My guess is that it was OK with you for the President of the United States to be depicted in the Oval Office with rising water at the time of the Katrina floods, implying that the President was personally responsible for the horrid state of affairs.

The New Yorker is what it is, and any one who has read it over time knows that they can be biting in their humour. Really, do you think that the folks who read the New Yorker or the folks who run it are so daft as to not know that it was not a statement of fact?

To be true, you say you would not use the image of the cover, but you join in the ongoing attention that will have even more folks seek it out. You speak with a forked tongue.

You, along with others have given far more coverage of the cover than it would normally have had, makes you part of the same problem, you find so offensive.

The comparison with the picture of Bush in the water isn't even in the same league. It's fair game to criticize presidents for what they do or don't do. That sort of thing goes back to the early days of our republic. But the depiction of the Obamas was blatantly racist - they are being lampooned not for what they've done, but for what they are. This is in the same league as calling Michelle Obama Barack's "baby mama," like Faux News did.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, you have a point. When John Kennedy was running for President and folks used horrid cartoons to depict the Pope in Rome pulling the strings must not have been a horrid thing to say about a Catholic running for President. There was no truth to it but folks wanted to believe that due to his religion there was a game afoot. Mind, you will probably see this as 'apples and oranges' but it is still a horrid thing to say. What would you label folks who made these remarks about Kennedy, bigots? Racist/bigot is still a horrid thing to be.

This looks like another attempt to scare people out of voting for Obama. These unsubstantiated scare tactics were wrong when depicting other real and potential presidents and they are wrong now. It did not keep me from voting for Kennedy and it will not prevent me from voting for Obama, the man who should be our next president. I do believe the right wing is at work again.

Everyone needs to lighten up. Even if you didn't know that the New Yorker's editorial sympathies fall squarely with Obama, it should be obvious that the cover is a parody of various rumors and innuendos spread by his opponents.

Maybe somebody, somewhere, is dumb enough to look at this and say "Aha, terrorists!" but I doubt there will be enough of them, even in Florida, to swing the election.

And I wouldn't call it 'racist' either. Save the word for the real thing.

who are these people and do they really deserve to be in the white house? think about it!
consafos

The hypocrisy of the left still amazes me; it probably shouldn’t!

Interesting to note that it’s the Leftists that published that New Yorker cover, not the conservatives! (Somehow, someway, the conservatives will get the blame for this!).

Isn’t it ironic how libs can depict President Bush as a complete moron, even publish cartoons showing Bush with a gun pointed at his head and it's all fun and games. It's not tasteless at all. But touch the "Anointed One" - the Obamamessiah and "it’s so unfair, so racist."

Remember all those cartoons of Condi Rice over-emphasizing certain racial features? I sure didn’t hear any lib object to those, even though it was a blatant racism!

Of particular note is that - world-wide - it is the violent Moslem fanatics who object to cartoons. Remember the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed? Just who is objecting anyway?

On the other hand, it might be a calculated move on the part of the Obama machine. It is possible that the New Yorker and Obama’s PR people concocted the whole thing to deflect attention away from his many bizarre leftist pronouncements. Methinks they doth protest too much!

Typical liberal ploy -- putting it out there and then trying to make it look like it is the conservatives are the ones promoting it.Mike(D) is so in the bag for B.O. he has to buy into liberal lie(it's the conservatives doing this)when it's his own dirt bag liberal buddies.

This is a right wing conspiracy operating at the New Yorker... one of the most liberal magazines in the country...you've got to be kidding? That statement is truly paranoid, and misguided.

As far as racism, it is liberals who will never let us forget about our ethnic differences. Not the other way around. They have championed affirmative action, minority preferances, and the push to diminish the importance our native tongue-English, which have done more to divide, and weaken our country in the past 50 years, than anything else.

From what I hear, most Obama supporters are voting for him based on his ethnicity, which is just as racist/bigoted as it would be to vote against him based on ethnicity. The vast majority who are not his supporters know he is the most extreme radical leftist (if not a Marxist) to ever run for Commander and Chief. And, they are simply acknowledging the obvious from his record, as well as his many gaffes...he is a freshman Senator complete void of the credentials to be Commander and Chief. Icing on this cake are Michele and Barracks numerous cozy associations with sleezy figures, including:

-B.O's racist, anti-American, anti-semite, self-proclaimed spiritual mentors Reverand Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, and James Meeks. If that's not enough, B.O also called Otis Moss III, "a wonderful young pastor." Moss publicly embraces the belief that America purposely infected the black community with AIDS and drugs.

--Mafia-guy Tony Rezko (sentenced to 20-years in 2008). Rezko is B.O's realstate agent longtime friend, and major campaign fundraiser, who sold him his Chicago homesite property $300,00 under the listed value

--William Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn, two unrepentant domestic terrorists and self-proclaimed communist revolutionaries, who were on the run for years for bombing the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon. Ayers is a major player on B.O.s campaign staff

--Rashid Khalidi, who was the official director of the PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut betw 1976-1982. Obama's are regular dinner guests at the home of this extemist, and while Obama was on the board of The Woods Fund, tens of thousands of dollars were funneled to the AAAN. Khalidid says he is supporting Obama for President, "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

THE OBAMA'S HAVE BROUGHT THIS RIDICULE UPON THEMSELVES.

Mike D.--Fox News exists because of the exteme leftist bias of all the other networks. Fox provides a voice for the conservative ideas, and discusses both sides of issues far more than any other newsmedia. Its a fact--by a wide margin, Fox News employs more liberals on their staff, than any other network employs conservatives.

This explains why Fox News ranks number one in viewership.

UPDATE: Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post got an e-mail response from from Barry Blitt, the artist behind the New Yorker cover. He asked him in
in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?

"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."

To see the whole reply, here is a link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html

"Dirt bag liberal buddies."

It seems to me there are far more slanderous defaming names for liberals than there are for conservatives. Who are the bigots harder at work here?

As for the New Yorker cover, perhaps the right side might see it differently if the cover depicted a very old McCain in a flight suit being tortured by the Viet Cong with a fighter plane crashed in the background. The caption might read..."This should make me eligible to run for President."

As a liberal Democrat and an Obama supporter, I would still find that in very poor taste. For the record, I personally don't think the right was behind the Obama cartoon. I think it was a very bad attempt at humor and not well thought out. We saw it before when a Danish(?) comic thought it might be funny to depict Muhammad with a bomb turban. Not everything one thinks is funny is going to be funny to everyone.

25% of this country still thinks Obama is a Muslim. I think secretly down deep they know the truth that he isn't, they just refuse to believe it.

The right-winger comments are mostly smoke and no fire. I didn't see anyone blame the cover on the right-wing. I just said it was offensive. I realize it was intended as satire, but it missed badly. Whether the New Yorker is liberal or not is immaterial. I found this "liberal" satire as offensive as Faux News' clumsy attempt at humor in the "baby mama" episode.

As for Redpeach's lengthy post (which I just skimmed over), I always find it amusing in a sad sort of way when conservatives try to pin the "racist" label on African Americans. When blacks have oppressed whites for nearly 400 years, then we can call it even. Until then, whites have nothing to complain about.

I agree with you Mike D.

People like Redpeach can read and quote information on racism but have no idea how it is in real life.

I could not keep from opening the blog because it kept growing.
I really appreciated vic rosenthal's voice of reason. And I do agree
with the contention that public figures are, and always have been
subject to be cartoonized (for lack of a better word.)

It is a fact that ones rights to privacy go out the door (legally) when
one decides to step into the public arena.

It is a fact that the cartoonist is not suffering from good taste.
And from watching TV, I gather that some popular humor has gone predatory enough to teach a school of piranhas.

...what Vic said...

Funny how everytime someone posts FACTS that make the Messiah, Lord Obama look bad, it is all smoke and mirrors according to lefties. And by Mike D.'s own admission, he determined this by merely skimming my post, and not reading it entirely. Dismissing facts without reading them is quite a skill you have.

Racism, and reverse-racism are all the same thing--judging another person based solely on the color of their skin is never justified, is a sin, and is socially destructive. There are few people in the U.S. who would disagree with that.

On that same note, Democrats are asking us to do the opposite of what Martin Luther King proclaimed, and judge the Obama's (favorably) solely based on the color of their skin, and ignore the content of their character. How do we determine a person's character? Their record, which is what I laid out, in my lengthy post...the questionable record of the Obama's. Don't take my word for it, do your own research... please.

If a Republican politician was connected with even one of these sully characters, we would never hear the end of it. We have seen it many times. A few weeks ago, I heard the media diminish Dan Quayles again, for mispelling the word, potato--like 15 years ago. As if that is news worthy, now or then.

And by the way Mike D., Fox News is not running for President.

I just skimmed it because it's just the same old list of assertions that we see and hear all the time in right wing blogs and talk radio.

You talk about "facts"? Okay, let's see you support one of your assertions. You call Rev. Wright a "racist." I know that Wright has said some pretty outrageous things, but can you cite one single thing he said that is clearly racist?

Redpeach...I don't really care who you vote for, but I can assure you, of the millions of "whities" including me, voting for Obama, you'd be hard pressed to find a handful who are doing so solely because he's black.

And I'll sit and wait with Mike for all of your sources for your "truths." Otherwise we'll all assume that they are the usual right wing email forwards and blogs going around. Many of them I already know have been spun and/or taken out of context. But that's typical of an election, we're getting used to it. And so is Obama. And so should McCain, there have been a few about him but not as many.

Feel free to visit FactCheck.org

They will clear up rumors on both sides. They are not partial.

...even if he promised to make Rev. Wright the Sec. of Grooviness, I couldn't be persuaded to vote for B.Hussein Obama, and frankly, I dont see how he can beat the real American, the tuff guy with the Irish last name, and the blonde wife,...at least, not while we're still at war wit dem other'ns.

redpeach,

Re: Mike D.--"There [he] goes again!" Apparently he hasn't followed the reports from The Bee, CNN, ABC, etc. (BTW, I kinda like Mike's "faux news" jab--pretty clever!)

I've noticed on many threads, Mike D. falls back on the "prove it!" argument, then after someone quotes their source, he won't acknowledge the source or he resorts to name-calling or other attempts to discredit the valid source, or he goes on a personal attack (redpeach and I have both been victims of such) to attempt to vindicate his defeat. It's called a "red herring" or "rabbit trail" (aka: distraction) tactic in forensics, and is used in a desperate attempt to regain control of a debate. For "proof," just browse his posts on other threads, and notice the tangential posts about sources on this thread!

Re: BO--(another clever label!) The [elsewhere-substantiated] facts posted by redpeach, and other events/facts not listed, clearly show that Obama has a long history of associating with less-than-honorable characters. Mafiosos, extreme radicals (regardless of religious affiliation), and other high-achieving lowlife. Regardless of how strong one's personality may be (and one aspect of BO's appeal is the "tameness" of his personality) one's associations shape one's attitude and philosophy. Hang out with Al Gore and Co. long enough, and you'll start buying into the "evil human polluter" concept (two words: ice & age). Watch O'Reily and Hannity exclusively, and you'll eventually start believing every word they say. Spend too much time on blogs like this, and every real-world conversation you have will turn into a debate. BO comes from the Chicago political scene, which has been riddled with corruption and lying and cheating for generations.

Does he deserve portrayal as being sympathetic to terrorists? Prob'ly not, but if he can't stand the political heat, then he needs to get out of the political kitchen! I don't want someone running our country who whines about how everyone is picking on him/her.

Gail,

Nico Pitney? Isn't he the one who used pictures of dead soldiers in a mosaic to portray Bush and Cheney [?] laughing about the Iraq war? Wasn't the artistic intent of that mosaic to show that Bush and Cheney are heartless leaders among the ranks of Hitler? Did Bush & Cheney whine & complain, or issue a press release demanding apologies?

Anyone who criticizes The New Yorker's recent cover but doesn't criticize Pitney's mosaic is an absolute hypocrite. The dead soldiers can't call a press conference or issue a statemenet to declare how offended they are about their portrayal in a so-called work of art.

Huffinton Post? Hmmm... no political slant on that website.

Mr. McIntyre, funny that you should accuse me of "personal attacks," when your first two paragraphs are nothing more than an ad hominem attack on me, without any substantiation.

I asked Redpeach a very specific question, which should be very easy to answer. Perhaps you would like to take a stab at it, instead of trying to bail Redpeach out by your collateral attack on me. Here it is again, in case you missed it:

What did Rev. Wright say that is clearly racist?

Lisa Maria Boyles, after reading post after post; this is what I think.
I am quoting the Author of "Democracy in America" Alexis de Tocqueville.
The work is a world renowned classic.

"...In the proudest nation of the old world works were published which
faithfully portrayed the vices and absurdities of contemporaries; La Bruyer
who lived in Luis XIV's court wile wrote...Moliere criticized the court in
plays that were acted before the courtiers. But the power which dominates
the United States does not understand being mocked like that. The least
reproach offends it, and the slightest sting of truth turns it fierce; and one must praise everything from the turn of its phrases to its most robust virtues. No writer, no matter how famous, can escape this obligation to sprinkle incense over his fellow citizens. Hence the majority lives in a state
of perpetual self-adoration;..."

And this blog tends to indicate that not very much has changed since 1835 in this respect.

Thanks Isabell...that is so very true. I would never have noticed it before until I married an Australian. She helps me see this country through the eyes of another country. I also get that benefit from other international members we have on our website.

She says there's one thing she's noticed about Americans, they are very passionate...and very proud. This I think can be a virtue as well as a fault. I would like us to realize that we can't control the world and not everyone wants to be like us.

I see both of the people I addressed my question to have posted elsewhere, but no answer to my question regarding Rev. Wright. Pity - I really was curious what their answers might be.

After those snippets from Wright's sermons were being repeated endlessly on television, it was frequently charged that Wright was racist.

But whenever I asked anyone what he said that was actually racist, I got the same response I got here - silence, change the subject, or just disappear.

Perhaps this is just one of those things people believe without actually thinking about?