« Return to Article

Member Comments

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  LaDonnarenee at 07/20/2008 12:06:43 AM
  Comment:
  We can take a joke. What was drawn on the New Yorker cover was not a joke. You know it.
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    creswell at 07/20/2008 5:44:42 AM
    Comment:
    I see a lot of liberals/Race Pimps do not know the meaning of the word satire, and that does not shock me.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  binkabi at 07/18/2008 11:56:26 PM
  Comment:
  I think it's time we start to focus on more important issue then a tasteless portrayal of Barack and Michelle. There is more offensive imagery on BET. News papers and magazines have been satirizing politicians for many years, both white and black politicians alike. And now that we have a true viable candidate, we feel likes he's off limits. We just can have it both ways. I know that we have been lampooned for the since we landed on the shores, but I think we should have more confidence in ourselves and brush some of these propaganda tactic off.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  sweeterthan at 07/17/2008 11:34:23 PM
  Comment:
  No one's saying that Barack Obama should not be satirized (I've viewed plenty of Daryl Cagle's cartoons, some of which appeared racist to me, but that's just MO), nor that the New Yorker has no right to free speech in its editorial decisions. But, that said, the cover DOES mock decent, law-abiding American muslims everywhere (with the affinity to the portrait of a known terrorist on the mantel of a muslim dressed Obama - insert any muslim instead of Obama); AND, since so many believe the rumors about the Obamas and that obama IS a muslim, the satire gets lost on those who actually believe the cover to be TRUE (not absurd, which satire highlights, the absurd), and who aren't part of their regular subscribers, and would never open the magazine to read the article inside which is fair to Obama. Pictures speak louder than words, and when satire has to be explained , that it IS satire, then the joke fails to be funny, especially when it can serve to burn the images already believed into the minds of those who accept the rumors as true, images that may stick with them come Nov. 4, 2008., rumors that his campaign has tried so hard to defeat. I don't think it's a matter of being PC, so much as being pragmatic: it could undo so much that has been done to thwart the damage from the vicious e-mails. This is incredible, in that it is on the cover of a left-leaning, liberal mgazine. Maybe neither Obama nor his supporters are as elitest as they've been made out to be, in that they don't seem to appreciate the eclectic "humor." Obama can benefit from a sense of humor, from not taking himself too seriously; but, the historicity of his campaign IS serious, and this cover lacked judgment IMHO.
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    binkabi at 07/19/2008 8:25:49 PM
    Comment:
    I appreciate your humble opinion. Your feedback was right on. I failed to give deeper thought about the fact that the so called satire offended more than just Obama supporters, but also an entire religion. I do think the cover was tasteless, however; I'm trying to think more open minded and be less offended by the ignorant.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  MilesEllison at 07/17/2008 10:56:21 PM
  Comment:
  In the interest of "equal time", are we going to see a cartoon of John McCain with his "illegitimate black child?" Or Karl Rove burning a cross with a gay man tied to it?
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  disco at 07/17/2008 10:21:30 PM
  Comment:
  I can take a joke. Let me list people that author blitt would never have tried this with. Lyndon Baines Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, Geoge W. Bush (Baby Bush) can you imagine Laura with an AKA47, John F. Kennedy, Frank Sinatra (oh lord there would be a price to pay}, John Gotti, Ronald Reagan, Minister Farakhan, Jesus Christ, Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Mahalia Jackson, Petey Greene, Queen Elizabeth, and so on. It was just plain mean but I am all for satire but it was not funny to me. He even put Osama Bin Laden in the toon.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  theoriginal MissZ at 07/17/2008 9:08:22 PM
  Comment:
  Magazine covers are used to seduce you into READING the article. The free publicity alone on the internet and the TV probably generated more sales than the New Yorker has had in years. I do like to read the New Yorker but do not subscribe to it. In about 4 months I will go to my dentists office and probably borrow it to read the article, otherwise I would have never known about it.
  
  I encourage the New Yorker to continue to sell their magazine with "Important Stories" inside to continue to use cover cartoon art satire to convince me to buy a subscription.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  rainydaiyz at 07/17/2008 7:50:29 PM
  Comment:
  I liked the cartoon. I thought it was hilarious. I'm a black person. And thanks for bringing up the "hot-comb" issue related to Michelle----she sure does make sure she uses it, doesn't she? Let's bury the hot-comb shall we?
  
  I think the obama camp didn't like it cause it hit too close to home.
  
  we know what michelle's hair "really" looks like
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  hfaison at 07/17/2008 5:51:04 PM
  Comment:
  I am blown away at the sheer genius of this writer's commentary. Granted, I was among the choir of jeers when I first saw the New Yorker cover but I came a similar conclusion: when can we laugh? This campaign - on barack's side - has been tense with paranoia so writing or drawing commentary is like walking through a land mine planted field. But, this was a thorough and insightful commentary and maybe one day Black people can share our inside jokes with the world.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jennawilk at 07/17/2008 4:41:54 PM
  Comment:
  Joke? Really now....have we become so blind to racism and predjudice that we could actually justiy something like this as being ok? To draw Obama with "flip flops on playing basketball" or to picture him and Hillary Clinton doing a "fist bump". That would be funny my friends...why? Because he has been accused of being a flip flopper and he loves basketball. Although Obama and Clinton have had their odds, they now know what it means to have to unite in order for their Party to succeed. However, when you focus or in this case...illustrate such vile and and indecent rumors/ stereotypes...you lose the sense of humor and verge on the line of offensive. Wake up!
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    creswell at 07/19/2008 8:14:01 PM
    Comment:
    Stop whinning and get over it. Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey, Condi Rice as a slave, Michael Steele as a Sambo in pictures are just as demeaning too. But I am willing to bet, you were not upset over those negative images. So please, if you liberals can not take it, how about you all go out and riot in the streets, loot the stores, burn down the stores etc, like you all normally do. LOL!! LOL!! LOL!!
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  lucyame at 07/17/2008 3:49:16 PM
  Comment:
  some commentators on fox news said that it was funny, and its just a part of journalism, so lets flip the script. Have the front cover with McCain as a slave master whipping on a colored man. HA HA, now how funny is that?
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  piucat at 07/17/2008 3:00:29 PM
  Comment:
  Thank you. If we can make jokes about some things why not others? Everyone needs to move on. The only ones made uncomfortable by the cover are the New Yorker are those who see these images as a reflection of what's in their own mind, the rest of us, the normal people, see it for the absurdity it is.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  piucat at 07/17/2008 2:57:38 PM
  Comment:
  Thank you very much. A joke is a joke, if we can make fun of one thing why not another, any normal person would see the NY'r cover for what it is an absurdity. Come the heck on, the cover only made uncomfortable the people who think those ridiculous stories of obama are true.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  photopatt at 07/17/2008 1:35:02 PM
  Comment:
  There's a time and place for jokes. This was not the place nor the time. We can not make excuses for this magazine cover. I believe the cover is meant to raise suspicions and insinuate that Barack Obama is not who he says he is. Just because of his name some many are willing to believe he is somehow either related to Osama bin Laden or a follower of the great terrorist who is just waiting to sabotage America from the confines of the White House. No I don't appreciate the magazine cover. No I don't get the joke nor the punchline. It is evil to portray this man and his wife in this manner.
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    creswell at 07/17/2008 4:36:52 PM
    Comment:
    Black liberals/progressives/Democrats can stick it to Clarence Thomas, Ronald Reagan, Daddy Bush and his son the President, Ward Connerly, Condi Rice etc, I say they should stop BMW.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  starri98 at 07/17/2008 6:57:42 AM
  Comment:
  i think it's as least as funny as september 11 which i also happen to believe people should get over. obama did this to his life by running for president just as america's dumbass policies and even dumber beliefs in it's own legend brought the terrorists to america.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  creswell at 07/16/2008 9:04:27 PM
  Comment:
  Black Liberals/progressives/Democrats are hypocrites and have a double standard when it comes to images. They supported Emerge magazine when it put on it's cover a picture of Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey. They support negative pictures of Colin Powell, Ward Connerly, Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell and others like them on many black and white liberal web sites, newpapers and magazines. So stop whinning.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Aaron B. Brown at 07/16/2008 7:49:40 PM
  Comment:
  ???.The minimal danger of this image is that it gives the Republicans exactly what they want, a portrait of Islamic fundamentalism triumphing over America, and the Democrats responsible for that triumph. The image is already on every conservative site around the net, being used to instill fear in the faithful, a last desperate attempt to consolidate what's left of their rapidly shrinking base. So I'd say there is some real political cost to the Obama campaign just for having that image out there. And it's not the campaign's reactions to the image which is the problem, as some would assert, it's the image itself on the cover of a common newsstand magazine, which was bound to create this controversy.
  
  I suspect the magazine's editorial board decided to make it the cover for entirely self-serving reasons, but then again you have to think that a lot of discussion went on about the larger ramifications. It seems the more sophisticated as well as the monetary arguments won out, deciding that Obama's campaign was strong enough to take the hit, and I would have to agree with that assessment. Doubtless the New Yorker has had plenty of extra copies printed up to meet the demand
  
  But fair is fair, I think the New Yorker should have Blitt create a cover depicting John McCain in a North Vietnamese prison cell spilling his guts, giving the Commies every military secret we had, and agreeing to become the Manchurian candidate, who once in office abolishes the Republic and seizes America for the Reds. Of course it wouldn't have the same impact, given that Vietnam, Communism and John McCain are all ancient history relatively speaking, but still.
  
  They could do a whole series, how about Hillary Clinton as a dominatrix in the Oval Office clad in black leather, whips and chains, her stiletto heels digging into bill's back as he looks on drooling while she gets head from her beautiful personal assistant. At the same time Mistress Hillary is on the phone calling for the round up and eradication of everyone who voted against her. Two can play at this game Billy boy, *cackle cackle*. :-)
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Aaron B. Brown at 07/16/2008 7:48:52 PM
  Comment:
  I've held off commenting on this because I remain rather ambivalent. I like Barry Blitt's art work, the sketch accomplished what good political satire should in my opinion, it provoked reactions, varying interpretations, and vigorous debate. So many people have weighed in with different perspectives, the way I see it, almost none of them are necessarily wrong. I think this piece of political art tells us something about ourselves through our reactions to it.
  
  I also like it because it pushes the boundaries, and I'm a boundary pusher, or so they tells me. :-) I was just banned from the Kos affiliated Mothertalkers blog , first blog I've ever been banned from, without actually trying. Some of those Kossacks have got it in for me. Hard truths are not something they are prepared to hear apparently, but it's my attitude that bothers them most, I get that a lot.
  
  I understand the Obama campaign's reaction, but I have to wonder if Barack and Michelle didn't laugh when they saw it. It's more than over-the-top, it's outrageously subversive in its inception. In a very real sense Barack Obama is the insurgent candidate, he is attempting to remake American politics on some fundamental level. And it's obvious many people on both sides of the aisle aren't too comfortable with the idea of change and the unfamiliar. It's been a long time since anyone's broken new political ground in this country, an unfortunate reality that has led us into stagnation and regression. It seems fitting that these changes come at the beginning of this new century and at the end of the abject failure of the GOP and their contrived conservative revolution. This caricature pushes buttons on the monied right, buttons they don't like having pushed.
  
  Just imagine if George W. Bush had actually been a competent President, a Republican president who prevented 9/11, then taken us to war in Iraq anyway, achieved total victory and transformed Baghdad into a favorite American discount getaway tourist mecca like Mexico, and we had 70 cent a gallon gasoline. In that unlikely scenario I imagine Hillary would be the Democratic nominee right now, and she would be looking at a landslide loss to that abusive racist southern Republican George Allen in the general election. So let me just take this opportunity to thank corporate America for installing their hand-picked utterly incompetent puppet lackey in the White House, and awakening the sleeping giant that is the American electorate. I promise you are going to regret it boys.....
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Omugabe at 07/16/2008 6:37:14 PM
  Comment:
  Anyone remembers during the Dems Primary when the Clinton campaign was said to have sent to the "Drudge Report" a photo of Obama in Kenyan garb, while holding back on the true history/context of the photo?
  
  The devilish and DIVISIVE aim of the Clintons was to FEED INTO the lies circulating about Obama's so-called connections to islam, madrassas, etc
  
  The "New Yorker" cartoon was having the same negative effect as the racist Clintons; because the intent of the "New Yorker" cartoon was AGAIN 'holding back' on its context for the casual or uninformed reader!
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jptstudent92 at 07/16/2008 4:28:47 PM
  Comment:
  http://www.slate.com/id/2195387/?GT1=38001
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ajfenner at 07/16/2008 12:38:59 PM
  Comment:
  Jonnierae (several comments down) makes a great point...I don't think the cover is satirizing the Obamas at all. I think the Obamas are being used (involutuntarily, and perhaps unfairly) to satirize the bubbas of the world who are too scared to consider the Senator's candidacy because of his race or because of a lie someone told about his religion (and which, depsite all evidence to the contrary, they insist on believing because it's easier than admitting that they are racists).
  
  The fact that so many people have misinterpreted the object of the satire points to, as many have mentioned here, an unsuccessful piece of satire.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ajfenner at 07/16/2008 12:24:17 PM
  Comment:
  The last line of my earlier comment was the start of another line of thought. I decided that the comment was long enough and didn't see I hadn't delete it. Sorry.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ajfenner at 07/16/2008 12:22:10 PM
  Comment:
  Disclaimer: White woman of "bubba" lineage chiming in.
  
  I find it difficult to say whether this cover crosses the line with respect to how a major political figure is allowed to be satirized. I see the cover as satirizing fears over Obama being a Muslim terrorist much more than fears over his being black; but, as I said, I'm a white woman, so how I see the cover is probably less meaningful than how the black community sees it (who am I to say it's not racist?).
  
  I didn't find the cover "funny" but I did find it thought provoking. It's a shame that this is the first commentary I've seen or read that mentions the title of the accompanying article "The Politics of Fear". That title makes it clear that the cover is meant to be satirical. Unfortunately, without it, we are left to the better angels of our nature to decide whether or not it is offensive and whether or not that offense was intentional.
  
  In any case consistently crying out over any satirization sends the message that Obama can't hold his own in the fray. A message that I believe is patently untrue. The man can hold his own and then some.
  
  That said, I think it is important to allow Senator Obama to present himself as more than just a black candidate.
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  mwuagi at 07/16/2008 11:40:15 AM
  Comment:
  Like it or not, Obama needs the votes of White America in order to win the presidency. If we continue to jump on everything said about Obama as "racist", "offensive", "hateful", etc, White America is going to grow weary of it. The constant bitching will, in fact, negatively affect the campaign WAY more than the cartoon could ever do.
  The editors of the New Yorker are probably some of Obama's biggest fans (they would probably cut off their own limbs in order to ensure that Obama wins), so it is somewhat ridiculous for some folks to think that the magazine is trying to hurt him. Some people are not sharp enough to catch the satire, and that is unfortunate. The New Yorker, however, is not trying to appeal to those people. Get over it, folks.
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  JZA at 07/16/2008 2:55:13 AM
  Comment:
  Well done brocante. I can't think of any other New Yorker illustration (I am a subscriber) in which the actual target of the satire is not portrayed in the image. What strange circumstances for this anomaly. Surely Remnick or others at the magazine were hip to this analysis...
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  brocante at 07/16/2008 1:38:21 AM
  Comment:
  If the image of Barak and Michele Obama had appeared in a bubble over Rush Limbaugh's or Bill O'Reilly's talking heads the satire intended would have been self evident. However, without that reference to the extreme right wing's fear based propaganda machine mouth pieces (Rush and Bill, Imus, et al) the New Yorker cover looks as if it was commissioned by Karl Rove.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  SophieL at 07/15/2008 11:51:21 PM
  Comment:
  Where is the outrage from the group of people this is supposed to satirize?
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  tnvol at 07/15/2008 10:24:34 PM
  Comment:
  i thouht it was funny. it made a lot of folks laugh....those of us who are not citizens of the "United States of the Offended." i can't believe anyone is taking this Muslim with no experience and no plan other than "change we can believe in" seriously. what is he going to change? our flag? he refused to wear it until his talking heads told him he better get one on and now he probably has undies in red white and blue.....i never even heard of him until about a year ago or so, where has he been? did you hear the pastor he sat under for 20+ years spewing his vile rhetoric? that one is a real american, huh? ya think big O didn't pick up on any of the anti american dogma in 20 years of being mentored by this guy? he would absorb it by sheer osmosis after that long! and did you know he carries a monkey god statue in his pocket for luck? lovely....
  oh well, strap in folks. there's not a whole lot we can do except watch, pray and get ready for what is coming....Planet Earth is late in the fourth quarter. (would someone please tell him that iran is not insignificant!)
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  abab2326 at 07/15/2008 10:18:47 PM
  Comment:
  I have to believe that in such a "reputable" magazine as the New Yorker, which I have enjoyed reading for years, the decision to put this on the cover was made after considerable debate and discussion among well informed and smart editors. OK, so it's satire they are after...but given all the choices and characteristics to satrize, the choice is so deeply cynical. There is also an inherent arrogance and calculation that is very disheartening. What dismays me the most is how carefully the decision must have been made to put this on the cover....now that is scary!
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  tnvol at 07/15/2008 10:10:32 PM
  Comment:
  i was hearing Rush and Boortz and Hannity all talking about this cover and how the "united states of the offended" was reacting. shocking to hear all the "taboo topics" regarding Mr. Obama. From his ears to his grandmother, much less his race(s) his associates, pastors, and his wife is definitely off limits and everytime a conservative opens his/her mouth, it's RACISM! i can not believe that you people are seriously considering electing a MUSLIM as president of the UNITED STATES. i wish i could say we could avert disaster by not electing him, but the cards were dealt a long time ago and the game is about over now....top of the ninth....what we are seeing is the beginning of the end. we just need to be ready and try to convince a fallen world that they should think about eternity.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jonnierae at 07/15/2008 9:41:36 PM
  Comment:
  Yes, but they are not satirizing anything they have done or said. You could say they are satirizing those that are lying about them, but where are they in the cartoon? Satire is based on an element of truth. The truth is, all the picture depicts is lies. So where is the satire? Who is being satirized? The Obamas? And for what reason? Because people have lied about them? It fails as satire . That is why nobody is laughing. It is not funny. Also it just spreads the smears that are already out there. The New Yorker is smart enough to know what they are doing. Are we???
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  EPP9 at 07/15/2008 9:06:01 PM
  Comment:
  too bad all of the liberals are flipping out over this piece because if they had a brain they could realize that they don't need to take offense to it because it is just a brilliant satire that they wouldn't understand.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Omugabe at 07/15/2008 9:01:30 PM
  Comment:
  Michael Arceneaux
  
  Where is the 'joke'?
  
  It is childish to believe that every piece of so-called satire is going to be successful, is going to fulfill its intended goal.
  
  This piece of trash is a flop! Why?
  
  The so-called 'satire' is evoking emotions contrary to claimed intent of its author!
  
  This sketch goes much better with the malicious lies others are already peddling about the Obamas, than it goes with with anyone's funny bone.
  
  Again, the satire FAILED. And that is the problem.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  EPP9 at 07/15/2008 8:34:03 PM
  Comment:
  ITS CALLED FREEDOM OF PRESS PEOPLE! Obviously you are insecure with his potential presidency if you take offense to this illustration
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  wayhey1 at 07/15/2008 7:39:04 PM
  Comment:
  You're probably right that you haven't lost your sense of humour. Looks like you never had one.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  kavanaugh.matthew at 07/15/2008 7:20:29 PM
  Comment:
  No.
  The July New Yorker cover was wrong and your assessment that we should realize this is satire, lighten up or not be bound to political correctness is wrong. There is such a thing as right and wrong. That is what we have lost sight of, not our humor.
  First, how shall we fairly criticize the likes of Fox News when they use false and inflammatory imagery for the expressed purpose of inciting fear into the electorate? The New Yorker has provided them with an aegis. A double standard will be claimed; "It's fine for the liberal press to make these allegations, so why can't we make any allegation, true or false, pictorial or spoken?"
  Secondly, I had some friends visiting from Manhattan this weekend with their children. What about them? How exactly do we explain to a child who sees this on the newsstand why it is alright? We may fight out our national issues as adults, however we shape that discourse, subtly as well as overtly, by defining to our youth what exactly our society is.
  And third, forty years after the cold blooded assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in a nation built in part on dehumanizing hate, with the potential of both a real and symbolic turning of history hinging on weather or not we relegate such vitriol to the past; how dare you say that I or anyone should learn to take a joke?
  And lastly, it hurt people. Maybe you do not think it should have. Still, it did. It hurt lots of people. People who have spent a life time being hurt. They got home after a good day, opened up their mail and there it was. No laughs. No insightful commentary. Just everything they have fought against and been unjustly accused of staring back at them from a publication they trusted. It hurt them. It hurt them unnecessarily. It does not matter how you may spin it.
  That is wrong.
  The New Yorker was wrong and you are wrong.
  
  -Matthew David Kavanaugh, Charlottesville, Virginia.
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ezwriter69 at 07/15/2008 6:49:02 PM
  Comment:
  Bigots have been telling us to lighten up and laugh at ni#$%^r jokes for years, this pathetic diatibe is nothing new... ha ha, isn't racist stereotyping just HILARIOUS!!!
  
  Um, NO. It isn't.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ron1bo at 07/15/2008 6:47:39 PM
  Comment:
  Political correctness? Please! The cover is very offensive and tasteless. For example, suppose I drew a caricature of Bush waterboarding a "supposed" Muslim terrorist while ramming a flagpole with the American flag attached up his rectum. I don't suppose we would accept that as Satire 101 would we.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  neb33 at 07/15/2008 6:23:56 PM
  Comment:
  I think the magazine intended to point out the absurdity of these stereotypes by writing a detailed article on Obama's Chicago works...a sort of juxtaposition of stereotypes versus reality. However, the 2nd article in the issue about his flip flopping does not help the already-detrimental cover imagery and makes the reader question what Obama perception the editor intended.
  Most people are disgusted at the cover, and that was the point: to show how sickeningly ridiculous these stereotypes are. Others who don't know the magazines satirical history and won't take time to read its articles won't get the joke.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Prof. G. at 07/15/2008 5:56:06 PM
  Comment:
  I thought this article would define satire and demonstrate whether this cover of The New Yorker fits within that definition. So I offer a definition from Merriam-Webster online and suggest that we not involve ourselves in a distracting conversation about who can and who cannot take a joke or has a good sense of humor. Or even create another divide in political ideology. Instead I suggest making this a learning moment about media roles and purposes in society and being educated consumers. That being stated here is the definition:
  
  satire
  
  Main Entry: sat??ire
  Pronunciation: \'sa-,t??(-??)r\
  Function: noun
  Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough ??? more at sad
  Date: 1501
  1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
  2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
  synonyms see wit
  
  What human vices and follies are being ridiculed or scorn (better yet whose)?
  Is wit, irony or sarcasm used (well)?
  Are the aforementioned vices and follies exposed or discredited?
  Does this cover of The New Yorker fulfill any role and/or purpose of mediated mass communication?
  What are the roles and/or purposes of mediated mass communication?
  What are the roles and/or purposes of The New Yorker?
  
  Chat amongst yourselves???
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Iman! at 07/15/2008 5:36:29 PM
  Comment:
  this article is terrific. i'd love to hear more from the author. howard! u know!
  and yes, the cover was in bad taste. it was meant to be funny. get over it.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  renumeratedfrog at 07/15/2008 5:35:18 PM
  Comment:
  Miles, what's even sadder that the "intellecutals" (as your rightly pointed out, they're not) need to explain a satire because the mainstream public is too fucking stupid to understand it.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  baldy at 07/15/2008 5:18:32 PM
  Comment:
  Better yet, Finally TRUTH in advertising!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  MilesEllison at 07/15/2008 5:15:04 PM
  Comment:
  It's sad that people have to explain satire. It's even sadder when the "intellectuals" who create the satire completely lack wit. People getting hit in the junk on America's Funniest Home Videos and Jackass is funnier than that cover was.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  baldy at 07/15/2008 5:14:30 PM
  Comment:
  I love umbama jokes, like he will make a good president, or how about, he is very loyal to the USA?
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Argybargy at 07/15/2008 5:05:59 PM
  Comment:
  Most of the New Yorker's covers just mildly amuse at best. Unless, of course, you're from the coolest city in America -- *wink* *wink* -- in which case, you'll always get the in-joke, and it'll be absolute HILLARITY!
  
  No wait! I got it backwards! It's absolute hillarity only to those country bumpkins who don't live here. To us, it's just mildly amusing.
  
  (Seems to me there was a Hillary joke just now. But I'm not spotting it anymore.)
  
  Whatever. Anyway, the basic problem was the cover broke no new ground. Obama-Osama. We GET it already. The New Yorker is courageously offering up this vital tonic to our political hysteria the way George Stephanopolous offered us the vital tonic of The Lapel Pin Debate.
  
  I'm with a reader who posted to a NYT thread on the press' perceptions of a Great National Brouhaha: The Onion has been running better Obama material for a long while.
  
  - Argybargy
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Argybargy at 07/15/2008 5:03:43 PM
  Comment:
  Most of the New Yorker's covers just mildly amuse at best. That is, of course, you're from the coolest city in America -- *wink* *wink* -- in which case, you'll always get the in-joke, and it'll be absolute HILLARITY!
  
  No wait! I got it backwards! They're incredibly hillarious only to those country bumpkins who don't live here. To us, they're just mildly amusing.
  
  (Seems to me there was a Hillary joke just now. But I'm not spotting it anymore.)
  
  Whatever. Anyway, the basic problem was the cover broke no new ground. Obama-Osama. We GET it already. The New Yorker is courageously offering up this vital tonic to our political hysteria the way George Stephanopolous offered us the vital tonic of The Lapel Pin Debate.
  
  I'm with a reader who posted to a NYT thread on the press' perceptions of a Great National Brouhaha: The Onion has been running better Obama material for a long while.
  
  - Argybargy
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  thrasher at 07/15/2008 4:28:57 PM
  Comment:
  I never took the advice from white folks and white liberals to get over racism or stop being so senative...Of course none of these white folks walk in my shoes and I will always reject another person advising me how to address attacks on my personhood..
  
  
  Clearly this Michale Arcenaux is pandering to whites here..
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  wayhey1 at 07/15/2008 4:28:46 PM
  Comment:
  The reaction to this cover shows all too clearly the sad state of American democracy as it struggles in the grip of utter hysteria.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  thetruthshallsetyoufree at 07/15/2008 4:16:26 PM
  Comment:
  I agree. The purpose of this article was to poke fun at the absurdity of the connotations and prejudices that are held concerning the Obamas. Right on to you for reminding Obama supporters of this. We need to Chill.
  
  Thetruthshallsetyoufree
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    baldy at 07/15/2008 5:59:42 PM
    Comment:
    How is reporting the truth, "poking fun'?
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  bosox8518 at 07/15/2008 4:13:54 PM
  Comment:
  Well kevjohn i hope this cover does cost obama the election. Go ahead call me a redneck or racist or whatever, but that man is not fit to run this country reguardless of his ethnic background. He is way too liberal and will cause the downfall of the United States. McCain is the best choice.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  familygirl at 07/15/2008 3:03:35 PM
  Comment:
  The cover might have missed the intended mark of humor, but people are getting way to bent out of shape over it. I might not like it, but am soooo sick of political correctness. People should be able to express themselves however they want and the public can choose to support that person (or company). That's how this country works. I'm a little surprised at all of the "redneck" stereotyping of white folks going on in this discussion. You all should know better than that.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Pete at 07/15/2008 2:42:12 PM
  Comment:
  I have never read so much crap in the comments about the New Yorker cartoon.. Let's all eat a watermelon and shake hands.
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  uh... at 07/15/2008 2:22:31 PM
  Comment:
  It's a poignant cover that houses a pro-Obama article. The fact that people 'don't get it' is the true shameful part of the cover here, and not the cover itself. The cover has taken all the racist, classist, xenophobic, putrid things said about Obama by the right winged pressed and shoved it right back in the public's face for what it is. This cover should spark a debate not about its content, or context, but instead the responsibility of the media itself to prevent the spread of such misinformation in the first place. Now given the amount of coverage the issue is receiving in the mainstream press, I am pretty sure that there won't be any more confusion or misinterpretation on what exactly is the cover's meaning.
  
  Also Dbrowsers, how exactly is "white America ... full of it? Your obviously racist diatribe failed to explain how this New Yorker cover is in of itself racist. If viewed in the eyes of a bigot, it is, but if viewed in the eyes of a level headed person, it surely isn't. After all, the general population of the U.S. is not a nation of narrow-minded, beer guzzling, rednecked, white-devil bigots, no matter how convinced you are of it.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  miss lauren at 07/15/2008 1:57:58 PM
  Comment:
  I'm sorry, I get satirical humor and sarcasm, but the New Yorker is generally not funny to me. I think they truely need to look at their content and rethink their sense of humor. Gay jokes, Obama Muslim/Black Nationalist jokes, really not that funny, to me it looks like furthering hate.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  dbrowsers at 07/15/2008 1:52:05 PM
  Comment:
  White America is full of it! Their brand of sarcasm and racial humor is nothing new. When generations of bigots teach their children the same, what do you expect? They will tell you to get over it in a heartbeat, then smile in your face and stab you in your back the next day! You see, their collective guilt is masked by a self-pride that verges on insanity. Their perverted minds have blinded many and kept the flame of hate and racism burning in this country. The bible says, in Psalms 37, that soon the wicked will be no more and you will give attention to his place,.. "but the meek and the righteous will inherit the earth." (quote is paraphrased) Nevertheless, those who continue to assault and humiliate us will eventually get their just due. Let us have the courage, the discipline and endurance to wait on God to exact his revenge upon a crooked and twisted generation that does not know any better, because they never even applied their so-called Christian manners. Despite their claim to know God and Jesus, these Jerry Falwell types will eventually be held accountable for their evil.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  dmplc at 07/15/2008 1:26:22 PM
  Comment:
  Jokes that stereotype based on race can be funny, when they are not funny, they are by definition offensive. The onus is on the person making the joke. Just ask "Kramer". This wasn't funny. I laughed, but not at the joke, I laughed at the stupidity of The New Yorker's editor in chief. It seemed so stupid to me, I forgot to be offended. But I guess he's not that stupid, they will sell out this one. Only thing, they might get a reputation for pimping out the cover for controversy and lose subscibers.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Country Joe at 07/15/2008 1:20:51 PM
  Comment:
  Well, thank 'the Good Lord' as my Baptist brethren have been wont to say, that someone has a lick of sense in them. The 'Obamas' Jihad Celebration' cover, like the 'Ahmadinejad's Gay Iran' cover is hilarious. Neither of them are hilarious because they are true. In fact, what makes them hilarious is that they are SOOO far from the truth that only a lunatic would take them seriously.
  
  Having said that, the U.S. Constitution only says we have a right to "free speech". It doesn't say we can't be criticized, shunned and our products boycotted because we speak freely. It doesn't say that we are guaranteed NO repercussions from our free use of speech. It just says we can't be imprisoned for exercising it and the government can't use its awful force to stop or impede us from making fools of ourselves ... or worse, getting our business shut down because we pissed everyone off who would otherwise have bought our products.
  
  I think the covers are absolutely side-stitching gut-busting hilarious. But, you don't have to. And neither of us ever have to buy a New Yorker again.
  
  Ain't life grand?!!!
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  skoneill at 07/15/2008 1:19:57 PM
  Comment:
  I love it. But as a nation, we seem to have lost our sense of humor, and have slid into over-earnest and stultifyingly PC territory.
  
  Maybe our government and its workings are so bizarre that they're beyond satire...or maybe the Terrorists have won?
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    skoneill at 07/15/2008 1:21:40 PM
    Comment:
    oops...sorry. I did that sign-up thingie and didn't realize it had already posted my comment. My bad.
    
    Or maybe it's my evil twin...
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  skoneill at 07/15/2008 1:16:29 PM
  Comment:
  I love the cover. But I'm one reader. As a nation, we've abandoned our sense of humor, and have slid into territory that's over-earnest and stultifyingly PC.
  
  Maybe our government and its workings have gotten to the point where they're too bizarre for satire--or maybe the Terrorists have won...
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  caroaber at 07/15/2008 1:08:21 PM
  Comment:
  But Michelle is depicted wearing an Afro, an image that was dredged up from some 4 decades ago; she is toting an AK-47, carrying ammo and wearing camouflage.
  
  Sen. McCain's current wife has not been caricatured as drug-seeker--which she used to be! Why was the public caricature of Angela Davis resurrected?
  
  I do have a sense of humor. I also recognize propaganda and racism when I see it.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ginsu at 07/15/2008 12:44:48 PM
  Comment:
  The New Yorker is never funny. Sometimes its mildly witty.
  
  They should have a contest to see if their readers can come up with a lame caption for the cartoon.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  gcal1971 at 07/15/2008 12:11:34 PM
  Comment:
  I didn't even realize rednecks read the New Yorker
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  smgarrett at 07/15/2008 11:49:09 AM
  Comment:
  the reaction of the "redneck" is irrelevant to the conception, execution, and publication of the illustration. art is open to everyone for (mis)interpretation. art's social effects are unpredictable and always have been.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Deafhead at 07/15/2008 11:22:53 AM
  Comment:
  The subtitle says it all: you have to be able to take a joke. It's funny. If someone doesn't get it, that is even funnier. But if you imagine that some "redneck" is going to look at the cover of the New Yorker and think it is making fun of Obama, and not him, you are delusional.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  smgarrett at 07/15/2008 10:34:32 AM
  Comment:
  art knows no boundaries. that goes double for satire which, by the way, is not always laugh-out-loud funny (cf. jonathan swift among many other examples). and if it's any good a work of art certainly doesn't stay "on message." if artists were forced to consider audience reception in the process of creation, there would be nothing but bad art. actually, there would be nothing but marketing, which is not far from the current state of affairs. the provincial, puritanical misconception among americans that works of art should only present positive images has now been echoed by obama, who is obviously a hell of a lot smarter than that. if he weren't, he wouldn't like jay-z.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  smgarrett at 07/15/2008 10:32:03 AM
  Comment:
  art knows no boundaries--that goes double for satire--and if it's any good it certainly doesn't stay "on message." if artists were forced to consider audience reception in the process of creation, there would be nothing but bad art. Actually, there would be nothing but marketing, which is not far from the current state of affairs. the provincial, puritanical misconception among americans that works of art should only present positive images has now been echoed by obama, who is obviously a hell of a lot smarter than that. otherwise he wouldn't like jay-z.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  rayannina at 07/15/2008 10:21:56 AM
  Comment:
  Mr. Arceneaux, I think, misses one salient point: it only counts as a joke if people think it's funny. One thing I haven't heard about this cover is that anyone finds it amusing.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  kevjohn at 07/15/2008 10:05:17 AM
  Comment:
  Unfortunately this bit of "satire" is just the kind of B.S. that might cost Obama the election. It will do nothing to dispel all the negative rumors about him, as the article inside the magazine is purported to do. Mark my words, this magazine cover will be framed and hung in every redneck living room in the United States. The rest of the magazine will be thrown away, unread and unwanted. But this image will do nothing but fuel the fires of the morons who have been spending their every waking moment spreading lies, half-truths, UNtruths, and plain old racist garbage about Barack Hussein Obama.
  
  Well played, New Yorker. Ha...Ha.
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    bosox8518 at 07/15/2008 4:11:03 PM
    Comment:
    I hope this cover does cost obama the election. Go ahead call me a redneck or racist or whatever you want, but that man is not fit to run this country regaurdless of his ethnic background. He is way too liberal and will cause the downfall of the United States. McCain is the best choice.
    • • Reply
      • Report Abuse
      Posted By:
      baldy at 07/15/2008 6:10:28 PM
      Comment:
      Thank-you Bosox, if only more folks would ask themselves, why he will not salute the American flag or say the pledge?????? hmmmmm....
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  hockeyrules at 07/15/2008 10:03:43 AM
  Comment:
  I'm not going to be swayed into thinking this is anything other than satire. It's nothing new for the New Yorker in all the years I've known this periodical. The blue-collar Bubbas out there weren't going to vote for him anyway. Let's move on and quit trying to make more of this that it is already!
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ch555x at 07/15/2008 9:18:23 AM
  Comment:
  anyway...
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  crownjewel82 at 07/15/2008 8:11:34 AM
  Comment:
  While everyone's getting their shorts in a twist over satire, no one is paying any attention to the real bigots that are out there.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  traynic at 07/15/2008 7:56:43 AM
  Comment:
  It's clearly satire. The Newyorker as well as most people know how hypersensitive we are as "African Americans". Everything does not have racial undertones, this is clearly a political thing. Let's get educated, understand the issues involved in this election, and let's stop taking offense so easily. Everyone has issues let's move on. VOTE OBAMA!!!!!!!