I think you nailed it Joel. It ain't funny. Heck, it's not even clever.

It is just plain dumb!

It is just plain dumb!

It is just plain dumb!

Given the comments and attitudes of Mr and Mrs. Obama, the cover seems quite accurate.

I think its funny.

Now would Jewish Americans sit back and say anything anti-semetic is only a problem because "It isn't funny"? No. They would be on top of it, pointing out the bias. It would be an uproar. But a black American needs to "take it in stride." Obama's candidacy is showing all the awful hidden biases that linger in white folk, especially the media. I really believe the media is doing a terrible job of policing themselves on this. They don't even see those hidden biases in themselves. I think this blog shows that. It is open season on the black candidate... and only a problem if it doesn't make white people laugh.

It was a reckless abstraction that plays into the hands of ignorance. Fox News will have a field day and the powerful negative image will get more circulation than the moronic emails that inspired it. I don't recall a Bush lampoon on the cover of The New Yorker that comes even close and in his case, that would not be hitting below the belt. I've canceled my subscription and will avoid their advertisers -- like I need a diamond studded watch. Let the Republicans who are in to culture keep them afloat. LOL.

Bill Clinton and George Bush II have been drawn worse.. Grow up, this what most Americans fear - BHO will be beyond ridicule & criticism, beyond bad taste jokes, cartoons etc etc...Editorial comics will be demanded to draw complimentary cartoons of BHO or else threatened by the shout down police. I fear we are going from a weak man who made any criticism of him seem unpatriotic to another effete goof ball that implies any criticism of him is off limits due to religion and race...

I am on my way out to buy a copy and frame it.

I am on my way out to buy a copy and frame it.

Well, I thought it was funny. But then, I live in Texas, where people actually believe Obama's a Muslim. The anti-Obama email crap I get down here is out-of-this-world nuts. Have you seen the one of the "Obama family"? The one that "identifies" his "family members" as dead, dead, crack ho, in jail ... etc? Crazy, man, CA-RAZY.

Batten down the hatches, rough weather ahead.

Kbertucci, Le Monde's copy editor blog is a gem. The commenters seem pretty good too. Merci.

I agree... it would have worked better if the words "Politics of Fear" had appeared on the cover as well.

Even so, I think it belongs on National Lampoon--or maybe even Mad Magazine, but not the New Yorker.

Yup, just what I figured: massive front page alert. I'm sprinting (metaphoricvally) to open the bunker. If three of those comments are any measure, we're in for a bad one.

Whether it's funny or not is almost beside the point. "...everyone knows that The New Yorker is editorially liberal." Well, no. The cover may have been intended for the NY's standard audience, but the attention it gets will be noted by many who've never read it and many who've never even heard of it. What are they to make of it? It's enough to make the "Media Elite" proud.

I think it's fair as long as the New Yorker now does a cover satirizing McCain's POW experience. I think that should be equal fodder for laughs. Up to this point, it's been completely untouchable.

Joel Achenbach wrote a couple od days ago:
"I do am usually so appalled that I fly backward through space with my hair visibly scorched and my eyeballs desocketed. If you know what I mean."

Look what you've done, can't look at your own blog anymore. Sheesh.

Dibs on "War and Peace." It's gonna be a long one.

I'll meet you there, Mudge. It's gonna be a bad day, I can just tell.

I agree that it's not a funny cover. Too bad it doesn't work, but I was glad to hear that the McCain campaign denounced it too.

Similar take over at the TNR blog. They argue it doesn't work as satire in part because it doesn't actually add anything, it's just ironic mimicry.

I'm surprised that so many people don't get 'it'. Though, you gotta admit, the 'it' was way weak.

I've added to the kit a mini-review of the New Yorker cover from noted humor mandarin Gene Weingarten.

taking a cue from raysmom, shall we open up the bunker on the previous boodle?

I am on my way out to buy a copy and frame it.

Posted by: See ya | July 14, 2008 11:53 AM

Are you going to hang it next to your confederate flag ?

The people of this country don't buy the fear card anymore so they've brought out the trusty race card because your candidate is pathetic and has nothing to run on. How sad. Release ALL of your war records McCain so everyone can see the charade for what it is,total BS.
And we wonder why the country is in such sad shape. I'm definitely voting for Obama now just to stick it to you morons and when he wins and things get turned back to the right direction,it will once and for all,hopefully,show how despicably wrong the NeoCons(the Republican Party has been dead for 7 1/2 years)are for this "once great"nation. I am a caucasion male,just for your knowledge,who is not very proud of this country at the moment.

I'm waiting for the Cartoon of John McCain with, literally, one foot in the grave, a bomb tucked under one arm, and an Oil Drill under the other, a Framed photo of Bush 43 over the Fire-place, and possibly, Cindy McCain, as Barbie, sitting on the Mantle piece...then I might chuckle a little.

Yeah, L.A. lurker, I'm with you. I just posted over there for the benefit of my imaginary friends, since this one didn't really seem the right place.

oops, didn't mean to b-o-o there.

joel, i think you qualify as a humor mandarin. fits with the food theme.

I haven't seen the cover yet so won't comment on it. I will say that it doesn't sound funny. Often cartoon humor, particularly satire, relies on the appropriate caption for its punch. Without a caption, all you have is the picture. If the comments above are representative of the variety of reactions, the intentions represented by this picture are ambiguous at best. Depending on the eye of the beholder is seldom a reliable method to get across forms of humor as delicate as satire or irony.

Joel's humor analysis is quite correct. If something isn't funny, it doesn't matter whether it was satire or not. Almost funny is, indeed, worse than not funny.

Yup, LA's right: back to the previous kit. There's nothing we regulars can do here.

The column seems to assume that satire and humor are the same thing. They're not quite the same, although much satire is indeed funny.

Alas, the picture is a true representation of how the rabid right wing is trying to portray Obama. Just yesterday, on Fox & Friends, I heard Rush Limbaugh whinging because he "can't talk about his [Obama's] terrorist friends". Of course that is actually how Rush wants it--if he did talk about "terrorist friends" he would have to produce some actual facts. This way he can just whisper innuendo.

Satire by its very nature is not always "funny;" except, perhaps, in retrospect.

I understand the satire behind the cover - but as the article said, the problem is that the cover is just that. There is no headline, so people just seeing the picture will not understand what the magazine is driving at. In addition, I think most Americans are not going to hear about this by reading The New Yorker. They are going to watch Fox News, and what they are going to see is all their worst fears realized. Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith in many American voters to realize that this is fact is a JOKE and not a depiction of the Obama's true character. This is a race that will be won by the undecided voters, many of whom already think Obama is a secret Muslim. With news coverage like this, many more people will point and say, "See, he is a Muslim!" This is a huge mistake by the New Yorker, and will ultimately just reinforce the blatant falsehood that Obama and his wife are Muslim terrorists.

It's not funny. And it doesn't matter what "intent" was behind it. Most people, walking past it are going to be so put off by the cover, it won't even matter what the punchline is, such as there wasn't one.

If it were poking fun at the stereotypes of another protected minority, they'd jump on top of this so fast it would make my head spin.

Yet, because these are Muslims, they seem to be fair game.

URL for aforementioned TNR take: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/14/beautiful-friend-the-end.aspx

My reaction was much like Weingarten's -- "I guess it is supposed to be funny, and maybe it is to regular New Yorker readers, but what about all the people seeing it on a newsstand?"

The media and their catoonists did worse to Hillary, without a pip of reaction from the Joel Achenbach cry babies of this world. Chill and get over it!

Obama had it coming, and I'm laughing my rear off, just as the Joel Achenbachs of this world did with those cartoons of Hillary!! Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

This cover art is something I'd expect from MAD Magazine, not the New Yorker. It's the most patently racist thing I've seen in politics since the Willie Horton ad in '88. Guess the New Yorker paid no mind to Mayor Bloomberg's speech in Florida last month about spreading lies and misinformation. Shame on these editors.

Ignore the cartoon, read the article. There's a wealth of information on and about Obama, his long knives politics, ruthlessness in getting his way - ask Alice Palmer- two-face politics - says all the positive things about his opponents in public thing in public while allowing his surrogates to do the dirty works on opponents- his corrupt and crooked Chicago connections.......

Unless folks want Chicago-style politics, dirty, corrupt and unscrupulous, in the White House and at the federal level, they should give Obama the finger, not their votes, in November!!

I love watching the liberals eat their young :-)

Cover of National Lampoon: Not funny. Too obvious.
Cover of New Yorker: Mildly amusing. And does anything in the New Yorker ever surpass the sly grin of recognition level of funny?
Cover of National Review: Actionable.

But then I still think that the NatLamp "Buy this issue or we shoot the dog" cover is pure genius.

Another awful miss is this month's Esquire where Stephen Colbert is parodying the Muhammad Ali-St Anthony cover.

http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=2008&month=8

And the original:

http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=1968&month=4

Does not work.

I think it is almost funny, and it could have been downright funny. The artist did recapture the St. Paul fist bump - right down to Michelle Obama's expression - quite well. The cartoon almost seems to suggest that, watching that particular moment, some Americans experienced unmitigated fear, one fed by a well-run, racist, fear-mongering smear campaign.

And the smear campaign, based on so-called rumors, has really done nothing other than attempt to provide some kind of justification to those who already habor negative feelings - from discomfort to downright hate - but for reasons they cannot freely admit. They latch on to the rumors to give legitimacy to these feelings.

Had the artist portrayed this cartoon in a thought bubble emanating from a Midwesterner watching Obama effectively win the nomination in St. Paul, it may have been funny. Or thought-provoking. Or maybe just sad. At any rate, it could have been less of a misfire.

Nonetheless, as it stands, it could still funny when we look back on it in twenty years.

I think, yello, the Esquire parodies are based on Mantegna's "Martyrdom of St. Sebastian."

the only problem with satire is that the audience is assumed to be halfway intelligent. faulty assumption in this country of blindly proud ignorami.

A thing is not either "funny" or "not funny"--except in WeingartenWorld.

Different people laugh at different things.

I smiled when I first saw the New Yorker cover because I immediately took it as ridicule of the ignorati. But I also cringed at the racist content and I surely do think that it was a bad editorial decision, unless the sole objective was to garner publicity for the publication, in which case it may have been genius--the kind of evil genius that doesn't care who gets hurt in the process of making money for your company. No question this cover is getting lots of attention.

Americans have gotten far too thin skinned and "PC" for their own good. It's sickening to see both parties swoon and sway over a magazine cartoon that is in keeping with the New Yorker's humor of many decades. The hand wringers and the "perpetually offended" need to leave the rest of us alone to make up our own minds for a change---yes we can read, thank you, and the article is balanced and far more cerebral than many of the critics can appreciate, I suspect. Quit crying America and enjoy the press freedom that many nations can only wish that they had.

There are no scared cows in politics, especially presidential politics, since the earliest days of the Republic.

Folks -- liberals, Obama supporters, bloggers, et al -- need to get over themselves with this New Yorker cover nonsense.

Eggsactically, kb.

Something can be funny to different people for different reasons. In middle school I had to explain to somebody that the Cheech and Chong routine about Buster the Crab was Body Crabs, not Blue Crabs. He had thought it was hilarious, but then was very confused.

Obambi suck-ups can't even tell when they have been given a gift .

I think we should promote Phil's "Bad Astronomy." PZ's getting too big for his hat.

While there is nothing inherently funny about eating babies, J. Swift's " A Modest Proposal" is great satire.

A. Agree
B. Disagree
C. Think eating babies is hilarious.

I cant believe that the Editorial Board of the New Yorker sat down and made the decision that this was the Cover that they were going to run with.
What Poor taste. The average Joe is NOT sophificated enough to know the difference between what's real and what's Lampooning,
Do you think those folks in West Virginia, KY, Wewstern PA, Ohio Indiana ( who already hate Obama)- care that's it was supposed to be a Joke?
This is worst than Rev. Wright.
Lets see if the Press takes a bite out the New Yorker's hide the same as they did Rev. Wright.

I agree it's not funny. These types of satires are only funny when they make fun of the Republicans. Please fire whoever the cartoonist is, and hire Ted Rall, we want to see more Bush as Hitler and Cheney eating black babies type of cartoons. This is not the New Yorker I knew!

"But a black American needs to "take it in stride." Obama's candidacy is showing all the awful hidden biases that linger in white folk, especially the media."

Generalize much?

The New Yorker is the farthest thing from racist that I can think of.

There isn't a race hater behind everything.

This is obvious satire.

What appears to be a whale oil lamp on the mantel may be offensive to Greenpeace supporters and the portrait over the mantel...is proscribed by Islam. The NRA, on the other hand, may find a rifle-bearing
first lady appealing.

I think kbertocci and Jim have the right ideas. The New Yorker's niche market has been expanded and they are probably ordering an additional press run. But I expect that few will actually read the article (about the same number who have read the Declaration and Constitution).

It seems odd that in this day and age, filled with sex and violence on television (in programs, commercials and 'news'), in music and music videos, video games... that sooooo many people find the cover offensive.

The creative and great artistic execution managed to put all of the ridiculous rumors into a political cartoon.
... NO, words or headline are needed.
The draing says it all.

Political satire and or cartoons have been around for a loooong time.

Anyone who takes one thing in this cartoon seriously, already thinks that way; and I do not believe that a photographic documentary showing otherwise would change the ignorant and narrow minds.

To the artist and magazine I say,
"Well done!"

I think the New Yorker cover is pretty funny, although not laugh-out-loud hilarious. Nothing in the New Yorker ever is -- wouldn't want to break decorum.

It's not appropriate to MAD or its ilk, because the interpretation of the joke would be different. On MAD, it would be a joke about Obama, unless it showed something like Rush Limbaugh painting this picture of Obama -- only then would it draw the same interpretation as the New Yorker intends, a lampooning off those who push this ludicrous image of Obama.

I can easily see similarly-veined cartoon satires one could make of other politicians that have been the victim of vicious libels and slander:

(1) Joe Lieberman settling back for an evening of plotting while perusing a dog-eared copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

(2) John Kennedy listening to a mysterious tape-recorder detailing his orders from the Pope.

(3) Bill Clinton reading a book on "How to make it look like suicide" while standing next to a desk with a "V. Foster" nameplate and a pair of shoes sticking out from behind the desk.

(4) Richard Nixon holding a monkey-wrench and reading "Plumbing for Dummies."

Oh, wait, that last one kinda makes sense. Anyway, the others are all nonsense that seemed, at the time, to carry some weight among "certain people". They didn't get a New Yorker cover because, well, they just didn't. There's a first time for everything.

Remnick can easily remedy this particular kerfuffle by commissioning a couple of covers by Ted Rall (is it permissible even to mention Ted Rall in WaPo?). ALL of this (the Obama cover) will be forgotten soonest.

It's clever and it's thought provoking. Since when did satire have to guard against offending the hyper-sensitive among us? Being lampooned is part of the deal all politicians make with The Devil that spurs them on to loftier heights. So stop whining and try to take yourself less seriously.

Boko,
Eating babies isn't funny. Dead babies, however, are HI-larious.

What's worse than a dead baby?
What is red, white, silver?
What is red, white, and blue?
What's white, white, red, white, red, pink, pink?
What is easier to load into a truck- bowling balls or dead babies?
What's worse than a truck full of dead babies?
What's worse than that?

E-mail me privately if you want the answers to any of those.

As you said--"Anyone with a brain and even a modicum of a sense of humor should be able to tell it's satire." Amen to that!

Guess that the artist favors Barack Obama.

The intention of this political cartoon being to inform the public truth, is akin to saying Jesse Jackson does not support Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

The FISA concern seemed to be diminished by the Jackson comment about "nuts".

If nothing else, the political cartoon cover is a FREE advertisement for Barack.
....His campaign just saved a whole lot of $$$$.

Guess that the artist favors Barack Obama.

The intention of this political cartoon being to inform the public truth, is akin to saying Jesse Jackson does not support Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

The FISA concern seemed to be diminished by the Jackson comment about "nuts".

If nothing else, the political cartoon cover is a FREE advertisement for Barack.
....His campaign just saved a whole lot of $$$$.

Politically, it is an absolute necessity for both campaigns to vigorously denounce the New Yorker cover, regardless of what the candidates really think. For Obama to laugh off the cover would be an endorsement of the cover's sneering satire directed toward those who are prone to believe such nonsense. He still might persuade those folks to listen to reason, but not if he insults them. If he insults them, then he motivates them to vote against him. McCain similarly must abjure the satire, in order not to alienate fence-sitters who don't get the joke, or who imagine that their peers are not bright enough to get the joke. Both candidates are intelligent and well-educated men. I am certain they both get the joke. That leaves the task of deciding how to use the foofaraw to gain advantage. It's not cynicism -- it's politics. The stakes are high, and principled defeat is not a tolerable option for either candidate.

The cover is far more blasphemous than those horrid cartoons of the Glorious Prophet.

Every Presidential candidate, and President has been the subject of vicious satire. Is that going to end now? When will the PC nonsense end? I love the cover, and salute the New Yorker for having the b*lls to run it. I support Danish cartoonists AND The New Yorker!

yello, you may rest assured that I don't need the answers to those riddles.
WAKE UP!!
No rest for the wicked.

I sent Al Franken a mock mock-up of a 'talking book' CD entitled "Mel Gibson Reads The Protocols of The Elders of Zion."
I thought is was funny, I hope he doesn't get in any trouble.

As humor, it ranks right up there with lighting farts at fraternity parties. Truly sophomoric!

SCC: "Which is easier..."

I'd hate to have people take offense to my tasteless jokes on the grounds of poor grammar.

now that this ridiculous excuse for a joke has been revealed to the public, next months cover should be one of mcbush standing in the forground while mushroom clouds rise on the horizon behind him. all this while mcbush and olmert engage in a peaceful and heartfelt embrace celebrating the second coming of christ. but it would just be a joke, of course.

Joel,

Thanks for the link to the Fallows blog. I visited China last year and the Potemkin Polish was already in full force. I've been following the press coverage with a lot of interest. Fallows's notes jibe very well with my impressions.

You're beginning to scare me MachiavelliTim.

This is the country with a populace of such acumen that it elected George W. Bush President not once, but twice. No matter the potential for harm, The New Yorker had to exercise its Olympian cleverness

Carpin, I guess only you are " sophificated " enough to tell the difference right?

I have a great sense of humor and the the cartoon is not funny not is it satrical. The cartoon reminds me of a fake apology. "I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks." apology "I'm sorry my remarks offended you."

They know the difference but didn't care.

If this is simply an innocent satire, as opposed to a politically-oriented hatchet job, then I'm sure we can expect to see an equally satirical portrait of John and Cindy McCain? How about Senator McCain as a 1000 year old Methuselah, his face bright purple from hurling expletives at his congressional colleagues, and Cindy as a ravaged drug addict smuggling a pile of narcotics out of a hospital in her $10,000 evening gown?

How about it New Yorker? I didn't think so.

Obama should be lampooned. That is what we do to Presidential candidates here in America. We always have and always will.
This isn't any different than the way Telanes portrays little monkey W.

Obama is a presidential candidate, is going to get lampooned, and I am going to walk right out an buy a copy of the New Yorker. They should thank you for the free advertisement.

the political cartoon on the cover of the
new yorker is the absolute ,emphatic,
frank, candid, straight forward ,
honest - to - goodness truth.
the entire populus should tell the
two pigs on the cover , " soooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooey".

Did Joel announce a "Best Imitation of RedState/FreeRepublic Commenter Contest"? If so, and I missed it, I plead "no contest". Too many contenders here already.

I think some people here need to go back to English class and (re)learn the definition of "satire." While you're at it, please pay particular attention to the narrower term "lampoon." This cover is not a lampoon of Obama; it's a satire of the neo-conservative, moronic false-beliefs about Michelle and Barack Obama. And since when does satire need to be funny? Most satire points out and scorns some really horrible truths about our various societies. Can humor be a method to do so? Yes. Need it be the only one? No.

MachiTim,
Once again your keen perceptiveness marks you as a rennaisance thinker. It is well-known that politicians have to put their sense of humor into a blind trust in order to run for office. Much like George HW Bush had to with his manhood in order to accept the Veep nomination under Reagan.

Well said, Patrick. And do you recall how Thomas Nast portrayed Irishmen?

all you liberal whiners here obviously suffer from amnesia as well!!!

the new yorker covers:
jan 2007 pres bush "while rome burns"

feb 2006 pres bush & v pres cheney "watch your back mountain"

pres bush as "maid" with v pres cheney smoking cigar

didn't hear any "fair and unbiased" journalist and pundits crying foul over those covers.

grow thicker skin! grow up!

I have two questions for the people who think the NewYorker cover is a lampoon of the Obamas.

Do you have any money?
Do you play poker?

Is there no one left in the country with a sense of humor?

Is there no one left in the country with a sense of humor?

Another Self-Nomination -
While not as frequent, topical, or funny as achenblog, www.greatsasguests.com has a premise that may interest. On the first Friday night of every month, my hubby Rick and I chose -- from all who have ever lived -- to invite three famous guests to a dinner party. Drawn from their past comments and our imaginations, our 'live blog' is an account of the interactions between the likes of Joan of Arc, Bob Geldof, and Billy Graham. In our archives also are depictions of our times with Michael Jordan, Margaret MacMillan, Tim Berners-Lee, Lisa Kudrow,, Elisabeth Lloyd, Lucian Freud, Hu Jintao, Jackie Robinson, Dieter Fischer-Diskau, Muhammad Yunus, Perween Warsi, James Dean, Danica Patrick, et al. When we return from our summer break in September, we hope to sup with Nelson Mandela, Eleanor Roosevelt, and a Latin American woman (yet to be identified).

Maybe this was intended to be satire, but it is not - because there is no twist. The whole picture could be taken just as it is and be used by anyone who seriously believes exactly those things about the Obamas. They could use it directly in any sorts of hating-Obama-demonstration.

If you don't know anything about the New Yorker, the cover looks just like the real thing. It doesn't give people who are genuinely afraid of Obama any pause whatsoever. It tells nothing.

The electorate, Perplexed, seems to have had a great sense of humor in 2004. The joke, of course, is on them.

Barb,

Wasn't there a PBS series with the same concept several decades ago? It had actors dressed in period dress playing the guests. I forgot who was the host.

I've seen little reference to the statement this cover obviously mocks: the ridiculous assertion by a Fox news reporter, following the Barack-Michelle fist bump, that the fist bump is a jihadi greeting.

It wouldn't be satire to cover anti lynching laws by putting a drawing of a hanging black man on the cover of the New Yorker with dancing KKK members in the background.

It isn't satire when you embrace fully the images of the deepest fears and lies being perpetrated by the worst elements of our society... Those who are framing that hideous cover, hanging it on their office wall, emailing it around, yukking it up in the bathroom and around the water cooler in sordid jokes that diminish the lives of Americans and the contributions of our heros in Iraq, and pointing their disgusting "jokes" out to visitors also happen to be in the highest offices in the land.

It isn't satire when some people celibrate the image as "dead on".

It isn't satire when hateand fear are engendered.

It isn't even a punk-rock style anti-humor. It is just shockingly ignorant and tone deaf.

Putting Bush and Cheney in place of the Obama's in the image would be "satire".

Now, why should I ever assume that ANYONE in the chattering and literary classes has a clue, an understanding, a grasp of what is thought by Americans living outside of manhattan and the beltway???

Stupidity knows no bounds, and apparently university degrees have been awarded to complete idiots.

I like Joan Walsh. And martooi's sister.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/07/13/prissy_media/

given the emails I receive, the cover seems quite fitting

WE WILL BOYCOTT THE NEW YORKER!!!

"Maybe this was intended to be satire, but it is not - because there is no twist."

There is no requirement for satire to have a twist, but thank you.

I think it's hilarious myself. And it IS satire.

The New Yorker would have had the same effect if they had a picture of Obama and stamped the N word as a title.

Wilbrod,
I played that guy from The Scottish Play in sixth grade and still can (and unfornuately for some, still do) recite the tomorrow-tomorrow-tomorrow speech at the drop of a hat.

But I never realized that Lady McB would be so good for scenery chewing and a little good-ole-drag-show kick-lining.

"Out, out, damn Spot! That was my new white carpet..."

But it should stir.

damndamndamn

It's not the readers of the New Yorker that won't get the "satire" of this offensive cover; it's the people who will be watching FOX news and reading far-right bloggers who will be forwarding this image who will have a prediliction to believing the images.

I swear, liberals have unconscious self-defeating streaks - a liberal magazine feeds the "muslim [read: terrorist] and unpatriotic" images of the Obamas, just like many blue states initiated gay marriage laws in a presidential election year (2004) thereby giving the right ample opportunities for distraction and prejudicial labeling of liberals and democrats. The New Yorker could have written a piece with the same content, but without the images, which are more powerful to those disinclined toward satire, than words.

I can't wait to see what Stephen Colbert has to say about that cover. The universe could collapse into a meta-satire black hole that strong.

Are you saying Mr. Phlegming that the NY cover had you shaken but not stirred?

For the record, I'm with Weingarten. Very dumb choice for the cover but a good-enough satirical illustration for page 3 or 4 of the article.

I showed the NY cover to my nephew and several of his redneck fishing buddies, their comments:

"Ya gotta expect that kind of crap when you're running for president." (26 y/o nephew, unemployed)

"Ouch!" (22 y/o music major)

"That's really funny." (18 y/o recent HS grad)

"I don't get it." (16 y/o HS dropout)

It's part of Achenbach's genius that he let's people reveal themselves. Sure, when reading "Captured by Aliens" one screams, "Oh, for God's sake, give the idiot a slap!" or "The Grand Idea", "You wouldn't dare." Achenbach doesn't judge. He relates. You cast the first stone.

Near as I can tell, approximately 99% of the critique of the New Yorker cover is along the lines of "Well, *I* can tell it's satire, but those middle-America know-nothings who are too stupid to have their maids shuck the corn before they eat it, *they* are the sort of yahoos who will simply believe these foolish images that have been spoon-fed to them."

Come on, people. I take a backseat to no one in my sneering condescension towards the intellect of my fellow citizens. I am so full of myself, a visit to the bathroom is like giving birth to a mini-me. However, if so many were so right about their criticisms, there would be no significant fraction of the electorate left to be the butt of all the sneering. I suspect that anyone who is sufficiently awake and aware to recognize the nature of the images on the New Yorker cover, is sufficiently awake and aware to understand that it is satire. A "failure" to understand that it is satire therefore must be a conscious act of will on the part of the permanently umbrageous or the willfully stupid. There's nothing that can be done about those groups.

it's satire,, heavy duty satire.. like the Irish baby satire of the 1800s.

it's not meant to funny ha Ha style.

dam obama and his whiners

what's pathetic is the sneering snobish elite obama stating most of America won't get it

You dam a river, not a man.

Stephen Colbert is so hot.

:-)

Wiki says the New Yorker had 996,000 subscribers in '04 (the last year for which statistics were available). Who knows how many additional copies hit the newstands, but let me say this, I would have to drive 90 miles to get one.

"permanently umbrageous"

Plain Tim is also hot!

Besides, if a picture is worth a thousand words, we need fourteen more covers to replace the archetypically (not sure that's really a word, but it ought to be)long New Yorker article that cartoon heralds.

I suggest one of Barry in a Harvard Law School smoking jacket sitting in an overstuffed leather chair at a tony country club calling John Kerry to see if he is free for some bowling or windurfing or tank driving or something.

Tim said:

Near as I can tell, approximately 99% of the critique of the New Yorker cover is along the lines of "Well, *I* can tell it's satire, but those middle-America know-nothings who are too stupid to have their maids shuck the corn before they eat it, *they* are the sort of yahoos who will simply believe these foolish images that have been spoon-fed to them."

You hit it on the head, friend. It's a magazine known for its biting wit, and like all satire, if you don't get it, have someone explain it to you before you get up on your soapbox.

By the way, isn't there a blast door on the bunker? I swear, you leave for a few weeks, and somebody lets all the insects in.

This morning I got this email from a conservative friend with whom I disagree a good part of the time:

I had hoped 25-30 years ago, Lee Iacocca should have made a run for the White House. I have always wondered, what if a business man became president: Would we be better off today? I like to think we would be, no? Politics aside, a company running on deficits every year, would go bankrupt sooner or later....we is lucky, the Feds and the Treasury are running the money presses overtime to keep us from drowning in our own debts by creating more debts. Do we need four more years of this? The old truism is alive and well...we get what we deserve.

THE NEW YORKER covers are often amusing, irreverent, and SATIRICAL. What could be better than that? Thinking and laughing at the same time--a very good combination.

Please understand, the primary reason for my 3:34 was the opportunity to plant the "mini-me" image. The rest of the discussion stands, but I might have phrased it less harshly had I not seen the opportunity for some self-abusing... um, self-defecating... um, some humor poking fun at myself.

Plain Tim-thank you for your 3:34. I was thinking similar things yesterday afternoon when the boodle first noted the cover, and moved on.

And d@mn if Michelle doesn't still look good even in a caricature. My envy knows no bounds.

If this is all just so neutral and just satire, why wasn't the photo about McCain & Cindy. . .there is lots more good stuff that could have been chosen on them. Why do a cover that contributes to the inaccurate information being disseminated on Republican minion web sites. Images are more powerful than words in today's media.

Joel, loved the title of your piece. It reminds me of a great Niels Bohr phrase, which he used about physics. He would say an idea was so wrong it was "not even false."

Please understand that in my 3:47 I was thinking similar things right down to the "mini-me" image (though not as well drawn an image, mine was more along the lines of absence of olfactory offense).

How was it for you?

I don't know what this blogger is talking about, I find the cover funny...

I never saw anyone at the post scream "tasteless" or "unfunny" when they were cartoons of Bush and Cheney as Hitler.

Not funny at all. In fact, I think it's shameful. It's all the result of the displayed lack of class - thanks to the Karl Rove style of politics. Shameful. I'm not proud of my country today.

ScatologicalTim,

Your mini-me mental image reminded me that the other night on 'Weeds' they used the old graffiti:

Here I sit, cheeks a-flexin'
Givin' birth to another...

I can say that. Because I am. Technically.

I thought it was pretty funny in a satirical way (not in the guffaw out loud way), but that is b/c I understand the background set up the point it is making. I think most here who participate in a forum such as this one do also, but I'm not sure America at large really gets it.

I think that given *The New Yorker's* readership, it works.

I do think it might have worked better if they had added some well-known right-wing spinmeister, such as Rush Windbag or Ann Coultergeist on the cover also, as if they were the artist drawing the illustration, a la Norman Rockwell. That would have more effectively communicated the point.

One cannot control for those who are too stupid or unsophisticated to get the joke. Most of the media coverage is much ado about nothing. If they are going to cover it, then why not explain the reasons behind it and where they eminate from. This would be an excellent chance to expose some of the smear and rumor-mongering that are products of the far-right (and sometimes, not-so-far right), for this is what the illustraion is lampooning. Once more people get the joke, they might understand why that sort of stuff deserves to be discredited.

The cartoon is accurate in its aim. No apology is necessary. Nor is a response from either candidate.
***

I thought it was Gadaffi and Angela Davis.

I thought it was Gadaffi and Angela Davis.

A satirical cartoon shouldn´t need headlines
or explanations to be understood. Europeans
are often amused that Americans need to have things spelled out to them like children for them to understand anything not staightforward. After reading many of the above comments, I guess they´re right.

Freedom of speech-except when it goes against the media's current idol.

Freedom of speech-except when it goes against the media's current idol.

Seinfeld's epic "The Cartoon" basically sums up the New Yorker humor ethos.

This picture was probably approved because the editor was still high on pot and started laughing hysterically at "Obama-rambo!"

http://www.tv.com/seinfeld/the-cartoon/episode/2409/summary.html

Worth a read. And yes, this is supposed to be a mockery of Obamaparanoia. It was very poorly done, because it needed a caption to provide the correct perspective and context.

A single word makes sense of a thousand photographs.

It is a very funny cartoon, it is poking fun at the rights fairy land extremist attacks. It isn't dumb or novel at all, fits great within our long history of political cartoon/satire.

FYI, my email informs me that Obama's speech to the NAACP will be broadcast live on the internet at 8:00 tonight:

http://www.naacpwebcast.com/naacp2008/

I just figured this out: correct me if somebody else has said it, but I don't think so.

Everyone recognizes that the NY cartoon is satire; that's not the point. The question is does it "work" as satire? And if half the poeple who look at it don't recognized that is them, the yahoo viewers, who are being satirized -- and not Obama and Michelle -- then it has failed as a piece of work.

And it seems to me absolutely beyond question that the vast majority of rightish people don't get it-- they think it is making fun of the Obamas. It isn't; it's making fun of THEM.

So almost by definition, the cartoon has failed, ergo, is a bad piece of work.

All the analogies to earlier NY covers making fun of Bush or Cheney miss the point; this one isn't making fun of Bush or Chaney. It is calling a sizable proportion of the pubic morons -- and the morons don't get that.

(Whether it is an especially good idea for a magazine to call a sizable bunch of the country morons is debatable in and of itself, whether it happens to be true or not. But think about that Eli Saslow piece about Flag City. It, too, basically said -- reading between the lines -- "a lot of you people are idiots." But because it didn't make that [point clearly enough, the piece was open to misinterpretation.

It would be my view that a piece of work that is open to large-scale misinterpretation, of whatever kind, is a failed piece of work. (I would further note the distinction between something which is merely ambiguous, or abstract, or deliberately open to several interpretations, on the one hand, versus something that *unintentionally* leads some to clear and widespread misunderstanding.)

Quite simply, it doesn't work. Not on its merits, and not as intended. A failed piece. Period.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | July 14, 2008 3:56 PM

Excellent analysis, mudge, but *Tim was closer when he pointed out that lots of people 'get it' but choose to deliberately misinterpret it to further their own agendas.

Posted by: yellojkt | July 14, 2008 4:07 PM

Well, except that I flatly disagree, yello. No one is "deliberately" misinterpreting it, not on either side. If you think half the morons commenting over there "get it," then you're the one not getting it.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | July 14, 2008 4:10 PM

I took a jab at raising the tone by citing Seinfeld, Rambo, and high-on-pot editors.

That's about all I'll do. I did crack up at Boko and SD a few times. Well done.

Posted by: Wilbrod | July 14, 2008 4:13 PM

Bill Clinton and George Bush II have been drawn worse.. Grow up, this what most Americans fear - BHO will be beyond ridicule & criticism, beyond bad taste jokes, cartoons etc etc...Editorial comics will be demanded to draw complimentary cartoons of BHO or else threatened by the shout down police. I fear we are going from a weak man who made any criticism of him seem unpatriotic to another effete goof ball that implies any criticism of him is off limits due to religion and race...

Posted by: Scott | July 14, 2008 11:49 AM
*****************************************

Take a look at the cartoon again, read this piece, read the article in the New Yorker and find out why you are completely wrong in assuming this cartoon was a joke about Obama. After you've done all that, try to figure out why some people aren't too happy with it (the mirror is a good place to start). Good luck!

See kids! That's how it's done

The Obama cult worshipers should start to think about getting a life of their own.They have lived,breathed and worshipped at the sacred altar of the supreme one for too long.One has to wonder,"do they have a home life at all?"They are so very frantic in looking for any little iota of press or media that may just be a tiny bit critical of their little tin God.Consider all the cartoons of President Bush for the past eight years.We heard no outraged outcrys over that.So Obama is asking for the highest office in the land.He is fair game.Get used to it.

Totally tasteless and, unfortunately, feeds the fears of the lunatic fringe among us who want to believe that and more.

The New Yorker assumes that everyone is a sophisticted, intelligent and witty as they are. Not!!!

Just look at some of the Yahoo comments posted here.

Curmudgeon makes a good point that the people who are the actual targets of the satire don't seem to get it. Which, actually, demonstrates the satirist's point but does not advance the political argument one whit. Surprisingly, calling someone a moron does not help, especially if the moron thinks it is a compliment to his perspicacity.

Free speech is dead

Case in point: Nannie Turner, at 4:37 PM.

"Outcrys"?

Satire is way above the heads of average Americans, they simply do not understand nuance. Americans in general are literal. The last 7 years showed us how stupid Americans can be. One commenter here states that the New Yorker is assuming Americans are intelligent enough to understand satire. Duh.

The only thing wrong with this cartoon is that the other perp, McCain, isn't there fist bumping with Obama and Angela Davis. That is Angela Davis, isn't it? heh, heh, heh

Once again, proof positive of how stupid are most americans and the majority of the MSM.
This cover is an excellent satirical portrait of the way the Rove-like machine will try to portray the Obamas. Instead of celebrating the wit and art of Barry Blitt and the NY'r cojones to put it on the cover, -
instead a barrage of infantile, lowest-common denominator politically-correct handwringing.
George Carlin was right: This country is finished.

That cover was simply stupid. I get the satire, but it should have been placed next to the article so it would be recognized as satire and not placed on the cover. Otherwise, it's just a tasteless attempt to sell more magazines, well-meaning or not.

If I could figure out which general direction the New Yorker's HQ is located from where I sit, I'd fart at it (and maybe do other unpleasant things), but I know there are innocents in the way so I'll hold my fire.

In other news... busy as all get out, but I can't get out. Bronchitis flaring again and that doesn't mix well with sawdust.

Happy Moanday...

All the hatemongers, ignorant, and persons that would benifit from such a smear(partisan republicans) just recieved a gift. They just recieved an image they can use without being labeled as racist because their hands are clean (they didn't make the visual though they provided the content. The partisans allways manage to quote these liberal sources when it suits their goals to divide the country by utilizing peoples fears.

just because the new yorker assumes that its readers are sophisticated (which, if you read the new yorker, you'd understand you'd have to have possess some to consume its contents.

Does not mean the publication should vier towards dumbing down to achieve some sort of intellectual balance.

It's readership in a great majority, Has the capacity to understand the nuances of the joke.

BOYCOTT!!!!! THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE

I agree with yello. Lookin' forward to Colbert tonight.

I swear I'm around, it's just after most of you, my dear ol' boodle-associates, have gone home for the night. It's lonely in the West.

When Barack Obama says he's gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it's been such a long campaign, he's been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states.

Well, I have here a printout from a web site called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins.

'Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations Commission on human rights called commbating.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_the_Islamic_Conference

Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states.

So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen?

No point in making any comment at all, I suppose. Except to note that umbrage works real well for you, Tim. It's the motivation that keeps on motivatin'! (I distrust anger as a motivator, but I tend to use it anyway, so I can relate.) Instead, I want to comment on a discussion I had with EastCoastKid (yes, THAT one) yesterday. I truly believe McCain's health is suffering. I got a concussion about 14 years ago, and one of its aftereffects is that when I get tired, I become noticeably "slower" that is, stupider. 10 hours in the hot sun and I can barely add a couple of three-digit numbers reliably. McCain strikes me as being that way pretty much all the time now. I wonder if his wife begged him privately not to run. Seems he should have somehow mentored a successor senator from Arizona and then retired already. But who knows the inner lives of people we don't really know? Not I.

I recently got a collection of old Richard Pryor concert MP3s from the '70's and '80s and listen to them in my truck. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Mortified.
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/rubens_st_sebastian.jpg

In a country where instant gratification takes too long this is oh so 20 minutes ago. Google Obama news and the New Yorker cover isn't even the first hit any more (#3). As it happens it's also the third hit when you google McCain news. The Chicago Tribune blogger Eric Zorn writes-
"I take the editors at their word and await the upcoming cover in which they give the same ha-ha-isn't-it-silly? treatment to the rotten things people say about John McCain: Say a cartoon showing him looking about 150 years old and spouting demented non-sequiturs in the middle of a violent temper tantrum while, in the corner, his wife is passed out next to a bottle of pills."
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/07/will-the-new-yo.html

Time to move on to something substantive, like JA's call to turn this into an all food, all the time blog. I just had a phenomenal mushroom and bacon quesadilla with local mushrooms and local bacon. Now if I can get over to my friend's house for some goats' milk to start the great cheese experiment I'll really have something to report.

I've got 57 piles of salt you can pound, ExArkDemocrat.

If you like, I'll FedEx them to you.

Thanks, Jumper. Now the circle of allusions I started at 12:39 PM is complete.

My knowledge of the saints as well as classical art is far worse than it should be.

ExArcDemocrat, Heinz sports 57 varieties (varieties of *what*, never has been specified to my knowledge). Perhaps Barack Obama is an advance agent for the Super-Secret Ketchup Hegemony?

Honestly, the kind of nonsense you espouse in your 5:06 PM is exactly what the New Yorker cover is satirizing, successfully or not.

Let's see, 50 states plus District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands, and Palmyra Atoll. No, that makes 58. At least in Arkansas. (I'm from there, actually)

But better than I'd bother to have it.

ExArkDemocract.

That's a automatic 57 point reduction on your IQ score. Ouch!

The thing abut that St. Sebastian portrait is that his expression ("What was I thinking?") and the presence of a bow and quiver at his own feet suggests that this is the result of some sort of Jackass-style stunt gone wrong: "Hey guys, hey guys, watch this! I'm gonna shoot these arrows so fast that they'll orbit the Earth, then I'm gonna catch 'em before they hit this tree I'm aiming at! Here, hold my beer while I get started." If only he had had an accurate figure for the circumference of the Earth, his calculations would have worked perfectly and all this trouble could have been avoided.

You're forgetting Poland. It was added by Gerald Ford in 1976.

Only one major item missing from the cover: The fireplace should contain, along with the simmering flag, the charred remains of the Dollar which the Bush administration will have finally heaped upon the ash pile of history by the time it leaves office next January.

57 channels and nothing on.

The dems also have an ex-pat primary.

Anonymous poster at 5:20, I don't think IQ scores can be measured with negative numbers.

Great cover!

Has there ever been a presidential candidate, and his wife that have been more controversial, and divisive than Barack Obama and his wife Michelle? I don't think so. IMO, for a young, new politician, there's two many skeleton's in their closet making noise, and the New Yorker simply brought them to light in a cartoon.

Moreover, Obama should be more concerned about the up coming convention, and the many PUMAs that are angry over stolen Hillary votes.

Hmm -- seems like a win-win for Obama:

* It's CLEARLY a sendup of the nonsensical fear. I find it funny. The fist-bump. The turban. Terminator Michelle. I'm sorry -- it's so absurd that it makes me giggle. Anyplace where you'll find the New Yorker on the newsstand (do they even have the New Yorker outside NYC?), people will certainly get that it's a joke.

* If people don't find it funny, it allows Obama to defend himself, and creates sympathy. Even McCain defended him! You didn't see Bush defending Kerry against the Not-So-Swift Boat Veterans, did you?

If people laugh, good for Obama. If they cringe, still good.

If they "agree" that he's a secret Muslim . . . were they going to vote for him anyway??

Earlier, I suggested that the illustration should have perhaps included the image of a right-wing pundit like Rush Windbag or Ann Coultergiest as if they were the artist of the illustration. -- Gee, I'm sorry. That attribution should go to E.D. Hill of Fox Noise (a.k.a. Edith Ann Tarbox), who, in a tease intro speculated that maybe the fist bump by the Obamas might be a "terrorist fist jab". Therefore, in the interest of accuracy, I would like to revise my proposal to say that it should have either Ms. Tarbox [joke omitted] or Roger Ailes, head of Fox Noise who should be added as the artist, since the idea seems to have originated there. That would have made the satirical statement more complete.

-- Just trying to help.

***

Hey ZarDotz! Do you like great big heads?

"Words Matter" except if they are spoken by Barrack Obama. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. What is so hypocritical from all his far left supporters is how they wear their mantle of intellectual superiority like a badge of entitlement. The closer we get to this election, the better I'm feeling about McCain. And if Obama can't beat McCain, then he will prove once and for all that his "words that matter" were only empty rhetoric coming from a man with a big ego and no personal conviction!

St.Sebastian didn't die from the arrows, he recovered and later dissed the emperor and got clubbed and dumped into a privy.

I think Mantegna painted the arrow pix first, and nobody I know of painted the privy dumping.

Happy Bastille Day.

The disadvantage to including a specific person as the "artist" of the smear is that it would be overly specific -- a satire of an individual person rather than a satire of the whole right-wing foolishness and those who believe in the nonsense.

The highest circulation for The New Yorker magazine is in California.

It would only be hypocritical if his supporters were dumber than you, which is obviously not the case.

Well, I admit that all you far left bomb throwers sho are smarter than us po, common folk. We jess ignorant, ya know. But at least we ain't sheep!

I've thought about the cover all day and I think it's blatantly racist. Remnick should be fired and the copies should be taken off the shelves at retail and in libraries and returned to Conde Nast. It's not funny and it's not satirical.

Looks like the sheep got ExArk's goat.

Speaking as an Obama supporter (at least since Richardson dropped out way back when), The cover had me LMAO. It's satire, and it works. The fact that so many of the very people it satirizes will think it confirms rather than pokes fun at their beliefs just adds a layer of delicious irony on top. As for the 'hook', it's the fist-bump. Regardless of what certain Fox news announcers might think, it has about as much to do with terrorists as the NBA. (for the boomers: the fist bump has replaced the high five for most of us under 40.) They might as well have put the Fox News logo in the lower right hand corner, but that lack of subtlety would have lessened the cartoon. Plus I'm sure a few lawyers would have gotten their knickers in a twist over it.

Well, we tried letting the idiots take their turn. In the interest of fairness. It hasn't turned out well. So it's time to let the lunatics have their say. In the interest of fairness.

But, totally changing the subject, these two articles work hand-in-hand:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310103232.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080710125433.htm

NORM!

That anonymous at 6:05 believes in censorship of the press is the most frightening thing I've read about in this tempest in a teapot.

In the interest of fairness, will next week's cover show John McCain in KKK robes, carrying a noose, with a portrait of Adolph Hitler over a fireplace wherein a copy of the Constitution burns?

Will they also show his wife with scarred arms, accompanied by her dope dealers?

Here's something for you intellectuals to chew on. Tell me is this true or false? I'd really like to know.

OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history - and this was all from the internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

The media is crying satire and freedom of the press! Nuts! I see media run a amok! So self absorbed, they think they can do and say anything. Satire is set in the world of facts not fantasy. This stinks and the New Yorker staff should admit it not defend it with spin. I am not a supporter politically of Barack, but this sucks eggs!

Now hoooooold on thar, Baba Looey! I'll do the thinnin' around here, and doooon't you forget it!

This is not satire. Real satire would make people laugh at themselves or at others. This only caused anger on one side and shouts of "right on" from the others who thought the depiction was accurate. Disgusting.

It isn't satire if nobody is laughing for the reasons intended.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp

Re.: Obama internet fund-raising.

What bugs me about the cover is that there's no caption (or as some have suggested, an indication that this is crap promulgated by the right wing) - and there is no article! I looked for the article online, and read the 15 pages about ruthless, opportunistic, ambitious Obama in the 90s - but nothing that related to the cover. So I thought it must not be online yet - but apparently, there is no article about the "politics of fear". Seems like wasted effort to me. Or maybe not - tons of publicity for the New Yorker (which I like, but never make time to read regularly). It does seem to be a case of liberals sabotaging themselves, again.

Sara, there are a few of us in other time zones! By the time I get here most days, everyone's toddling off to bed...

Just canceled my subscriptions to Gourmet and Bon Appetite, both Conde Nast pub's. IF they had had Obama himself on the cover, that's one thing. To include his wife with an AFRO, that's racist, period!

What the first fifty comments missed was that it's the dumba**es who BELIEVE this Obama smear stuff who are being satirized. But the comic doesn't pull that bit of satire off well.... That's why it's 'almost' funny: it's incomplete.

It is very probably false, ExArkDem, blatantly so because you did not cite a source other than yourself.

I would rank it with the other swiftboat type propaganda that trashes the truth.

For the record, I have contributed to Obama's campaigns on line going back to his senate race, and I am not from Illinois or the Middle East. And,as some pointyheaded bigots might want to believe, I am not a person of color.

tasteless, yes

get over it, it's a parody

this campaign is way too sensitive and quite taken with themselves and just about ready to CENSOR people

come on people, where is your sense of humor, it if was McCain or Hillary and it was awful you all would be saying

chill people
so
chill people

If it sells copies, The New Yorker will do it again. If it doesn't, the New Yorker won't. Taste has nothing to do with it. That's Tina Brown's legacy to the New Yorker.

I have a suggestion for their next cover: a depiction of John McCain in the oval office strangling Cindy, calling her a "trollop" and a "c*nt", as she pops pain pills stolen from the WH infirmary. That would be "satire" (although based on a ture story). However, I suspect many would be upset with that because it would be totally inappropriate just as this cover is totally inappropriate.

Thanks, Jumper, your link flattens the ExArkDem propaganda ploy. But his type is unlikely to read it, they can rarely stand the heat of the truth.

The snopes debunking of the fake Dowd column about Obama's internet contributions aside (thanks Jumper) the question it asks of how did 13 million contributions get processed made me giggle. I can see Lucy Ricardo at Obama headquarters getting behind as she tries to process transactions by hand that keep coming out of a dot matrix printer with a tractor feed that speeds up every time she has a chance at not getting all tangled up. Even here at the end of the world we are used to computers doing things for us, and it must be magic because they're really fast and we don't even have to watch 'em while they work.

I have another suggestion for their next cover: a depiction of a senile John McCain in the Oval office, drooling, wearing nothing but a soiled Depends undergarment with his drugged out wife passed out on the floor. That would be "satire" and funny to some? However, I suspect many would be upset with that because it would be totally inappropriate just as this cover is totally inappropriate.

jboltmd, let me alert you to something: the purpose of the New Yorker cartoon is to satirize the outright lies that have been spread concerning the Obamas, and to satirize those who believe them. It does not satirize the Obamas, except in the minds of those who are the actual subject of the satire. It does not invent new lies and slanders, nor does it address mere exaggerations of provable facts. Thus, your suggested parity does not meet the standard: you propose a set of outright lies against McCain fabricated by yourself (KKK, Hitler, etc.) and an exaggeration of a documented and well-reported problem of Mrs. McCain's. To my knowledge, there has been no rumor mill inventing scurrilous talk about McCain; if there has been, it has been singularly ineffective. The only unfounded slam against McCain that has had much currency has been that he is too old (which is a legitimate matter of opinion, but not firmly supported by medical fact) or that he might be a vampire (also medically questionable). And I only just invented that last one, myself. The closest thing to the insane rumors about Obama is the somewhat willful misinterpretation of McCain's statement that we may HAVE TO BE in Iraq for 100 years, misinterpreted as a statement of intention. That's a pretty small donkey on which to pin a cartoon tail.

The source was listed as Maureen Dowd. For that reason, coming from her, I was skeptical, and therefore, I did not want to use it without verification. I emailed Maureen Dowd and asked for a verification. All I received was confirmation that they had received my inquiry. Jumper's direction to snopes verifies it was bogus. Thanks to Jumper. By the way, I've seen similar smears against McCain from MoveOn.org.

Crassness is not satire!

Crassness is not satire!

I am SO cracking up, Tim. My friend EastCoastKid told me McCain was a vampire just yesterday. I pointed out that if he was, he needs some fresh kill, cause he doesn't look so hot.

I should have said "...documented and well-reported PAST problem of Mrs. McCain's, which she has overcome."

Another good indicator that the article cited by ExArcDemocrat is not what it claims to be (although EAD presents it as his own fine reporting, Snopes notes that it is commonly passed off as a fake Maureen Down column): bad grammar. Bad writing. Say what you will about Maureen Dowd, she is a pretty good writer and her column is edited by professionals.

EAD, I withdraw my slap against you at 6:53, in light of your gracious 6:39 PM.

And that's only PlainTim, if he ratchets up to Storyteller/Liar youse guys is toast.
And don't try to sneak any limericks past him either.

Oh come on here,that cover of the New Yorker Magazine tells the real truth about
exactly what Barack Hussein Obama and his
black panther wannabe wife Michelle Obama
are really all about very forcefully. So
okay call me a racist,etc for my daring to
agree with the New Yorker's Cover.

Seems like at least some of this foofaraw is based on the belief in subliminal messages. For example, I heard a talkinghead on MSNBC the other day, and he used the phrase "angry black man" about 10 times in a conversation about Obama. He didn't SAY "Obama is an angry black man," he just repeatedly mentioned "the perception" and "the angry black man thing" etc. ad nauseum. I found myself getting angry at the guy's subliminality! Of course then I tried to find Kevin Nealon's old schtick but soon realized YouTube got threatened to remove all that stuff. Mostly. But it all leads back to a sort of common perception or belief people have that "I'M immune to subliminal advertising (and advertising in general!) but all those other sheep are NOT. So I will be mad about people using those dirty tricks on others, although I'm not at risk."

I myself can't totally disbelieve in the power of suggestion, so I don't know what to say about it all. So I will resort to attempted humor. Like Nealon did. Or the New Yorker.

ExArk-you surprise me with your 6:39. Not that I presume to think you care about what regular boodlers think, but you don't now appear to be the typical drive-by-when-we-hit-the-front-page troll. Your handle intrigues, are you ex ark but still dem, or still ark and ex dem?

ExArkDem (hereafter EAD) is too articulate to have been fooled by the fake Dowd piece, and shrewd enough to perpetuate false information that would further the propagandists' purpose. His preface to the piece appears disingenuous at best.

Confirmation bias, Claudine?

Mr. Remnick must be a closet racist. Where does it show the absurdity of false claims against the Obamas, as he claimed? The picture will be used by many anti-Obamans in their campaign to sway less-informed voters. What a pitible thing to do. Looks like we don't need the swift-boaters after all. Mr. Remnick should resign in shame.

I think the cartoon is great. The only thing missing is Reverend Wright with a bomb on his head (ala the Danish cartoon).

They should have run it earlier and included a stereotyped Hillary image as well, if we're talking about expanding stereotype satire.

But it's pretty apparent the artist never took a good look at Michelle Obama to start with, so, I just don't know.

Oh my. What a brutal day. This is a shame because the only damage this silly cover will inflict is that which we cause ourselves.

Look, anybody who sees this cover is going to think "WTF?" and check it out, only to discover that it is the political equivalent of Gary Larson's "Cow Tools."

If nothing else, it points to the desperate need for Obama to tackle these rumors head-on. And I mean head-on. Let's have some Bible thumping from the pulpit--literally, because some people think he won't touch the good book. Let's see the Pledges of Allegiance under God and in front of all the cameras. The stuff out there is insane enough to make you wonder if some folks have the cranial capacity to tie their own shoes. (As an aside, is it any wonder 75% of us thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11? Or that offshore drilling will actually lower gas prices?)

This is an easy fix, and Obama's campaign should be addressing it every day through its routine, and certainly it should be doing so a lot more forcefully than it has been to date.

This is the good picture. You should have seen the prototye copy of Obama and his wife eating water mellon with pickiny hair cuts that got circulated around the office before selecting this one. Like I said this is the good picture.

It's just stupid, that's all. The kind of self-referential, idiotic thing that people do when they take themselves too seriously. Like that moronic TV show Saturday Night Live. The New Yorker should aim for a higher standard.

EAD,
I've covered that phony Dowd column twice already on my blog:

http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2008/07/blogwatch-hoax-dowd-column-making.html
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2008/07/dowd-hoax-update.html

It's another case where even after when the source is shown to be cle