Shame on The New Yorker Magazine ! Low brow satire is appealing in our skewed society because it only goes so far in making an intellectual point. It seems as though Americans love to embroil themselves in issues they wish not to truly understand. This illustration cheap, baseless and apparently used to spur the sales of The New Yorker by inciting a fervor.

The purpose of satire is to attack with wit and sly grace the vain beliefs of the powerful and comfortable. The cover cartoon in the New Yorker missed the mark because its target was no where in sight. According to the editor and artist the target of this cartoon were the bigotted, benighted, anti-intellectual and sloppy people who believe the right-wing smear that the Obamas are Mulsim terrorists.

However, as presented, the Obamas themselves, rather than their dimwitted critics, are the target of the cartoon. As indicated by the comments in this thread and elsewhere the cartoon is widely viewed as having slammed the Obamas. Thus the cartoon is unsuccessful as satire and harmful to our public dialogue during this campaign.

Saying that Obama needs to get a sense of humor misses the point. If this cartoon was not aimed at him then what should he get a sense of humor about? If it was in fact satire aimed at the right-wing knuckleheads then they should have gotten upset. That they did not is another indication that this particular piece of political satire did not work at all.

According to the magazine, the cartoon represents what conservatives think of Obama. However, we do not see any conservatives in the cartoon. Therefore the most natural response is to think that what we see in the cartoon is what the "New Yorker" thinks of Obama.

Well isn't that special that someone made fun of Obama.

What? You mean to make fun of him is racist? Do you mean we can't make fun of Black politicans?

The media is outraged?

Where was the outrage when cartoons were published about Condoleza Rice? Oh right she is not Obama. Th

Here is what is outragous!

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/po041116.php

I used to respect the New Yorker, now I chalk it up to right wing propaganda, just like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh!
Let's have a cartoon of a sultry half dressed Cindy Mc Cain, high on stolen illegal drugs,
on her knees in front of her old kept man John McCain, while his sick first wife lies in her hospital bed. Oh, no? That would be truth and we can't have that!
How sickening that some idiot at a magazine has the power to insult American Muslims, supporters of Barack and Michelle and anyone who wants to have the truth after all of these years of Republican lies and racism.
Get over it, Barack will be our next President and he is an American treasure as is Michelle.
Ths shame is that some people believe everything they see. Not funny, not even clever, just stupid and racist.
No intellectual anything seen in this magazine- just the same old propaganda lies.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Obama, no stranger to hurling barbs/insults against the "bitter" gun and bible wielding electorate, etc., etc., would take offense to the satire of the New Yorker who in time leaves no politican immune from its grasp. Rather than lighten up, the thin-skinned Illinois Senator reacts whining and groaning as, often demonstrated in the past, one who is being picked on. Apparently, Mr. Obama is not familiar with the New Yorker's "cover" themes or maybe just upset the magazing didn't consult with him as to what the subject matter should entail. In my judgment, one as Mr. Obama who prefers a condescending tone when talking down to people must accept the fact that life is lived not on a one but two way street. What message the cover depicts will vary by the opinions rendered by those who read it. Mr. Obama, rather than dictate the rules of politics exempting he and Michelle from conceived "negative" exposure should accept the fact that the barbs and insults, publicity both positive and negative, depending on how one views the rhetoric tossed about, can be lobbed in a reciprocating manner as well.

Mickey.

What a bunch of drivel. I am an American and I don't understand how you can draw a comparison between a cultural hero like MLK whose death was a terrible tragedy to Americans everywhere to a young senator being offended by a satirical cartoon (be it a bad one). I'm taking it you do not understand our history well, as I will assume I do not know yours.

Firstly, the only things they had in common are skin color, good educations and the ability to draw up the support of a crowd. Obama is an interesting man with good intentions near as I can tell, but none of his messages to date have been ground shattering. Martin Luther Kings messages truly advocated change. Obama has merely mentioned change. What change does he want??? I don't know. Do you? I hope he can be the dream master everyone wishes him to be. After suffering the Bush administration, we are desperate for something different. We are desperate for America to become America once more...

That being said, this was not propaganda. There is a huge difference between propaganda and satire. People need to allow for satire. It is a way of expressing a view. Sometimes people don't understand that view... or dislike that view, but if people don't know the view is out there, how can we ever hope to change or at least understand it? Throughout history, Americans have used satire to get their points across. Even the less than savory ones. It is not a bad thing. It is a way of furthering debate. We can insult our government here. It is our right. We can debate. We can question. We can speak our minds and if you don't like my thoughts, you can tell me so. That is one of the many rights of humanity. A right that the United States Constitution protects for its' citizens and a right I would be willing to die to protect.

this is not your next president, he's your beacon of hope for the United States that the history books of tomorrow will show the best turn in US history not of war, exploitation, or "Legal" terrorism of your kind. If you decide to take in this propaganda as satire and humor, you repeat history. This is not totally blatent like the war in Vietnam and y'all faught to bring your soldiers back. But it is definently an attack of your aletist groups to keep you in the dark. I don't like talking bad about other peoples countries but the fact is if a country is willing to go bellow the belt of one that can change world you don't deserve him just like you didn't deserve MLK and look what y'all did to him. I am disappointed in the lack of integraty of the New York Times and their lack of sense in putting up a horrible lie of your elite.

Be offended, but I don't want to hear about it. An ineffective satire for the front cover, maybe, but worthy of controversy, heck no. It's intention was not offensive. If I use the word Obama and anything negative in the same sentence, I am now a racist and a hate-monger. This is the assertion some people are making.

I say grow a pair and prepare to take criticism or see "offensive" caricatures. There have been much more offensive ones in our nations history and yes. They ARE protected free speech and I encourage them (Even if this particular one would have been more effective in a dream bubble).

I don't understand what the New Yorker thought this type of racially stereotypical hate mongering was going to achieve. Apart from playing on the fears of americans who already are struggling with the idea of a muslim president. The picture is also highly offensive to american muslims who for the most part would no more burn the flag than have a picture of Bin Ladin on the wall. It is obviously a bad joke as the woman is allowed to be clothed in man's clothes, and this is really a profane insult.

Ooooh eee ooooh ah ah ting tang Obama bama bing bang, ooooh ee oooh ah ah Osama sama sama BING BANG!

This cover is great! I love it! A picture paints a thousand words. Now we know that those who support this bafoon share the same sentiments. Sorry to offend, but the truth hurts!

The cartoon is racist, plain and simple.