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.