If the point of putting something on the cover of a magazine is to sell copies of the magazine, then the folks at The New Yorker are surely smart to have decided to take the most controversial stereotypes about Barack and Michelle Obama and put them front and center on the magazine racks of America.

The Obamas remain a mystery to most Americans. Primary results and polls suggest that the electorate has found much to like about the Illinois senator and his wife. But the voters who will decide whether to make the Obamas the country's First Couple don't know a whole lot about the people they might install in the White House next January.

That ignorance is the last remaining hope of a Republican Party that, after 14 years of Gingrich and DeLay and eight years of Bush and Cheney, has pretty much blown the franchise. Only if a creaking GOP machine can spin a mild and moderate freshman senator and a crisp and professional hospital administrator into something scary does John McCain stand a chance in November.

The Republicans have been working hard to gin up the fear factor. But who would have thought they'd get an assist from the most elitely liberal of elite liberal journals?

The New Yorker, which has a fine history of using compelling cover images to push the envelope on debates about race and societal division, this week offers up a cartoonish depiction of Barack Obama as a Muslim terrorist fist-bumping Michelle Obama, who is done up as an armed Black Panther-style 60s radical with a Angela Davis afro.

These Obamas are in the White House with a picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall. For good measure, they've got a flag burning in the fireplace.

The illustration, by Barry Blitt, is titled "The Politics of Fear," and according to a New Yorker statement, it "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign."

New Yorker editor David Remnick, offering what might best be described as the "Full Manhattan" defense, told Huffington Post that everyone who is anyone surely must know that The New Yorker would never publish something that was sincerely offensive to liberal sensibilities. "The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are," the editor explained.

The problem, of course, is that not everyone in America is as up as Remnick might hope with the cocktail chatter at the right parties on the fashionable upper west side -- or, as summer progresses, the Hamptons.

The Obama camp complains that the image of a robed President Obama and a combat-fatigued First Lady Obama is "tasteless and offensive." Strategist-in-chief David Axelrod, pulled into a controversy he did not want to be a part of this week, dismissed the cartoon as "poorly executed"

While it is surely true that Obama's campaign specializes in whining, this griping ought not be dismissed quite so casually as most of the headquarters hand-wringing.

To be sure, the New Yorker cover art is satire -- perhaps not as smart or stylish as what you will find in a random issue of The Onion, but satire all the same.

The problem is not that The New Yorker has tried to make a mockery of right-wing efforts to smear the Obamas.

It is that The New Yorker has not done a very good job of it.

Like "serious news" articles that try to cover their salaciousness by offering semi-scholarly "reviews" of rumors about whether one of John McCain's potential running mates might be gay, the current New Yorker cover takes the crudest political spin, puts it on the rack at Borders or Target and demands that enlightened Middle America laugh along with the joke.

No problem there. People in Iowa sorted through most of the attacks on Obama before New Yorkers were even taking the senator seriously as a presidential contender. Plenty of Americas who have never supped at the Russian Tea Room will "get it."

So this issue of The New Yorker will be a very big seller.

At one level, that's very good because Ryan Lizza's 18-page piece on Barack Obama's background as a Chicago political player is excellent. Lizza cuts through the ridiculous spin that would have us believe that Obama somehow rose to the top of the Illinois political scene by chance or serendipity. In what for Obama fabulists will be agonizing detail, Lizza explains that, "perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."

To the extent that a provocative cover leads Americans to Lizza's important article, that's healthy.

Unfortunately, most Americans won't be underlining passages from political articles this week. They won't buy a New Yorker. They won't even see an actual copy of the publication.

As such, the cover itself, and the over-the-top discourse it will inspire, will probably do more to reinforce rather than challenge the smears.

Who, ultimately, deserves the blame for week of ugliness that is about to transpire?

Not Britt. He's an artist and, while there will be some debate about whether he pulled this particular project off, he has made a bold effort.

Not Remnick. He's a magazine editor and he will sell a lot of magazines this week. He's not doing so by running pictures of Brittany Spears in her underwear, but by trying to provoke a deeper discourse. Again, there may be debate about how successful the initiative is, but Remnick's doing his job.

Not the Republican smear merchants. They were attacking Obama and they will keep doing so. The only thing that has changed is that they're now getting some elite assistance.

Put a little blame on the cable "news" and talk-radio networks, which will use the New Yorker cover controversy to fill segment No. 1,078 in the Obama/Osama series and No. 689 in the Michelle/Not My Belle series.

And put a little more blame on the Obama campaign's strategists, who will continue to tell the candidate to avoid rather than address the whole Muslim thing, just as they will continue to keep Michelle Obama in the witness protection program where they placed her after she made a few thought-provoking and valuable comments in February.

The proper response to The New Yorker cover is not to whine about what is tasteless or offensive but rather to ask: Why do artists and editors at a magazine that clearly sympathizes with Obama think satire is necessary at this point? The answer is that Barack Obama has yet to fully or functionally introduce himself to the American people.

When and if he does, with a full and frank discussion of his roots, his experience and, hopefully, his belief that being described as a Muslim is not in and of itself a smear, Obama will be embraced even more warmly than he has been up to this point. The same goes for Michelle, whose abilities and insights have yet to be well displayed by a campaign that ought to be making a lot more use of this remarkable woman.

The counter to this cover is not complaint but conversation -- the deeper, the smarter... and the sooner... the better.

Comments (116)

1. No one could do more to smear Obama than he has done to himself over the last month's time. Progressives need to focus on a candidate of substance like Nader and not on the trivialities of the media torrent rivetted on Obama. I mean, really, who cares if the New Yorker smeared Obama. Do you care? I don't.

   Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 11:05am

2. I get what the New Yorker was trying to do. Like the article stated, they did not do a good job of expressing their point. Unfortunately, this will be used as fodder to negatively characterize the Obamas. I do wish the campaign would not complain over everything and instead use these instances to start new conversations. Of course one does have to be an idiot to still think the man is muslim. I have another question, though. Why hire Bernie Mac for a "family event" not knowing what kind of comedian he is? That's doesn't make sense.

   Posted by k330k at 07/14/2008 @ 11:10am

3. The "satirical" cover will do grevious harm to the Obama compaign. It was obvious and forseeable that the cover would do that harm. IMO, it follows that the New Yorker meant to do the Obama campaign serious harm. Why? To sell magazines? Because Hillary or McCain would, in its opinion, make a better president? Who knows. But the New Yorker knew that its satirical cover would work first and foremost as a viciously effective attack against the Obama compaign, and then second -- a meaningless distant second -- as satire.

   Posted by SeminoleSky at 07/14/2008 @ 11:26am

4. Satire is supposed to bother people. That's the whole point. Now let's see if the New Yorker has a cover with John McCain with a walker and wearing Depends. More tasteless satire? So what? As for Ralph; he is merely a mean-spirited, attention seeking bundle of eccentricities who is merely trying to remind the world he is still alive. He would be a disaster as POTUS. He hasn't done anything useful since the mid 70s. Forget about him

   Posted by The Goods at 07/14/2008 @ 11:31am

5. Who are you voting for again, Mr. Lowell?

   Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 11:40am

6. Posted by The Goods at 07/14/2008 @ 11:31am

   "As for Ralph; he is merely a mean-spirited, attention seeking bundle of eccentricities who is merely trying to remind the world he is still alive. He would be a disaster as POTUS. He hasn't done anything useful since the mid 70s. Forget about him."

   Well, he's certainly gotten your attention, hasn't he, and here it's 2008? And he's not going away. He'll be here just like Jaws to represent progressive voters and not, as Obama, to play the AIPAC stooge and the FISA poseur. You won't be able to forget about him try as you might.

   Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 11:44am

7. Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 11:40am

   I know, you thought this was the Gallup Poll, didn't you, Hman23?

   Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 11:47am

8. Nader saw NO difference between Bush and Gore 8 years ago. Nader lacks credibility, substance, and electability. It is an election.

   Posted by ultvio at 07/14/2008 @ 11:52am

9. Dumb cover, but it will undoubtedly please many New Yorker advertisers, and thus the magazine's owners.

   Posted by sloper at 07/14/2008 @ 11:53am

10. Posted by ultvio at 07/14/2008 @ 11:52am

    And Nader was right eight years ago.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 12:00pm

11. I'm sure most thinking Americans know enough to dismiss this sort of thing no matter what the New Yorkers intention's were.

    Obama is not a Muslim and the comments his wife made earlier about "being proud" of people were taken out of context and are irrelevant anyway, since people are not voting for her and probably don't care if she's proud of them or not. This is all just the illogical nonsense to be expected in a nation with such extreme viewpoints.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/14/2008 @ 12:14pm

12. SATIRE!!!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 12:16pm

13. The New Yorker has gone way over the top with the caricature of the Obama's. This is an unfortunate reality of bigotry.

    Posted by mstprix at 07/14/2008 @ 12:17pm

14. sux when u gotta explain the joke...means its either really good or really bad.

    oh well...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 12:17pm

15. its an attention getter, conversation starter. clever and edgy.

    but i guess its insulting to some...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 12:20pm

16. ‘These sketches stick in the mind not just because of their content but because of their formal qualities. They capture something that seems essential, something we have always felt and perhaps feared in ourselves. It wasn't just the sight of a Hasid kissing a West Indian woman on the cover of The New Yorker that caused such a furor in 1993. It was the power of this Art Spiegelman image as a cartoon.' -- Richard Goldstein -- The Nation -- 3 February, 2005.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/14/2008 @ 12:20pm

17. the new yorker has a grand old tradition of edgy visual satire.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 12:21pm

18. ‘The problem, of course, is that not everyone in America is as up as Remnick might hope with the cocktail chatter at the right parties on the fashionable upper west side -- or, as summer progresses, the Hamptons.' -- John Nichols

    'But the truth is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest,... it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.' -- Barack Obama

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/14/2008 @ 12:27pm

19. Nader saw NO difference between Bush and Gore 8 years ago.

    Posted by ultvio at 07/14/2008 @ 11:52am

    the fool!

    i saw at least a 34% difference.

    MCBAMA '08

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 12:31pm

20. I'm sure most thinking Americans know enough to dismiss this sort of thing no matter what the New Yorkers intention's were.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/14/2008 @ 12:14pm

    12% of voters!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 12:32pm

21. maybe a caricature of sen. obama standing on the winners podium in his NASCAR jacket bedecked with the logos of his corporate sponsors,

    spraying the megabottle of HOPE champagne on the thronging mob below,

    and cooed on each side by the bikini clad twins, FISINA and AIPACARINA

    would have been more appropriate.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 12:43pm

22. Here's an experiment: try to imagine the past 8 years if Gore had been president. Remember all the buzz leading up to 9/11, including 8/6 daily brief? Start there, and then figure out if it matters who is president.

    As for Nader, he didn't lose the election for Gore, Gore did that all by himself. But as for Obama - I agree it would help him to make another speech like the one he gave on race, where he goes beyond the negative and opens up the discussion. We know he's capable of it.

    As for the New Yorker, well, I actually found the drawing of Michelle funny. But it would be better if the picture included some context, like appearing in a thought bubble over McCain's head. But it doesn't, and so that thought bubble will be over many many heads. It's too bad.

    Posted by ramara at 07/14/2008 @ 12:47pm

23. I know, you thought this was the Gallup Poll, didn't you, Hman23?

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 11:47am

    Nope. I just happen to remember that you are a fraud.

    Why don't you tell everyone that you really intend to vote for Nader yourself and prove me wrong?

    Go ahead.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 12:47pm

24. You can't do it, can you?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 12:48pm

25. After 9-11, Nader would have done a really cool study on airline safety as to buildings getting in the way. No dif between Bush or Gore? Sure.

    Posted by ultvio at 07/14/2008 @ 1:14pm

26. Why Nader?

    If you feel compelled to cast a protest vote, write in for someone who has stood up where it counts ... write in for the man who introduced the articles of impeachment.

    Write in for Dennis Kucinich.

    Or forever hold your nose & vote for Obama.

    Posted by sloper at 07/14/2008 @ 1:17pm

27. Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 12:47pm

    Explain what's fraudulent about encouraging progressives that purpose to vote no matter what John Lowell may do or think and to vote for Nader in that case even though its my personal intention to sit out the election out of conscience. Precisely how powerful do you imagine me to be, ace, powerful enough to keep people from voting? But you've stupidly used the term "fraud", and here on a public forum, so show me the fraud, where there's a misrepresentation, and if you can't, find a way to crawl back under the rock from which you emerged.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 1:26pm

28. I've never seen the New Yorker on my supermarket check stand. No worry.

    Posted by Sorelish at 07/14/2008 @ 1:31pm

29. I disagree completely with your assertion that the New Yorker July 22 cover is satire; It is most specifically NOT satire which should represent the absurdity of the TRUTH; Instead it depicts the absurdity of a MISPERCEPTION, NOT the truth, and as such panders and reinforces the bigotry of Obama's enemies, who know he is winning and are trying desperately to smear him. The New Yorker is helping them and this is despicable.Howcome the New Yorker has never shown a cartoon of an Iraqi prisoner being burned alive in the crematorium at Abu Ghraib (as noted by your magazine)? To do so would not be satire either.

    Posted by mystic at 07/14/2008 @ 1:39pm

30. Your inaccurate puff piece on the future first couple is typified by your honestly held opinion "...a mild and moderate freshman senator...". Mild Barack may be but moderate, please.

    Posted by naviguesser at 07/14/2008 @ 1:39pm

31. Actually it was rather funny satire. The Obama campaign is taking it a little too seriously which makes some people believe it might have a tiny kernel of truth to it...

    Posted by pyeatte at 07/14/2008 @ 1:40pm

32. Correction of my comment just submitted: I noted that the burning of an Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib was "as per your magazine", but I was referring to the New Yorker, not the Nation.

    Posted by mystic at 07/14/2008 @ 1:41pm

33. But you've stupidly used the term "fraud", and here on a public forum, so show me the fraud, where there's a misrepresentation, and if you can't, find a way to crawl back under the rock from which you emerged.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 1:26pm

    The misrepresentation is your belief that progressives should vote for Nader -- your posts imply that you identify with the progressive cause - yet you won't even cast vote for him.

    Do as I say, not as I do, huh?

    Speaking of rocks . . . .

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 2:11pm

34. The problem is that not everyone who sees that is going to be an intelligent, high-information, metaphor-hip, allegory-trained New Yorker. Some of them are going to be knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who look at the picture, salivate and say "Let's kill the n--r."

    Posted by midnight04 at 07/14/2008 @ 2:22pm

35. it was intentionally funny, as opposed to, say Reilly, who is unintentionally funny. the more fuss about it the better. it spoofs the absurd lies told about Obama everyday on right wing radio and TV. Barry has nothing to worry about in this regard.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/14/2008 @ 2:32pm

36. open letter to John Nichols: not funny enough? maybe not as funny as your paean to Tony Snow with its undeserved accolades.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/14/2008 @ 2:36pm

37. Michelle is a female rev. wright, bigoted and racist. Any body who is willing to be honest with themselves has no trouble recognizing the bitter, hateful person that is Michelle...

    As far as the gaffe machine is concerned, well he needs no help from any outside source. He and his apologist admirers are truly something to behold though ;)

    On topic though the cartoon was hilarious and at the same time scary...truth hurts eh John?

    Posted by row at 07/14/2008 @ 2:38pm

38. Whooo! Nader for President! We will have 4 years more of Bush and be no closer to even a semblance of progressive of America. Nader will be President one day! Maybe 300 years from now!

    Alright let me take a break from sarcasm. Nader will NEVER be President. Ever. Ever. Ever ever. Like really ever. I cannot emphasize that enough. No one in the middle will EVER vote for Nader. He cannot win with a bunch of fringe liberals either. To win the Presidency you have to win the middle and Nader will never win the middle. It's insane to even think he stands a chance. He has never even got to close to winning. He has won how many times now? He has never even gotten close. Not even 10% of the electorate wants to see him President. He could run with only himself and McCain and he would lose. He could run against Bush and Bush could be running for an illegal 3rd term and Nader would still lose. That is how implausible it is. Nader is not a viable candidate. He will never win. He will never even get close.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:05pm

39. Michelle is a female rev. wright, bigoted and racist. Any body who is willing to be honest with themselves has no trouble recognizing the bitter, hateful person that is Michelle... As far as the gaffe machine is concerned, well he needs no help from any outside source. He and his apologist admirers are truly something to behold though ;) On topic though the cartoon was hilarious and at the same time scary...truth hurts eh John? Posted by row at 07/14/2008 @ 2:38pm

    Funny. First stooges were saying America would never vote for Obama because all of America would never vote for a black man. Now they are trying to paint Obama and his wife as a racist. If they are racist doesn't that just mean they fit in with the rest of the racist Americans who would never vote for a black man?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:12pm

40. Obama do need to make a big speech about how he flip-flopped from being a born-Muslim to an atheist to becoming a Christian....his flop is now complete, as he claims "I've always been a Christian!" Since this is better than flip-flopping from being a born-Christian to a Muslim, it will sell! Go for it....HusseinO! Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/14/2008 @ 2:31pm

    Can you display some evidence of all this besides hear say Happy?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:12pm

41. Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 2:11pm

    "The misrepresentation is your belief that progressives should vote for Nader -- your posts imply that you identify with the progressive cause - yet you won't even cast vote for him."

    Oh, cow farkus! The simple truth is that you INFER from my remarks that I "identify with the progressive cause", isn't it, not that I imply that I am. I defy you to point me to a single instance where I've ever held myself out as being anything close to a progressive on this board. You simply assume, being as pathetically limited as you are, that anyone posting here that calls for a Nader vote just has to be a progressive, don't you, and when they're not, they're being conspiratorial in some way. That kind of presumption is very much your problem, slime. Don't make it mine or I'll make it yours.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 3:15pm

42. Obama do need to make a big speech about how he flip-flopped from being a born-Muslim to an atheist to becoming a Christian....his flop is now complete, as he claims "I've always been a Christian!" Since this is better than flip-flopping from being a born-Christian to a Muslim, it will sell! Go for it....HusseinO! Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/14/2008 @ 2:31pm

    On top of that, does it matter if he is Muslim? Just because a bunch of xenophobes and racists hate anything they don't understand this has become a big deal. I don't care if he was once a non-practicing Muslim. It doesn't matter. It is a non-issue to distract from the things that truly matter, like the issues.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:19pm

43. How about equal time for McCain. That goiter on his face is slowly moving to the right! Stay tuned...

    Posted by jazzfan at 07/14/2008 @ 3:19pm

44. Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 3:15pm

    Who is pathetic? You are the one trolling this board to help McCain.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:21pm

45. You simply assume, being as pathetically limited as you are, that anyone posting here that calls for a Nader vote just has to be a progressive, don't you, and when they're not, they're being conspiratorial in some way. That kind of presumption is very much your problem, slime. Don't make it mine or I'll make it yours. Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 3:15pm

    How can you know what is truly progressive you are not one yourself?

    It's like when women tell men they know what is best for men. Or when a white politician says they know what is best for black people, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. You can't know what is best for a group that you are not a part of. You can guess. But to claim you know what is best is ridiculous because you can't actually understand things from their point of view.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:21pm

46. i wanta get a copy of the issue, slip in in airtight plastic, and leave it in the attic for 20 years...

    sorry i disagree with those with whom i disagree...but...

    jeeezus pleezus! the yakking head punditocracy sure has something to occupy themselves with.

    anybody read old jonathon swift and his suggestion oabout eating poor starving irish children?

    SATIRE! FARCE! ITS SUPPOSED TO BE CONTROVERSIAL AND INSULTING TO THINSKINS AND STUFFEDSHIRTS...

    i thought it was brillian and hilarious...

    and if that makes me a bad person, well...

    i've already admitted to that here!

    har har har!

    what a tempest in a teapot! silly ninny prickly pear no senso of humor nation!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 3:22pm

47. Satire?

    Only if the target is the Obamas themselve, in which case a knee in the groin smear, a lynching in print.

    But if parody (when will the ever so smart NYer know the diff? long ago, it did), then the target is the rightwing's smearing of the Obamas.

    Editors Remnick et al knew exactly what they were doing ... tickling the advertisers' prejudices, pleasing the NYer's owners.

    Posted by sloper at 07/14/2008 @ 3:23pm

48. Mr. Lowell -

    So, are we to understand that your only purpose here is to do right by progressives -- point them in the right direction, so to speak? You are only doing this out of the goodness of your heart?

    Thank you. Thank you. We progressives are just so lucky to have someone like you giving us the advice we need.

    Go back under YOUR rock Mr. Lowell.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:25pm

49. That kind of presumption is very much your problem, slime. Don't make it mine or I'll make it yours.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 3:15pm

    Strange language from someone who claims to be "enveloped by the love of God..."

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2008 @ 3:25pm

50. This is for everyone who thinks it's really important to vote "progressive" whether for Kucinich, Nader or anyone else. Please get real. I did that in 2000 along with the other 4% who voted for Nader because I was disgusted with the two major parties. Well, I apologize, I was wrong. Not that the two parties aren't disgusting, but that I helped bring George Bush to power by wasting my vote. The bottom line is simple; you have two choices and McCain is really no choice at all. Get your ego and your anger out of the way and do the right thing. Vote for Obama. It's not about you, or me, or that Washington sucks. It's about reality, and that means keeping the Republican d**kheads out of power. If we're wrong about Obama, we'll worry about it next time, but for now, don't "waste" you vote.

    Posted by kenhajjar at 07/14/2008 @ 3:29pm

51. would have been more appropriate.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 12:43pm

    that's pretty cynical, frosty.

    keep crossin' them toes....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 3:31pm

52. "The proper response to The New Yorker cover is... to ask: Why do artists and editors at a magazine that clearly sympathizes with Obama think satire is necessary at this point? The answer is that Barack Obama has yet to fully or functionally introduce himself to the American people.

    When and if he does, with a full and frank discussion of his roots, his experience and, hopefully, his belief that being described as a Muslim is not in and of itself a smear, Obama will be embraced even more warmly than he has been up to this point...

    The counter to this cover is not complaint but conversation -- the deeper, the smarter... and the sooner... the better."

    This might be a good idea -- Barack might have to haul out another big event speech, this time on Muslim religion and ethnicity (where he does and doesn't fit into it). It might be increasingly harder to pull these off, though -- from what I could tell, the patriotism speech barely made any media noise, which is a problem in reaching those "low-information" voters that are the ones who need to be reached in this.

    After all, if the Rev. Wright thing, with how big it was, couldn't get these people to think "wait -- if he's Christian, then he's not Muslim... " -- then I don't know what it'll take to make things click for them.

    Still, might have to try.

    Posted by Ham_I_Am at 07/14/2008 @ 3:32pm

53. what a tempest in a teapot! silly ninny prickly pear no senso of humor nation!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 3:22pm

    no. no. no!

    don't you see it was all

    a

    mediarightinferiorwinginteriorsmearplot

    aimed at TAKING DOWN!

    the

    islamocorporoblackopantherobamas?

    don't YOU SEE?!?!?!?!?!?

    <I>and the band played on.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 3:40pm

54. which is a problem in reaching those "low-information" voters that are the ones who need to be reached in this.

    Posted by Ham_I_Am at 07/14/2008 @ 3:32pm

    perhaps free skittles might help.

    or on a train

    or in the rain.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 3:43pm

55. don't YOU SEE?!?!?!?!?!?

    <I>and the band played on.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    guess i'm just a bad to the bone insensnsitive lefty troll!

    bad ibble! bad!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 3:45pm

56. free skittles? really? hmmm.

    ok.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2008 @ 3:55pm

57. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 3:21pm

    "How can you know what is truly progressive you are not one yourself?

    It's like when women tell men they know what is best for men. Or when a white politician says they know what is best for black people, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. You can't know what is best for a group that you are not a part of. You can guess. But to claim you know what is best is ridiculous because you can't actually understand things from their point of view."

    Now isn't this the biggest pile of plain old dukus I've seen in years. Talk about taking identity politics to its most patently absurd conclusions. One human being can't relate to the experience of another without being part of their political sub-group? I mean, really, you need to find a propulsive that actually works. Politics isn't Alcoholics Anonymous you know, or do you. Even if what you posit were valid - and it doesn't even come close - you'll be embarrassed to know that you're addressing someone who, forty years ago, did, in fact, consider himself a "progressive" having served as a Democratic ward leader for a period of roughly five years. It was immediately thereafter that I managed to grow out of it.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 4:10pm

58. i swear - this primary/election has been like a giant, highbrow jerry springer show.

    so many sensitive ears burning! so many public apologies, retractions, regret over comments made, reassuring, shock (real and feigned), he said/she said...

    oooooooooooh! he didn't go THERE did he? OOOOOOOOOOOOOH!

    i'm just waiting for someone to flash their breasts at the stripper pole...

    obama gurl? mmmmmm.... obama gurl....

    nut trimming anybody? crazy preacher repudiating? wrinkled old "war hero" ass kissing? misunderstood political cartoon? drawing of mohammed with a bomb turban?

    ooops - other issue that last one...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 4:17pm

59. Wow, seemed pretty obvious to me that this was satire -- that this was a depiction of just how nuts the wingnuts' perception of Obama is.

    Mountain, meet molehill. In fact, I'd flip the blame arrow entirely; the censorious response to the NYer cover is what's ugly, not the use of the satirical cartoon by the magazine. What, now we're supposed to not say or draw things just because some people might not understand? Please.

    ...oh, and Go Obama!

    Posted by HawthorneWingo at 07/14/2008 @ 4:23pm

60. Wow, seemed pretty obvious to me that this was satire -- that this was a depiction of just how nuts the wingnuts' perception of Obama is.

    Mountain, meet molehill. In fact, I'd flip the blame arrow entirely; the censorious response to the NYer cover is what's ugly, not the use of the satirical cartoon by the magazine. What, now we're supposed to not say or draw things just because some people might not understand? Please.

    ...oh, and Go Obama!

    Posted by HawthorneWingo at 07/14/2008 @ 4:23pm

61. Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2008 @ 3:25pm

    "Strange language from someone who claims to be "enveloped by the love of God..."

    Well, well, the eternal Benchcrust.

    Strange only to you, Benchcrust. And because your grasp of the faith is so infantile, perhaps? I sense I'm in rather good company here, actually. Wasn't it God the Son that called His own detractors "vipers"? Are we to presume that you're about to lecture Him on His behavior?

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 4:24pm

62. BRANGELINA! BRANGELINA! BRANGELINA!

    just throwing that out there...

    hey - pssst...

    ABORTION!

    i always love throwing that red meat out!

    grrr! rrrrrr! fetuses! unborn babies! forced pregnancies! decline of the west! grrrr!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 4:24pm

63. Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 4:24pm

    It is your knowledge of scripture that is infantile Mr. Lowell.

    Your are what the Son of man referred to as a "hypocrite".

    I am not lecturing Him about his behavior, however I am lecturing you about yours.

    Incredible that you compare yourself with the Son of God.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2008 @ 4:44pm

64. Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2008 @ 4:44pm

    "Incredible that you compare yourself with the Son of God."

    Now isn't that statement just the most outrageously distorted and dishonest possible, son? There was no such comparison made, I merely said that I was in good company. It would seem that I've offended your exquisitely delicate sensibilities and you now feel the need to strike out. Perhaps there's a lesson in that for you. Think about it.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 5:16pm

65. Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 5:16pm

    There is always a lesson to be learned Mr. Lowell.

    "Either make the tree good, and it's fruit good; or make the tree bad, and it's fruit bad; for the tree is known by it's fruit. You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgement men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2008 @ 5:29pm

66. Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2008 @ 4:44pm

    You know, it now strikes me what lesson there is for you to take away from this experience, Benchcrust: We must insist that from here on you promise to stop viewing any more of those old Charlton Heston movies.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 5:34pm

67. I'm waiting for the McCain cover - where he's in a wheelchair, snapping "You painted Trollop, you cunt" at pill poppin' plastic Cindy.

    Posted by susanb.red at 07/14/2008 @ 5:39pm

68. I attended a family gathering Sunday and the first thing the host did was show me a page with a picture of a young black man in African garb next to a picture of McCain in his Air Force uniform. At the top was the line " Terrorist muslim or hero? You choose in november".

    He asked me if I was gonna vote for the Muslim. I asked him who on that page was the Muslim. He replied that the picture was Obama as a teen and that he is a practicing Muslim. I politely informed my cousin that he had bad information, that he needed to decide whether Obama was a scary Muslim or a scary Christian whose mentor had spoken bad things about America. He tried to claim again that Obama IS A MUSLIM!!. I told him that Obama had never been one and in fact came to religion late in life, but had belonged to a Christian church for 20 years.

    Then it came out!! Yes, the sht hit the brain-pan and I saw all too clearly the 30%'ers fear...

    As his "argument" fell, my lovely Catholic, America lovin', gun totin republican cousin said "He's a god damn nigger!"

    nice, huh?

    I heard this a couple of times at this nice family picnic peopled by "good christian Americans".

    and there you have it ladies and germs,

    The New Yorker should be ashamed for doing anything to further this crap. they should publicly apologize on the front cover of the next issue.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2008 @ 6:01pm

69. Satire?

    Voting for a person with less than 140 days on the job in the Senate...and then taking him seriously for the toughest job in the world is ironic satire...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/14/2008 @ 1:25pm

    How about a man that never held a real job, fled the National Guard, was a governor in a state with a weak executive clause that had some of the worst rankings in schools, air, water and employment, was a recovering drunk and had a history degree from Yale?

    would you vote for him twice?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2008 @ 6:10pm

70. You know what I have noticed about the religious on this website? They tend to be the most immature bunch of name callers on here. Look at lowell. He feels the need to distort peoples names and then he calls THEM immature. Jesus. I have met high schoolers who can carry on a conversation without resorting to name calling yet people like lowell who pronounce themselves followers of God can't even do it. Grow up John. Just because you are older than some people on here doesn't make you more mature. Maturity is not always gained with age.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 6:56pm

71. Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2008 @ 6:01pm |

    your racist cousin would be just as racist, nothing to do with the new yorker cover.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/14/2008 @ 7:45pm

72. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2008 @ 6:56pm

    Progressives should vote for Nader, Cccomfo1.

    Posted by john lowell at 07/14/2008 @ 9:16pm

73. i swear - this primary/election has been like a giant, highbrow jerry springer show.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2008 @ 4:17pm

    highbrow?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 9:20pm

74. and then taking him seriously for the toughest job in the world is ironic satire...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/14/2008 @ 1:25pm

    you're hiring obama to proofread your posts?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 9:24pm

75. I'm sure that in the long term this cover will be remembered as "the beginning of the end" of all the smear against Senator Obama. Nothing worse could be said and it has already been drawn here. Don't forget: sooner than later Mr. Blitt will be a guest of honor at the Obama White House and he'll be invited to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. Wanna bet?

    Posted by marmadukegrove at 07/14/2008 @ 10:51pm

76. Too bad the NYer didn't do a cover disparaging Hillary and her coterie of loud, shrill feminist supporters. I think that would be much funnier and in far better taste than the one they did on the Obamas.

    Posted by KSP556 at 07/14/2008 @ 11:30pm

77. "most elitely liberal of elite liberal journals..."

    No, I'd say Harper's is more elite and more liberal, not to mention more intelligent and thoughtful, than the NYer.

    Posted by KSP556 at 07/14/2008 @ 11:34pm

78. After the first 24 hours it seems to me the cover has done more to discuss and propagate the untruthfullness of the rumors afflicting the Obama's than anything else. Good job, New Yorker.

    Posted by carlosbas at 07/14/2008 @ 11:42pm

79. ha ha!

    barry blitt is canadian.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 12:38am

80. So newsstand observers of The New Yorker cover don't get it? So we're calling them hopeless dumbasses? That helps a lot. Calvin Trillin provides narrative to this satire, but it takes more determination to seek it out on p. 6 of this week's The Nation. Then again, would a newsstand literalist "get" a poem?

    Dan_Mc

    Posted by Dan_Mc at 07/15/2008 @ 02:00am

81. The problem with the New Yorker cover imbroglio is that while the very liberal editors of this publication think the cover is an absurd satire, it's actually pretty close to the truth, and most Americans know that. You folks and your allies in the media can airbrush the Rev Wright from the pages of history, but alas, not from the consciousness of the American people. There's just not enough kool-aid to go around, and not enough people willing to drink it.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/15/2008 @ 02:32am

82. I must say, though that it's refreshing to find that Mr. Nichols has found something to write about other than the imminent impeachment of George Bush or our imminent defeat in Iraq, or our imminent defeat in Afghanistan.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/15/2008 @ 02:37am

83. Posted by pontificus at 07/15/2008 @ 02:32am

    thank you for proving my point.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2008 @ 07:21am

84. This article had a nice ending, but don't hold your breath. Obama has a nearly impenetrable force field of protection by calling foul to even the slightest off-color criticism. He has demonstrated a remarkably impressive and canny ability to feign indignation against these "callus defamations." And for added effect, he brilliantly maintains a smug countenance which subtly reminds us that we are beneath him.

    Posted by Person at 07/15/2008 @ 07:21am

85. http://s348.photobucket.com/albums/q336/carmelanie_2008/?action=view&cur rent=warzero.jpg

    Posted by gimmiedat at 07/15/2008 @ 07:26am

86. How about a man that never held a real job, fled the National Guard, was a governor in a state with a weak executive clause that had some of the worst rankings in schools, air, water and employment, was a recovering drunk and had a history degree from Yale? would you vote for him twice?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2008 @ 6:10pm |

    Bill Clinton?

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/15/2008 @ 01:54am |

    Let me give you another hint:

    He will leave his successor two unfinished wars and he is a conservative that is "paying" for those wars off-budget

    (ps, Clinton was never a drunk, nor did he have a cocaine habit like this other guy)

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2008 @ 07:33am

87. ["Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus.[6][7] Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

    Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II.

    As Governor, Clinton was responsible for some state educational improvement programs, notably more spending for schools, rising opportunities for gifted children, an increase in vocational education, and raising of teachers' salaries.]-Wiki

    What is going to be the legacy of your boy, Jomamma and Ponti?

    Gitmo, 2 failed wars, deficits, tiny job creation numbers, collapse of the housing market, growth of the uber-wealthy while wages stagnate and men stacked in naked piles, several hundred thousand dead Iraqis and a new Iraqi diaspora in Syria.

    Woo hoo!

    but, at least nobody did anything bad in the travel office!! Whew, dodged a supreme court bullet there!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2008 @ 07:48am

88. I heard Barak won't cite the pledge of allegiance

    I heard he won't wear a flag pin

    I heard he attended a madrassa

    I heard his wife hates America

    I heard his preacher is a communist

    I know now that he okayed illegal searches of American citizens by the federal government.

    Which concerns the neo-cons the most...those patriotic, constitution loving, government loathing neo-cons...?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2008 @ 07:56am

89. Aw come on, gemme a break. For those who are intelligent enough to read the new yorker they will love the satire. For those who don't get it they deserve what we now have. It will be interesting to see how mister Obama deals with this one. He has repudiated a perfectly good pastor and one of my heroes in general Clark. He has veered sharply down wall street and has taken up the cause of the really nutty fringe on FISA. The man has become so tentative as to almost be a Washington insider. Oops did I say that. And we, the brain dead, will let the media create this great moral outrage for us, without even a twinge of guilt over our stupidity. Where the hell is Arundhati Roy when we need her or general Russel Honore for that matter.? If we aren't careful we will end up with old "I'm a war heroe". To hell with it , I'm voting for the Nader/Ventura ticket.

    Posted by julien38 at 07/15/2008 @ 08:45am

90. And for the twelve per centers who believe this stuff, let them be. It isn't nice to speak poorly of the brain dead.

    Posted by julien38 at 07/15/2008 @ 09:01am

91. I'm sure Faux Woos will photoshop it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/15/2008 @ 09:30am

92. And besides most repubs new con lemmings know in order to have made this a 'real' satire, you would have put a bunch of tiny little people running around. And since they weren't in it...

    Actually that would have a nice touch! The tiny ones could have been twirling lassos riding around saddled to dinosaurs trying to rope the Obamas down.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/15/2008 @ 09:38am

93. Now that would've made some mighty fine satire.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/15/2008 @ 09:40am

94. er, Now 'that-there' would've made some mighty fine satire.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/15/2008 @ 09:41am

95. 'You know what I have noticed about the religious on this website? They tend to be the most immature bunch of name callers on here.' -- Cccomfo1

    'I'm gonna cut his nuts off!' -- Reverend Jesse Jackson

    'No, no, no. God damn America' -- Reverend Jeremiah Wright

    'Religion poisons everything' -- Irreverent Christopher Hitchens

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/15/2008 @ 09:51am

96. remember most "americans" are from somwewhere else, and besides the future war refugees that bush ignores, most are highly educated and can choose to live elsewhere, leaving all the rednecks here to duke it out at walmart, which judging from the blaring fox news during last election at all walmarts, will probably have a blown up life size front page cover of the New Yorker at the check out counter.....yet Walmart is not political....bullsh(&.....

    I know a lot of people who want to learn English now are going to Canada instead of here....to learn, or even Europe, if they can afford it....US is not friendly to others, not just "illegals"....anybody who is not old and white and has a cross branded on them....or who is able to think objectively....this is not allowed....wake up.....if you want race relations to deteriorate even further, and not between black and white, but among all minorities, keep insulting them....watch all the hispanics shift to the left as mccain keeps pandering and lying...remember, actions speak louder than words....and by his actions, mcbush is a third bush term....

    Posted by jrs112 at 07/15/2008 @ 09:53am

97. religion is the root of all evil and the cause of most wars....it is "a crutch of weak minded people"....gov. ventura

    Posted by jrs112 at 07/15/2008 @ 09:55am

98. And for added effect, he brilliantly maintains a smug countenance which subtly reminds us that we are beneath him.

    Posted by Person at 07/15/2008 @ 07:21am

    Where do you get that feeling from? I don't get that from him but then again, I have a healthy self-esteem. Maybe that feeling is you projecting your insecurities on Obama. I just don't understand.

    it is "a crutch of weak minded people"....gov. ventura

    Posted by jrs112 at 07/15/2008 @ 09:55am

    I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Ventura. Hell, religion keeps me from kicking ignorant folks' asses. Instead of getting pissed at people, I tell myself to pray for them. For real. I work for city government so I come across ignorant-ass people all the time. Believe me. I may be many things but wek-minded is not one of them. I still think Mr. Ventura is the shit, though(that's a compliment). He's also the bomb as a soldier of fortune in movies.

    Posted by k330k at 07/15/2008 @ 11:23am

99. This is the best article I've read on the whole issue--especially the bit about how Obama hasn't yet fully introduced himself to the American people.

    I'm disappointed in Remnick's lack of foresight. I think it's safe to say that the bulk of the American population is neither as privileged nor educated as the New Yorker's readership.

    BTW the New Yorker is selling on eBay like hotcakes! http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=ne w+yorker+barack+obama&category0=

    Posted by crocophant at 07/15/2008 @ 12:10pm

100. The cover did do a good job of collecting all of the smears used against Obama, and holding those smears up to be seen for what they are: desperate ravings from a near-dead republican party. However, it is no secret that the magazine leans toward Obama, and I think that the republican smears could have been better addressed in some other way. The media should poke holes in smears, but I think this cover will merely operate in a echo chamber. Those who get it will get it, and those brain-dead, intolerant bigots who somehow still believe that Obama is a muslim (as if that matters) will use this cover to reinforce their misconceptions. Also, the new yorker gives credence to these smears when they allow them on their prestigious cover. But Obama should use this opportunity to talk those who still may persuaded to vote for him.

     Posted by penguins1 at 07/15/2008 @ 12:24pm

101. Get a grip, folks. In the first place, the media has no obligation to tweek things on the basis of what stupid people might do or think. In the second place, if Barack Obama, whose veering from the "I'm different" posture that got him his initial support, has yet to "fully introduce" himself at this stage, God help us all. But of course, he has introduced himself. My six-year old daughter knows who he is. And so do we: the guy who doesn't think FISA is so damn bad after all. The guy who just said the U.S. must win in Afghanistan. The guy who had no public comment about the whack view of his spiritual advisor that the U.S. government inculcated HIV in black neighborhoods. The guy who, any minute now, will look and sound just like John Kerry. And yet Ralph Nader is still a pariah...

     Posted by DP in TC at 07/15/2008 @ 12:24pm

102. Gee it's not as much fun when the Rabbit shoots back. I think this is great. For decades the press has only based Republicans. The last eight years all we have had is a Bush derangement syndrome, where President Bush is bashed for every minor mistake and accused of all sorts of atrocity. Now that the New Yorker has done a minor caricature of The Savior Obama and you would think that Jim Crow laws are back. This sounds more like Stalinism where any dissenting voice must be silenced. The liberal want to only hear praised for their people and ideas, and hate speech against conservatives, Christians, the Republicans, and President Bush. We are polarizing into those that want positive propaganda for Socialism and those that look at history and realize that Socialism is a poison that leads to poverty, starvation, and government corruption.

     Posted by Exton1 at 07/15/2008 @ 12:56pm

103. it's actually pretty close to the truth, and most Americans know that.

     Posted by pontificus at 07/15/2008 @ 02:32am

     As if we all needed more evidence that PONTI is about as dumb as a box of rocks . . .

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/15/2008 @ 1:01pm

104. Irreverent

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/15/2008 @ 09:51am

     ha ha.

     YOU actually wrote that word.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 1:06pm

105. religion is the root of all evil and the cause of most wars....it is "a crutch of weak minded people"....gov. ventura

     Posted by jrs112 at 07/15/2008 @ 09:55am

     actually, since people created religion,

     i'd say people are the real root.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 1:09pm

106. Socialism is a poison that leads to poverty, starvation, and government corruption.

     Posted by Exton1 at 07/15/2008 @ 12:56pm

     are you sure?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 1:13pm

107. Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 1:13pm |

     "are you sure?"

     Naw! Socialism's been great! A stunning success everywhere!

     Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft!

     Wanna hit? It's really good shit!

     Posted by pontificus at 07/15/2008 @ 1:23pm

108. Go to http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/ for a review of the New Yorker Magazine's politics.

     Posted by lnp3 at 07/15/2008 @ 3:09pm

109. The cover is so offensive on so many levels. Under the guise of "satire," the New Yorker is providing a venue not only for attacks against Michelle and Barack Obama but also against people of color and Muslims and women. Which group isn't offended by this? White men, which just so happens to be the group the "artist" Barry Blitt belongs to. Surprise, surprise. The rest of us are victims. And it's all the worse because the magazine has its vaunted "liberal" bona fides.

     In a sane country such as Canada or France, this kind of smear could not be printed. Progressives of all stripes need to fight this kind of abuse, which is nothing less than a hate crime.

     Posted by AvantiOpopolo at 07/15/2008 @ 8:32pm

110. Caught half-hour of Rush today

     Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/15/2008

     wash your hands.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2008 @ 12:19am

111. AvantiOpopolo at 07/15/2008 @ 8:32pm

     may I introduce you to freedom of the press?

     fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2008 @ 07:35am

112. The editors at the New Yorker are completely ignorant when it comes to the average american. Those who think that the cover is funny and not a big deal do not undertand that there are millions of Americans out there who won't get it. Certain folks in this coutnry have become so distanced from the average american that they can't even undertand that most people won't get it, that most Americans don't know what the New Yorker is about and its cover history. They'll see the image and all they will retain from it is that the Obamas are muslim, black panther, white hating, christian hating terrorists.

     Posted by danconstan at 07/16/2008 @ 10:14am

113. The NY cover only confirmed what many Black intellectuals have discussed over the decades the nasty little white jewish contempt for anything Black in this country.

     This contempt continues to at hyper speed in some many venues( I just watched the evil racist video by NY's former mayor scaring elder white jews about BO)

     The whisper campaign became so vile the current mayor of NY and even some Abe Foxman were forced to issue a jewish pc disclaimer..

     The NY cover old news really..

     Posted by arandi at 07/16/2008 @ 10:48am

114. arandi at 07/16/2008 @ 10:48am

     ah gowan. I think it was loving satire, affectionate. skewering the ignorant and bigoted. and it was very effective, le derniere cri, the talk of more than just the town. it preempts a certain kind of mudslinging to the ignorant, by rendering it ludicrous. like the cartoon. humor is always transgressive. to shock the uptight is a sacred duty of all art, new yorker cover art included. it's also called slaughtering a sacred cow.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2008 @ 12:09pm

115. le dernier cri.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2008 @ 1:13pm

116. African-Americans are right, like Arandi says, to be more than a little suspicious of this innocent little episode in our hegemonic media culture. Zionist Jews have an extra reason to hold Obama in contempt because they can sense he may actually bring some balance and justice to replace the obscenely one sided US racist policy against the Palestinians (and against all Arabs and all Muslims too).

     Posted by AvantiOpopolo at 07/16/2008 @ 7:15pm