New Yorker cartoon wasn't 'smart, witty' -- just vulgar

It is common for politicians to be lampooned and the subject of satire. What is satire in the first place? Usually, appearances and positions are exaggerated, for the sake of levity.

What was different about the characterization of Michele and Brarack Obama was that they were depicted as armed and dangerous, terrorists that were not only complicit in terrorism but were somehow actually doing the terrorizing themselves. And why? Because they are black (and Sen. Obama's father was a Muslim). It's one thing to characterize Sen. Obama as a host of things, but you can't 'have fun' with someone being a terrorist these days after all the mess about Guantanamo, Iraq and domestic terrorism.

The Bush administration sanctioned former President Jimmy Carter for unilaterally meeting with Mid-East extremists to talk. Former President Carter was called all kinds of things, but no one characterized him as a terrorist. But Obama is black and his Dad was a Muslim -- so that's perfectly fine.

Terrorist = murderer. The guy is running for president. On what planet was this supposed to be either smart or witty? There aren't usually a lot of laughs when it comes to murderers, so I guess this was the New Yorker trying to be 'edgy.'

New Yorker: Not what it was back in the day

The New Yorker has traditionally been a publication associated with enlightenend thought, literary excellence and an interesting take on contemporary events. The magazine has some of the best writers and illustrators in the world, and they have millions of readers that span the globe. But they won't have this reader anymore.

The Barack Obama cover was a cheap, sideshow carnival act of a trick to generate controversy for its own sake to sell ink, or perhaps weigh on the presidential campaign in some high-brow, look-down-their-nose way. Any way it goes, writing excellence is in the writing, not in the strutting about with their pants down -- which is what they've done.

In catering to the lowest common denominator on their cover, maybe the magazine will bring in a new demographic and join such fine publications as Guns and Ammo and American Fisherman on coffee tables around the country.

New Yorker prints racist cover, calls it 'satire'

According to a story today in the NY Daily News, by Stephanie Gaskell, titled "Bam team lashes mag," David Remnick, editor for The New Yorker, explains away the cover of the July 21st edition as "satire."

Mr. Gaskell's version of satire, then, must include Sen. Barack Obama being depicted in full-Muslim garb in the Oval Office, with his wife, Michele, dressed in some kind of combatant attire, complete with AK-47.

Long story short: The new Yorker is out of line, out of class and out of excuses; a total failure of common sense and good taste. The Obama campaign condemns the image. The McCain campaign condemns the image. It's just a bad image from some folks who seem to think it's funny.

Click on the headline to go to the NY Daily News.