My sentiments exactly.

God this is such a fucking non-issue. I am already sick of it. People need to stop being such fucking pansies about everything. Everyone is a god damned asshole.

Why should the New Yorker dumb down just because a lot of people are dopes?

(in other words, I'll waste my outrage on the idiots, not the cartoonists)

A lot. I don't care.

Does anyone really think that the people who aren't going to get the joke subscribe to The New Yorker?

I don't think they should dumb anything down, and I find it funny ... not the attempted satire, but the whole uproar.

I almost think the entire thing was done for the sole purpose of getting The New Yorker some press for a change. If they didn't know that they were going to get this type of response from the media and both campaigns, then they're not even smart enough to read their own magazine.

No. We think they cover is going to make its way around the country in emails. We know the number of people who believe Obama is a Muslim is going UP not down, according to polls. We think the "satire" is woefully poor and doesn't come close to being humorous.

The guy is just a shitty satirist. Lets take a look at some of his previous work.



Ha ha! Look! The Iranian president on a toilet. It's what happend to Larry Craig! Weeeee! Leno would be so proud!

Oh my God! George Bush is serving Dick Cheney! It's like Cheney runs the White House! Ha ha ha ha! I'm laughing so hard my ass might come out of my face!

And then...oh my....the White House is ignoring Hurrican Katrina..and their, like, IN IT! Oh, my! Weeeeeee

The guy is so fucking unfunny and without insight it is startling. He deserves and award for obviousness. The cover should have been handled with more care and been done far more thoughtfully.

And, again, I ask the question: Would you approve of Obama on the New Yorker appearing like a monkey? If not, why? There is no difference in the level of satire between a monkey picture and this.

Ummm...yes there certainly is. Has there been an "Obama is a monkey" smear campaign circulating through the right wing media? No? Then, no, they aren't remotely close to the same level of satire. At all. What's more, you know this.

"It's not funny" or "it's too obvious" are valid criticisms, but "It's going to get E-mailed around!!" isn't. "It's the same as if he were a monkey!!" isn't even in the ballpark.

Exactly. Stupid/ignorant people are going to think it anyway regardless of whether or not it's featured on the cover of The New Yorker.

And FTR, it's called selective perception. If you can honestly make the case that it will convince anyone that already doesn't hold those biases, then you may have a point. But I highly doubt that is the case. This really is such a non-issue. When I saw it being covered on the news today my first response was to roll my eyes.

Since when did it become not fun to make fun of the idiots without them knowing? That's always the best.

that's really a distinction without difference. accusing Obama of being Muslim is more acceptable in many circles than deriding him for being black, but it's the same type of fear/hatemongering.

I guess you missed the West Virginia primary. I guess you missed all of the racism discussions. If we are taking a simplistic view that satire is just exaggeration, then it is very much the same thing.

As far as the cover, time will tell. And maybe some voters who will be confused by this would have only voted for McCain - but my white trash family (Democratic voters) tells me different. There are a lot of people out there who may vote for Obama but are worried about his Muslim "associations."

Anyone who thinks this will be confused by New Yorker readers is missing the point. And I think if the cover was in any way clever, I would back it up. But it's not. It's clumsy and weak.

Funny thing is, I'm probably the only guy around here who won't be voting for Obama.

The best commentary on this so far was Chuck Todd on Morning Joe today saying "hey, print is dying, they need attention."

That's all it is.

No, really it isn't. The Muslim attacks are very specific to this candidate, at this time in our history. It's a very specific attack...which is different (no matter how you want to phrase it) than attacks on race in general.

Of course, again, I'm talking about the satire, not the attacks which is why I said, (in the part you removed from your quote) that it is not the same "level of satire." at all.

If New York were a contested state, I'd certainly vote for him, but I may abstain due to his FISA position (which The New Yorker has correctly called him out on).

There's also a great piece in this issue about Chicago and Obama.

Maybe stop watching "Morning Joe" and pick up a copy?

Is it weird that the accompanying article about Obama is about his start in Chicago politics rather than the campaign of misinformation that he's been fending off since the primaries, or is there usually a disconnect between the message of The New Yorker's cover and the material within its pages to the degree of the two being related only in regards to who is being depicted rather than what is being said about the depicted person(s)?

I think that the covers usually aren't connected to the articles within (at least the longer, in depth articles) at all. I'm guessing that the covers have a much shorter lead time than the articles and are slightly more topical. The Chicago piece was probably started (and planned for publication today) months and months ago, but the cover was probably designed in the last week.