Nice going New Yorker. We have a very large number of people who actually believe all the smears that have floated around about Obama during this election season. So what does The New Yorker decide to do? Put them all together in a cover, as a satire, to sell copies for a very serious article. I think that the cover will only be used to further enhance those fallacies. How would the right react with a NYer graphic of McCain screaming at his first wife while she signs the divorce papers---one arm is behind his back---he's handing Cindy a box of chocolate candies as she kicks over a bag full of cash that's marked Beer money while a Keating jet is parked outside the window. Well those are mostly true...

Download Download

Atrios says:

The New Yorker cover could have worked if had made more clear who it was satirizing (Fox news, the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, whatever), or by being clever enough to provide the actual funny. As it is it's just a reflection of the Right's view of Obama, but there's nothing clever or funny about it. The cartoon could run as is on the cover of the National Review, also meaning to be "funny" but with a different target.

All of this doesn't make the New Yorker public enemy #1, just makes them idiots of the week....and the Doughy Pantload says:

What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

HuffPo:

Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

Kurtz's Reliable Sources touched on the graphic for a few minutes.