CNN

This mag cover not only feeds the problem, but it is a stepping off point for discussions that also feed into the myths and the untruths that are magnified by how it is discussed even on so called left wing cable networks. It is not enough for the pundits to say the allegations are untrue, when they then conflate the untruth to a "perceived" problem that people don't know Obama and that Obama must inform the people. Obama has made many speeches and answered questions about his upbringing through ads. Journalists have a duty to uphold their trust and need to unequivically denounce these untruths period and without opening the door by conflating another "Obama Problem". Wouldn't it be nice if the journalists actually did their jobs and reported the truth rather than discussing the lies which merely perpetuate the myths?

Hey, Brooklyn,

The reason Obama can't and won't just shrug it off is because he is black. Plain and simple. Get use to it people, don't you know and understand by now that black people are able to say whatever they please, anytime they please, demonstrate their anger in any form or fashion anytime they please and everybody is just supposed to "take it" and understand. Boy, payback is hell. Anybody, black or white must understand that when you're running for the largest, most important (supposedly) office in the land, you're going to be a target for just about anything. Most American people will not see the satire in this magazine cover – why? because this country is divided (lots of ignorance) and, yes, racial. It will always be this way. Grow thicker skin, Obama or you'll never make it.

I think the cover is hilarious. I'd buy a copy but they are sold out everywhere.

The New Yorker cover is much worse than any false rumors I have heard about the Obamas. The cover depicts a United States presidential candidate and his wife as ENEMIES OF THE STATE. I haven't heard that rumor prior to now.

Gustav James

Obama is playing the victim card. Plain and simple. He knows the cover is actually helping him, he just wants to bring it to attention. New Yorker was supporting Obama, and he's pushing his own "fear the politics of fear" slant. He whines and complains, and all these signs of weakness are not good for a potential President.

Plus, I don't understand why the whole Muslum dress offended him. I mean, he did dress like that in photos, he promotes diversity and religious acceptance, yet he is offended when he is portrayed as Muslim. Who cares? He say we're beyond that stuff, yet it still "offends" him. He's having his cake and eating it, too.

The reaction from the Obama camp reminds me of how during the lead up to the Iraq war, anyone who said anything against it was labeled as unpatriotic. What is even worse about the Obama campaign is that they are actually critical of what was meant to be a pro-Obama message – This is what really scares people about the Obama movement – the desire to control the propoganda about their campaign and how their candidate is being portrayed – seems like if Obama wins, we may have a thought police . . . And by the way – where is the outrage at sellers of Hillary Clinton "nut crackers" (you can crack nuts between the legs of a Hillary nut cracker) – or is that satire???? Who decides – Obama ???? Think about who he might put on the Supreme Court if he had so little tolerance for political satire gone a little astray – Do we want him in charge of those who rule on our free speech rights? What if someone tries to criticise him if he wins – This is what scares people!!!

If I had wanted to draw a cartoon that more accurately portrays Obama and his wife, I would have drawn the same cartoon the New Yorker did but have the pair of them surrounded by Kos Kids and Obamabots on their hands and knees worshiping them.

CNN will be too chicken to post this heresy against The Chosen One!

As if the press in this country isn't bad enough, now this. I once had some respect for the New Yorker but not anymore. I've just cancelled my company's subscription.

the cover seems alittle extreme. The article is probably a good artical but poor call on the cover.

Satire is generally directed at an individual or an identifiable group. This cover is intended to satirize a mindset or an attitude or a mental willingness to believe or promote the craziest, most absurd things about the Obamas.

The problem is the cover does that through an illustration, not of those who have that attitude or mindset, but of the Obamas themselves.

Imagine instead a cover of some slob in his underwear, sitting in a dark, seedy room that's adorned with posters of crazy things like the New Yorker cover along with other symbols of right-wing paranoia. That would identify the object of the satire in a way the current cover does not.

Comments like the one from BROOKLYN shows the ignorance of American people and why stuff like this is a bad idea.

And Ginger and Theresa from Minneapolis hit the nail on the head.

Wolf Blitzer has to be one of the worst interviewers in history. Ask the question and let him respond, then ask another. Simple format Wolf ... learn.

Love it. This is the freedom our soldiers are dying for people. Appreciate it and take it for what it is. Any intelligent person will walk away from these images with a smirk.

most americans think that this it true and I am one of them

What does intelligence have to do with it?? Could it be snobbery and "elitism" instead? Let me see - Obama dressed in Muslim garb, Michelle carrying an AK-47, a picture of Osama above the fireplace with our beloved flag burning in the fireplace - oh, wait a minute - yes, satire. I forgot!! Rubbish is right. It should be pulled from the shelves right now and the Editor of The New Yorker owes the Obama's an apology for "satire gone wrong." This, indeed, plays right into the hands of the Rush Limbaugh followers of the world, as well as many others who already have preconceived and erroneous notions about the Obama's. It is NOT funny OR satiracal. Shame.

so, 26% of Americans think Obama is Muslim, eh?

Well, I'm part of the "Fascist, warmongering" center-leaning-right-Americans, and I have yet to meet someone who thinks he's a Muslim from the conservatives. They must all be the left-wingers

MoniLuv July 14th, 2008 6:22 pm ET

Obama needs to lighten up. If he's smart as people made him out to be he'd realize that the cover is actually meant to help him and portrays him as a victim of fear-mongering by the Republicans.

------------------

I think Obama and the rest of the American population with half-a-brain understands the intent - satire. The problem is the less aware American, who will see that cover and use it as a means of solidifying their belief in the rumors. The cover may have been well-intended, but it was inappropriate. Understand?

For once, instead of the media setting the tone of morals and decency in America, the public and politicians have all agreed this was cover inappropriate. However, it looks as if David Remnick can't accept that someone else besides him and the media should have a say in what is decent. Admit it Remnick, you Fudged this up! Swallow your pride, take your public spanking and go away.

You jnow if it had been Hillary or Mccain then all the Obama people would be jumping on the band parade to have fun with it. But It is Obama and he is Black/white so the black need to cry over missrep. Call out the raciest card. i am sick and tiered of this whinning from Obama. I remimber some harsh cartoons of actual Presidents George Bush 1 and 2 Clinton Bill ect... You put yourself in the puplic eye now deal with the worst part of it. Or just say CLEAN UP YOUR ACT HA JUST KIDING MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! obama needs to clear up his owen act and let the american people know what and who he is. I am a democrat but I have not been sold on Obama. If he wants to win the pres. the Hillary needs to be on the ticket.

Most people aren't that smart. They will look at the cover and take away their own impressions. This country is still very racist and will likely always will be. I am completely losing faith in human kind. All we do is add oil to the already burning fires of hatred. Clinton supporters are now saying that is a part of the job. Well, they weren't saying that when HRC and her supporters was feeling attracted. That is the problem with people, they never seem to be able to put themselves in someone else's shoes. It's all very sad. If McCain gets into office, they will be be whining too, because this country will never get on track. As a black woman who helps alot people in my community, it breaks my heart that I would be attacked just for being black in this country. The people and media would twist everything that I am about to make me look like a terrorist. I am good person and I always try and do the right thing even when it would be easy to do the wrong, but people in this country would still try to distroy me if I were in that position.

If they wanted to attack misconceptions, perhaps they should have drawn a thought bubble coming from a redneck's head, since it is those types of people who still believe this garbage. That being said, however, the editor should have realized that most Americans are not as bright as one would hope, and that they would take this image literally, which would damage Obama's standing.

I would like to see a cover with the truth not this crap.
Show Obama taking Government money and political shakedown
money his whole career–never having any real job or
business venture–and then giving lectures on the economy and
responsibility.

Cheap mag. That is what the New Yorker is now. Just another cheap mag.

Nothing new in those objections to the Obama artwork, merely political correctness running amok, as usual. But like one blogger correctly stated; that cover would be a lot more appropriate to goofy Mad magazine than the self-important New Yorker mahhgahhzine, dahling.

Your paper is tasteless and I have canceled my membership... We don't need this kind of satire about none of our political candidates not Obama or McCain...

Out of over 50 yrs of living, i've come to the conclusion that this country is still sick in the head over race, a word none of us can help what color we are. it was not like we were in our mother's stomach and said well i guess i will be this color. America is so Stupid with hatred we will never come together until we get over this foolishness. Im like this im a caucasian man and we have had over 40 some caucasian presidents what have they done at least give 1 african american a chance. we are probably scared he would do a better job than anyone else....

If you don't get it then Satire doesn't work. The real problem here is that Sen Obama is relatively new and often viewed with suspicion by some voters. If this cover was of someone who was better known in the political sphere then we wouldn't be having this discussion. IT IS A BIG DEAL if Sen Obama is constantly distracted with questions dealing with "Who he is". It's a distraction that he cannot afford and keeps him off the more important issues......Jobs, foreclosures, the war in Iraq, and Health Care.

There is no justifaction for Hateful Covers that can possibly create more hate among citizens.
Some will see it in print and believe it more than they will believe the W

Mr. Remnick, I "get it", but I don't think you do . The satire is lost as this election has turned into one that showcases Amercia's true feelings regarding race and culture. Satire is only satire when we can look at it and say how ridiculous it is. But, many American BELIEVE that Sen. Obama is a Koran-toting, America-hating, Muslim terrorist impersonating a good-natured average Joe. Many BELIEVE Mrs. Obama is an angry black woman who despises this country and is an undercover Black Panther waiting to pounce on "whitey".

See, it's not witty when it plays right into the actual beliefs of many people right here in the USA. So, your satire is lost.

Between this, the "Oreo" comment and the numerous examples of racially charged statements, it's clear that America still has a problem with race. We've never really dealt with the elephant sitting in our living room and now he's tearing up the house! I only hope we can turn all of this around (regardless of the outcome of the election) and use it as another stepping stone to racial healing. We are a country of Black, White, Yellow, Brown and everything in between. We must do better in relating to one another!

Some people don't get satire, some do. And the next cover may very well be one with John McCain lip-locked with W; the grim reaper standing nearby, with McCain's version of the Beach Boys music playing in the background....."Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Surely this will undoubtedly spark hoots and hollers from across the other side of America's great divide, as the US teeters on the brink.

Perhaps Phil Gramm missed the mark and may well have said, we are in an intellectual recession.

NO NEED TO BICKER < JUST STOP SPENDING YOUR MONEY WITH RACISTS< HIT HIM WHERE IT HURTS < IN HIS POCKET..SLIMEBALL

Funny how the same pundits who were insinuating Obama was actually a Muslim and that Michelle Obama wasn't proud of her country are now outraged by a satirical drawing that parodies those exact positions.

If you can't take the heat .... political satire has been around since the time of George Washington. Barack Obama has to prove he is capable of being president by ignoring this drawing (because that's all it is) and continue to concentrate on his political agendas.

Besides, who reads the New Yorker? Is it even available in middle America? I am sure this cover has brought in a lot more revenue for this week's issue! I know I can't find it at any of my local newspaper stands (which, at any other time, there's always plenty of them for sale).

Yes, the ignorant will still believe Obama is a Muslim. What scares me the most is that they also are voters! God help us all!

Obama '08

The cover might be less offensive if it depicted Rush Limbaugh as the cartoonist! Shame on The New Yorker!

It is interesting that Obama hasn't said anything personally about the cover. He has said; "No comment." So those of you who accuse him of whinning.... you should read the news before criticizing Obama for being a whinner. But would you like a picture of yourself on a national magazine cover which is totally wrong or which insults your family? Would you say nothing or would you speak up to defend yourself?

Hey, if the truth hurts, you'd better pay attention now before you elect this Muslim racist to run this country.

Nothing funny about that. Satire or not, it was really lowbrow and completely inappropriate for a "rag" that calls itself progressive.

Think about the readership base of the New Yorker. Now, think of how many people are not part of that base. Now, think of all the people who would have never known this cover existed had the Obama campaign ignored it. They're not offended; they know they can get sympathy out of this, in a time when it's running short.

In the wake of the recent New Yorker magazine cover which has generated such controversy, the real facts of Barack Obama's Muslim heritage continue to be overlooked. It seems that in the spirit of transparency and healing, it would have served Sen. Obama well to have embraced his Muslim background and extended family. By denying its truth, Barack Obama has in effect denied an important part of himself. Subsequently, many Americans remain mistrustful of Obama, suspecting " that where there's smoke, there's fire."
And who wants to get burned?

We need to stop defending everything in this country.

The words "I'm sorry, I was wrong" need to re-enter the public vocabulary.

It was tasteless ... you blew it ... stand up and be man about it.

OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's the most intelligent candidate we have, and by far the best we have to open dialogue with the Muslim countries as well as the rest of the world.
OBAMA '08 AND '12!

"Bernard Parks, a California city council member and supporter of Barack Obama, told CNN he is calling for a boycott of the liberal-leaning magazine."

BOY!.... I can't wait until the conservative-leaning magazines comes out with their Obama issues. I haven't bought a New Yorker mag in yrs but I will buy this one.

BROOKLYN July 14th, 2008 6:42 pm ET

Mr. Remnick should NOT have to defend anything… This is his right, this is OUR right as Americans to speak what we feel… And ANYONE that wants to be the Commander and Chief of our Nation should in fact be well aware of this…

Seems like Mr. Obama is not.
------------------------------–
Well, how about we take Mr. Remnick, put a yarmulka on that fat head of his, have him hold a copy of the Torah and a '10-Commandments' style document denying Palestine their rights? Let's see how funny that story would be!!

FREE SPEECH?!!!!! - HA, HA, HA, HA!!!! Right!! Is that why Brush labeled ANYONE who opposed illegally invading Iraq for oil and killing 1 MILLION brown people an anti-patriot and a traitor?

Whining?!!!! Like McCain and his Enron enabling BFF, Gramm, calling us a Nation of whiners? I am absolutely certain those Katrina victims drowning in their homes were "whining" while McCain was having birthday cake with Brush!!!!!!!

HOW MANY AMERICANS HAVE TO DIE BEFORE WE GROW A BRAIN?!!! Look up NORTHWOODS & study physics - the PNAC should be clear.

CNN this was sooo yesterday....but lets see how many ignorant people still think those things about Obama are true.

Well, I guess Obama is entirely too delicate to be the president. Just think – four years of tiptoeing around His Majesty so as not to reduce him to tears on any given day.

NO HUMOR ALLOWED!

NO SATIRE ALLOWED!

It's been a long time since we've had a leader who entirely lacks any sense of humor or wit. Nor have we had a president in the memory of most Americans who takes himself quite this seriously.

Being Barack Obama is serious business, I guess.

This is just another reason to give this self-important oh-so-moral-and-just fellow a miss this year.

One price Mr. O. will pay if elected (or selected, I can't wait to see how that goes) is that people will go after him with a true vengeance. No kidding-no humor, just attack, and do it very well. He insists on the take-no-prisoners approach because one cannot joke about or satirize or publicly – just go for the throat.

I'm not voting for four years of this.

Yes, most people may understand the satire, but what about the 10 percent who believe that Obama is a Muslim? The supposedly sophisticated editors of New Yorker should have been aware of psychology research showing that an image depicting emotional beliefs can be accepted uncritically as confirming a viewer's prejudices, even when accompanied by words declaring that the views depicted in the image are false.

What is so tasteless about this? People have been saying this anyway. Someone just had to paint the picture. If it's not true why bother?

Obama has weathered worse than this arrogant misfiring satire by The New Yorker. This will only help him watch his flanks more, since he already has no illusions about this country's racism and general stupidity, the intellectual left included. Yet he refuses to become cynical about it and he does not lose his bearings in hatred and recrimination, not to mention retaliation. Anyone who can deal so admirably and intelligently with this kind of misguided stupidity, as displayed by The New Yorker, will make a truly great president.

Obama 08 – YOU ARE THE MAN!!!

Is the satire caricature True or False?
Obvious from the over reaction from the Obama team it is TRUE!
I think thou dost protest to much!
There is always a hint of truth in every joke and in every satire.
He has leaning towards the Muslims as he stated in his own book. To paraphrase, when push comes to shove, I will be on the side of the Muslims.
And Michelle, is a radical as she stated in her university thesis.
We do not change our stripes overnight, as Obama would love for people to believe; especially about his leaving the Black Theology teachings of Rev. Wright.
So, I would conclude that the satirical drawing was right on, and that it is a true reflection of the Obama's hidden mind set.
PumaPac, Democratic Supporters for H.R. Clinton, demand her name be placed in nomination for The First Roll Call at the Denver Convention!!!
Come and join our noble cause!

Hey Ricky,
Obamas father was not Muslim, he was atheist and his mother was Christian. Please do your research people as to not misinform the ignorant

If it's satire, he should have said so. Only an idiot would leave it to the likes of some people in this country (many of them even more idiotic than he is) to INFER that he was trying to be funny. I mean really, for all the people that just finished therapy, getting over thinking Obama's a Muslim, this for them is now a relapse. Thanks, New Yorker. Thanks for proving that big titles like Editor don't replace stupidity.

Where can I buy a copy of the New Yorker? I went to 2 neighborhood bookstores, and it has sold out. I do not usually buy the New Yorker, but I will now as my vote for freedom of expression. People are just too sensitive when it comes to the Obamas, you cannot use satire to analyze their background or positions. If he is going to be in politics, running the most powerful country on earth, he should be ready for more blistering attacks from critics. There is nothing wrong with that, and he and his supporters should not be too onion-skinned.

If it was an attempt at satire.... it failed. I have read many comments on this blog site of people who believe as truth what they saw on the cover. Satire works only if people are intelligent enough to understand it as satire and make changes in their life. So you failed and it IS TOTALLY TASTELESS. You should take a course in satire sometime before attempting satire.

Why is everyone making such a big fuss. The cover shows the truth.

one more example of the media refusing to ever admit a misjudgment....cowardice at its highest level......

sure it was satire...but given the circumstances and the many who do cannot understand satire..all this cover did was serve as a distraction(at the very least) from a national debate on the issues.....

This was incendiary and in poor taste. Also, I don't recall any other presidential candidate ever having to be subjected to this kind of bigotry.

Americans Don't Get "Irony." They take everything literally, as evidenced in all of the comments below and everyone's "shock" at the cover. Given that Americans are not sharp enough to get satire, they will take it literally. That is why everyone is freaking out. Thus, the New Yorker did a great disservice to Obama and just confirmed the incredibly ignorant, bigoted right wingers out there. "Thanks," NYer!

If Obama thinks that this is bad now, if he gets elected it will be at least 10 times worse. He is just going to have to get used to it.

I wonder how many time Obama chucked at all of the various caricatures of Bush with a Hitler mustash or as a redneck over the years?

I'd bet that he didn't find it distasteful then. It is kind of different when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it Obama?

There are two sides to this debate, both valid. The New Yorker is doing satire. The Obama campaign is correct that the satire is just as offensive as the real thing. I'm sure a lot of people will only see the cover, and not give it much more thought.

Overall though, I believe that anything that causes heated discussion is a good thing, long term. These things need to be aired out.

Let us see if New Yorker is fair and balanced so it will have a cover of McCain in a simmiler sitire.

The editor says that "intelligent" Americans will see this as satire. I consider myself an intelligent American and I find this offensive and disgusting. Journalism should be about the truth not adding more fuel to the flame of lies about the Obamas. I"ve purchased my last New Yorker . By the way, I'm voting for McCain so this is not an Obama fan stating this.

The New Yorker cover page is tasteless to say the least. Burning the flag was the worst, and there has been no evidence proving that he is a Muslim. He was not raised by his father, and his father's absence in his life makes him realize even more so the importance of this role. I have just fininshed reading "Dreams of My Father". Those who have doubts about Obama (even those who do not), should read this book. His amazing and seemingly wonderful childhood is apparent and made so special by his mother and grandparents. Just through their love and evotion, they turned the difficult times into good times. Out of his strong desire for education, (he had a most inquisitive mind) which was also a strong focus of his mother and grandparents, and other valuable traits he learned from childhood and forward, comes this wonderfully brilliant man caring for all people and his country – OBAMA, OUR NEXT PRESIDENT.

Well I guess you can say look at all tasteless cartoon characatures made about Pres. Bush and he didn't whine about them. It goes along with the territory when your either Pres. or the nominee.

I am surprised they didn't have him riding in white bronco like OJ Simpson saying he stole the election from Hiliary.

The New Yorker cover is satirical and an obvious distortion of the Obamas......it is also tasteless and offensive.....but unfortunately many Americans will simply look at the cover and vote Republican. This is the very disturbing reality. Obama 2008

It amazes me that other web sites can make President Bush look like Hitler, a Monkey, show him in various cartoons and its okay and promoted. But when the supposed Messiah Obama gets a little cartoon its racist, this is the reason I will never vote for a Democrat, even though there are may Republican policies I disagree with.

The Democratic Party is a party of tolerance, as long as the tolerance is on their terms.

This cover is exactly what Democrats do, and they do not like a taste of their own medicine from a LIBERAL magazine.

We need to wonder whats wrong with politics?

Obama isn't making such a big deal of it. Everyone else is. He has shrugged off a lot during this campaign. He isn't "whining". I am sure he just considers this another distraction in a long list of distractions that his enemies keep bringing up and just won't let go.

Don't feed the racist morons!
It is beyond their capacity to comprehend your intention.

Satire in cartoon form is usually an exaggeration of reality...like huge ears drawn on someone with already large ones. The problem here is the exaggeration of what is already a misconception. Polls show many Americans already believe these myths about Obama...the "man (person) on the street" coverage yesterday clearly showed that almost none of those interviewed saw the intent expressed by the magazine. Except for the attention it has brought to the New Yorker, this cover has failed completely and absolutely. It is neither funny nor profound.

With friends like the New Yorker, a liberal leaning magazine, who needs enemies?!

It's in large part because of the media's blantant abuse of its powers that good smart capable people shy from running for president. After treatment like this from the media, I can't imagine Barack Obama trying to run again in future should his current bid fail – G*d forbid! But then again, maybe that's exactly what the media is trying to accomplish.

I agree with the bloggers who understand what the New Yorker was attempting to do – cast light on these issues that have been in the shadows, but I also agree with those who said that satire may not be the best way. In using this kind of cover, they DID cast light on these issues but the light they cast, may NOT bring truth to bear – ie.these innuendos and fear mongering tactics are wrong and shameful, BUT give people the opposite impression. What may end up happening, is the very thing they set out to discourage – more negative stereotyping and fear mongering.

@Ricky...What would it matter if his father was a muslim? He didn't even grow up around his father, he was never even there. And more importantly people should be asking why would a dedicated Muslim spend 20 years in a Christian church? Doesn't make a lot of sense. And it could be me but I just don't see his white grandparents in Kansas raising him to be a Muslim, since he spent a considerable amout of time with them.

The point of any campaign of any given year is to elect the best choice or choices for the direction of the country. This campaign year too much attention is being spent on finding juicy tidbits or start accusations of the opponent. I want and deserve facts about the candidates and their views! Not looking for controversy to drive interest in a story.

The New Yorker, which I don't subscribe too, is a fine example of this controversy notion. The New Yorker's bottom line is to drive up it's sales, in other words subscription. The article only distracts from the issues of the candidates and the needs of the American people to make an educated decision to elect the best candidate for President in this country.

We need a President that has a vision of this country at home and abroad. I want information on the War(s), economy, immigration and energy...., so I can make that educated decision.

Please help US, the American people, to this end.

Thank you,

Steve

Does the Obama spokesperson really think that all Americans are so stupid as to not get the joke? He underestimates us, because I think the cover is hilarious and a great way to promote discussion about all the misconceptions about Barack Obama. Are we supposed to just bury our heads in the sand anytime anything potentially un-p.c. is said or in this case, illustrated? Do people no longer use critical thinking? Apparently not.

David remnick the editor of the New Yorker is suffering from a serious case of "being out of touch" and hubris if he does understand why most people find the cover image offensive. The message of fear should have been delivered another way….this is truly a disasterous case of bad judgement.

A picture says a thousand words. The idiots who believe Obama is muslim and unpatriotic would only see the picture. It would only reinforce their stupid belief. I think this is poor judgement from the Editor of the New Yorker

I'm waiting to see a cover depicting John McCain using satire. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. By the way what's next.

Regardless of intent, the cover is racist and clearly anti-Obama. And for the editor to sit there and claim innocence to defend the cover is silly. This is further proof of the current of racism that runs under mainstream culture in America. We are a country of racists and sexists – and a white editor of a predominately-white magazine using this kind of racist imagery on it's cover is sickening. Everyone behind the decision to use that artwork should be fired and the magazine should be boycotted.

It would be nice for a change to see someone in public life, be it a politician, or press, actually admit when he/she is wrong. While the intent may have been different, the result was not. It's amazing how arrogant some members of the press can be when they screw up; they fall back on 1st Amendment to defend everything, when pure and simple this was a foolish mistake. They would have been better served and respected had they admitted error. Stupid is as stupid does.

That's it exactly. A lot of people do not read the words, they only look at the pictures! The folks at the New Yorker were too high and mighty to think of that, even though they were trying to do the right thing for the Obamas. Smooth move EXLAX!

can't wait to see the McCain cover, any ideas?

-grim reaper?
-father time?
-old man winter?
-gandalf?

I'm for free speech, but c'mon, you have to draw the line. Whatever happened to ethics, respect, responsibility? There are still 12% of Americans who still think that Obama is a Muslim. I'm sorry, this fuels that ignorance, reading posts yesterday confirms that. As a conservative Dem, I truly took offense. Disgusting.....

observer July 14th, 2008 6:27 pm ET

This is as sick as it gets. The New York has a moral responsibility to this country. The Editor needs to be fired! Is this the society that we want to live in? Tasteless Rubbish. They should perhaps been sued into bankruptcy

No actually the New Yorker has a responsibility to make money, which is what they did, and congrats. Yes this is the society we live in because we have FREE SPEECH, and both people who lean right and people who lean left get to practice it. If its tasteless dont read it, but get over your feelings it will be OK.

My initial reaction was WOW! why would they print that. After some thought and commentary on the ecable news shows I realized it was just as it always was on the cover of The New Yorker – well thought out satire. Any straight thinking person would take it just for that. If a person already harbored that opinion of the Obama's , they just thought "See, I was right". Thank God there is a place for political humor in the press.

It would be satire if the image accompanied an article about political scare tactics and was juxtaposed next to a similar satire of John McCain. As the cover, it just reinforces them, since a majority of Americans aren't educated enough to make the connection that the artist is claiming. When old copies of this issue are sitting around in doctor's office waiting rooms around election time, those who will never actually open and read the magazine, will probably take the image at face value. I'll blame the New Yorker if McCain gets in.

It's pretty clear that the cover of the New Yorker was designed to poke fun at the approximately 10% of the population that believes that depiction of the Obamas. However, I think that the editor should have rethought the publication. While 90% of people understand the satire, that 10% of people that are still in the dark will only become more solidified in their belief that Obama is an Islamic terrorist. Now that being said, I don't know how much this can realistically hurt Obama... If someone actually believe that depiction of Obama, they clearly know nothing about the Presidential campaign and probably aren't going to vote or are going to blindly vote for McCain without doing research on any of the candidates. I think that putting the cartoon inside the magazine would have eliminated most of the trouble as the audience that would actually read the inside of the New Yorker would understand the satire. That being said, we must recognize that they are in business to sell magazines... and lets face it... this magazine is a red hot seller.

IIf they really wanted to address the myths then why nothing on the inside is written about the myths. The inside is about Obamas early days as an organizer. They screwed up and don't want to admit it, big surprise there.

The only beneficiaries of this 'satire' are those at The New Yorker.

Brooklyn..at what point was Obama whining about this incident..he chose not to comment on it. Yes, it was tasteless satire and he chose not to address it because it wasn't worthy to be addressed...

WHAT"S SO WRONG WITH BEING A MUSLIM?

Seriously, I know he's not, if you do little research on his life it's evident he's Christian. But What's wrong with being Muslim? You guys are making it sound like it's a disease! Enough with this HATE already.

This is America, the toterant country, the country that advocates diversity, the melting pot... yet this applies to all races and religions but somehow it's ok to discriminate against Muslims?

How can we move as a country, as Americans if we keep this up?

Good cover. It shows the idiotic oversimplification common in many who are anti-Obama.

Not sure why BO is PO'd about it, as it is actually in support of his situation.

I am still happy to be a subscriber to the New Yorker.

THE TRUTH SHOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE.

GET OVER IT OBAMA.

TIME FOR OBAMA TO REJECT THE NOMINATION AND GO HOME.

How many people in that editorial room got the joke after seeing the cartoon for the first time? I am guessing not that many. My guess is that the idea seemed so cool and so brilliant at the time, that the editors decided to overlook all negative potential fallouts and took the attitude that they will apologize after the fact.

Freedom of speech is the right of everyone; so the paper may publish whatever they seem fit. But the insult came when the New Yorker tried to argue that they were trying to help Sen Obama fight these misconceptions.

I have listened to the New Yorker's explanations on many channels: they contradict each other. One moment they are saying they were trying to help Obama, five seconds later the same speaker says the nature of art is such that the people/audience get to decide for themselves what the image means. So which one is it? Art for art's sake or a defense of Obama? The New Yorker wants to have it both ways and there lies the insult to the Obama camp and all fair minded American.

It seems like they learned from Hitler, all the propaganda against a group because it religious believe.
I guess they are try to justify what Hitler did against the Jewish community.

People, even are supposed leaders, are remarkably blind when it comes to wit and satire. Somewhere Colbert, Stewart, and Jonathan Swift are giggling about all this.

this is horrible, and it is simply spreading lies and doing clinton and mcbush a favor, ............

while we must have free speech, we ought not to continue to spread lies that will fuel hatred and more racism and lies here and everywhere.

does anyone know where to write them or where to send complaints about this???

we have known the New Yorker and the NYT are clinton long time and forever supporters... so we can expect more kitchen sink politics

HEY DAVID, I HOPE MY E-MAIL REACH YOU. WHY DON'T YOU PUT ON YOUR COVER, MCSHAME & CINDY COMMITING ADULTRY. HOW NEEDS A LEADER LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Believe the New Yorker went overboard in their satire.
At a time when electing a president is probably more
important than ever, the radicals, prejudiced, uninformed
do not need something that they "feel" supports their
unfounded beliefs.
Satire is supposed to be funny. This certainly was not.
And. many do not know the meaning of satire and look
at pictures instead of reading words. These people
will be the most influenced by this unprofessional
depiction of Michelle and Barack.
No one deserves to be treated this way.

Hello people, it's called satire. Obviously the guys christian....reverend wright anyone. Has anything even been mentioned about the contect of the actual article? Because the piece shoots holes thru alot of things the swift boat crowd's been saying about the man.

If you can't grasp the fact the the picture actually implies the opposite of what it's depicting, you don't deserve the right to vote.

O'r the Land of the dumb!!!! and the home of the morons!!!!!

A Vet

TACKY.... I'm sick to death of the racial/ethnic crap concerning Obama.... The media needs to stop making an issue of this. Calling a tasteless cartoon satire doesn't make it so.

People weren’t ready for such a statement, even from the New Yorker magazine which is known for provoking discussion among readers about themselves on a range of topics. The publication’s attempt at bringing to light the ironic hypocrisy embedded deeply in the isolationist fear and lifelong bigotry of many ‘Democratic’ Hillary Supporters among others came much too soon to be viewed as nothing more than inappropriate. Many Hillary Supporters undoubtedly viewed the cover as a personal victory, a way to justify that their hatred, their xenophobia is acceptable. But the joke is on them! The cover was meant in some ways to reveal to their fellow Americans, and to readers around the world what has been going on in America these past few months. But the world already knew.

Blah, blah, blah...

I'm over the cover. Can we move on already?

I get the point, but yes it failed to accomplish it's goal. Oh well.

NEXT!

Brandon Hillary PUMA for Mc Cain-Pa (and those alike):

It is so sad that some Clinton supporters are supporting McCain just out of spite. In my eyes you NEVER supported Clinton based on her position on important issues. Because if you did, you could never vote for McCain who represents nothing of Clinton's beliefs. From the very very beginning everyone knew that Obama and Clinton were almost identical on their positions on important issues. It was a hard fought race and either candidate would have barely won. But because your candidate didn't win you are going to vote for the opposite side just to be spiteful. That is just a shame!

Come on already. We are picking the President of the United States, not the captain of the 3rd grade kick ball team.

Democrats Unite!!!

This Cover picture to me depicts that all BLACK MEN AND BLACK WOMEN ARE MUSLIMS AND TERRORIST. (We can call the BLACK people BABARIANS if we want to)

I think this is how the black people have been potrait by white people since time memorial. This bird eye view of babarianism can even be seen on a new Game called Civilization revolution in XBOX360.

W all know that this judgement from white people about blacks is almost at the rim. before the November 2008, there will be more.

Please brace yourself for some more bumpy rides.

But let me just say that if this was the other way round it would have been caos by now.

Eugene M. McQuade President and COO Freddie Mac $10,752,905 $900,000 Not available

Thomas J. Fitzpatrick CEO Sallie Mae $39,629,325 $682,500 $1.4 billion

Taxpayers Bailingout the Rich so they could get richer?

Who's really getting paid?

In good satire, and I adore good satire, the images are OF those being satirized! So. . .where do we see the fear mongerers themselves on this cover? Folks, you got the rules of satire just plain dead wrong!

It's clear that the New Yorker should fire David Remnick. He obviously does not have the intelligence to know the difference between funny and tasteless.

It's disgusting and cheap and I will expect noone will pay any attention to it and simply reject it. Too bad that there are so many uneducated stupids who will look at a silly picture like it and make up their minds when they don't know how to read the article.

AMERICANS ARE EMOTIONAL PEOPLE!
WE FEEL BEFORE WE THINK!
9/11, WAR, GAS, JOB LOSS ARE EXAMPLE OF TOPICS FULL OF EMOTION.
The cover triggers emotions before you think.
Most poeple will not think before they attack OB and his wife!
This was about making money and not a point to help thought!
THIS WAS A BAD CHOICE BY THE NEW YORKER, BUT GOOD FOR THE MONEY!

There is a disconnect between the cartoonist's intent and the actual graphic result. I think the cover is defamatory. However, politicians need to get used to being misrepresented every which way, but I do think this is pretty extreme.

Irony deficiency aside, what were the editors at The New Yorker thinking? It's certainly cutting edge stuff, but surely there must have been a Plan B in anticipation of all the flak they must have known they would take. Nice try, but poor taste.

I love how McCain is somehow involved in this. Liberals will not be distracted from their hate of him.

This guy is out of touch with America if he thinks most Americans will "get it". The truth is, all it will do for most Americans who only look at the cover and never read the articles of this magazine is fuel more flames.
It's a decent attempt at satire but all in all kind of weak. These guys don't specialize in satire...leave that to MAD magazine, ok?
And start hiring better illustrator please.

Tasteless....
When Barack Obama is the president then the cover could be viewed as humorous. At this point it only plays to the racist misinformation that FOX news channel likes to propogate.
The New Yorker Magazine should be more responsible.

I Think it hit the nail on the head and did what it was supposed to do, get people talking. We are getting so tied up in political correctness that people are afraid to discuss things for fear of offending someone. What ever happened to free speech.

Why didn't you put Obama's two children holding guns on the cover also? Why is his wife on the cover? Are they BOTH running for the office of president? Why didn't you type "For Intellectuals Only" on the cover so the rest of us would not view the cover and see racism and disrespect of Mr. and Mrs. Obama ?

I am an Obama supporter. I am not happy about the cover but, this is still America you know freedom of speech. The New Yorker shouldn't have to defend the cover. If you don't like it buy it end of story.

I think it's right on the mark. Americans want change? We'll get more than "change" if Obama is voted into office, we'll get more than we ever bargained for..... America knows how to fight war on terrorism, to an extent, HOWEVER we are not equiped to fight what ever hash the Obama's and their Black Pride, will be slinging, because we're too political correct now.

To all of those who keep saying Obama should quit whining about the cover, Obama himself has said, "No comment."

The Obama CAMPAIGN' denounced the cover. Obama offered no comment.

It makes it sound like you can't wait to pounce on him for something–anything. Immature.

It's satire. Can we drop all of these stupid side stories and actually discuss politics for once? Honestly it seems like people want the elections to be played out like some awful reality show. Lots of drama, little substance.

in no way am i an obama supporter, but this was truly tasteless!

The problem is that this cover is like a joke without a punchline. I kow a lot of people who are extrememly very versed in satire who didn't get it. At best, they can see why it was suppose to be funny, but it isn't there.

When Colbert does his thing, he will contradict himself or say something that doesn't make sense or do something over the top absurd. It clues you in to his real meaning. This cover doesn't do that. It may seem like it should be absurd, but people really believe these things, so it isn't. It needs a punchline to bring it home: a person labeled "media" dreaming it up or putting the decoration behind them; a reference to obama also being a Christian. it's not bad, just incomplete.

I understand satire and what the New Yorker does with its cover but this was a tasteless one. The cover itself does not explain what is going on and from what I understand neither does the article inside. Polls show that there are people still out there who believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim and some of the other crazy stuff out there and this cover only makes it worse instead of better.

Is the satire caricature True or False?

Obvious from the over reaction from the Obama team it is TRUE!
I think thou dost protest to much!

There is always a hint of truth in every joke and in every satire.
He has leaning towards the Muslims as he stated in his own book. To paraphrase, when push comes to shove, I will be on the side of the Muslims.

And Michelle, is a radical as she stated in her university thesis.
We do not change our stripes overnight, as Obama would love for people to believe; especially about his leaving the Black Theology teachings of Rev. Wright.

So, I would conclude that the satirical drawing was right on, and that it is a true reflection of the Obama's hidden mind set.
PumaPac, Democratic Supporters for H.R. Clinton, demand her name be placed in nomination for The First Roll Call at the Denver Convention!!!
Come and join our noble cause!

To Tammy v "Where is the free speech?"

~~~~~~~~~~

Free speech and freedom of the press... absolutely!

The KKK's right to march and spew racist and bigoted propaganda is also protected. Just because speech is protected doesn't make it any less racist. Even if you call it satire, satire can also promote racism and sexism.

You can make all the excuses you want New Yorker, it's still blatant racism.

YES THIS IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND IF OBAMA WANTS TO GO AFTER HIM WHEN HE BECOMES PRESIDENT THAT IS FAIR GAME TO.

If the editor is a truly supporter of Obama he has an idiotic way of showing it.

BO needs to toughen up, if he can't take a magazine cover what will happen when faced with a really tough choice? Guess Sweetie is figuring out it's gonna be a harder job than he thought.

This sort of cartoon items surface at every election. If you can not take the heat get out of the kitchen.

The New Yorker editor is a jerk- sad that such people are in that type of control

The cover was obviously satire... to many people. The real problem is, many of the people the cartoon is making fun of don't get the joke. The cartoon goes out of its way to say "hey idiots, Obama is not a terrorist, he does not hate America and his wife is not a black militant." And the fact that it is so over the top goes to show how insulting and condescending it is intended to be to those who believe those things true. The New Yorker certainly has a reputation for seeing itself as very highbrow and sophisticated (who remembers the Seinfeld episode where Elaine asked the New Yorker editor what a cartoon in the magizine meant and he didn't know?).

The problem with the cartoon is that it has predictably become yet another rallying cry used by the very people it was intended to enlighten (or insult). Most Americans would be offended by the story in the press calling them a terrorist.

so I guess this is the beginning of Obama...he takes away our freedom of speech....everyone can trash the Clintons but GOD forbid we "touch" the Obamas????

The Democrats are a bunch of cry babies!!! I am so sick of listening to them. Racism, sexism, etc... Life is so unfair, boo-hoo.

Grow up!

HELLO AMERICANS (AND THAT INCLUDES THE MEDIA)
THIS IS A REMINDER
IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED FREEDOM SPEECH, FREEDOM OF PRESS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

THIS IS NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ. SADDAM HUSSEIN RAN IRAQ BY ATTACKING THE PRESS AND CONTROLLING THEM. THERE WAS NO FREEDOM OF PRESS THERE.
IS THIS HOW BARACK HUSSEIN PLANS TO RUN OUR COUNTRY.?

CNN lead stories this morning – Two positive or sympathetic mentions of Obama. None at all for McCain.

I understand and can appreciate the intention, but their approach still seems inappropriate and irresponsible.

"A picture is worth a thousand words," and for many of those who only saw the picture and didn't or don't intend to read the article, I imagine their negative impressions will only be reaffirmed.

Ironically, in many ways, The New Yorker perpetuated the very thing they were denoucing: media hype and distortions, which then makes me wonder–just a bit–if this "blunder" was actually a well-conceived plan.

I don't think the cover has anything to do with conveying any messages, but more about selling the magazine. Well, it worked, but at what cost? This cover will be the neo-conversative's star poster.

HELLO AMERICANS (AND THAT INCLUDES THE MEDIA)
THIS IS A REMINDER
IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED FREEDOM SPEECH, FREEDOM OF PRESS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

THIS IS NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ. SADDAM HUSSEIN RAN IRAQ BY ATTACKING THE PRESS AND CONTROLLING THEM. THERE WAS NO FREEDOM OF PRESS THERE. IS THIS HOW BARACK HUSSEIN PLANS TO RUN OUR CONTRY.

There is still Free Speech in this country. I am surprised that some people want to boycott or condemn this magazine for using their 1st Amendment rights. If the whole Obama crowd could get off of their high horse for just a minute and think rationally (I know, I'm asking for a lot) they would see this cover is actually attacking the falsehoods and misconceptions about their candidate. What is beginning to worry me is the "whole world is against us" bunker mentality of the Obama supporters.

I agree with Bernard Parks to boycott magazine. If all candiates are fair game then why is McClain wife not shown with her dope habit. First of all McClain wife would not be a good first lady, because at any given time she could go back to using drugs to help ease the problems. McClain is to old to become President, he would not last 4 years in office. It is time for a change in politics. So why don't you start showing some of McClain issues. Such as McClain was aganist Martin Luther Kings Jr. birthday becoming a holiday, he held out until AZ wanted the superbowl to be held there, so he only changed to get that money!

tiger

Noone ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. This will do more harm than good because the vast majority of Americans are too stupid to pick up on the high-brow theme of the cover.

I mean, it was the toothless NASCAR dads with high school educations (barely) and their beloved F150s and ATVs who swayed the last election. Those folks haven't gotten any smarter people.

A sad day for America. Racism, can never be disguised as satire.

If one has to take time to explain what they were trying to do...it means whatever they were trying to do DID NOT work!

I am sure the far right have already framed the cover and hung it on their walls with plans to use it in the fall to get the racist and hatemongers fired up.

Good job New Yorker...NOT!!!!!!

The cover never did what it was intended to do and it’s a big misfire for the New Yorker. Like someone said a lot of people will see the cover and very few will see the irony in it. Sad to say there are so many people crying freedom of speech and again they don’t see the irony in it just the same way we get lost in other constitutional rights etc.

Freedom/Independence can be defined in simplest of terms as “being responsible”. If you know no responsibility then you know no freedom.

I loved it... Obama is getting a little taste of what Hillary got and like everything other time he is whining about it. STOP whining act like a leader and brush it off. For all of the Obama supporters, QUIT CRYING, Grow up and open your eyes, life is not fair sometimes. In this case the New Yorker got it Correct.

Obama being a Muslim is a non-issue. It is simply not true. Anyone with any knowledge and intelligence knows that the Muslim religion is not a problem and that we have millions living in America and have been living here for years. The problem with the caracature is not what was drawn but how......Obama in Muslim dress-not true/ Mrs. Obama with guns and Afro-not true....flag burning-not true/Bin Laden picture in White House–not true.....but some far out believe it and dream it and that's what's wrong.......It's racist whether it's satire or not.

This is too important of an election to spread untruths.....This even effects the future business of the New Yorker.....We have corporate bankruptcies-bank bankruptcies-problems with Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac-job eliminations-job layoffs-foreclosures-predatory lending-money going to Iraq........

The New Yorker needs to make a caricature of real issues so Americans can be informed. The country depends on the media to speak to the truths!!!!

No need to defend yourself. I liked it! Keep up the good work!

Typical Obamabots-they're missing the point-this mag has poked fun at EVERYONE-why is the "Messiah" and his followers pissed off??-is he off limits???-This is free speech at its best-Good for the Editor to stand by his decision-at least this man makes a decision and sticks with it!

BO needs to explain himself and his policies in depth!!!-This country needs a leader who leads!!!-not rhetoric.

You knew he was a white man! Where's the picture of McCain in his devil uniform, kiling babies and smacking on woman calling them bad words while gambling with U.S. dollars?

Someone name me one New York cover that ever depicted a politican in this manner and I won't call him a racist.

Thought not!

Hey Brooklyn –

Obama is not whining about this – everyone else is. He released one comment regarding this and said there are more important things to think about.
As for the cover – it's racist and offensive. When you exploit caracatures of people – it's racist. It's the same as the people in the south selling t-shirts depicting Obama as a monkey. When have we ever seen Michelle Obama in an afro?
I think that the mistake was two fold – one – thinking that people would see the intellectual satire in this which is too high brow for all of those making these false claims – and two – not having any real statement in the magazine dispelling any of the myths. The article talked of Obama as a politician but I have not seen anything dispelling any of the themes in the cover.
The danger is that what seems to be a caracature directed at the intelligenstsia, is also a wink and a nod to the racists who believe this nonsense. I suspect that this will just reiterate their beliefs.

It is a shame this man is having to defend this satyre concerning the Obamas. He never had to defend all the satyre he used against the Bush Administration. The liberals didn't say a word when Rice was portrayed as a "monkey " or portayed as a slave type figure. That race issue only comes up when it can used by the democrats and it is convient. As far as I am concerned I think the picture porrtays Obama and his wife perfect based off their actions and words.

The cover is not satire. It is just plain crude, rude, and reprehensible.

You can't escape your DNA... Mr Obama...

It was funny. Get over it.

I guess the First Amendment only works for Liberals when it is supporting them or tearing down people who disagree with them. Ha ha ha.

In remembrance to all Americans, get a grip, get your sense of humor back and for goodness sakes quit taking yourselves and your candidates so seriously to point of "worshipping them" it's unrealistic and no matter who gets in the President's office come January, there will just be more of this and many others

There is no humour in the New Yorker cover. It is not cool either. The weirdest thing of all is that there are still some people who believe Obama, who claims he is a Christian, may be a muslim. This is ignornace of the worst order. Where in the world a muslim person claims he/she is a Christian and go to Church? I think the 12% who think so must be living on another planet. Let alone for a muslim person to claim he is a Christian, those who convert from muslim to christian cannot survive a day among their community. Alas, few Americans still think about something that defies all realities in the rest of the world may be true. In other parts of the world, a muslim who dare to claim he is a christian commits the worst sin and blasphemy . Are we this ignorant about the rest of the world or just play the cheapest politics?

The New Yorker is pulling up the old racist tactics that will not work. Barack is better than the smear campaign that's online right now. It makes me sick that a person would do such a thing.

It is tasteless...but something I would totally expect from NY. Wanna bet it will be in an ad somewhere in one of those "battleground" states where the populous is not able to decipher "the ironic intent of the illustration".

I think Obama needs to trade that soft skin of his for some thicker rougher skin. I mean the man wont even cross his hart for the "Pledge of Allegiance" this act should speak volumes to all of us as "Americans". He isn't on our side he is not American. It's a sad, sad day when a wanna be hopeful president is hurt by a picture. Not just hurt but out raged and McCain he should expect to be next and he more than likely he will be, will he cry too God I hope not .
Any candidate should expect this, it's happened every election, it's our freedom that is what makes AMERICA grand, beautiful and FREE, we will keep it that way it's the dream and the promise it's the life I love.
So don't be soft. Is this what America is, are we a bunch of softy, cry babies that let some words or a cartoon hurt our little feelings. Not me what about you?

OMG watch out if anyone says anything Obama will play the race card. What a whiner Obama is. I hate to think we have to put up with him whining for 4 years. He is a follower not a leader. He is actually more like Bush than McCain with his arrogant elitist attitude.

It's satire and the article points out to the misconceptions some people have of him. The problem is obama brought this on himself and he's been whining like a baby at every single thing that he is the problem. He's just not the right candidate. I hope the superdelegates come to their senses at the convention. Nothing is cast in stone yet.

I cannot believe the hateful comments on this blog. There is still such a thing as good journalism, and this is the lowest of the low. Whatever is wrong with America. What a frightening nation you have become.

You do know what the controvosy is – your attempt at satire turned into a smea that disgusted more people than you can begin to imagine. shame on you for approving this racist filth.

David you got it wrong. Put a picture of your mother on the cover, so we can talk about her. Michelle has two kids, what a stupid image for her kids to see there mother with bullets and guns.

Once again, the New Yorker got it wrong.

Do not dwell on such an idiotic subject. Move on, Barack Obama has run a respectable campaign.

Obama 08

Here is to Freedom of Speech!

I guess poor little Obama met his match with the New Yorker, he used media to hurt Hillary, but when it is his turn, he can't take it. This is how you know that Hillary IS the right MAN for the Job! Go Hillary!

If Obama thinks that he is not going to be satired as a candidate, or as President, he's got another thing coming.

Obama's people are acting like morons. Is everyone who opposes Obama a racist?

I'll never understand when people make mean statements or jokes and then they say the subject of that statement or joke needs to "lighten up". What about the magazine, do they have any responsibility? I thought not.

Its too easy to pull the inherent racism and sexism out of people. You can read it above. I respect New Yorker's right to do it, but it totally backfired. People these days just arent smart enough.

TtHIS WAS PURE CRUDE , RAW JOURNALISM.
OBAMA IS NOT WHINNING. HE IS APPAULD LIKE MANY OF US !
I LIKE CAPT. SMASH'S IIDEA.
RUN THAT ON YOUR NEXT COPY NEW YORKER.

The New Yorker will have to apologize–there is no two ways about it.

This magazine should mark July 14th as being the worst day in their history.

The difference between Colbert/Stewert is that they deal their commentary in the form of sarcasm and obvious exaggeration. The New Yorker showed stuff that people have said, but didn't make fun of the other side in the form of perhaps having McCain in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank. If he didn't directly mean to offend anybody, then put McCain on next month's cover.

I am wondering if the next cover will be of John McCain whispering top secret information to the Viet Cong as he is waving goodbye to the other POW's at the Hanoi Hilton?? hmmmmm that would be some good satire.

After seeing the cover of the new yorker i became sick to my stomach. there are alot of stupid people who will believe that cover.

The New Yorker has a right to print a magazine with that piece of tripe for a cover, but the rest of us (including Senator Obama if he chooses) have a right to voice our opinion of it. It offends on every level, and the New Yorker should be ashamed for printing it. Just because you have a right to use poor taste and judgement doesn't mean you are required to exercise it.

There are people who believe Senator McCain's experience in Vietnam could be satirized by a cover with him dropping bombs on helpless women and children. As someone who supports Senator Obama, I say that cover would be as out of place as this one is.

David and the New Yorker are full of rotten crap and should get the stinky fart award. This is not funny, it's not satire, it's defamation, and it stinks to high heaven. They should be sued, then let them try to find some irony in that.

This United States Senator is a Christian and was raised by his White, Christian mother and grandmother; not his Black, Muslim father who abandoned them when he was very young. His wife is a dignified, fantastic, articulate, brilliant attorney and loyal American and Christian, with credentials one could only dream of having.

It's 2008, not 1608. God, please help this nation; democrats, republicans, and independents.

The super sensitive Obama would never make it as president! He can dish it out but he can't take it even from his own left-wing people!

Give it up Obama! You will never be president. You are a living breathing joke!

Many will look at this cover and see only the picture...they will not read the article. As there is no explanation on the cover, it becomes an offensive negative. This shows a lack of common sense on the part of The New Yorker... with this type of support, the Democrats don't need enemies.

It is shameful....the media has lost all credibility!

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but it brought controversy

Tonight one of the talking Obamaheads on Cooper's 360 stated the New Yorker magazine cover was racist. Why is it that any criticism of Obama is called racist? It's Obama who vacated the pledge, it's Obama who didn't wear a flag pin, it's Obama's wife who measures patriotism through her husband's popularity, it's Obama whose friend and pastor was the trash talking Rev. Wright. The seeds of doubt were conceived months ago and the magazine cover is Obama's offspring. Stop calling Americans racists.

The New Yorker cartoon belongs on the inside of the magazine where regular readers expect biting satire. It is not funny-it is vicious. If it were on a conservative magazine cover it would be considered hate speech. By putting it on the cover where casual readers will see it, it will confirm in the minds of many that Obama is a OSAMA worshiper or follower who hates America and is in fact a muslim and burns the American flag inside his home. It portrays Michelle as a gun-toting terrorist. Appaling, tasteless, hateful and damaging. To repeat-cartoons like this belong on the inside not on the cover.

They were get close. Waite till some one spell's it out, That he is not a Citizen of the USA . Therefore he can not be elected president.

That made my day , for it shows , in plain facts, what a flip Flopper he is, Plus all the other , LIE"S .

He flips, flop's more than a fish out of water.

NOOOOOooooooooooo Obama , go back to Rezeko .

The is the worst catoon image of potential US president. The picture is racist in nature. Shame on New Yorker.

A better picture of Obama would have been a wolf in sheep's clothing. The portrayal of his wife is spot on. Another nice touch would have been Rev. Wright and Al Sharpton high-fiving each other.

I went to Indonesia many times and being Jackarta Indonesia a poor muslim country , children are training to be a good muslim like their parents. All the white foreign people live separed . If Obama lived in Jackarta he must had many muslim friends. OK but do we want a "muslim president " ?

Why not do like I did, cancel your subscription to the magazine and request your favorite news stand not to carry the issue/the magazine. If we all truly disagree with the New Yorker's latetest statement lets join together and no longer purchase the magazine.

I'd view this more suspiciously if it came from a right wing publication. Now that we know there's a corresponding story to go along with the illustration, about the very thing we must stop falling for; the politics of FEAR!...
Vote Hope

Why even take the chance it will be misconstrued? Publicity, I guess. They should have added frivolous dialogue captions to the pictures to truly get their satirical point across.

It's one thing to make a satirical comment on what a person has said or done. I believe it is an entirely different thing to make such a comment on what other people believe about the person who is target of the satire. For example, one could 'poke fun' at George Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' photo-op.

Can 'The New Yorker' please give us a few examples (2 or 3) of satirical magazine covers in the past 15 years about uninformed beliefs that segments of the population have held about the target of the satire?

Let me give the New Yorker my Satire. I shall not buy a copy of this
"Mag." Moreover, to suggest this is satire, the editors should ask
themselves, "Who is laughing?" with the exception of the racist
culture in our country. They KNEW what they were doing and their
pathetic excuses are another attempt to look down at those of us
who are looking for a change in our government. In closing,
to go after the Obama's wife is beyond contempt. Would they have dared to put laura Bush on the front page as "Satire?"
I think NOT!!

The cover was in very poor taste. It was racist ,sexist and a lot more. The Obama's and their supporters should boycott the New Yorker. We of course know politicans are fair game for the media but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I'd be pissed off if I was the one on it just like every other human being.

David Remnick, the longtime editor of the highly-regarded publication, said he believes the ironic intent of the illustration will be clear to most Americans.
CNN Monday he doesn't regret approving the use of the controversial image.
Just Curious will you do an illustration of CINDY and John McCain?

How about all of the covers where they try to make Obama look like he is Jesus? Deal with it. When the media far and wide cover you with absolute giddy who complains? It is satire and learn to take a Joke Obama and all of your PC supporters. How about the joke after joke about McCain and his age and so on and so on? God I hope this country realizes what Obama is before its too late.

If the American public is offended, as I am by, the cover of The New Yorker, the solution is simple – boycott The New Yorker and everyone who advertises in it.

The problem with the new cover of the New Yorker is the picture of Bin Laden over the fireplace in the Oval Office. He (and others) are responsible for killing Americans seven years ago. We presently have Americans who are in harms way looking for him. That's where the artist and the magazine stepped over the line and what makes the cover offensive.

It's scum – pure & simple

Obama '08

This would have worked if everyone was as smart and in touch as the average reader of the New Yorker. Sadly, that isn't the case.

The New Yorker has a circulation of around 1 million, most of whom may get this, but tens of millions more will see this cover and not understand the satire. By overestimating the intelligence of the general populace the New Yorker editors have unwittingly added more fuel to the firestorm of obscenely false accusations.

Sure we have freedom of speech.. But this is HORRIFIC!!! Then to try and justify it by saying it was done to attack lies and misconceptions. This is further proof of the hateful, prejudice mindset of the media.

I am an African American woman who is highly offended by this article. Not because they are talking about Obama but there is more to it than that.

It is very racist. Ok, I agree, there is free speech but come on do you have to offend other races. This is uncalled for.

When I have a family who loves this country and everything that it stands for. When I have family who fought and died for this country. When I have a right to be respected as much as the next man – it saddens me that I am still looked down upon. Yes, it states the racism that still exist in this country.

It is not about Obama in this picture – it is painting a negative picture of different cultures. This is absolutely disrespectful. When my daughter looked at this picture, she was said mom, why do people hate me for what I am.

I am still proud of my country and hope that one day all of this nonsense will end.

This is only pushing more and more people to vote for Obama.

Someone on the blog stated – once a muslim is always a muslim. How dare you state such a hateful comment. You are way off line here.

An editor who is indeed educated!!! Pity intelligence and education often don't go hand in hand!!!

Now after alllllll this can anyone tell me that when Sen Obama wins... can anyone say it was an 'easy' win after putting him thru the wringer!
He will have a much deserved WIN come Nov!

The cover was tasteless! Plain n Simple!

Never seen any other politician on a cover in such a manner!
We all know Obama is not a Muslim. We all know Michelle is not a terrorist! Its just amazing what we do to our own people thru ignorance!

Remnick need to be fired.

I think the cover says it all for the dirty politics in this country. It is appalling that such a thing can be printed about someone running for our highest office. The media in this country has just gone too far. I grew up in the days of Walter Cronkite, who every night gave us the news and he did not analyze things to death,nor did we see such utter disregard for someone who may be our President. This country has no shame anymore and because of it, we are slowly going down the tube. Way to go American media...

Okay, so a totally liberal magazine, prints an obviously over the top picture, to make a point that helps Obama, and they get criticized by the liberals for it! Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, but for the liberals, only when you agree with them, which ironically the magazine does and they just didn't get it. The conservatives are laughing at you.

This is just sad. Those in the media have reached an all-time low. How low can you go? What ever happened to responsible journalism?

The burning American Flag was too much. They not only insulted the American People, they have really put a lot of doubt in their own reputation.

"Obama suddenly the cash underdog?"

Gee. who woulda thunk? WE - Hillary supporters do!

The corrupt DNC inspired us to now contribute to - and support John McCain!

And with that being said, despite my opinion that the cover is tasteless, we live in a society where free speech is our right as citizens. They can print it, it just means that I do not have to like it.

I understand his point, but that cover will have the unintended consequence off giving fodder to the paranoid nutzo's who still think he is a muslim. Unfortunately, a large part of the electorate has an allergy to thoughtful discussion and debate.

Simply put, the cover is tasteless and smacks of blatant and subliminal messages designed to reinforce the fear that white America and others who are looking for something in Obama to reinforce why they dont like him. And Ricky, he does not need to explain to ANYONE why his father was a Muslim. His father would speak for himself, but he is dead. Since when does one have to give an explanation about what another person's choice was? This is the same thing with Wright. He can't stop him from saying what he wants to say, yet you think that he should impose his will to do so. If you want to know what Obama's religion is, read a book, go to his site with his biography and READ! After all, reading is fundamental...

I find it amusing that the folks who spread the lies find it amusing. The New Yorker is not laughing with the misinformed racist of America its laughing at the misinformed racist of America.

Yes, I get the satire. And I concede the right to free speech. However, to use the rationale that there are Americans out there that still believe Obama is a Muslim does not really justify the tasteless cover of the magazine. It will only fuel the fire for those ignorant enough to believe whatever they are spoonfed. So, the satire is lost on the folks who this guys says it's aimed towards.

OK. Right. This is America, where we have freedom of the press. We also have freedom to not appreciate what the press is presenting, especially when it is not CLEAR what they are presenting and why. I'm sure the article absolutely explains and clears up all misconceptions. But there happen to be a lot of people who BROWSE and don't read the magazines. They look at the cover and are inspired or offended or otherwise affected by the artwork they see. If there was no explanation on the cover making it very clear that it was satire at its best... how are people to know? To relate this to Colbert, take a few of his remarks out of context from the whole and you will be highly offended, put it all together and you have something very funny and understood to be satire.

I agree that Mr. Remnick should not have to defend anything, and he wouldn't if he had just made it clear what he was doing. It is also freedom of the press for the paparazzi to stalk and take pictures of Julia Roberts or Angelina and Brad... But it is also their right to complain and sue for invasion of privacy. This cover could be considered defamation of character, no matter what the intent was. Because it wasn't explained and defined. I think Mr. Remnick is hiding behind his "rights" to make a joke out of the Obama's and not out of the public's opinion of him.

Brooklyn, you said every president has had to take it and they have shrugged it off. Please enlighten us about who else "took" being portrayed as a terrorist with a terrorist wife on the cover of the New Yorker, burning the American flag... Actually... tell us about a president portrayed burning the American flag. (In jest of course... to make a point). Betcha can't do it. Really bad critique there Brook...

Sleaze stuff. Is the New Yorker that desperate for sales?

How fabulous that a Leftie publication would attack a Leftie. Hmmm. Now tell me, how will they blame the Conservatives?

I will call for boycotting NewYorker Magazine.

this makes me sick. This guy is an idiot and should not draw political cartoons for any one anymore. There are such things as political cartoons, and then there are tasteless, vicious ones. For all the stupid, uninformed people out there, this cover could reaffirm beliefs of Obama's religion that couldn't be farther from the truth. I believe also in freedom of speech for all you first amendment lovers out there, up to the point it is slanderous against another person or impedes against their rights.

I understand what they were trying to convey, but I think some problem has to do with if you don't know that the New Yorker does this kind of satire on there cover and that they are a liberal Magazine, then it will cause a problem. I don't read or even look at this Magazine and it bothered me, but once I saw the interview with the editor and his explanation, I had accepted it. I guess the problem you have is the picture depicts so much misconceptions it's unnerving to some people including the Obamas. And let's be honest, this picture is going to play into any misconceptions people have, because those people were already having those thoughts prior to the Magazine coming out and they will not think differently.

Obama 08

GREAT JOB NWE YORKER! I hope we will be seeing more along the same lines in the next 115 days.

The nation needs to see these people for what they are.

I get what they are trying to say but based on the comments on this site a lot of people didn't get it. I personally don't see any humor. I don't find racisim fueled by the media to be very funny.

The argument that Obama and others who are offended sholdn't complain because we have freedom of speech is a ridiculus argument. You could say that the New Yorker is excercising freedom of press/speach. The problem with that argument is that if the New Yorker has the right to publish the picture under those who feel it is offensive have the same right to express there decenting opions.

As the old saying goes there is a lot of truth in a joke.

How dumb can you get? David Remnick apparently had his head
up somewhere when he approved the new Obama cover. In an apparent attempt to quench the fires of attack politics he has doused it with kerosene. And here I thought the New Yorker was a high IQ mag.

Oh sorry forgot to add that James Carville is the only smart one among you bunch at CNN.

I think it's awesome! I want a framed print of it. This thing will be worth something one day!

NObama 08

Wow. It is as though Obama will never be accepted by the public. I am an Iraq war vet, and I feel so disappointed, so often by the people in this country I went to war to defend. This picture was truly one of the meanest things I have ever seen published by anyone. America, it is okay to be sensitive. Let's lose this mean streak which is becoming so pervasive.

The Editor is offering an explanation that is simply more satire and sarcasm in the guise of an appologetic clarification.

Hey the truth hurts, about time someone in the media is not afraid to express their views, but wait it was something that offended Obama that must make him a racist and the publication racist....oh can't have that might hurt someone's feelings, can't do that....

It's called free speech and free press, folks. (Is this really any different from Obama's twisting the presidential seal in his favor - which was, actually ILLEGAL?)

I applaud The New Yorker for doing this, and I think I'll buy a subscription. And: The magazine isn't stupd. It decided to publish what they perceive the majority of their readers would want - and, clearly, they determined this would be acceptable to their readers - and good for them!

By the same token, I recently cancelled my 5-year subscription to Time Magazine, a member of the CNN/Time Magazine group - two organizations that have been totally biased in favor of Obama and against Hillary Clinton - and I don't EVER watch CNN now.

And that's also free speech and free press - and obviously CNN/Time readers and viewers want that kind of coverage, even though I don't. And CNN/Time Magazine have equal right to free speech and free press, even if I don't agree with them.

Otherwise - are you REALLY ready for dictatorship in America?????

I don't think there is anything this man can say to defend himself. He has contributed to the negative stereotype by continuing to publicize misinformation about good people. Senator Obama and his wife have done nothing to warrant such an ugly smear, and this editor is lower than scum as far as I am concerned.

****

If you have to DEFEND IT... than you probably shouldn't have done it..

(atleast that's what grandma said..)

*****

PICTURES SAYS MORE THAN WORDS. ON A FRONT COVER!!!!!!, COME ON NOW

For those saying Obama should lighten up about this cover should realize he hasn't said a word about it. He is smarter than that. He also believes in the right to free speech.

The New Yorker use "POOR TASTE" for the cover of the magazine this month. I wonder will they put a nasty picture of Mccain and his wife on their cover next month. Magazine do anything to make a sell.

BULL'S EYE! TRUTH ALWAYS HURTS!

If this was really meant to poke fun at the false ideas going around they did a very poor job. If they could have at least put a comment on the cover such as "politics of fear". I would have felt their point would have been made. This cover only puts gasoline on the fire. To think that a group of people look at this cover as is and said.....o.k.

Such an easy solution to combat this type of rag, tasteless journalism.

Cancel your subscription to the "New Yorker"

Recommend that advertisers pull out of their contracts, or boycott the products.

Freedom of speech begets freedom of choice.... and the "New Yorker" should reap what it sows. Cancel, cancel, cancel.

I understand what the artist meant to do. But MANY Americans don't understand parody, and they will likely take the cover as confirmation that all these smears are true. What the Obama camp needs to do now is USE the illustration as an educational device.

Unfortunately, the cover will seem to stand by itself for many people who see this cover, thus reinforcing widely believed false claims about Barack and Michelle Obama, regardless of the content of the article inside.

James Carville, who is a far more sophisticated political participant and observer than the vast majority of the American public, may not think it it's a large deal; however, a considerable and badly misguided segment of the voting population will take it as literal truth, not as a satire of their beliefs.

The Obama campaign is right to regard it as "tasteless" and inappropriate, although there is little choice other than to shrug it off and to stay on message.

Your point is well taken Mr. Remnick - Republicans spread rediculous lies.

The NewYorker is paying for this poor sense of journalism, their integrity has now come under question. They have lost their credibility and people are canceling their subscriptions.
To: Jeff Long The copies are not sold out the New Yorker has begun to pull the magazine off of the shelves to save their a...

No matter which candidate I support I will not support journalistic ignorance and neither should anyone else. This is not satire it is abuse of journalistic power. If Mc Cains was sitting in the oval office in a wheel chair with a bomb in his hand while his wife is popping pills and calling her drug dealers would that be funny? I think not

Oh get a grip! None of these Obama supporters were any where near this sensitive when it came to tasteless insensitive and rude things being thrown at Hillary. Hillary nut crackers...flying witch and the list goes on and on. This just proves how seriously Obama takes himself and his Messiah complex to change the world. It also shows that he must not be able to read and grasp the really obvious fact that the cover was making a comment on the politics of feaar. when all is said and done we will find out that Obama's camp had a hand in getting the cover done in the first place....just to give him one more political prop.......The only cover I am interested in seeing he and his wife on is the one that screams.......Lost the election.

Henche Mann: I agree with what you said. Good for the New Yorker. They are a smart magazine. Smarter than the majority of the public. Let's hope the voters for Obama wake up and smell the coffee and turn to McCain.

Satire? So not funny, guys, New Yorker appears to be gifted with a mean demeanor and adolescent judgment. Apparently, they missed the memo regarding the fact that satire is an obsolete convention in 21st century America, and about 95% of the rest of the free world.

The cover is PERFECT. Whinnie boy just can't stand it. Looks just like him and his angry wife.

Oh, the satire is obvious. The intention is obvious. Yet, given some of the comments on this blog, a whole lot of folks don't get it. The dumbing down of America continues.

I guess The New Yorker thinks it is The Colbert Report now?

When you have to explain your joke, it isn't one.

This is the most irresponible thing that I've ever seen from the New Yorker and thier publisher Conde Nast. I am urging all who are offended and regular readers of Conde Nast publications to call the corperate offices in New York and demand Remnick's resignation and boycott the publisher until that happens. I am asking the my subscriptions to the New Yorker and Vanity Fair be suspended pending cancellation.

All freedoms and rights come with responsiblities. You can say what you want (we hope), but you also have to face the consequences of your actions.

So what if Obama is a Muslim, I don't really care. As long as he taxes gas to the tune of $2 more a gallon, I'm voting for him.

This reminds me of the Mohamed cartoon controversy. Is he running for President or Prophet.

I see what they were going for and I understand that they're trying to hold up a mirror to the politics of fear and misconception. However, I think the cover is more likely to fan those flames. Unfortunately, uninformed people who still believe that Obama is what the cover depicts will only feel validated in their beliefs. I think the magazine overestimated the intelligence of the American public. The only ones that will get the intended message are the people who already get it.

The only thing that's important to media is attention, so this worked perfectly.

New Yorker regulars would never mistake the satire for an attack. The cover is about fear-mongering by Republican operatives. THEY are the subject, NOT Obama. Rove and his his clan have used every low form of lie imaginable, from Willie Horton (Dukasis) to Swift Boat Veterans (Kerry), and will do the same this year. So drawing attention to these vicious tactics is an important message, and one that will help Obama fight back.

If Obama thinks that this is bad now, if he gets elected, it will be at least 10 times worse.

This is not racism, even though Obama is playing the race card.

It is not even as bad when they characterised Bush with a Hitler mustash, or as a redneck.

Fair is fair, especially since this is a left wing magazine.

The New Yorker should be boycott by all New Yorkers who support Obama, that was very distasteful and should not have been approved for publication. New Yorkers, please do not buy the mag!

They can boycott the magazine all they want but that magazine will sell and make the New Yorker millions of dollars. That was one of the best covers I have seen in a long time. The New Yorker brought out the truth about the Obama's that people don't want to believe or hear because Obama fooled them with his copied speeches and his promises that he will never keep. Even though Jesse Jackson endorsed Obama he also can see thru him that's why he said what he said to a friend of his. I glad that Jackson said what he did although without the foul word. Jackson is a smarter man than Obama and can make a speech without copying someone else's. This generation of college students don't have the brains to sit on or a window to throw them out of that's why they don't understand the good and bad in politics. They are too busy with their drugs and booze.

OK...Where's John McCain's/Cindy Cover Page.......I'm waiting and make it good!!!!!!!!
Wheelchair.... Check
Confused.....Check
Illiterate to the email....Check
Stepford Wife....Check
Pill Addiction.....Check

PUMA - Vote for McCain

I am sure that the New york post must feel like they can do whatever they want to do and put anything on the cover but when they have done is cross the line. Obama will be the Pres with my vote. I bet they would have never put George and Laura Bush on the cover with guns and we all know what Bush is about. I believe they only did that because they knew they could get away with it and try to sugar coat the cover. It is unacceptable We all know that they want money and what better way to get paid off of Obama!!!!

Lighten up, Liberals. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Michael Moore, recall him? THAT was okay, right? THAT was "art" or "freedom of speech," right? So if someone uses freedom of speech and you don't approve, you immediately want to revoke his right to the same freedom you use when you're screaming obscenities into the faces of young children.

What goes around, comes around. You Liberals are not immune to cartoon caricatures. IF what is depicted on the New Yorker Mag's Cover is untrue, then why are you protesting so much?

Let it go and it will disappear. If you don't let it go, you give the idea that there is some truth to it.

No sympathy or outrage from me. The Obamas and the media tried to caricature the Clintons as racists.

Where was the outcry then?

And the Obamas as terrorists (although untrue and ridiculous) is still more believable then Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists.

This crap is just the start of what is comming! When the right gets through with Obama the Kerry Boat Fiasco will look like a canoe ride in Central Park! The liberal? New Yorker just pulled a fast one guess the editor is a sneaky right wing on this...easy read as no one could be that dumb....or could they?

This is what white America finds humorous....hey...black america is not laughing. New Yorker we know how much you are reaching for a discussion on the article....however the picture dominates the headline and the article is lost in translation...GROW UP BOYS..THIS TYPE OF HUMOR IS ONLY FUNNY FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS...ADULTS LOOK MORE FOR THE CHARM THAN THE WIT.

Yes, of course the New Yorker Obama cover is meant to be satire. But it is not!

The New Yorker has forgotten what satire means; satire takes what is true and exaggerates it, and brings it to the extreme. This cover, standing alone without obvious commentary, therefore infers that what is caricatured about Obama and his wife is true.

It feeds into the hateful misinformation Obama's opponents are hoping the low-information voters will continue to believe.

Many people will only see this disgraceful cover and will not bother to read "satire" into it, and use it to confirm the lies that are hurting the Obama campaign.

AND most people will not turn the cover and read the articles!

The New Yorker's editors should be ashamed of themselves for feeding into low-information voters' hatred and biases.

An EX-subscriber!

Of course Obama cries racism. Anybody that dares disagree with him or make a comment that he deems as negative against him is automatically racist. I seen it all through the primary and it continues on and on. In the past, I had sympathised with blacks when the race card was played. All a black had to do was accuse someone of being racist and i was gullible enough to believe it. This election has definitely changed my perspective of that. Political elections are always full of disagreements and accusations. That is how the political has always worked. But the Obama campaign constanrly accusing anybody that has a different political position from Obama as being racist is way over the top. If this is change we can believe in, then you can believe me that I want no part of it. I don't have to vote for Obama to prove to myself that I am not racist. Of course the Obamabots will automatically accuse me of being a racist. They always do.

PUMA - Vote for McCain

I think the picture says it all. The only thing missing is the fire-breathing Jeremiah Wright and Rezko in his prison garb.

And enjoy free speech while you have it. Nancy Pelosi wants to eliminate it with the Fairness Doctrine.

Was for Hillary, now for McCain!

Was there an outcry when this magazine went after Bush? Or is Freedom of Speech gone when the subject is in reference to Obama?

Forget the article, the cover tells the real story.

Lou Dobbs showed this evening a number of prior New Yorker covers depicting George W., Cheney, Clinton, and other politicians in extremely unflattering ways. The one I remember is George W. Bush portrayed as Nero fiddling while Iraq (if I remember correctly) burns.

I hope everyone lightens up a bit. The New Yorker is about as liberal as any magazine gets and always has been.

They have also published some of the most moving American literature ever published. For example, John Hershey's "Hiroshima" was published after we dropped the first A-bomb on Japan.

I hear this magazine is selling like hotcakes and you can't get one. Obviously the editor knows what sells. LOL

It is a left leaning magazine...geeeeeeez. They were actually making a valid point. Too bad you Obamaites react without thinking. Had you spent half a second to actually figure out what they were trying to say, you would probably appreciate it.

Of course...a lot of you nimwits are new to politics and probably have no idea what they were trying to say.

Last time I checked... we are in THE UNTED STATES OF AMERICA and in this country we have the FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Well.... Barack Hussein Obama, quite your whining, suck it and up, and now realize what the media has been doing to all the candidates all along.

And, people, everytime there is something portraying Barack Hussein Obama in a not so favorable light, IT IS NOT RACIST. QUIT USING THE "RACIST" CARD EACH TIME SOMETHING YOU DO NOT LIKE HAPPENS!!!

If some of you think this is outrageous, then take a look at the history of politics. Many, many things have been used throughout time to depict a variety of characters.

For those of you calling for a "lawsuit" against The New Yorker, remember that Barack Hussein Obama's "Presidential Logo" was totally illegal and charges should be brought against him for that!

Obama is not my cup of tea, but the cover of New Yorkers is tasteless. I will read what they have to say, but they cant convince me otherwise either. I'm a McCain democrat for November. HRC 2012!

It's about time the OBAMAS got a taste of their own medicine...They are fair game....just like any other politician...and family

I wonder if anyone here has actually read the article yet????

He's right. It's not racist. People are trying to make it racist for their own self-serving purposes.

Any public personality or group espousing a philosophy of equality yet thinks that they – and their supporters or detractors – are immune to public satire is clearly interested less in equality but more in special treatment.

Where were the Obama race-baiters when Hillary was the victim of not only satire by the press, ridicule by Obama supporters, but open and blatant sexism on the campaign trail and beyond?

So much for equality. So much for change.

For the commentators who appeal to Freedom of Speech and argue that Obama should take it like a man, then perhaps the New Yorker too should take it like a man and stop trying to argue that they were trying to help Obama's image. I read the comments above, and the defenders of the cartoon don't argue that the message was smear, but rather that Obama should get used to it.

Freedom of Speech does not mean libel is not a crime.

I saw the cover of Senator Obama and Mrs. Obama. I will never by a New Yorker Magazine again. Satire is one thing but you crossed the line. In this time of war against terrorism, to portray the Obama's as such is not satire its sick.

I don't understand the uproar over this! Satire in The New Yorker has been around for a long time! There has been no uproar over the numerous "The Onion" articles that have been released that could be construed as offensive. I find the fact that this is even an issue pathetic.

No need to defend the cover or explain its purpose. Obama is thin skinned and there's going to be a whole lot more deflammatory caricatures not only in the American media, but magazines and newspapers throughout the world depicting him in a less than favorable light at times; maybe even with racist overtures. Get use to it Barack, it goes with the Presidential territory.

The magazine's explanation is BS. The articles inside have nothing to do with the false rumors of Obama's religious background or "patriotism" problem. It is about his rise in Chicago politics. This cover was just a cynical attempt to sell magazines.

Secondly, this is the first time that we've seen so much attention being placed by the media on rumors/innuendo that everyone knows is demonstrably false. A greater percentage of Americans believe that Bush had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (22%) than believe that Obama is a muslim (10%). Why weren't the media covering the crazy 9/11 conspiracies like they are covering Obama's "muslim" problem? The media loves to trot out Obama's problem with the rumors/innuendo, but in fact it is the fact that they discuss it so often that is keeping them alive. There will ALWAYS be a small minority in this country that is willing to believe ANYTHING – why don't we just ignore them? The media is driving this story – plain and simple.

Let's slow up people. First there is a flap covering the New Yorker cover. If I didn't know what to look for I would have walked right by it. Second Sir Roland is right, the picture was not put into any context for those very few people who do not read the New Yorker, which can actually spread the ignorance instead of defining it. Third all good satire is saturated with wit. I saw none there. Bad satire closes opening night. Lastly, the New Yorker is too arrogant and elitist to care about any damage they might cause or any ignorance they might help foster. Great works of art are left to the imagination and interpretation of the audience for meaning. Great satire has a specific point it wishes to make with the attitude of a razor cut across a throat. This was just sloppy satire meant to sell magazines. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter how full of themselves the New Yorker ihas become. Being liberal doesn't necessarily mean being wise. Look at all the Hillary Clinton supporters who are refusing to get behind the party candidate. Another four years of GOP misrule. That'll show him..

Why not have a cover with WarBUSH & WarCAIN holding the America people under their foot laughing while american people Whining about the gas prices & food prices Morgage company falling Banks loseing money .

Love that first post. A village idiot PUMA member illustrating what a group of low life losers they are.

Hmm...so were minstrel shows satire too?

Nothing subliminal about that message. Looks about right .

Uh Yeah Right. Confront the racial stereotypes by posting a disparageing caricature that would obviously be posted world wide.
Avant Gard journalism? I think not. How about sleezy cheap tactics to sell a boring rag and generate publicity for a mediocre publication.

This blunder goes to show a disconnect between intelligence and wisdom. Many intelligent people choose to live in a box, ignoring the larger context of the world in whose social network we all belong.

More specific to this cover art, a person should not have to take into account an author's reputation, namely the New Yorker, in order to appreciate that author's work. Were this cartoon published by Fox News, no one defending it now would be defending it. Hence, whatever image an art conjures per se (i.e., without taking the author's background into account) is the true message of that art.

Some of you guys should really get your facts straight. Barack Obama has not commented on the New Yorker cover. Someone made a comment about Clinton or Bush being depicted as rednecks. There is a HUGE difference between calling someone a redneck and calling someone a terrorist. There's free speech and then there's reckless, irresponsible journalism. Guys, don't act like you don't know the difference. To many foreign nations George Bush is viewed as a terrorist. Some of you seem to think the only terrorists in the world are Muslim.

I'd say it missed its mark. The right spent the whole day chortling about this and sharing this gleefully with each other. If they were the intended target, why did they end up enjoying it so much? And the left spent the day being accused of not having a sense of humor. So it was overall a win for the right and a loss for the left. So what was the intent of that satire again?

freesom of speech. The satire is fine. It requires an explanation though...clearly printed in the magazine...even on the actual cover maybe.

Sublime???The is no Hidden message, in this Charicature. The Hero.... The Metomorphosis.... Of Obama.... is left in the mind, of the Artistic World...

This cartoon couldn't be more accurate. Obama will NOT salute the flag nor have ANYTHING to do with it. (DON'T MAKE HIM WEAR A FLAG~!) Don't MAKE him salute the flag. Don't make him salute the flag NOR sing the National Anthem. His wife was never proud of the US .......until recently. They are SO ANTI AMERICAN. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. Then they can BURN the flag and NEVER sing the song again.....Wow. Can't wait.

Does Fox News' parent company own The New Yorker?

Pictures worth a 1000 words.

I want to see a cover satirizing McCain...we'll see how funny that is.

Sad day for the New Yorker

I'm sure the New Yorkers intentions were that the people that see the cover are smart enough to read the article that goes along with it. Unfortunately, most people just see the cover and judge on it alone and the editor should know that. Bad call New Yorker. Write your apology and lets move on.

I actually think this is a Democrat contrived trick to smear Republicans.

How can you defend stupidity?

Truly tasteless New Yorker. You should be issuing an apology to the Obamas. Instead you are behaving like a spoiled teenager. Time to grow up!!

This one will go down in history as a big media backfire gaffe. Funny how everyone around Obama finds him/herself in trouble. I haven't quite figured out why yet. Maybe too many people are trying to find ways to toss R-Bombs ("Racist!") and some of them are blowing up in their faces. Or maybe it's just "What goes around, comes around..."

DEBATE!!

So this is why Hillary is hanging on, apparently she knows that racism is alive and well in the halls of the New Yorker.

This is another example of the right wing, neocon dominated press led by Fox News in a blatant attempt to defame Bara....

Wait, did you say the New Yorker? Why it must be a phish job by the GOP b/c that magazine and its newspaper cousins, have always been for our well informed (dare I say liberal) thinking friends here in NY and everywhere else that matters, well New York anyway.

I confused and a little hurt.

Some advice for the New Yorker (not original): "Whenever I find myself in a hole... I stop digging..."

May just want to think about that one a little bit...

The New Yorker should change it's name to the New Garbage Can.

He can't defend it, it's trash.

It is funny but as in all satire there is a grain of truth implied!

The arrogant, obfuscating Obama is increasingly seen as untrustworthy so the satire plays to what are already legitimate fears!

Obama needs to be concerned but he will lose regardless!

They are probably in the "red" and needed something to bring attention to their magazine.

Good job Brownie....or good job Davy-NOT.

Keep the caricature in the headlines just in case anybody missed it.

The guy or whom ever can up with this they need to have sleepless night the New Yorker Magazine was reinforcing fear in the minds of people who thinks Obama is a Muslim. This New Yorker Magazine is very Low than Low how Low will the New Yorker Magazine go!! So dumb New Yorker Magazine.

There are more important things for Americans to be worried about.

This flare-up here is just non-sense, a no-nothing news item which concerns nobody really.

THE COVER CARICATURE IS NOT FUNNY AND INDEED TASTELESS AND OFFENSIVE.

Obviously, the NEW YORKER has been talking to the producers of Saturday Night Live.

How the mighty have fallen.

The New Yorker is trash.

Unfortunately there are millions of idiots out there who will panic after seein the cover and vote for McBush.

Then there is such a thing called "subliminal message" and this cover provides exactly that! It will get on the back of other millions of idiots who are not so idiots but will act as an idiot by voting McBush.

After all these idiots and the not-so-idiots bought the idiotic idea that Iraq, and not Afghanistan, was the harbinger of terrorist and should be attacked. This idiocy has costed over 4,000 american lives and Bin Ladin is still free.

The big picture is lost in the front cover. Wrong decision.

I agree with Janet from WV. This type of garbage just reinforces lies and slander.

were these the OBAMA costumes at a costume party?

no they would be scared of rifles.

Can someone go back and do a history of African Americans, particularly women depicted on the New Yorker. Are there any positive images, probably not.

Obama and Michelle, inspite of racists.

BHO can dish it out, but he can't take it.
McKinney '08!!

Obama is not the first public figure to be presented in this manner. The reaction to this cover by the campaign concerns me more than the cover. This is sattire for pete's sake. It makes me question his ability to be president even more. What is an Obama's presidency going to look like if he is reacting like this to the free speech of the media?

This New Yorker Magazine is as lower than trash!!!

So much for the first amendment. I guess anything making fun of liberal or talk radio is worth censorship.

Liberal democrats are the closest thing the US has to fascists.

Though the objective was to attack lies and misconceptions, the Obama's as radical leftists matches very closely to their history.

Obamabots won't like it, but then they never fancy the truth.

Concentrate on what matters would you all.

Boycott the New Yucker.

O/08

Hey Brooklyn, freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no consequences to that speech, just that there are no criminal consequences. The campaign of almost president-elect Obama is free to vocalize their thoughts on the magazine cover too, unless you thought freedom of speech only applied to the new yorker and you?

It is way past anything appropriate for a Presidential Candidate and his wife. They should pull the magazine and apologize to them and us for this distasteful picture.

Here is WHY this cover is SO offensive, demeaning and hurtful. African Americans are the ONLY race of people whose greatest injustices came at the hands of AMERICANS. Additionally, they were brought here and stripped of their dignity, heritage, and for MANY their lives, AGAINST their will. I’m disheartened, dismayed and disgusted every time i hear them constantly being told to GET over it.
Here is a question for ALL.. Would we ever tell the relatives (immediate or extended) of Nicole Brown Simpson, Adam Walsh, Brooke Bennett , just to name a few to “GET OVER IT” cause it’s “JUST A JOKE”.

Dear Stupid,

We get it, but it's still NOT funny.

Obama 08

This is sicking and in bad taste. Just think if this was one of your family member running for President New Yorker Magazine done this. This is so unfair this magazine is in my view is rated low as ZERO

I get it, yes it's funny. BUT, there are too many people...specifically the demographic the New Yorker is targeting who will see this cover, snap their fingers and say I KNEW IT!

Capt Kirk
Go back to the Star Ship..you haven't a clue.

I think it's funny that the Obama campaign is making such a big fuss over nothing. Should Obama be elected President, he and his family will see a lot more and probably worse of this type of cartoon satire.

Grow up, you're a public figure now, game for anything and everything and please don't use the racist card. It's getting very tiresome.

As a retired military member I fully support free speech and i understand satire, but I think the New Yorker cover is just plain racist! Most Americans won't read the story and I am convinced the new yorker meant to hurt Obama.

I don't see Senator Obama "whining" about this at all. I believe his only comment was "I will not comment on this."

Although I don't like the cover, I can see the "satire" in it. However, because it was a cover, it would have been better to have added in bold print – "Are lies going to decide this election?" THAT would have explained the satire in the cartoon.

Many posts about "free speech". The New Yorker does has the right to publish that cover. And the public has a right to react to it and call it tasteless if they want. I personally think it is rather clever but do worry about those folks that won't look past the cover and actually read the article.

Obamabots are able to dish it out, but not able to take it!!It is satire for God's sake! If it was Hillary, they would be fine with it. The "new" Democratic party at it's finest.

Its amazing how people do something wrong and still try to rationalize it. Maybe they will do a cover next of John McCain in a nursing home, holding a soldier of fortune magazine, while calling his wife a you-know-what. Nah, we should all just boycott The New Yorker, much easier.

I like the way the media justifies the New Yorker cover by saying thats the the New Yorker is it is confrontational views, So does that mean that Archie Bunker is no longer a bigot becasuse that is just the way Archie is confrontational? The cover is very offensive no matter how you try to spin it. There is no underlying satyr about it is pure defamaition of the Obamas.

Hey, are we not allowed now to joke? How many jokes such as that have past presidents been subjected too. Bush was satired as Sadaam, I did not see him crying about it. Freedom of speech and expression, Obama stands for none of that. That includes the right to bear arms.

Get over it...has everyone gotten so sensitivie that even a liberal publication can't point out the current nature of American politics as it attacks it's most liberal candidate?
In this climate of fear and guilt, divisiveness is the exact leverage that the cover seeks to use.

Me thinks some people need to re-familiarize themselves with defining the word "satire."

This outrage is stupid.

"The best laid plans of mice and men...."

As I have often noticed, The New Yorker out smarted itself.
Rather than take a hard look at media, divisive politics and
stereotypes they over blow a cover and spend all their time
backing up a stupid decision.
For this to be so news worthy strikes me as kind of silly
but I guess that is due to the quality of our journalist's training
and willingness to sell out to tabloid style journalism.

Peace

Nopthing wrong with then cover..

If obama gets offended by this, so be it.

He is known to be one who befriened a terrorist.

If I am patriotic, I would never socialize with someone who wants to harm Americans. People chose their friendships and church.

AND WHAT IS WITH THESE HILLARY CLINTON PEOPLE DO YOU LOVE HILLARY MORE THAN FREEDOM MORE THAN AMERICA IS HILLARY A GOD WHAT ? COME ON GET OVER IT ALL READY SHE LOST..... (YES OBAMA DID BEAT HILLARY CLINTON )!!!!!!

As the gatekeeper of taste, David fell asleep on the job. It's a sad, sad day.

Mr. Remnick: Admit your mistake and step down!

It's all part of the job Barack. Learn to take the good with the bad. Not everyone has to goosestep along with you. It's called freedom of speech. Learn it and love it even if you don't like it.

So now Barack has to fight the Clintons, the GOP and the New Yorker? He's got my vote.

By the way, the American political process has been full of satire from its beginning. Is this considered a problem because Obama is black?

The Obama's have whined about everything, He's been in the senate only a short time, he has voted 100 or more times present. that's why congress can't get anything done. we need people that will show what thay stand for on the issues.He has accomplished nothing. Only the fact that no one knows what he stands for, not even him. He stands for whatever will get him elected. the new york magazine is the same vision I have, thank God for free speech.

In a different version of America, David Remnick's defense might be easy to swallow and his lampooning New Yorker cover might truly be acceptable. But this is 2008 America filled with anti-intellectual white bread American garbage cultured into ignorance by right wing, ideological Republican doctrines. As it stands, David Remnick shows himself to be the fool of an insular component of the 4th estate. He is out of touch with the American character.

I will never insult my African American or muslim friends by buying this trash. Wrong decision to print this–dead wrong.

The editor of the New Yorker vastly overestimates the general intelligence of the American people. Just look at who has been elected to high office in this country as a barometer of the average voter's intellect.

The article may be good, but I'm not crawling through the garbage dump to read it. The cover was garbage.

David should be ashamed of himself.

THis editior can expalin and defend this cover all he wants. It is so much like WWII propaganda and hate satire it isn't funny. This is cruel and stupid. I hope the Obama's children don't receive any negative responses about this. This to me is racial bullying and feeding the likes of big mouth Limbaugh a loaded machine gun to pump out his hateful message. The New Yorker must be angry Hillary didn't get the nomination.. it is all too sick and too disturbing. It will sell alot of magazines and make quite a stir on the hate blogs..

The idea is to sell more magazines.

It's kind of funny seeing all the right wing nuts defend The New Yorker...

He is smart enough and patriotic enough to recognize that an Obama presidency is bad news foe USA and good news for Osma.

If there's no truth to it, it shouldn't be upsetting to Obama.

Let me get this straight:

sexist jokes are o.k.
playing the race card is o.k.
FISA surveillance is o.k.
satirical NY'er covers are NOT o.k.?

wow!

ACLU - wherefore art thou?

I cancelled my subscription. Totally irresponsible.

To spread the tastelessness equally, I think the cover suggested by Capt Smash should run on the next issue.

Rotten fish, wrapped in exquisite wrapping paper, still stinks.

The New Yorker got it wrong today.

If the NEW YORKER meant to harm the Obama image, they would have used this cover six months ago. To those who have a closed mind about Obama, this will be treated as a confirmation of their beliefs. But for those who had skepticism back in the early campaign days, these cartoons will inspire no more than the usual NEW YORKER "funnies."

Unless the New Yorker is going to run a similar cover and story about Candidate John McCain and how the left is demonizing him, I'd say David Remnick is full of crap.

It's just too deep for the Bob the Builder voting block to grasp as ironic..

"If there's no possibility for satire, if you always have to look for the joke that every — absolutely everyone will get, you won't have Jon Stewart, you won't have Stephen Colbert," he said."

First of all, NO ONE mentions their names until they say so, O.K? It is forbidden. Next time, you better make sure you don't compare you and the icons of Jon and Stephen. You better make sure they approve of it.........you know what, I demand a boycott! LOL!!!

Unfortunately, the people the New Yorker's satire is directed at simply don't get is and just see this cartoon as affirmation of what they have been saying all along. I have already seen it on the right wing blogs here in conservative Arizona. Obama-haters are saying they have changed their opinion of the New Yorker.

Please make me believe that before anyone said anything and all you idiot condoning this saw the cover thats what you gathered from the cover. If you say yes I hope God deals with you real soon.

I just hope the Obama supporters who are still upset about his FISA stance are NOT the same ones whining about this cover!

The Clash of the Constitutional Rights!

Hay Brooklyn:

Did you see the amount of crying when it was pointed out that McWar's past (in war) didn't mean anything as far as becoming President.

McWar cried and cried about that one.

The cover isn't tasteless. It just may not be to your taste. There are hordes of us who approve.

The front cover of The New Yorker magazine which depicts Sen. Obama & wife, Michelle, as terrorist & militant is offensive & of very poor taste. I don't see it conjuring positive solutions/outcomes surrounding the Obama's compaigne and is based on many ignorant individuals' behaviors and fears which exist in America, as well as, her ugly and horrid past toward people of African descent from a distorted so-called American people.

Actually, I suppose the point of defending the cover is to keep it in the spotlight. Well done, Mr. Remnick.

If Barry Bam Bam can't take the political heat, then he should go play some more golf and leave the real work to women like Hillary Clinton.

Knoxville NFIL

THIS NEW YORKER COVER, DOES IT HELP LOWER THE PRICE OF GAS, FOOD ,HELP WITH MEDICAL COST ,HOUSING, BEER, I DIDN'T THINK SO AND NEITHER WILL JOHN MCCAIN !!!!!!! (YES OBAMA WILL)!!!!!

Does the New Yorker hate black people or muslims? I don't get it.

I wear an Afro, is that supposed to be a negative thing?

David Remnick is a pig.

Ihave had a vision in my mind for months, about Obama and Michele,the cover of the new york magazine is my vision.

It's not satire. It's ugly, exploitive racism.

I just got back from New York and had a wonderful time. After seeing the cover of the New Yorker magazine–us dummies in the midwest who aren't supposed to understand it, will be vacationing somewhere else.

Obama 08

Brooklyn –
If he wants to be my President, I would appreciate no more whining because it really makes us all look bad… We need strength for God sake not a baby… This comes with the job… He is fair game, his family is fair game that is just how it is, no matter if it is right or wrong, every President has had to take it and they have all simply shrugged it off… Why can't he?
-------------------------------–

Because there is nothing satirical about the picture numbnut.

Please find something better to put in the magzaine and stop this childish and stupid behavior of the 5th century, if you have nothing to put in the magazine write about stars and the moon we will still read the magazine.
The cartoon of Obama and his wife is the dummest thing I have ever seen especially in this 21st century. I do not think It could have been an issue if it were on the show of some comedians not on the front page of a magazine. I do not know what the editor was thinking. He was for sure out of touch, please stop the hate attitude.
Let us be at peace and talk about issues that concerns us as well as the rest of the world.

How in the world do you think everyone will get this. I dont know of a single african american that saw things the way you idiots say they would. But I guessyou dont think that we count . Check us out in November, you wont like us very much then either.

Where is the d cover of McSame in a wheel chair, and Cindy dressed as doll baby? I'm waiting for that cover. David Remnick is a scumbag.

BURN THE NEW YORKER, just as they depicted burning the American flags. They're morons and we should kick them to the curb.

David Remnick can kiss my patriotic backside for all I care.

From a real American to a sleezoid.

Brooklyn. Your exageration of Obama's position on this is rediculous. He commented. That's all. For someone who believes in free speach, you sure have a lot to say about Obama's right to free speach. Oh wait, that's right, as a candidate, you forfit that righht under your rules. Nice – just vote for McSam and shut up. You right wingers are scary. Thank god you will lose all control over what is left of our great nation.

You cant underestimate the intelligence of the American people. The Average American is pretty stupid. Does he realized that he is referring to an electorate who voted for Bush TWICE!! Even with all the failures of Republican leadership at least 40% of this country is still considering McCain who has the same economic and foriegn agenda as Bush.

So yes, Americans are quite dumb. If McCain is elected President it will demonstrate just how dumb this nation has become. The other nations of the world will run circles around us in the global economy.

Only an idiot and a bigot would justify this.

so.. it's a liberal media tried to "attack" McCain – ironic!!
The ones that giving 'troubles' to Obama so far are his real good friends from his pastors, the Rev.JJ, Bernie, to the liberal media... but they all are McCain's fault...!! Typical!!!

Nothing out of the stinking sinkhole that is New York suprises me. Im so glad I live in flyover territory. The culture on both coasts has sunk so low. One of the reasons I call myself a Republican is to be polar opposite of the party that is embraced by Hollywood and East-coast pop culture.

The New Yorker should not have to defend itself. This campaign was getting boring. I need some satire inserted every now and then to lighten the mood. If anyone can't take the heat, leave the kitchen.

Mr. Remnick,

This goes beyond the category of Satire. its tasteless.

What would the reaction be from Hillary supporters if you depicted her in some despicable sexist putdown manner?

What would the reaction be from McCain supporters if you depicted him in a manner bashing him over his age or his wife in a manner of an heir to a company that Mothers Against Drunk Drivers might be picketing?

===he got his 15 mins of fame=====

................i will no longer read the new yorker...................................

...........this guy has disrespected ALL Americans.

The New Yorker cannot be right and everyone else wrong on this. This is an appalling example of irresponsible, sensational and subjective journalism which ought to be condemned in the strongest terms possible. To save face, the magazine must apologize to Senator Obama and his wife, Michelle, with the same prominence they gave this crude, highly inappropriate and offensive so-called illustration.

I could see what they're going for.. but they messed up. They should've given some kind of hint for the dull people with no sense of humor...

I'm a Obama supporter 110%... and I'm not offended by this cover... I think it says a lot about the rumors and bs that's been said about the Obama's.

They could've saved it with one little title or line explaining their stance. They didn't.. feel the backlash boys. hahaha..

OBAMA `08!

Brooklyn,

Don't blame Obama, he said he had NO COMMENT. In my book, that's not whining. If you want to talk about whining, talk to McSame and Dr. Phil Gramm. You idiot.

There's nothing that needs defending.

While the supposed leaders of the party said nothing, we yelled for months as Obama fans attacked Hillary with rabid hate and many in the media made crude remarks about a leader of our party.

What they did for months was and always will be offensive.

The New Yorker's cover is satire.

Clearly, the fanatical Obama cult followers think free speech only applies when it's their speech attacking others' beliefs or candidates.

Knoxville NFIL

We're not falling in line behind failed leaders and their selectee.

Mr. Remnick most certainly should apologize and yes he should defend himself. WHY because it was defensive!!!! Well he will get his 15 minutes of fame it will not be forgotten!!!!

Disgusting! Cancelled my subscription to the New Yorker.

Brooklyn: You miss your own point by criticism those who speak out against the New Yorker cover.... They are only "speak[ing] what we feel." Freedom of speech is NOT freedom to say whatever you want without being criticized!

This cover is an attempt at satire, but a failed attempt. Mr. Remnick errs in comparing the New Yorker to "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report." No one is confused that the latter are satirical works. And in viewing those shows, you are absorbing the entire creative context that establishes the program as satire. The New Yorker cover, on the other hand, requires reading the accompanying article to "get" the satirical point. That doesn't happen when it is seen on a newsstand, or when it travels around the Internet as a jpeg.

I guess The New Yorker is a little too sophisticated for Obama and his friends.

The Faux News Channel and others are making outrageous statements about Obama every day.
This cover is an indictment of that nonsense. I think it will have the intended effect- shining a spotlight on and holding up a mirror to these idiots.

I don't think the problem is that Obama is whining about a cartoon. The problem is no other presidential candidate, to my knowledge, has been depicted in this manner. I don't remember any white presidential candidates being depicted in a KKK outfit or any other thing. It is disrespectful and offensive. Yes we have freedom of speech, but the more and more I see and hear things like this it just shows that racism is alive and well and people's true colors are showing through.

What an aweful judgement call, would you put your mother in that picture and still think it was funny!! That was rascist and it will offend alot of people! May God give you better judgement in future articles if any.

The New Yorker was never for people who need irony spelled out for them and over explained.

It's brilliant.

CARVILLE WOULD SUPPORT IT...NEWS? MCCAIN WAS LIED ABOUT BY THE NYT HE DENIED IT AND CASE WAS CLOSED...OBAMA HAS PUT OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT HIMSELF BUT THEY HAVE DEFIED HIS CALL AND CONTINUE TO HAMMER IN THE LIES...THIS IS HATRED!

I saw McCain on the cover of "BedPans Daily" and he was doing a fist bump with Wilfred Brimley.

They are absolutely correct in using that cover;
it is an IRONIC reaction to the racist foolishness, waged by the right wing christians to use LIES and FEAR in influencing voters to support the ULTRA CORRUPT REPUBLICANS and the useless facade known as John McCain.

I think the cover represents many Americans' veiws, including me and my family. If the shoe fits, wear it. HAHAHAHA !!! Him and many of those that worship him ARE the enemy of this nation. That is all there is to it. Radicals are not welcome in my country.

Well you can't have it both ways Brooklyn, you are not making any sense...New Yorer just lost a subscriber in me is all....oh well, c'est la vie....

obama should send this guy a thank you note since the obama camp seems to run on whining that someone is hateful because the ONE is black, demanding an apology once a week, or wagging his finger at someone who dared to exercise their constitutional right to free speech. obama needs start acting like a grown up and stop whining all the time that "people" hate him because he is " different". but i guess any free press is a good thing huh?

If you have to go on national television and explain, what you meant. Then the majority of the people didn't get the message.

Brooklyn; Obama had a no comment. How is that whining?

The cover was in bad taste and people like you took it to mean, just what they intended for it to mean.

And Carville, is of the clinton camp. He was just glad that it wasn't Billary.

I agree with Brooklyn. Obama cries foul all the time. Maybe it was tasteless, but so what? Here in America we have that little thing called freedom of speech. Obama is fair game. We all should be exposed to the real Obama and how he would handle obstacles such as this. He'll cry "racist" like he always has, wait and see.

The right of free speech and bad taste are two very different things. They should not be confused. The New Yorker has chosen to be known for bad taste alone by publishing such a cover. Without the context Mr Remnick suggests, this cartoon is nothing more than a demonization of the Obamas. What is satire in its " ultimate " form ? Perhaps more Clinton sour grapes.

Crude and very uncalled for. Did McCain buy stock in the magazine?
The New Yorker deserves any percussions. I for one will cancel my subscription and avoid this magazine.

Have the Obama people forgotten the hatchet jobs done on the Clintons, the Bushes, etc? When you are in the public eye, every one
if fair game. Remember: If you can't take the heat...........

Daid Remnick you are a jerk, very distasteful!

BROOKLYN – I AM NOT SURE OF YOUR RACE, BUT YOU MUST NOT BE BLACK TO ACCEPT SOMETHING SO CRUEL AND EVIL. I AM SURE YOU WAIT LATE AT NIGHT AND PUT YOUR WHITE HOOD ON AND GO FIND A BLACK PERSON TO HANG. BROOKLYN, YOU DONT EVEN EXIST, YOU ARE LOWER THAN DIRT. WOULD YOU LIKE SOMEONE TO TALK ABOUT YOU IN THIS MANNER, NO YOU WOULD NOT, BUT SINCE HE IS BLACK, YOU THINK IT'S OKAY.

IT'S NOT, YOU IDIOT.

Mr. Brooklyn,
As one born in Brooklyn, New York as you seem to be, let me "school" you since it is evident yoiu know little about politics. Obama IS NOT whining. He has made no comment. He has moved on as he did with Jesse Jackson's infamous remarks. But the editorial board of the New Yorker must know that most people do not read but they do look at pictures. This is why news broadcasts are so popular. This is where the majority of Americans get their info from. The New yorker is a well-respected magazine whose tasteless cover feeds into ignorance, prejudice and bias. If they truly wanted to point out the ludicrous lies told about the Obamas then the cartoon should have been accompanied by a banner reading "Only ignorant, racist and willfully uninformed Americans would believe this."

WHO IS NEXT?????????

I personally loved the cover, if the Obama cannot take an exaggerated cartoon of themselves they are overly sensitive, besides how far is it from the truth?

And as far as the Obama and his supporter who are calling for a boycott of the liberal-leaning magazine The New Yorker, they should not worry, PumaPac is calling on all of America to boycott Obama as in do not vote for Obama in the General Election.

Just Say No Deal is calling on the DNC to place Hillary R. Clinton's name on The First Roll Call at the Denver Convention...

Really, BROOKLYN, whining? The cover was one of the most offensive things most Americans have ever seen! People all over the country are furious. Obama, himself did not comment on it. Anyone with half a brain would find it offensive. That leaves you out!

YOU WOULD NEVER DO THIS TO ANYBODY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT...YOU CROSSED THE LINE! MICHELLE DOES NOT WEAR AN AFRO...THIS IS INSULT TO ALL AFRICAN WOMEN. YOU THINK IT IS FUNNY...HAVE YOUR FUN BUT THERE IS A LIMIT TO EVERTHING WE DO!!! OBAMA IS NOT A CRY BABY...JUST STOP INSULTING PEOPLE'S RACE, RELIGION AND PATRIOTISM...NOT SATTIRE!!!!

YOU'D NEVER DO THIS TO ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!

I hate to inform you BROOKLYN; but your rights stop at the point of infringing on the rights of other citizens. The problem with some US citizens is that they want rights without responsibilities.

Brooklyn: please give all of us a break and SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!!!! BO isn't whining about anything. This is nothing compared to what others had to endure. BO can take...just as long as John McSHAME and his WIFE can take it as well.

I am still thankful that we live in a country where such a thing can be published without a beheading. Long live America and our freedoms.

Loved the pic. It says it all.

I am working on a cartoon figure showing McCain in a diaper along with the other four members of the Keating 5 or shall I say Cheating five. I might throw in some women with chains around the necks since he doesn't respect women.....also a small book in his hand that says "Learn how to remember what I said with lying".... also a fire burning a piece of paper with all the names of my lobbyist friends.....

Brooklyn...you do know that you are whining, right?

Brooklyn, I wish you would give Obama the same treatment you are giving the New Yorker and Mr. Remnick. Oh, I forgot people like you don't seem to think he is an American, so he doesn't have the right to free speech. If he strugs it off he's weak, if he speaks against it he's whining. We don't seem to know what we want or need.

and it is not "Colbert in print" Colbert and Jon Stewart are funny, this cover is not.

What Mr. Remnick smugly calls art or satire is blatant racism. If he doesn't understand how the republication of this cover will be used to hurt Mr. Obama, Mr. Remnick has his head where it doesn't belong. It reminds me of the cartoons many years ago that depicted my Irish ancestors as monkeys.
My wife and I are long time subscribers to the New Yorker; our relationship came to an end today.

The cover, while a well intended idea, was over the top in this political atmosphere.

Brooklyn, you are the one that is whinning. Obama hasn't even commented on this latest attack and he has handled every attack a lot better than Hillbillary and McFrankenstein.

Mr. Remick's (and the New Yorker's) mistake likes in confusing the intelligence of the American people with the intelligence of American politicians. Irony, like candor, is not within the latter's rhetorical skill set.

Stop the whining. People complain that others distort Obama's positions by not reading all the details and taking things out of context. We'll same thing with the New Yorker cover. Deal with it and recognize it for what it is, a political cartoon/satire. If you're shallow enough to believe in a cartoon it speaks volumes about yourself for not investigating further. People say dumb and stupid things in this country but its their right whether you agree with it or not.

Hey BROOKLYN, stop calling the kettle black. You sound like a two year old who has to go to his room.

POOR TASTE NO MATTER HOW YOU FRAME IT!

YOU ARE SHOWING AN UGLY PICTURE FOR AMERICA, BURNING THE FLAG! TOTALLY TASTELESS AND INCONSIDERATE.

UPSET and I'm a REPUBLICAN.................Call it whining it is a disgrace!!!!!!

What about Rev. Wright's right as an American to speak what he felt, Brooklyn? Don't be a hypocrit.

New Yorker
You will regret this cover!!!
BARACK THE VOTE

New Yorker is tres liberal and tres Democrat about many things . . . but not about the Middle East. The reason – It caters to the sensibilities of a certain kind of New York voter – one that wants Democrats to be warlike in the Middle East. Does this really need to be spelled out? A lot of Jewish voters don't like Obama, because they want the U.S. to remain stuck in Iraq and bombing Iran as well. Israel's supposed well-being gets higher priority than the well-being of the United States. And the New Yorker is a cultural expression of that mindset.

It is tasteless, pure and simple. Talk about subliminal messages. This is satire-gone-wild. No wonder McCain is repudiating it. He could be next!

I looked at the cover and laughed my fanny off. I took it as a joke. You people need to lighten up.

It is obviously satire...but if it helps keep Obama out of the Oval Office then That is only an added, unplanned benefit! I am LMAO!

Do some research into political satire and you will find something to offend every candidate and every person in America! But that is one of the reasons that we are LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE! Everyone has a right to an opinion...right or wrong, patriotic or offensive, funny or "I don't get it"! Freedom of expression is what makes us truly unique. My vote in November goes to the candidate I feel is most qualified to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"...so help me God it will!

Hillary (it's not too late) Clinton or John (the next best choice) McCain '08

I would hope that every sensible advertisers pull their ads from that magazine.

Brooklyn... you know you are whining, right?

McCain was not even born in the US!!

He'll also need diapers in his 1st term!!!

Time for grampa to take a nap! No McLies

It is a sad day when the mentality of the average American has dropped so low that they don't even know what satire is. This could have been a real slam on all the Obama right wing mythologies. But the Obama chose instead to be a victim over being intelligent.

Is Obama saying his followers are not smart enough to get the obvious satire?

Hate bloggers: look up "satire" or get someone to explain it to you.

I am not so sure this is a bad thing. Sure the right wing utilize the image without any subtext or context, but for the first time the national media will talk about and debunk some of the most insidious rumors that have been spread since Senator Obama began to run.

I am a fan of the New Yorker. At first, my visceral response was, "Oh, no. Here we go.!" As a "thinking" human being, I get it! While I am not ready to defend the New Yorker completely, I thank them for allowing this issue to come to the forefront of the campaign early in the campaign season.

All the New Yorker had to do was read some of the blogs on this site and they could see that there are lots of Ignorant, uneducated, uninformed people that will not take the time to investiagate the information but take this cover as a justification of their right wing veiws

it hurts poor little obama because its true abd the truth hurts doesn't
it. he is a liar and his wife is a B
Sincerely
debbie dutra

Don Imus said his statement was satire too

Great cover!!! The truth hurts.

Freedom of Speech people, get over it...

You have a right to an opinion, Mr... I.L.N.Y..

I think the New Yorker's satirical point could have been made without adding such despicable visual imagery. I have seen their other covers and do not agree that they have depicted any other President or potential President in this way.

Tastless! Ha,ha,haaaaaa! It backfires

The cover was humorless and in very poor taste.

On the surface, it may appear as a satyre to the well informed. But like so many other things in life it was ill-concieved in reality.
Those who have not taken the time to find out about Obama for themselves and rely on gossip and the internet blogsdfor all of thier news will see this and take it to heart.
Intelligent people would never serious look at these images and take them seriously, would they? Ask the Jews and the blacks in Germany is 1937.
Bad call New Yorker.

The New Yorker will PAY for this.

Why are we sooooooo sensitive over Obama and the cartoon. It's ok to ridicule to the 10th grade over a blue dress, or age, or gender with cartoons but this is off the table. Poor Obama. Give us a break!

Mr. Remnick should NOT have to defend anything... This is his right, this is OUR right as Americans to speak what we feel... And ANYONE that wants to be the Commander and Chief of our Nation should in fact be well aware of this...

Seems like Mr. Obama is not.

If he wants to be my President, I would appreciate no more whining because it really makes us all look bad... We need strength for God sake not a baby... This comes with the job... He is fair game, his family is fair game that is just how it is, no matter if it is right or wrong, every President has had to take it and they have all simply shrugged it off... Why can't he?

Considering how much Obama has been criticized, it is not satire. Instead it feeds directly into the misperceptions of which he has been accused. It is satire when it is widely recognized as being untrue. At this point, there are far too many people who will believe the cartoon depiction. Really poor judgment on the part of this editor. If he is supportive, Obama doesn't stand a chance.

This magazine is a disgrace. It is very offensive what they did. This magazine should be shut down asap. If I were the Obamas I would sue the magazine for every penney it's worth.

The Cover of Senator Obama and his wife in The New Yorker should be a disgrace to any American in my opinion. Obvious the New Yorker is out of touch as to the direction of American society. The editor should be ashamed of himself and he is right, the American people are not dumb. His intent was to show exactly what the cover meant to do, make the Obama's to appear they are not for America.

Liar.

The magazine supports Obama so an attack on the magazine hits a supporter. Obama sure has some nutty friends.

I think this cover with the cartoon of Senator Obama and his wife is absolutely outrageous and totally disrespectful. I really do not understand why the editor of the Newyorker would put that on the cover of his magazine.

Hey. It's a joke. Don't you understand? It's a joke. If you think it's funny then it's a funny joke. If you don't think it's funny then it's an unfunny joke. But it's just a joke. The biggest problem I have with Obama is he's nowhere near ready to be a good president. The second biggest problem I have with Obama is nobody can criticize him or even joke about him without being attacked for racism or whatever. Personally, I value a sense of humor more than warmed-over rhetoric marketed as inspiration. So far he is the least criticized candidate for president since Reagan – and we all know how that worked out.

I can MAYBE…SLIGHTLY…TRY to understand the point The New Yorker was TRYING to make with the cover. Although I have heard the article is excellent in combating the misconceptions and lies of Barack Obama, the cover does not invite anyone but Obama's non-supporter to continue to make ignorant, unjustified and racist remarks to Obama’s campaign. It is just adds to the fire and flames of dumb statements about his patriotism, faith and childhood.

The cover definitely sparked “buzz” but does NOT accomplish the “buzz” about the truth amongst all the lies the cover tastelessly portray.

Try again New Yorker!!! I think you lost a lot of subscriptions today.

"I think it's outrageous that we have a cover that would depict racism, sexism, anti-religion, also anti-patriotism, and then on top of it to try to draw a conclusion that Mr. Obama has some sympathy towards terrorism, and all of those are depicted in this magazine cover with no explanation," Park said.

Explanation...you mean like the article within the magazine.

I'm a supporter of Obama and found nothing wrong with this cover. If we're going to criticize the New Yorker over this, where is the equivalent backlash over half of the things that Stephen Colbert says on a nightly basis? It's no different and I enjoy both forms of lampooning the morons who actually believe these things.

What comes around goes around.

Mr. Remnick,
I think that you have lived in your little world too long – out in the world, ie West Virginia, Kentucky (where the voters did not vote for Obama because of what your cover illustrated) . Did you know that only 27% of the people living in the state of Kentucky have a college education and would thereby understand the cover. Did you know that the remaining individuals in Kentucky will embrace and believe that cover to be true.
I know that the people that I have written about do not purchase your magazine but because the media has shown it over and over the magazine will be a big item. Not for the substance but just for the cover.

I hope that you will do a reprint of this issue

The New Yorker and this cover is disgusting. The editor should be fired. The cover is insensitive and only promotes division. Its pathetic.

The desire to portray Barack Obama in an unsavory light is driven by the persons (including Senator Joe Lieberman) who wish to see an American presense in the Middle East indefinitely.

"I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people, to be quite honest"

Quite the opposite. The problem is that it grossly overestimates the intelligence of the American people.

David Remnick, you are an idiot.

I just watched this on MSNBC and I can understand what he is saying and why they published this. However, I do think it was very tasteless. I also think you should look at the potential impact past what your specific agenda for publishing it is. The problem is that those who subscribe to the New Yorker understand their magazine and they are very sophisticated people; they know it was satirical. On the other hand, those with an agenda to push hatred and mistrust, the ignorant ones in our country, will buy into this magazine cover and use it as a means to exacerbate their hatred and racism. After reading many of these blogs it's easy to see that we do have much ignorance in our country. People who still think he is Moslem are certainly NOT informed. I don't know why I am surprised, our country did elect Bush twice.

the big deal is the way you threw it on the front page and how dramatic you made it look its tasteless anyone who just glances at it and doesnt read the article see the obamas just as fox news and the smearing gop have been doing you know he has been trying to fight these smears shame on you newyorker my friends are cancelling their subscriptions!!!!!!!!!

I would have never guessed it. McBush, the Gop, and The New Yorker Magazine. Goes to prove that you can't keep these swift-boaters down for good

But isn't this already spread all over the internet for months? The New Yorker is only facing us all blatantly with our 'shy' thoughts of the Obamas despite some of us, may be small fraction, are in full agreement with the cover page.

I don't understand the outrage. All I want to know is, can we order this cover design in poster size? I'd love one for my family room.

Seems like a non sequiter to me. Point out the inaccuracy of the portrayal through use of the same portrayal?

I'm not particularly offended, but I believe the magazine fails to make their point.

Great ART work ! Get real people. What's the saying – "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire" Senator McCain has takwn a lot of "hits" and you don't hear him crying " foul". Isn't Obama a liberal? The object was to sell a magazine people.

The editor of the New Yorker has the misconception that the majority of Americans have IQ's over 90. He needs to get out of NY and spend more time in small town America. George Bush did not get elected twice because of the overwhelming "smarts" displayed by middle America.

David Remnick is an expert on Russia and a fantastic writer, but he obviously is not a keen PR guy. The satire will NOT be blatant to many, and beyond that may reignite questions about Obama’s patriotism and religious affiliation. What were the satirist and Mr. Remnick thinking? What would Malcolm Gladwell, another writer at the New Yorker and someone of mixed background, say?

The problem is that too many people have looked at the cover as confirmation of the crap that they already believe about Barack Obama.

I watched as Wolf Blitzer interviewed David Remnick. Remnick has no defense!

What people don't get is that the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, do not read the New Yorker!!! And ALL they WILL SEE IS THE CARTOON, WHICH PLAYS TO THEIR FEARS AND LIES!

That's what I am upset about! I GET that its satire! But MOST Americans do not know what satire means!

Also, its obvious that Muslims and African-Americans can be lampooned but when Rev. Wright spoke up against the 'other' side, people were up in arms!

This is the FIRST TIME THAT I AGREE WITH FELLOW ROMAN CATHOLIC, BILL BENNET. AND JAMES CARVILLE IS AN IDIOT!

"I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people, to be quite honest."

Unfortunately, "overestimate" is the word to use when talking about the intelligence of the American people, as judged by many of the posts on these boards.

Note how Bill Bennett is trying to be PC.

The cover made MO look like Angela Davis. Not fair, I say. MO's resemblance to AD is strictly ideological.

I don't plan on voting for Obama because I don't think he's being up front regarding the issues but give me a break that cover is a little much!

It is appalling, racist, ethocentric, fearmongering, and insulting to America! It is NOT SATIRE as it is not based on fact only predudice. The New Yorker has lost any claim to respect. Neo-con crappola!

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of America.

That whole freedom of speech thing is a thing of the past.You can no longer say what you want about who you want you have to be politically correct and sensitive-even if you live in Japan.

Maybe we should burn all New Yorker magazines in the fireplace! This is seriously in poor taste!

It is amazing that USA still lives in such a darkness, that people use such offensive cartoons to make money and get free publicity. I think these are the people who are creating hate for USA in all over the world. That is precise reason the respect of USA is diminishing due to such incidents. Live and let live, respect each other to be respected by other nations wheather you like one canidadate or other.

Is the New Yorker gonna do a parody on "Grandpa McCain" as well? If not then this cover is not only tasteless and feeding the urban myth but racist as well

PS: Despite the high minded intent this cover will be hung in every gas station in W. VA and it's surrounding states offering pure glee to every bible toting, gun owning, snake handling bigot that's for sure. Way to go New Yorker...

This is as sick as it gets. The New York has a moral responsibility to this country. The Editor needs to be fired! Is this the society that we want to live in? Tasteless Rubbish. They should perhaps been sued into bankruptcy!

People wouldn't know satire if it bit them in the rear. It's much easier to throw out the race/minority/feeling cards when you don't understand something.

The big deal, James Carville, is that there are a lot of hillbillies in this country who have a vote. They're already biased and racist and this will simply make them think they were right all the long.

Unfortunately not everyone reads the words. They just look at the pictures...

What Americans are you talking about? The 26% who believe he is Muslim. Do you honestly believe they would listen to you? No way. Your cover only reinforces these peoples crazy beliefs. Next time use better judgment.

ginger

At least James Carville is smart enough to know what this is. I have been to 4 different Barnes & Nobles and 2 Borders here in California and I have not been able to find one copy of this magazine. All of the New Yorkers have been sold out.. Looks like this magazine was a hit.

But Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville defended the magazine's cover choice as satire in its "ultimate form."

"I don't know what the big deal is," he said.

Oh, ok Carville – and if this was a 'satire' of Hillary Clinton, would it not be a big deal to you? You'd be screaming bloody murder!

Who cares, most of the people who read the New Yorker are intelligent enough to know it's satire.

Hey, Obamites. It's satire. Get a sense of humor. Oops, you do. Your candidate is the joke, right?

We keep waiting to find out what Obama's made of – maybe it all amounts to that Pegg Lee song – is that all there is? I find it interesting that after the Wright controversy, the Mrs. Obama statement revealing herself as partiotically-impaired, the flag pin flap and the lack of hand over heart during the pledge, the images of Obama and his wife find expression through an anti-American satire. The theme persists. The shadow cast. The questions linger.

I will never read the New Yorker again.
What they did was disgusting.

Oh and this is no Colbert! And Carville's title as a Democratic strategist should be used loosely. He's still upset about Clinton's loss.

Both Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama and their spouses deserve respects from the media and American people. This is no excuse, The New Yorker.

Its who they are .....terrific...fine job New Yorker

The article was designed to attack the misconceptions, but the cover is what you see first and it leaves a very different impression.

I too feel it is out of line, but in the country it is freedom of speech and the press. It works for all not just when we pick and choose.

i get it but you still missed the mark. there are so many STUPID people who will see this and try to run with it...most of whom could not read the article any way. in the cartoon there should have been a drawing of the IDEOT who thinks the things the cover represents

Why not run a magizne cover with screaming and flesh burning women and children with Mcwar singing in his jet, dropping Napalm. He could be singing bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. This would be an outrage to the GOP right wing rethuglicans.

Obama needs to lighten up. If he's smart as people made him out to be he'd realize that the cover is actually meant to help him and portrays him as a victim of fear-mongering by the Republicans.

I tried to purchase the New Yorker Magazine of Obama.

Guy at Barnes & Noble says all New Yorkers sold out LOL

really looks like the liberal wishes for them to go out of business, well are incorrect as usual.

A poke in the eye with a sharp stick to the politics of misinformation and innuendo. Bravo to the New Yorker. Well done.

I've read so many posts saying this was done by the GOP... I just laughed... this is a very liberal magazine... and they make fun of everyone. Those that are mad about it missed the point I think.

Good Job!
Obama has to be more specific on his policies and his upbringing.
Millions of Americans still think he's a Muslim.
They think he is a Christian now, but they think that the Muslims think he's a Muslim because his father was.
Apparently, once a Muslim, always a Muslim.
Obama should talk about his Dad being a Muslim and he might clear the air.

You knew he was a white man! Where's the picture of McCain in his devil uniform, kiling babies and smacking on woman calling them bad words while gambling with U.S. dollars?

Someone name me one New York cover that ever depicted a politican in this manner and I won't call him a racist.

I understand what they were trying to do, but the message was totally lost with that cover. They could have had a much better cover that still hit the points without giving an audience to those that believe this nonsense.

If the idea is "to attack lies and misconceptions", why are they helping to spread them?

He defends HIS racist attitudes....... not the cover..... this is why McCain doesn't have to run ads against Obama, he has enough racist in the MEDIA to HELP HIM WIN.

When it was clinton (either), bush (either), displayed as redkneck it was fine... it is fine now too.

Where is the free speech?

The republicans should create campaign size posters and use them in the small bitter gun touting religious small towns in the south and swing states....LOL too funny.
Now obama will take some heat from the media he soon will know how Hillary was treated. Its not the cakewalk he had in Jan/Feb