John McCain satirical cartoon a la the New Yorker, but from Vanity Fair

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/22/vanity-fair-out-with-new-yorker-takeoff/

You call that satire? I call that reality!!!

I'm not sure how much longer it will be before McCain is on a walker, but I have to say that it will be much sooner than Barack Obama will ever need one!

How appropriate to have a framed picture of George W. Bush on the wall. No Republican home would be complete without one. But where's the picture of Dick Cheney? Isn't he really the one pulling the strings after all?

Ah, yes. The Constitution is burning in the fireplace. Be it detainee torture, illegal wireless wiretapping, gutting habeas corpus, outing a covert secret agent or a plethora of other crimes, the Bush Administration has cornered the market on making the Founding Fathers roll in their graves.

I also hear that Cindy McCain doctor shops better than Rush Limbaugh! Hillbilly Heroin to the rescue!!! Your going to need some meds after Barack Obama embarrasses your husband on Election Day. I'm sure that it will be quite painful and depressing. Good luck with that.

Have you posted in the SG Liberal Politics group lately?

A belated grammar correction:

Having recieved equal treatment, does this validate the New Yorker's magazine cover?

1) It isn't equal treatment, this is a parody of a mis-fired satire that appeared only on their website in response to what happened.

2) You do realize that the New Yorker's cover was satire, yes? Validation would mean that it was effective, biting, humorous satire about the fear-mongering and blatant lies on the part of the Right in a failed attempt to paint Obama as unpatriotic and Muslim. Validation, in this case, would not mean that all those rumors and lies you get all hot and bothered dreaming of are true.

I think Vanity Fair missed some real equalizing points, McCain should be wearing black pajamas and flip-flops while wearing a sampan hat to round our the whole "Manchurian Candidate" image, perhaps he should have a censored mark over his wife while he yells at his wife. Add to that McCain giving her the finger instead of the ol' "terror-fist" and it would be he coup de gras . (Insert graphic innuendo and or appropriate image here). Seriously though, it would be the perfect answer to the right's depiction of Obama. Oh wait, I almost forgot, Manchurian McCain was also invented by the right! Bwa-ha! Whoo-hoo! This election season is starting to be a real hoot...

I think we've just seen the playbill for election 2008. Like two gloveless boxers studying each other during a fight promo, the two campaigns had quietly faced off for the upcoming match, but the New Yorker & Vanity Fair have now landed the first surprise punches on both of them. They've open the door and everyone is going to shove their arms and legs into the gap. If what Holden_Caufield says is true about Cindy McCain having a problem with chasing the Dragon (ooh, what a tie-in that would be for the comical image of Manchurian McCain (and I'm wondering if that heroine's heroin is Afghani), I expect it will be a very ugly and entertaining election season.

i don't see how this benefits anyone at all.

I'm working under the pre-condition that the New Yorker cover was an reprenstation (though inadvertently) of Republican criticisms. So basically since McCain has been made fun in it, that means it's retro-actively ok for the New Yorker to have made that cover (though the scene probably should have been contained in a thought balloon floating over an elephant).

Well, you're wrong. First of all, the New Yorker wasn't about Republican criticisms, a criticism is that Senator Obama hasn't spent enough time in the Senate to understand how things are accomplished in Washington D.C. and therefore will make an ineffective President, unable to work with Congress to pass legislation. That is a criticism. Calling someone a covert Muslim is slander, because its untrue. Everything on the New Yorker cover was about Republican scare tactics and attempts to smear Obama. It was not a representation of any criticism, inadvertent or not.

Second of all, if the cover was inappropriate in the first place(not my opinion, but the opinion of some), then a similar cover by another magazine targeting the other candidate is just as, if not more so, inappropriate. How the hell do you even come up with something like 'this makes it retroactively okay'?

Fair point, Bean, but I still think most thinking people can agree that there is no way the second cartoon could somehow retroactively make the first one 'okay', by whatever standard.

Actually, Chris's comment was exactly the point I was trying to make in my original post.