment to this country.

While I can deal with this satire, my problem with it is that there are enough stupid and ignorant Americans who believe it is true and that Obama would actually hang a picture of bin Laden in the White House and that he is Muslim. There's enough innuendo being passed around by Republicans and other anti-Obomaites that he is Muslim (see Cheney's innuendo's that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi's for further description of innuendo).

The knucklehead commenting above is why this Obama cartoon is misunderstood or taken the way some who need to believe that he is secretly a mad extremist Moslem.

unfortunatley I get these types of far right driven propaganda, associating Obama with terrorist extremist forwarded to me far to often and from seemingly inteligent people say things like "it does make you wonder".

".. it’s like holding a satirized Klan rally by holding a Klan rally...with a laser show that makes a three-story image of a burning cross. A bigger, badder, better version of the thing you’re attempting to mock doesn’t constitute mockery, it just constitutes a gaudier version of the thing you’re addressing. "

i can't think of a better way to say it

Yup... looking at the poll results...

"is a work of satire. But what about the millions of dumb Americans who will think otherwise?"

Those millions must really exist, take it seriously, and be voting in this poll. Sad.

"In fact radical intolerant Muslems get upset at cartoons" Wow, you can't even spell Muslim. I guess under Bush/McCain you would qualified to be a mid-east Ambassador. Get a clue you moron.

It is OK for the media to make fun of every one else. Why is Obama "so special" he should be exempt???

I see TheJohnMcCain is doing his smear campaign again. Senator Obama is a Christian, and it is just disgraceful that TheJohnMcCain is suggesting otherwise.

...if only it was radical and far enough away from the truth to be taken as satire and laughed at.

Get a grip and 'grow a pair'..

Who can even count the number of hilarious unflattering cartoons of either of the Bushs or either of the Clintons. If they whined every time there was a cartoon...

If Obama does become president what's he going to do when the French flambe him.. send in the troops?

While many people can understand the satire, I fear that far too many ignorant Americans will believe that Obama would hang a picture of bin Laden in the White House. I also believe that the cartoon will only support the notion that Obama is Muslim as innuendo by Republicans and other anti-Obamaites have alluded to this (for definition of innuendo see Cheney's innuendo that the 9/11hijackers were Iraqi's).

Repeating juvenile stereotypes, with all its crude art, is not good satire. Good satire reveals its truths with irony rather than by simply duplicating the objects of satire. Given that crude art can be used with both good and bad effect, with many types of folk art the example of the former, - simply making drawing crude is therefore a poor vehicle for the satire. It looks juvenile. Is the ridicule of its imagery directed at the object or those making such objects? Guernica was ugly to depict the ugliness of its object, does this satire intend to do the same? The vagueness makes it an approximation of satire, - it is not good satire.

The cover is very distasteful, like a a"Bitter New Yorker"

I have to say, Michelle toting a gun is pretty accurate. She's the scary one, Obama's just kinda pitiful. And if he's freaking out this early in the game, someone better get him a box of tissues because he's going to be doing an awful lot of crying before November.

I will sue uuuuuuuuuu

Unfortunately it is a failure of the artist who rendered the image as well. There are many political cartoonists who could have successfully made the satire work. If it were more tastefully rendered the intended meaning might have been conveyed. The artwork itself is very immature. Like a highschool drawing or "naive" folk painter.
Also interesting that the Jesse want to cut them off and then Malkin wants Obama to grow them back. I guess that's one example of why centrist candidates make the best presidents: They annoy the divisive, offensive loons on either far end of the spectrum.

The image itself, in my opinion, is clearly a satire. I only fear that some people may not understand the satirical nature of the cartoon and will mistake it for a representation of Obama and his policies. Obama, when asked what he thought of the cartoon he merely said "no comment"

Also, there is nothing wrong with being muslim. Even though he is clearly not a muslim, if he were i would still vote for him.

Nice try Barack supporters. You guys really crack me up. There is no way Barack will be elected president. Enjoy your 15 minutes of misguided idealism.

All the agonizing over this reminds me of the hypocrisy I saw as a teenager in an Oklahoma evangelical church. They taught that if you were saved and sanctified you wouldn't even have any "bad" thoughts.
Are you guys in the media assuming the responsibility of being thought police.
The New Yorker's cover is only acknowledging what is on the minds, in one way or another, of everyone who's paying attention to the presidential race.

Where is the satire? This is the propaganda being leveled at Sen. Obama by all the neo-cons. And sadly they have convinced a sizeable number of people that it is true! (See TheJohnMcCain comment above). They are the masters of propaganda and we need to fight it to save our democracy.

You think "People sophisticated enough to read, say, newspaper editorials are smart enough to know ..." well that didn't work when Kerry was swift boated. And the majority believed that Iraq and Sadam were involved in 9/11. Many still do!

It is unbelievable the number of people that STILL believe that Iraq and Sadam had WMDs.

This is completely absurd. Why would someone who is a secret Muslim be mad at being called out as a Muslim?

Hey Barack, why don't you tap Michelle on the shoulder and kindly ask if she will reach into her purse and give you manhood back.

Get over it already. Sounds like another spoon fed yawner jumping on the "let's reason with the terrorists" mentality wagon. Still have a few more months to go before even the Libby's wake up and realize this guy is only qualified to run his mouth, not a country.

RE: TheJohnMcCain

It's amazing to see how many degrees of separation some people will utilize to portray a viciously racist viewpoint. Oh well; I hope you'll find some way to bury yourself in ignorance once Obama wins the election. I suggest more reality television.

RE: The article

As for this "brilliant" piece of "irony" and "satire", I think it barely qualifies as being humorous. It shoves a provocative finger into the sides of all Americans, reinforcing the tiresome "threat" of omnipresent terrorism while painting Obama in a far uglier light than any of Blitt's other works. I mean, seriously: Osama Bin Laden above the fireplace? It's absurd, tasteless and even malicious.

Then again, mudslinging (or actions that support the act of mudslinging) is almost an art form in itself these days. I really dislike the practice, but it's inevitable. In the end, the candidates will try to prove that they're above the tempestuous circus act of the election process, and possess the ability to lead with a rational state of mind.

Now if only we were all colorblind...

The New Yorker needs to get over it, they screwed up. The told a Bad Joke (Satire) no one is laughing, no one gets it, or wants to get it. Get Over It Already (NY Speak). Some people just can't tell a Joke and the New Yorker smear under the guise of Satire comes no where to fitting any Definition that I have seen; just the opposite.

It's the intent of the cartoon that matters.
The New Yorker editor's intent, as I heard him explain it on NPR,
was to satirize and visualize the absurdity of rumors and insinuations circulating about the Obamas.

In my book (A Game Called Salisbury) I re-publish cartoons used by the Raleigh (NC) News and Observer in 1898 to create fear about black participation in politics and usher in Jim Crow rule. The original creation of these cartoons was NOT satirical in intent, the intent was to brainwash mostly uneducated, illiterate whites who could read nothing to counter the messages they saw.
It was very effective.

I re-published these, clearly, to expose them for what they are and to show that politics hasn't changed that much in over a hundred years.

Makes the NewYorker as important as Mad Magazine.

The way I see it is that there is still artistic freedom in America. The reaction to the New Yorker cartoon
will run a gamut of our feelings and expressions from total acceptance of an artist's Illustration that is creative, funny and enjoyable to uninteresting and despicable.
We have portrayed President Bush as a blubbering idiot and many other not very flattering characters. No one is untouchable when he/she chooses to become a public servant. We cannot afford to give that luxury to Obama or any other public servant for that matter.

We can channel our feelings along various other avenues.

If I were a cartoonist, I would portray Cindy and John McCain as Mr. and Mrs. Smith - Assassins, destroying the American Dream on their way to their own and gratification.

Maybe some other great cartoonist will give creative expression to my vision.

Read my blog at :
http://izatrinie.wordpress.com/

The issue is not that people are stupid. The issue is that people often vote on emotion versus logic and when you present an image without context in a large periodical, the net effect is it fuels negative stereotypes and casts emotional doubt in the public enough that it could sway their vote.

When republican operatives run a whisper campaign with smear tactics aimed to paint Barack Obama as a muslim terrorist, they cast doubt in some peoples minds. But provided the mainstream media doesn't indulge these claims and give them legitimacy, they are likely only to affect a few people.

The New Yorker is a liberal leaning intellectual periodical. Obviously they weren't intentionally trying to smear Obama. But the significance here is audience and context. The average reader of the New Yorker will know the nature of the magazine and understand the satire. But when non-new yorker readers go into a book store or magazine rack and see the cover as is, they are not going to bother thinking it through or trying to give it context. They probably won't even think of it consciously amongst the loads of periodicals on a rack. So the image is not given the context it needs to be interpreted as satire. Not because the people are stupid but because more likely they are passing through and simply seeing and storing an image they notice.

The net effect is it triggers the doubts that have been cast about Obama's character by giving it legitimacy and wide spread publicity to a negative image through a prominent periodical without the context one would get possibly accompanied by commentary etc.

Another blogger had commented earlier that if the picture had been Karl Rove painting this picture of Obama on the cover...that would make sense and you could connect the dots subconciously without having to think about it.

As it stands its simply a shocking image, more likely to generate attention for the new yorker and cause some damage to Obama's campaign and less likely to generate actual intellectual thought about the issue because of the way it was presented.

Let me get this straight. Barak Obama and Michelle were seen on video greeting each other by hitting their fists together. Michelle Obama is black and therefore has hair that's consistent with what's depicted in the cartoon (to some extent, as opposed to blonde locks) and most of the black commentators on television are complaining that the cartoon is projecting the image of a couple of thugs using that form of greeting. Why then did the Obamas use it during a greeting at a speech they gave? We can't have double standards. When cartoons of Bush are popping up all over in much worse depictions, we shouldn't hold Obama to a different standard.

Political cartoons are meant to be denigrating and outrageous. ( It might be a bit difficult to get the subjects to pose for such a scene ). Barack Obama was wise to shrug it off initially but his campaign mistakingly made it an issue. All they accomplished by that action was to muddy their message. Their apparent ignorance of the fact that the first amendment covers this form of expression does not look Presidential but petty. Thinking people realize it was a satirical portrayal of what the Obama haters paint palletes are loaded with. Barack was right the first time.

*sigh*
If this hysteria is a harbinger of the coming campaign, I will really need to significantly increase my supply of valium. If the supporters of Senator Obama have these kinds of conniptions over the content of a liberal publication, then God help us all.

This is an ridiculous cover and does not seem satirical at all. It's more insulting and insinuating a completely false portrayal of who they really are. Incredibly callous and unacceptable.

Get over it? Excuse me, but all that "cartoon" did was re-enforce the downright lies and prejudices of people. It feeds it, and all too many Americans are willing to accept the cartoon as fact.
I am appalled and will never, ever buy The New Yorker again.

Waah waah...boo hoo....get over it already. FREE SPEECH! It works both ways folks. Here come the thought police! Nothing in the Constitution gives the right NOT to be offended. yawn...

The response to the cartoon has been interesting -- Obama as Osama and Michelle as Angela Davis in her BP days -- so little laughter, so much rage, so much perplexity.

In responding, especially in Barack not responding personally, an opportunity was lost to put into perspective the in your face, over the top absurdity that was intended. The cover was clearly an illustration of the worst fears of the racialist antagonists to Obamas candidacy; an in the face reflection of a crazed and primitive state of mind; an ironic look at this sensibility, saying in effect, "You've got to be kidding".

If Barack had come forward and said this is pretty funny stuff, revealing just how absurd and over the top some of the veiled and less veiled suppositions about who I am, who Michelle is, have been; and then owning, the concern voiced by many, that those with engrained racist attitudes, and perhaps those who simply might not have been listening, would construe the cartoon as reflecting reality, the whole thing would just have blown over and he would have come across as upbeat, not pinched, and possessing a keen, self deprecating sense of humor. Just the sort of persona every polician attempts to convey.

He could have also pointed out that the articles within, as they fleshed out the position implicit in the cartoon, were worth reading, being very much on point, thus drawing attention to narrow minded zenophobia and racism which needs to have its bubble burst. I say this without having yet picked up my copy to see what is really inside, but my sources .....

If this had of been the response a sense of humor would have been revealed. As it is too much solemnity fuels another sort of perception and concern within the fence sitter community. And thus while highlighting with irony the irony on display, a demonstration of hipness in the face of utter unhipness would have made short work of the haters and fearmongers. An the unhip, now outed would have scurried to the high ground of blishful hipness and recoiled from their former position. At least those with a germ of humanity would have -- may still after reading this post. As for the rest -- terminal unhipness and zombolism -- so sad, so very sad, may they rest in peace.

After all every journey begins with the first step, and thus, the unhip, not wishing to be so, upon learning that their preliminary response to the cover was decidely not hip, would pretend to be hip, and seek cover under this cover and its patina of hipness. Pretense of this sort has a way of morphing into the real thing and that is a good thing.

Humor is hip -- I urge all concerned to find some.

Have you heard that Michelle Obama was a baby panther and has be baby beret and bandalier to prove it. Barack -- well he prays six times a day on a rug given to him by no less a mench than Osama himself. This being America, surely such things, once fully vetted should not be disqualifiers, surely not.

Barack, you still have my vote -- just lighten up. I still want to be able to laugh poke fun during your 8 years. Remember the bad new is that Bush will be handing over a full scale, glorious mess. But that is also the good news -- no where to go but up.

THe cartoon was an attack on Obama with a ready to go excuse that it was satire. The editor of the New Yorker was put up to this by some ugly right wing group.

This is the real story fools....

Seem by the poll that the moron view is winning. Good grief!

The cartoonist and the New Yorker editorial staff were trying a noble experiment that crashed and burned! They would like to believe we are beyond racism and religious intolerance in this country, but the sad truth is that many, many in this country are not. I was born and raised in Texas, and still have family there. They do not think this was irony or humorous. The message of the cartoon was not viewed as an attack against the unfounded attacks on the Obamas, but depicts exactly what they have been told about the Obamas from all of their right wing conservative Republican sources. What the cartoonist and the editors revealed is that they are out of touch with a large segment of public sentiment that believes the depiction to be what the voters should be most concerned about. I grew up during WWII and saw the results of similar cartoons by the Nazi propaganda machines about Jews and other undesireables. In fact if you go to the Jewish museum in Berlin or any holocaust museum, you can see examples of cartoons that are the precursors to the New Yorker's cartoon. You may say that the intention of the cartoonist and the New Yorker is totally different - but because they are naive, they are unaware that the effect of this hostile cartoon is the same as that of the Nazi propagandist. Too bad that we have such uninformed simple minded people running major magazines. This will be viewed as a malicious attack not only against the Obamas, who are strong enough to take that punch, but as an attack on those of the Islamic faith - and they will not see the humor in maligning the adherents to their faith. Mike

After the bashing that Hillary Clinton took from the press during the Democratic Nomination campaign, in particular from CNN and Google, O'Bama has nothing to complain about. Hilary had to rise above it again and again.

O'Bama needs to get over it because it isn't going to get any easier now or when he is in office. The entitlements won't come as easily as in his past. O'Bama needs to earn his way by acting like a leader with some actual content behind his platitudes and one line messages.

My take on this matter is twofold:

First, I think this was a bad idea to begin with. Not because the satire was "inappropriate" or "offensive" (indeed, when viewed in the correct context we can see that it was meant to be neither) but because the true intention behind the image can so easily be misinterpreted AS inappropriate or offensive. And that has nothing to do with Americans being "a legion of morons" or anything else. It is simply human nature. We will ALL misinterpret such blunt satire if it is not first carefully couched within an explanatory context. For example, if this same image were produced by a source like Fox News, I'm sure we'd all see a very divisive intent behind it. However, since it is on the New Yorker, and since many of us here are familiar with the political leanings of the New Yorker, we instead understand that it is meant as satire. In the end, it has less to do with the image itself than the context in which the image is presented. And for the millions of Americans who DON'T read the New Yorker and may not be so familiar with its politics, the image has no context and thus is likely to be taken at face value. This is why I feel that the editor, despite his good intentions, probably would've been wise to think it over a bit more before plastering terrorist Obamas on the cover.

2) Secondly, I'd like to add that in a strange way, controversial images like this always make me glad to be an American. Because despite all of the reasoning given above about why I think it was a bad idea to put on the cover, it is ultimately the personal choice of a news source how they'd like to present their angle on things, and that's freedom of speech and the freedom of the press at work. So even though I wouldn't have green-lighted this cover myself, I'm happy that they exercised their rights of free expression and that we aren't facing a mob of armed soldiers or religious fanatics trying to execute the editor for it. That's LIBERTY!

F*&king media scum... they will pimp thier mothers and sisters for ratings... this is just another one of those

When you look at the ridiculous/offensive caricatures of Bush, Limbaugh, Roberstson, Gore, Striessand, Cheney, etc., I think that Mr. Obama and cohorts are being a little pro-censorship. It's a cartoon!

So, will it be OK to run a cartoon showing the Obamas eating watermelon on the front porch of the White House if it's done under the banner of Irony. Some images are offensive no matter what the motive. Maybe we can use the irony dodge and bring back the racist Nazi cartonns depicting Jews or some of those old southern cartoons about blacks.

In order for something to be considered satire, it must first have some basis in fact! Buba's dumbness, Bill Clinton being a hillbilly. Things like that! That's why it's offensive! There was no point to be made as Mr. Obama doesn't represent any of the things we were supposed to be laughing at in this so called satire. There's a line between humor and indecency, and the New Yorker has gone way beyond anything decent by depicting Mr. Obama and his wife this way! It was tasteless and wrong, and the New Yorker knew it, and the Los Angeles Times will finally realize it too, once the results of their poll is finished, because it's about 2 to 1 against right now!

JRS

I think a cartoon of the Pope with swastika's on his robe would be excellent satire... I wonder why the New Yorker has not done that yet?

I was surprised the New Yorker used this cover. I subscribe mostly for the bright writing (which the article was) but I also love the political humor/satire/cartoons, however, this just missed the mark. I didn't find it amusing and I KNOW Obama isn't any of the things portrayed. My first thought was, 'oh no, when did rupert murdoch buy the New Yorker'? This cover was straight out of Fox news heaven. I saw very little satire and much more fearmongering...How very BushRovian.

Sure, you can say just laugh it off. We did that when bush stole the last election, no one thought it could happen. It did...and it might happen again. Let's face it; bush/mccain supporters are idiots, if the last election showed us anything, it was: there are a lot of idiots in this country. Be afraid, be very afraid of our future if a republican wins. You like the economy now? Just wait til mccain gets to start HIS wars! You should love it then!

I will assume that the New Yorker will follow up with a cover of John Mccain crawling out the bedroom window from his first wife to pill-popping cindy waiting on the lawn, dressed as a prostitute to go out for an evening of media-whoring (again....yawn) his pow experience, and throwing in the "C" word toward Cindy for good measure. That will just be hilarious too.

1. To say simply that it is a work of satire is not in itself a reason to dismiss the illustration. Did we suddenly become unable to make distinctions within a type of work?

2. Almost every idea represented by the cover has traction, and Obama had to spend a great deal of time fending them off. The New Yorker magazine said the purpose of the cover was to ridicule right-wing attacks, but that is simply naive of the current circumstances. Ridicule only works for a weakened opponent. This cover does more to validate these beliefs of Obama, rather than its stated intent. These people are simply out of touch.

"I am appalled and will never, ever buy The New Yorker again."

By my calculation, that decision puts you in a proud elite of only 302,767,646.

(I only kid because I love! Those numbers still mean more people buy The New Yorker than the L.A. Times!)

hilarious satire. how many people read the new yorker magazine? i guess i'm an ignorant moron that saw this because of the media hype. many more scathing cartoons have come from this mag, but they were only seen by readers. was there this much of a flap?

i don't hear the clintons, bush, cheney, jackson, sharpton and numerous public figures calling foul when they get skewered - get over it because it's just starting. satirists are just now taking off the gloves, so put on your teflon britches and accept the humor.

Liberals have always been the true racists in this country. This moronic cover is just more proof of that.

The dems promote rasicm and intolerance so they then can falsly accuse the republicans for a situation they created and actively maintain.

If liberals were capable of rational thought, logic and just plain honesty then they would admit that polls show more democrats think Obama is a muslim then republicans do.

How is it we can print that our present president is an embicile or plain dumb but if anything is printed about a candidate for president, it is considered a racist crime? If Obama becomes president, will he outlaw anything bad written about him? I have never seen such a bunch of whiners as the Obamabots in all my life of following politics.Quit acting like little spoiled children whose toy got taken away!!!

It was obviously meant as satire given The New Yorker's previous positions. But it is awkward and unfunny. It just makes the magazine look bad. That's unfortunate given the fine writers and cartoonists that usulaly inhabit the magazine.

MY FRIEND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE new yorker RAGAZINE'S DEPICTIONING THE OBAMA'S AS RADICALS WAS IN RETALIATION FOR THE SCOOP INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE OBAMA'S TO LOWILY ACCESS HOLLYWOOD AND NOT TO REAL NEWS ORGINAZATONS WHO'S REPORTER'S ARE BETTER QUALIFIED TO ASK THE HARD ,EDGY ,FAIR AND BALANCED GRILLING OF THE OBAMA'S AND THEIR DAUGTHERS [BECAUSE AS ANY TOP FLIGHT NEWS ORG. KNOWS "DIGGING DOWN DEEP TO GET TO THE BOTTOM KEEPS YOU ON TOP OF THE CRAP PILE"] [THANKS FRANK&MIKE} WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT I ASKED WHERE IS YOUR DAILY SHOW,COBERISH REPORE SOPHISTICATED SENSE OF HUMOR {COMEDY CENTRAL WORDS TO UR MOTHER}THEY WERE USING SATIRE TO MAKE A POINT OF ALL THE MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS FLOATING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THE OBAMA'S TO SHOW THAT RUMORS ONCE EXPOSED ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THAT &THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAR IT SELF {THANKS FDR} OHHH|||| SHE SAID THEY DID IT TO EXPOSE THE RUMORS AND LIES TO THE SHING LIGHT OF TRUTH AND REALITY? YOU GOT IT I SAID AND SHE SAID WELL THEN DOES THAT MEAN WE WE WILL SOON SEE THE MCCAIN'S IN A PIECE WITH JOHN STANDING AT THE HOSIPITAL BED OF HIS EX-WIFE WITH A SMIRK ON HIS LIPS AND MOIST CROCIDILE TEARS STAINING HIS FACE, WHISPERING WORDS OF SOLACE BUT CLUTCHING THE DIVORCE PAPERS BEHIND HIS BACK WHILE OUTSIDE PERCHED IN A WAITING LIMO A BLONDE HAIRED CINDY MADED UP TO LOOK LIKE A HARPY{ NO DISRESPECT TO THE REAL HARPIES LIVING OR DEAD WORKING AT FOX NOISE} PRIMP AND PREENS HER MOLTING FEATHERS WOW||| I ASKED IS IT GETTIN HOT IN HERE OR IS IT JUST ME WHAT SAY WE RUN DOWN FOR A COUPLE OF PINTS OF BEN&JERRY'S WE JUST HAVE ENOUGH TIME BEFORE THE DAILY SHOW COMES ON

If the joke has to be explained, it's a bad joke.

Also, a caricature contains an element of truth. This caricature is complete lies. It can't be a caricature by definition. The New Yorker laid a stink bomb.

How about the New Yorker making one of Prescott Bush funding Hitler. Maybe one of George H.W Bush escorting the Bin-Laden Family to an American Airlines terminal.

look at "TheJohnMcCain" post and tell me how smart people are or how noone will think the cartoon's anything other than satire. It plays to the people (many of them) that are looking for any escuse be vote AGAINST Obama.

Out of question, total unethical.
Period.....

NO JUSTICE NO PEACE. This is an unequal opportunity Blog page. Just like HOME (U.S.A)

I understand the satire, but as a magazine cover, given the state of the world, it's in poor taste and possibly give confort and joy to those it is trying to poke fun at. I understand why Barack and Michelle Obama are less than delighted by it.

This satire is priceless because it has zero value. Satire is suppose to be funny. This cartoon is just stupid and not up to the New Yorkers usual standards of wit.

Re: psixsix

Are you serious? Bush had nothing to do with the economy failing! It was a Libby dominated Congress that screwed around for 8 years and every suddenly everyone blames Bush. Hm, wonder where Pelosi's been hiding? When the Dem's hold the purse, rest assured your money becomes their money and guess what? GENERAL FUND!

This is actually very frightening. The New Yorker has every right to publish this. It's not a public broadcast put out by elected officials, but a company-owned magazine. Shame on ANY politician who would condemn their right to publish it. Voltaire is probably clawing his way out of his grave.

The fact that both campaigns show such outrage at the very kind of satire that the nation's founders' =official= campaigns would have used (check out the campaign cartoons from the 1700/1800's some time) tells us one thing: Neither is willing nor capable of sacrificing their own image to defend the public's rights as outlined in constitution. Therefore, neither is qualified to be President of the United States of America.

This should be the public's outcry, not that a magazine cover ridicules biggotry, and everyone thinks everyone else is too dumb to get the joke -- but that the tip of the deadliest iceberg in the sea has been exposed, and the USS Titanic is heading full-steam ahead, thinking she's unsinkable.

The problem was that the cartoon didn't show any of the people it was supposed to be poking fun at--the Republican/ignorant types who believe and spread the image of Obama that the New Yorker caricatured. If it had had a picture of Bill O'Reilly, etc, dreaming these things up, or included somebody with a swastika tattooed on their arm uploading the image onto the web, it would have been satire. It also would have been impossible for those same ignorant people to take the image as truth. As it is, it encapsulates their view without any of the satirical humor showing its stupidity and prejudice.

There's always a grain of truth in satire--dig just a little more deeply and you just might find that there is a mountain of truth regarding Barry and Michelle in this depiction of Obama's true colors.

Satire is not always funny, and it is harder to see the humor when the joke is on you. Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine how to exaggerate false ideas and fears about Obama enough for most Americans, or talking heads in mass media, to see them as ridiculous and even hilarious. This was a tough subject and the New Yorker cover was a satirical failure.

Remember the audience’s reaction to Stephen Colbert’s great performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner? Among the hundreds of media personalities and government officials on hand, including the President, only Justice Scalia laughed because he understood that the joke was on the gullible media correspondents in the audience.

The sharp edge of sarcasm and blunt hammer of ridicule are tools that Barry Blitt had to soften to achieve the subtlety required of a New Yorker cartoon. Read about how it all comes together in Harpers "Drawing Blood: Outrageous Cartoons and the Art of Outrage" by Art Spiegelman.

Editors at the New Yorker know this art often can’t communicate to a mass audience. They could have had Bin Laden in the Oval Office, rather than on the wall, looking forward to a sleepover in the Lincoln bedroom, and still failed to exaggerate ridiculous fears enough to break through the mind-numbing ignorance that hobbles our political discourse. Like “The Falls” in NYC harbor this was a minor artistic failure.

To my Christians thou shall not judge. In the last days even the elect shall be deceived. All is condemn to fire and brimstone through lack of knowledge. So let us speak in the voice of truth, in the name of the one you are suppose to believe in "Christ" and honor thy neighbors and not discredit or belittle anyone with anything written, drawn or spoken. God bless the righteous in heart & faith America. Just tell the truth, lets stop living lies we're only closing heaven's gate. And the Devil loves your trickery with your words and deeds. What happened to one nation under God. America are we under God on different terms or are we all give a chance to be blessed with the GLORY of the Father of all creation.

It is satire and It's hilarious regardless of your personal feeling about Mr. Obama. People need to get over themselves...

I wouldn't expect to see a picture of Osama in the white house; just maybe a poster of Che Guevara. Oh wait that's right they can just grab a copy from one of Obama's campaign offices. LOL the reactions should be great.

Cartoon? What cartoon? Looks like a realistic portrait to me.

Perhaps Obomba is upset because the artist made his skin color too light; not flattering and too "typical."

Now how about a sequel with McCain and Bush in bed together as pimp and prostitute?

Ron Paul's CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY '08

The cartoon reflects the oppressive sense of self-importance of both The New Yorker magazine and of New Yorkers in general. Sure, it's satire. However, given that most of the destruction of 9/11/2001 fell upon NYC; one would think that even the narcissists who staff and publish the New Yorker would know better. One would hope that they might understand that at this point in an historic campaign in which the stakes are so high and lives are in the balance; such a childishly conceived cartoon would be both ill-advised and in very bad taste.

Obama and his campaign are cry babies and whimps. Obama won't even debate with McCain because he knows people will see that he has no skillz.

What a shame that so many have their lips glued to his buttocks. Who are the real morons?

Obama is Upset? What?

Hillary was bashed and made fun of SO MUCH worse than this... and MR. CHANGE himself stood by while she took a battering. Oh yeah, I get it, it's the same old politics.

What a wimp.

AMERICA IS ENTITLED TO SEE THE WEAKLING DEBATE!

Come on now freedom of speech won't apply in this case since it is a liberal being made fun of. Political correctness says liberals get to decide who says what to whom and what free speech is protected.

However all the "art" degrading christianity, all the pictures and ridiculous opinions about Bush, etc are covered under free speech since they support liberal talking points.

Just think,

if Barack Hussein Obama had as much balls as Hillary, we would have to waste our time with this nonsense!

Democrat Morons destroyed their best candidate.

And no, I'm not going to vote for Obama just because Hillary was democrat!

I'm sure glad that I vote based on the quality of the candidate, not the party.

Go John McCain!!

"One would hope that they might understand that at this point in an historic campaign in which the stakes are so high and lives are in the balance"

Statements like these show who really puts race and/or gender above everything else. Pretty sad when our society is so racist and sexist that those the criteria to choose a candidate. When people stop making a big deal about it is when we'll know we're truly past it.

I thought it was funny. LIberals have NO sense of humor. Quoting Monty Python..."I laugh in your general direction". Those who noted that Jews and Christians don't get treated this way - remember "Piss Christ"? Seemed to get a LITTLE bit of press coverage. If Obama is going to be this thin skinned, he shouldn't run for political offices, but go back to "Community Organizing", whatever the heck that is.

It's always been fine if the object of ridicule and scorn was Hillary but anytime the Obamas - heck no! They are beyond ridicule and reproach. This is nothing compared to the ridicule they will receve if he is elected. Of course the race card is played when convenient. Get over your self Barry..

How can anyone, Obama supporters especially, find themselves "enraged" at the New Yorker's cover, yet (to the bottom of their hearts) believe it is the solemn duty of the American press to satirize and lampoon the current president, his entire cabinet and the current candidate from the right? In the mind of a liberal, if our nation's press isn't doing all they can to attack McCain, Bush or his cabinet, then they are not doing their job!

But a little of their own medicine is splashed onto their beloved messiah Obama, and it's blasphemy! A crime unto the people. A desecration of their "Dear Leader."

The answer is the same as it has always been; the liberal left has no problem with their rank hypocrisy. They never have and they never will.

If it okay to spend eight long years satirizing President Bush, then it HAS TO BE OKAY to do likewise to Obama.

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

"Liberals have NO sense of humor. " Fine. Lets see the conservative's sense of humor the next time someone makes a Jesus joke (or a chocolate Jesus), or bush jokes. That said, I thank the people screaming over this cover WANT to be offended and are deliberately missing that it's making fun of the CONSERVATIVE rumor and smear mongers against Obama, not Obama himself.

Hear is an idea. What if someone tells you that they are offended by something and you accept that they are in fact offended. I can not believe the lengths people are going to in an effort to minimize, explain or otherwise diminish the real feelings of people who were offended by this blatantly offensive magazine cover.

On one cable network program some guy said that if you don't understand the humor than you should not be able to vote. I believe he actually said it three times! So let me see if I have this right. You people are basically saying that if you don't find this cover to be what you say it is than I have the problem.

I cannot begin to tell you how idiotic that premise is. If my perception of the cover is that it is offensive to me, that is my perception. You cannot say I haven't perceived it that way because you think it was not the artist's intent. This is a matter of MY PERCEPTION! You cannot explain it away, nor can you diminish it by implying I'm ignorant . (For the record I will hold my formal education up against anyone you know. Including yours!)

I think the issue becomes what you think is permissible not what is offensive. I can think of several types of pictures that could be described as satire that neither you or the Ne w Yorker would dare to place on the cover, and the only reason you wouldn't is not because someone would not find it humorous, it would be because you did not want to offend an important segment of your readership,. It would be imprudent! This is the true standard then, not whether it is satire, and not whether you think it is funny. The issue here is what the magazine believes is the true risk involved. The magazine did not perceive a risk significant enough to make them consider the negative effect of their racist humor.
The bottom line is that no matter whether it is satire or if it is supposed to be funny the cover is racist and it is offensive, to me and many, many others. No amount of hiding behind definitions of satire, or claims to a superior intellect, or my inability to see the artist's intent changes that fact. Even a modicum of regard for the negative impact of this trash should have counseled the magazine to find a better way to make its point!

Satire is free speech. The powerful New Yorker cartoon shows how the right is, rudely and mistakenly, portraying the Obamas. It is supposed to show how bad the right is. Don't blame the magazine for pointing out Republican racist tactics. Someone has to. Also, don't blame the Obamas for gulping at yet another horrible image of them.

I thought the New Yorker was an intellectuals magazine. Why, then, are the pandering to the stupid?

It's satire...don't take life so seriously.

I congratulate the New York Times for the superb caricature of Obama and Michelle
only supporters of Obama are offended because blinded by the stupidity of their candidate who has not accomplished any
thing as a Senator.

Wow, this is really, really sad. This is not a non biased excellent magazine anymore, this is gross neglect of publishing decency.

MY FRIEND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE new yorker RAGAZINE'S DEPICTIONING THE OBAMA'S AS RADICALS WAS IN RETALIATION FOR THE SCOOP INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE OBAMA'S TO LOWILY ACCESS HOLLYWOOD AND NOT TO REAL NEWS ORGINAZATONS WHO'S REPORTER'S ARE BETTER QUALIFIED TO ASK THE HARD ,EDGY ,FAIR AND BALANCED GRILLING OF THE OBAMA'S AND THEIR DAUGTHERS [BECAUSE AS ANY TOP FLIGHT NEWS ORG. KNOWS "DIGGING DOWN DEEP TO GET TO THE BOTTOM KEEPS YOU ON TOP OF THE CRAP PILE"] [THANKS FRANK&MIKE} WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT I ASKED WHERE IS YOUR DAILY SHOW,COBERISH REPORE SOPHISTICATED SENSE OF HUMOR[ {COMEDY CENTRAL WORDS TO UR MOTHER}THEY WERE USING SATIRE TO MAKE A POINT OF ALL THE MISCONCEPTIONS ," SPEAKING OF MISCONCEPTIONS "IAM LATE WITH MY PERIOD' SHE SAID PRETENDING NOT TO HEAR HER I CONTINUED...AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS FLOATING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THE OBAMA'S TO SHOW THAT RUMORS ONCE EXPOSED ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THAT &THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAR IT SELF {THANKS FDR} OHHH|||| SHE SAID THEY DID IT TO EXPOSE THE RUMORS AND LIES TO THE SHING LIGHT OF TRUTH AND REALITY? YOU GOT IT TOOTSI SAID TO WHICH SHE REPLIED "CALL ME TOOTS AGAIN AND I'LL CUT OFF YOUR NUTS AND WEAR THEM AS CHARM BRACELETS AFTER THE OBLIGITORY PREGANT PAUSE SHE SAID WELL THEN DOES THAT MEAN WE WE WILL SOON SEE THE MCCAIN'S IN A PIECE WITH JOHN STANDING AT THE HOSIPITAL BED OF HIS EX-WIFE WITH A SMIRK ON HIS LIPS AND MOIST CROCIDILE TEARS STAINING HIS FACE, WHISPERING WORDS OF SOLACE BUT CLUTCHING THE DIVORCE PAPERS BEHIND HIS BACK WHILE OUTSIDE PERCHED IN A WAITING LIMO A BLONDE HAIRED CINDY MADED UP TO LOOK LIKE A HARPY{ NO DISRESPECT TO THE REAL HARPIES LIVING OR DEAD WORKING AT FOX NOISE} PRIMP AND PREENS HER MOLTING FEATHERS WOW||| I ASKED IS IT GETTIN HOT IN HERE OR IS IT JUST ME WHAT SAY WE RUN DOWN FOR A COUPLE OF PINTS OF BEN&JERRY'S WE JUST HAVE ENOUGH TIME BEFORE THE DAILY SHOW COMES ON

To the self-ordained satire experts -- You should learn a bit about the history of the form before constructing an opinion and looking like an idiot in public...

This New Yorker cover is a Disney cartoon compared to the biting political satire of the 1970's, a la Ralph Steadman, etc. Satire is not intended to be inclusive and safe...it's supposed to have a target, be biting, and shock you out of your stupor. Thank you New Yorker for having the guts and sense of humor necessary to run this! It was hilarious...but not even remotely funny as all the "offended" people screaming like idiots out there.

just goes to show,anything to sell /promote a tired magazine.i wonder if hillary had won would they put her and rosey odonnel on the cover.to you idiots that say get over it its just a cartoon,you probably thought it funny when king was killed or the kennedys were assassinated.to put such a negative image on the cover of that magazine was not humorous at all.i guess my understanding of U.S.A is quite different than yours.......

You people really are simple. Thank god we love in a country where so many people can get outraged over blatant satire. Your outrage is so pathetic...it's actually funnier than the cartoon itself.

Daniel...
You are an idiot. The cartoon is not a satire of Obama, it is a satire of morons like you. Us smart people are laughing at you right now. Now go read something...if you can.

The LA Times is dead on. The fervor created over this ridiculous magazine cover masks only one thing - the U.S. has become far too sensitive over perceived racial or religilous issues. If the magazine had decided to satire a Christian, white, republican male, no one would have uttered a word... This is reverse racism at its best.

Donnakerri...
Since when did the New Yorker ever purport to be unbiased (correct conjugation, for your future usage). It's a self-described liberal rag. Every media outlet has a bias...so stick to watching Fox News, they do the best job at breaking things down for idiots like you.

The caricature is irreverent and funny. Like all satire, it separates the light-hearted from the overly sensitive. It's a joke. A funny one. Lighten up BHO. This is the least of your problems, especially if you win the election

I just think it was in bad taste regardless of the two people portrayed and whatever the cartoonist was trying to convey.

Why can the news media not convey something positive about America, instead of slinging mud at everyone in this country ???

For a more positive look at Obama and his ancestral past see:

http://www.familyforest.com

Yes, it takes a moron to acknowledge that the name HUSSEIN is Muslim... that Obama's FATHER and entire patrilineal family tree is all Muslim, and that Obama was registered at two schools as Muslim in his youth. The morons are the one pretending that they are 100% positive that Obama was never Muslim. B. Hussein is Muslim by BLOOD. GET A CLUE! He is either a closet Muslim (still secretly clinging to his religion) or a Muslim apostate. Either way, WE ARE F*CKED if he wins. BTW - WHY IS HE REFUSING TO SHOW A VAILD HARD COPY OF HIS BIRTH CERITFICATE? THE ONE ON HIS WEBSITE HAS BEEN DEEMED A FRAUD. Write about that MSM!

Alexis...

Because there is nothing positive to convey. Our country is in a tailspin right now. Wake up.

We deserve to get some mud tossed in our faces. We are all complicit supporters of this cesspool of a society.

I find this cartoon racist and misogynistic.

Sue...
Of course you do, honey. Your husband lets you use the internet? That's so cute.

This cartoon is simply not humorous. It's not entertaining. I think it is rude. This cartoon is prejuduce against Muslims, and that's not funny. I find it sad that people would find that kind of thing commical. I though people were better than that.

Thank you Boris for being the world's biggest retard.

Satire? I think not! How many dumb Americans still believe Obama is a muslim? How many dumb Americans still believe that Obama took the oath of U.S. Senator with his left hand on the Quran? How many dumb Americans voted for a George Bush second term? The New Yorker knows exactly how dumb we Americans are. Satire? I think not!

LA Times won't print any comments that counter this article or are anti-Obama. Freedom of speech not found in the most liberal newspaper of all? Wow - oh that's right. Same types are trying to monopolize the media and are even trying to shut down right wing talk radio. I KNOW YOU GUYS LOVE BARRACK AND HIS MARXIST WAYS _ BUT THIS IS STILL AMERICA UNTIL HE TAKES OVER. BTW - I was a democrat until Obama came along and hypnotized the world with his lies.

oops - there it is - i apologize

I heard from a reliable source that the next cover is going to depict McCain robbing the cradle and busting up his first marriage because of the current McCain wife and his children are all vomiting and one of his children is in a straight jacket because of suicides attempts over the heartache and shame rich and powerful spoiled brat current McCain wife selfishly go-nadded McCain into her money power all the while she was on heavy drugs (the worst I hear) and that the cover story is going to be all about the sanctity of marriage in America and how precious our children are to us as exampled by McCain and how justified he was to drop kick his first wife because after all they grew apart while he was iin the Vietcong prison even though she waited and prayed everyday for his life to be protected by the one God and the same God he spit in his face for protecting him because of the prayerss of his wife and children.

I heard from a reliable source that the second to the next cover of the New Yorker is going to be of Barbara Bush slapping George Jr. everytime he pronounced a word correctly and that he's 55 year old and still in diapers for fear his Mother will come out of no where and slap him again so he has never learned to speak with diction because he was only allowed to go out of the house if he promised to not speak well and slur his words.

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!

link

http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=6100FUAUH34G9H9VMA6GNAXM06RA2FW9&sitetype=1&sid=125383&did=4

I'm a christian and Obama supporter and in a strange satical way I got turned on by the cover. Come on America tell me it isn't true. Just can't help but love a man in uniform. It doesn't matter what Obama is wearing he still looks Presidental and the New Yorker made Michele look like a hottie. Oh well, I know for a fact that her gun isn't loaded 'cause Cheney's the only one allowed in the Off-Whitehouse with a loaded gun. Hail to the H_ll to the outgoing communist party. Now there's a New Yorker cover story. Satrically yours, America

What's that old saying? Stupid is as stupid does, or something like that. Satire? Satan-ire? No, just stupid racist crap. Way to go New Yorker, you sold more copies but did nothing for our shared wisdom/humanity/commonality or individuality either. Try again, you failed.

Bravo to Cryos. Bravo!

What you have said is as true as the Sun is hot.

I recently heard from a reliable source that when the New Yorker features Bush Jr. on the cover for excelling in word slurring that the New Yorker is going to depict Bush Jr. as the only child 'left behind' and that the New Yorker is going to award Barbara Bush as the "Mother of the Year NOT" . The last sentence of the article is going to be "how in the world did Barbara Bush let her son grow up not know how to speak with diction and why he is an urban legend and example to the 'hood'.

Dear Moron (and Idiot) Nic,

I see you are hear to tell the rest of us what to think, what to say, what not to say, and to pass judgment on people's intelligence. Typical liberal elitist, permanently convinced you know what's best in every area of society, from beach access to foreign policy, due to your (cough, puke, gag) "superior intellect." Geniuses one and all. You should consider running for office yourself. You clearly possess the correct attitude, at least as far as the DNC is concerned.

As for the "cartoon," we all know the New Yorker is a "liberal think-tank" (despite the oxymoron), and their "satire" isn't meant to be satirically satisfying to the right, but instead is an "inside joke" amongst you and your fellow elitists about the perception of the "dumb masses" (you know about them. They are called "voters" by people on the right).

However, because you have all become so enormously sensitive about it, I am positive this has proved much more entertaining to me than it could ever be to you and your comrades in socialism. The New Yorker's sense of humor is in the eye of the beholder, and for me, a big part of the humor is the irony - that a supremely leftist publication goes right ahead and portrays your can-do-no-wrong candidate in the light of (what is very probably) the unvarnished truth about him and his wife, while somehow believing they are successfully poking fun at the right in the process. The result? It is beyond funny. It is, in fact, hilarious.

You s-a-y you are “laughing,” but I have a feeling we are the ones doing the laughing, while you and the rest of Obama's blind followers are just plain mortified. That, by the way, is also very, very funny. A few more extremely intelligent “jokes” like this and Obama will be a shoe-in. What do you think, Nicky?

I can see no reason for the "humor" depicted here.
And I am lost for words to condemn the creators of this dispicable senseless heresy!

Well there certainly are a variety of opinions about the New Yorker cover. Mine is that it was singularly unskillful and unworthy of the magazine.

I just think it was in bad taste regardless of the two people portrayed and whatever the cartoonist was trying to convey.

Why can the news media not convey something positive about America, instead of slinging mud at everyone in this country ???

For a more positive look at Obama and his ancestral past see:

http://www.familyforest.com

throw something out there to distract the masses. the history of muslim and christian empires are built on the same foundations!

Is this what's important?

very reckless cover. obama is absolutely right that this is an insult directly towards muslims. we have too many immoral people in the usa who constantly live in the gutter.

The adventures of the easily-outraged Obama supporter (aka "literal man")...

Obama Supporter 1: Bob! Did you hear about this horrible horrible cartoon that's on a magazine cover? It's got Obama looking like a muslim, and burning the American flag, and -- oh, it's just disgusting.

Obama Supporter 2: Wow, no ... that's incredible. Jeez, that's just what we need right now, huh? To deal with this sh*t? F*cking great.

OS1: (becoming hysterical) "Just what we need"? "Great"? No, no, Bob! It's horrible!

OS2: (pause) Uh, Dave ... obviously I was being sarcastic.

OS1: Huh? Anyway, look at this - this garbage. Look! Can you believe this?

OS2: (looks at cartoon and pauses a moment) Um, Dave ... I think this is meant to be ironic. Like, I think this is actually ridiculing Obama's opponents who are saying these absurd, untrue things about him, you know?

OS1: What? (pauses) No, no, no, no, no. That doesn't make sense. If that were true, then *I* could do a better job than this ... this "cartoonist." Like, first of all, it needs a caption that says, "This is the garbage that McCain wants you to believe about Obama." McCain would be pictured, looking real bad. And then the caption would say, "McCain is evil. Vote for Obama." And the last part would be in all caps and underlined, so there would be no misunderstanding! And there would be a big red "X" through the picture. Now THAT would have been a good cartoon.

OS2: Subtle...

OS1: You think?

OS2: Nevermind. Anyway. Don't you have to get back to work?

OS1: Not working today. Took the day off to express my outrage over this piece of trash magazine on the internet.

OS2: Wow ... (rolling his eyes) Now that sounds like a GREAT use of a day...

OS1: Thank you .... Thank you very much, Bob ... that ... that means a lot to me, really.

OS2: I gotta go.

To the original poster of this comment:

"Posted by: James | July 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM

...Michelle Obama is black and therefore has hair that's consistent with what's depicted in the cartoon (to some extent, as opposed to blonde locks)..."

I am a Black Female. I've watched this election very closely. Michelle Obama's hair is always impeccably coiffed with nary a hair out of place. In fact, I've hear commentators liken her as the next Jackie O when it comes to style as a potential First Lady.

The definition of irony is that there is some incongruity between what is depicted and what is actually observed or happened. In this instance, Barry Blitt's caricature of Michelle is OBVIOUSLY satirical, since I've never seen her sport an Afro or dress in military fatigues.

But the commenter's statement that Michelle "has hair that's consistent with what's depicted" -- I interpret his comment to mean that he sees NO IRONY OR SATIRE in the picture. HE is accepting the picture AS FACT, which proves the point that the satire in the cartoon was TOTALLY LOST on most people (including this poster or poser) who are not knowledgeable about Black women's hair.

I'm not even going to talk about the clothes that Barack has on. The fact that there is a certain percentage of Americans who STILL believe he is a Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with being Muslim), even though he said point blank on 60 Minutes to Steve Kroft that he is a Christian and has been for his entire adult life, is astounding.

I love satire and I'm all for it, but the comments above show that there will always be people who just don't get it. I am a Liberal, too and I think the cartoon is informative because it reinforces my belief of the way white people truly view Black women: as angry and militant and with unruly hair.

this is no satire. it's downright racist.

now i truly understand that the freedom of speech in this glorious country of U.S of A is actually the freedom to jab, poke, make fun and ridicule people, and get away with it (?). now u all tell me, how are we to make peace if we constantly pick fights? i don't find anything amusing with this cover. it's just a tactic for sales and it's a weak, ugly gimmick.

let's look at a person not because oh his color, or faith or religion. this person (obama) is just the same like the rest of us. he has families, kids, friends, relatives. just imagine the impact of this cover to those people. Heartless, that's what The New Yorker is.

okay, kids, here is what bothers me with all the shouting about jk - first of all, if all of you - and the New Yorker -- don't yet know the difference between satire and caricature, we're sunk. Satire holds up to ridicule or comment mistakes that have been made or behavior that needs to be mocked - If the New Yorker (and you) wanted to laugh at the "ignorant" who still think Obama is a Muslim, they should've drawn a cartoon of somebody who thinks that -- not the Obamas. Verstehst?

According to our faith, Barack Husein Obama is a Muslim. If your father is Muslim then you can not become an infidel. Our faith is passed through the father. Baraka's father was a Muslim. His name is Islamic. He is a Muslim. This is the prevailing view in the Islamic world and the view of the street.
However what offends me about the cover is not that his wife supports jihad, but her head is not covered.

Wow so many comments. Art is done to produce an effect or feeling. I guess the artist did his or her job. What a truly american spectacle we are. Obama needs to stop being a cry baby. Period. Political cartoons are as old as the country. The Senator needs to find himself... I think his wife would be a far better president. She definitely has more power and conviction.

The cartoon depicts an ignorant view that millions of American morons share.
My question is, who's job is it to educate the morons?
I think the media has a responsibility to educate the morons. They seem to speak their language very well.

The New Yorker (and now the L.A. Times) put their foot "in it." And unable to get it off, tryed the intellectual dodge of saying, "I was just kidding."