The New Yorker's Obama cover: biting political satire or offensive fear-mongering?

The editors of the New Yorker magazine have drawn the ire of the Obama campaign with a cover depicting the prospective first couple as a pair of extremists.

A Barry Blitt illustration on the front of the latest issue depicts Barack Obama wearing Islamic dress in the Oval Office, where the American flag lies smouldering in the fireplace beneath a portrait of Osama Bin Laden. His wife Michelle, sports fatigues and an afro in the style of Angela Davis, the Black Panther associate and Communist Party USA candidate, an AK-47 slung over her shoulder. The couple are bumping fists in a replication of a gesture seen at the start of the Democratic nominee's victory rally, controversially described by a Fox News anchor as a "terrorist fist jab".

The Obama campaign denounced the cartoon as "tasteless and offensive", a criticism met with seemingly genuine surprise from the magazine's editors, which insisted it was meant as a lampoon of right-wing fear-mongering.

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

New Yorker editor David Remnick issued a statement defending the cartoon, titled "The Politics of Fear" but not explained inside the magazine, which contains lengthy pieces on Obama's background in Chicago politics and allegations of policy flip-flops.

"Our cover ... combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are," he said.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall - all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," Remnick said.

Click here to see what Times commentators thought.

And readers, your verdicts please...

Comments

[Chris]

The problem with satire is that the audience must be in tune with the satirist. Otherwise the intended effect is lost, as it may be here. Instead of lampooning the right, the New Yorker has possibly helped its cause.

[drfrank]

Where, precisely, is the satire? It's a great cartoon, but its editorial framing is neither ironic, exaggerated nor revealing about the smear peddlars: it merely represents them, and perfectly. Its problem is that it's poorly contextualised. Images don't just speak for themselves, contrary to the New Yorker's perspective. They'll need to elaborate. Without any subtitle, explanation, or interpretive insight, it does and says what, exactly? It's not going to detonate Obama, and he'll need to learn to laugh it off, but it should be easy to understand his campaign's aggravation.

[Jim from Michigan]

OK, so it's a lampoon of right wing fear mongering. It's still tasteless and offensive.

[Tunde Uche]

Wow - It never seems to surprise me how racism can be described as a bad joke! I mean Obama/Osama what the difference right! They're both muslims - Grotesque piece disguising itself as modern day journalism. The editor quite clearly lives in a pie in the sky.

[Luis M. Fuentes]

" Liberty is free " ( Nicanor Parra, chlilean Anti-poet ).
Luis M. Fuentes

[Pepe]

I feel that although the New Yorker may indeed have created this picture satirically and as a critique of how the Neo-Cons would have the US electorate see Obama, it is nevertheless more than likely that the average American may interpret it very literally.

Considering the magnitude of the risks involved and that future of human civilisation may well be contingent upon these elections, this kind of behaviour is of course highly irresponsible.

[Marie Minder]

What does it say about a politician's character if he cannot abide satire? Obama and his wife have a long history of questionable associates
(e.g., Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers) that
give good reason for scrutiny.

[Ajit Harisinghani]

The cover will be seen as bad taste by many but it could live a subliminal message in the virgin minds of a vast number of Americans.
Surely, the New Yorker can do better?

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

The New Yorker is famous for its humor, but it is a humor not to everyone's taste.

It is stylish and sophisticated, sometimes bordering on a bit vague.

This cartoon does not fit that pattern at all.

It is, if anything, a bit like a political version of what one might expect from Mad Magazine, over the top, poking you right in the eye, and rather teenagerish in tone.

The fact that it does not fit the pattern should tell us something.

The New Yorker cover is definitely making a statement, thinly disguised as humor.

And I believe Obama's campaign is right to object. The cartoon is very much on the level of 1860's newspaper cartoons in America portraying Lincoln as an obscene ape.

It is odd that you and Daniel Finkelstein have written on the same topic.

Daniel has seen fit to include some comments from well-known figures, including Oliver Kamm, someone whose new employment at The Times he seems to never get tired of promoting.

Kamm's comment, in a still further effort to boost this lamentable Neo-con's bona fides, adds nothing to the debate.

He couldn't be more wrong than in his assertion that "...where [Michelle Obama} stands politically [is a] matter of public interest..."

His justifying this uninformed statement on the vicious assaults made on Mrs Clinton only demonstrates what little of worth Mr Kamm has to contribute.

His is a statement worthy of Newt Gingrich.

[Julian Evans]

I'd say it was offensive, badly thought-through and, considering the New Yorker is mainly a Democratic and liberal magazine, weirdly self-destructive.

It doesn't undermine that image of Obama and his wife, it magnifies it.

[BRUNILDA ROSARIO]

Tasteless is being kind. I believe in freedom of speech but to insinuate in jest something as extreme as burning the American Flag on the cover of a news magazine should be offensive to "any" American. Second a personal attack on a person who is trying to make us a better country, plus his wife is unacceptable. Even if it were McCain, I would be offended. We are becoming a nation of stupid people because magazines like the New Yorker promote stupidity and people read, believe and share this kind of news. I will "Never, Never" purchase this magazine ever again! Give us healthy intelligent reading material please.

[Chris]

I can see what they've done, and they've done it very, very well, but without being too patronising I think they've been too clever for their own good. This will appeal to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It's a bit like Alf Garnett on UK telly in the 70s. It was decades ahead of its time in terms of satire but basically was loved and laughed at by the National Front brigade. The people who actually 'got it' were probably a great minority.

[Jason]

I'm more suprised at the reaction of the douchebage editors. 'OMG, you guyz find dis offensive...sorry!'. How did this go to print? How out of touch are the people who control that magazine? It is a shame they won't get sued for it; all I can do is cancel the rest of my subscription and I don't think the 10 bucks they'll send me back is going to do much damage to their company.

[JL Ronish]

They can protray poor George Bush as the worst kind of monster, but if you hit a bit to close to the bone in a cartoon of the Obama's....Look out!

[Chas]

An extraordinary lapse of editorial taste and judgment. If an image of this nature is to be shown it should be in a larger context (for instance as a picture being drawn by a Klansman or similar) which would make the satirical message clear.

[attila]

Funny how all the cartoons on Bush Jr. (and most of them on Clinton before him) were considered "normal"; and the ridiculous conspiracy theories such as "Fareinheit 911" and "JFK" were considered mainstream.

I fear that if Obama becomes president, political correctness may prevent us from criticizing our president.

This isn't a great cartoon (I'd yawn normally), but we need to be able to lampoon Everyone in power freely and openly. Let's lampoon Obama for what he is, all talk and no action. (I don't think he'd burn an American flag: I think he'd hold talks with it about personal resposibility, call it divise, blog about it etc.)

[andy]

I thought it was funny. Some people should get a life.

[Chuckles]

Because it is in the New Yorker, it would have had no effect on the public as no one outside of the Democratic leaning literate read it. However, now that every major news agency has covered it, it will be brought to the masses. Obviously the editors at the New Yorker were looking to increase subscriptions. Publishing is a business. They are only looking at the bottom line, and if selling a magazine with an offensive cartoon on it boosts the profits, all the better in their minds. In a week all of this will be forgotten. Americas 10 minute attention span is more bankable than gold.

[Ian]

The Obama camp seem way too touchy over this - why is that?

The New Yorker has had a multitude of covers satirising President GW Bush (many of them hilarious, poignant & offensive all at the same time) & yet he has not responded once.

It comes with the territory Obama - & if you cannot take this satire then maybe your character is not developed enough to be the saviour of the "free world".

[Carol Lazarus]

It is offensive, and I'm not even a Democrat. The presentation of a visual image, even in jest, can cause any ridiculous allegation to appear more plausible, more "real." Pictures tend to leave an indelible impression, on some level. If the folks at New Yorker didn't know that this would be damaging, or at least upsetting, they're just pretty dumb and need to be in another line of business. Alternatively, causing an uproar sells more magazines. Isn't that their number one priority?

[Richard Winters]

The cartoon is utter nonsense. To have it on the front cover of a magazine like the New Yorker is absolute rubbish. No matter what candidate it depicts, it's nonsense. I will withdraw my subscription from the New Yorker immediately. I will also cancel all the adverts that i have been putting up in the New Yorker and find another sensible medium to advertise my businesses. What is this? 18th century journalism

[lili]

Most New Yorker readers, like me, will recognize that the cover is intended to satirize the lunatic conspiracy theorists and will not regard it as "tasteless and offensive."

The problem will be non-readers and people who have trouble grasping the concept of satire -- of which there are many. When The Onion published a satirical piece in which J.K. Rowling claimed to be a Satanist, thousands believed it. Images can be far more potent than words, though the amount of publicity this image is receiving may well defuse its impact on the uninformed.

[grant]

that the editors had satire in mind is irrelevant - the satire needs to be present in the cartoon, which is not clear. the cartoon doesn't make plain what position the magazine is taking: is it representing fear-mongerers or is it lampooning them? there needs to be some indication in the cartoon that the new yorker is taking the latter, otherwise the magazine is open to the criticism that this is a poor piece of social satire and consequently an offensive assault.

[Cynthia]

The New Yorker is well known for it's intelligent articles and witty cartoons. It's the magazine of choice for the wealthy limousine liberals and pseudo sophisticated intellectuals. Perhaps in the heady atmosphere their writers and artists dwell in this is clever, but to most of us mere mortals the cover is simply tacky.

[Louise]

Its meant to be funny, but also highlights the fears many have about Michelle and Barack. I for one dont trust him and the article inside is the reason why. He rose to ranks in the Chicago political system in the usual dodgy way, backstabbing whoever he needed to and giving favours to those who helped him (including his wife who got a huge pay rise after he arranged for funding to go to the hospital she worked at). He is a very arrogant person who speaks down to people and does a lot of mocking on stage to get a reaction, just like his old preacher at the trinity church did.

[Ben]

Anyone who reads The New Yorker isn't going to be offended or confused by this, and will most likely know that it's just part of the publication's vernacular. It's not fair to expect a magazine to cater to the sensibilities of people who don't even read it. It's like my mum wailing and gnashing her teeth because she finds a cartoon on the cover of Viz a bit rude.

[Sam Bidwell]

Funny how folks don't object to depictions of the seated president with donkey-like ears on practically every editorial page in the country, but when it comes to their candidate...woah! Unacceptable. Tasteless. Racist. This is exactly like the Danish cartoon furor. Political correctness and mind control gone haywire.

[Mary]

Actually if the US media had not decided to make this a story, not very many people in the US would even know the cartoons existence. "Average Americans" don't read or care about the New Yorker. It is mostly read by East Coast "liberals" and perhaps in California.

That being said--it is rather tasteless.

[Russ Armstrong]

As some have noted, the cartoon appears to have been intended to "lampoon right-wing fear mongering," and as "a critique of how the Neo-Cons would have the US electorate see Obama." The point of the cartoon was to support the Obamas, by ridculing any and all who would disagree with them. There are, however, many legitimate reasons to disfavor the Obamas having nothing to do with spurious accusations of religion, patriotism or radicalism. For example, lack of experience, backtracking on a pledge to support public financing of elections, and a more general "disconnect" with ordinary America.

The last point is amply, and ironcially, illustrated by the Obamas' solemn denouncement of the cartoon as "tasteless and offensive." The man either (1) doesn't get the joke, or (2) can't take the joke. In so doing, he does indeed remind us of radical Muslims.

[Jason]

Where in the world has everyone been?? That 'bumping fists' has been around for quite awhile... lots of people do it, instead of a handshake.
Howie Mandell even does it on Deal or no Deal.. So what's the big deal??
Does that make him some sort of subversive radical??
JW...Rochester NY

[Johanna]

This seems like a popular tactic to seemingly joke about something but in reality attempting to put forward the very message the joke delivers... this will be v. damaging for Obama's campaign, cannot understand why the New Yorker would have done this for any other reason than to sabotage his campaign.

[Felix in Reno]

Marie Minder - First you claim that it's a character issue that Obama can't abide satire and then you immediately seek to show that his 'questionable ties' to Ayers and Wright make the cartoon accurate or at least worth further 'scrutiny'. You have just shown how this cartoon will be co-opted by Obama detractors and abused not as satire but as political kindling.

Whether or not the intent of the artist was 'anti-Obama' it's clear that within days, we'll have this cartoon on the pages of every right wing blog and 'news' site and not as satire, but as a smear in and of itself. It will be one more way to bring the level of politics down to the gutter.

[Rika]

It is a satire for goodness' sake and it is, after all, The New Yorker! Relax people and get back to college...

[Newt]

Healthy intelligent reading material would require the Obama campaign website be shut down entirely and a full recall of all kool-aid...be careful what you wish for.

[Mike]

Why does this not surprise me? Ergo - November 27th 2007 on Barack Obama’s website…

"I am not and have never been a Muslim… and … I have never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, I have never prayed in a mosque and I am a committed Christian… and … I have always been a Christian, I’ve never practiced Islam".

Now don’t get me wrong. The particulars below are NOT about what faith Obama professed or was brought up in as a child, or his religion, now or in the past. It is about the worrying fact that he seemingly HAS NOT TOLD THE TRUTH about his early background and that this concealment is the issue that should be a matter of public interest along with the padding of his résumé.

There are many discrepancies in the accounts of his early life — including his own accounts — plus his many questionable associations.

He was schooled in Indonesia as a Muslim; he attended the mosque regularly during that period; his friends from that time testify that he was a devout Muslim boy. A former teacher Tine Hahiyary, is on record stating that a young Obama was religious and actively took part in ‘mengaji’ classes which teach how to read the Koran in Arabic.

His half-brother Abongo ‘Roy’ Obama is a Luo activist in Kenya and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must ‘liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture’ and repeatedly urges Barack to embrace his African Muslim heritage.

Nick Kristof wrote in a deeply respectful article in the New York Times. Quote:

He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them. Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.
.
Malik, Obama’s tall bespectacled bother: “Obama would be a good President for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background”.

Muamar Qaddafi speaking on Al Jazeera TV last month: There are elections in America now. Along came a citizen of Kenyan African origins. A Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for his success and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.

And how about those close to him?

His pastor and mentor of 20 years standing Jeremiah Wright, was himself a Muslim convert to Christianity perhaps explaining his close affinity to the Muslim black power ideologue Louis Farrakhan.

Tony Rezko, the now convicted criminal and major supporter of Obama and contributor to his cause – was lent millions of dollars by Nadhmi Auchi, who had connections with Saddam Hussein and who was convicted for corruption in France just weeks before Obama’s ‘bone-headed’ land deal.

Rezko also connections with the Nation of Islam. Reszko, born in Syria, was a business associate of Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of the founder of the Nation of Islam, (Rezko was bailed from jail by Ali Baghdadi, the ‘Middle East adviser’ to the Nation of Islam).

Surely we need to know and understand why Obama has sought to obfuscate his early background; why he has so many indirect associations with radical Islamism; and whether these two questions are in some way related? Anyone who doesn’t think all this cries out for proper investigation is either a fool or a knave!

[DOMINIQUE ALVES]

I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG IN THIS CARTOON.
ALL US PRESIDENTS ARE TERRORISTS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER, THE EFFECT WILL BE THE SAME: SPREADING "US EMPIRE" OVER THE WORLD TO BOOST PROFITS OF THEIR TRANSNATIONALS AND OF FINANCIAL MAFIA !!! ALL VERY GOOD FOR THE CITY !

ALL VERY BAD FOR THE PEOPLE OF OUR WORLD !

[Halstead]

Great flip-flop.

[Dr. Jesse Kally-Williams]

The fact that the artistic Barry Blitt completely underestimates the low level of political education in his country, the fact that he fails to discern that majority of American voters change their minds as often as they turn on their TV sets or see images reveal his utter stupidity. Further, there is something like aesthetic honesty and aesthetic dishonesty, which Blitt seems not to have learnt in his cartoonist courses. There are several enlightened ways of artistically deconstructing a lie; so are there several ways of reinforcing the same lie. Blitt’s cartoon embellishes and reinforces the grotesque distortion about the Obama. What a shame and lack of judgment! He forgets that there are thousand of ultra-right radio talk hosts who are bent on pulling American politics lower and lower and lower to the level of the politics of some of the most backward countries in the world. These ultra rightists are going to exploit this pictorial lies of Blitt. This distortion in the name of satyr is like portraying 9/11 as surreal, fiction! And The New Yorker to print it!

[BOSCO]

This is satire?!?

Clever cartoons do not need heavy explanations. This one clearly does and so it fails. When I first saw it, without reading the article, it made no sense to me. It just looks like an attack on the Obamas.

If it had a title like "Right wing myths about Obama", it might make a little more sense. But as it stands it looks more like it is supporting the very ideas it intended to lampoon.

I suppose some good has come of it, from the Editor's point of view at least. There's no such thing as bad publicity. The New Yorker will no doubt sell more copies of it's dull rag as a result of the controversy.

[Richard, Vancouver]

The New Yorker has stooped to a new low. Political satire? Hardly. Lets call it a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination by subliminal suggestion, innuendo and insinuation. They really crossed the line, and the NY editorial staff knows it.

More likely this is a deliberate and perhaps desperate attempt to start stemming the groundswell of pro-Obama popular support. This is nothing more than dirty politics under the guise of journalistic freedom using the classic 1800's lampoon cartoon style.

While McCain publicly denounced the toon; he really had no choice, it was just that bad, but behind the scenes his election machine must be bubbling with glee.

The establishment, those so called neo-cons, the Wall Street big money boys (who Bush is bailing out with your tax $$ at the moment) and a mixed bag of pro Republican supporters are starting to run scared.

They sense change is in the wind...

[stan]

Wasn't it General Betrayus not so long ago?

[Michael]

Odd that nobody here is upset the original (and crazy) attacks on Obama that the New Yorker is commenting on. The intent of their satire (to mock those making such views—e.g. Fox News's "terrorist fist jab") seemed instantly pretty clear to me. Once again we've allowed a false sense of outrage to become the story—are all of you really convinced that the New Yorker (that liberal apologist!) is out to denigrate Obama? You can attack the magazine for misjudging the reaction, but when you do that you're really saying, "yeah, we're so dumb that a sophisticated publication shouldn't trust us to react the right way."

[New York]

Don't forget satire's efficacy: I do see it swaying certain moderates who might be guilty of unconscious images of the Obama's as unpatriotic and unamerican by calling attention to its irrationality. It has already made both sides stand up and address the plausibility of these stereotypes. The New Yorker has always been high-brow and leftist, and this dwindling demographic might be calling out to a wider readership, with the intention of giving this group a kind of kick-in-the-head.

[K Koser]

The Parody should be placed on the conservative instead of the right...

This cartoon is offensive

[outofengland]

New Yorker is in business to sell magazines. The Cartoon was bound to stir everyone up. It has been successful. Obama camp could well
start getting used to this sort of thing. Freedom of speech for all and all that goes with it.

[kcee]

Oh, stop whinning! If you are in politics it is as good as you get!

[Scott]

Look on the bright side, at least Obama isn't wearing a bomb on his head.

This cover exemplifies precisely what Freedom of Speech is all about folks. The New Yorker carries on a fine American tradition of political speech. Who cares if its "offensive." That's irrelevant.

[S Schwarz, Chicago]

Sent off a note to the New Yorker today.
"Longtime subscriber, here. You will get a lot of grief over the Obama cover. You deserve it."

[e skelton]

You mean its not true? I am sadly dissillusioned!

[Douglas Miller]

Can't wait for the Mc Cain cover!

[Daniel Smith]

It does seem to show that Americans don't really get satire or irony. I can imagine Barack Obama looking at this shaking his head. It's not going to upset him, since it's patently untrue, but he is going to think 'it's just not funny'. What's the point of a satirical cartoon that isn't funny, and makes no point?

[Scott]

This cover has nothing to do with "racism" nor does it matter if anyone finds it "offensive." Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another. This illustration doesn't suggest that.

Nonetheless, isn't anyone at least "outraged" since that is the battle cry blindly parroted by all of the protected classes?

If you're offended, get over it. There are lots of people who aren't. It's political humor.

As always, we recognize the tactic that claiming to be "offended" is simply an attempt to skirt the First Amendment and to shut down a point of view at odds with some minority's particular worldview. Everyone recognizes that. Nice try though.

[Daphne Kenward]

What this Magazine is saying to people of colour this magazine is not for you. And any one who was a reader needs to send them a message that to lable and criminalise people, who have never had anything to do with TERRORISM as terrorist is unacceptable. A Satire is meant to be funny I would not call labling some on a Terrorist & their wife & children as terrorist is very damaging and in America I am surprised some on has not come up with a LAW suite. If it had been me I would cirtainly be looking down that Road. Being Black does not make some one a TERRORIST & being Muslim does not make someone a TERRORIST. So the very implication is an insult to all Black Americans.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

JL Ronish,

But Bush IS a monster. You can hardly condemn accurate reportage.

There is nothing close to the bone here at all, just a reflection of America's fevered prejudices. The cartoon is a shabby effort by the magazine "to have your cake and eat it too."

It superficially is a satire on Obama's name-callers, but it really is using the opportunity for other purposes.

I suspect, but of course do not know, that the New Yorker is appealing to the prejudices of a sizeable segment of its large Jewish readership in New York.

It is a pity, but there is definitely a prejudice running through that community concerning Obama and Israel. They would rather have candidates who shout about incinerating a nation.

I do believe Hillary's near insane remark during the primaries about incinerating Iran was aimed at this community and its financial backing when her campaign was running on empty. There really is no other explanation for her bizarre outburst.

This is all dangerous and nasty stuff.

[J Crush]

Satire, sure. Bad taste, definitely. The cartoonist was totally out of his f'in mind if he thought this would go over smoothly, absolutely. I don't think he thought so. I think this is the exact "dialogue" he and The New Yorker wanted. I say two things: poor poor taste, and let's have it all out and talk about it. The left hates when the right is overly right, "why won't the just be a bit more left". And the right criticizes the left for being, well, left. This is just a bunch of rabble rabble spurned by a grossly miss-market or geniusly spot on (to the aim of the cartoonist) work. But really, forget you if you really think this picture depicts reality and was drawn with that aim. Seriously.

[J Crush]

one last comment...let's have everything in the media, in our lives censored and candy coated before it reaches our ears, eyes, and minds. Put it out there, rugged and raw and we can decide if we like it, hate it, think it's evil, etc. But I just can't stand when people say that it should be stopped in midstride. "YAY for censorship. Screw free speech." C'mon y'all what yee be thinkin'?

[glen]

who is offended by cartoons?

[Not for Obama]

We can portray all our politicians and Presidents, and especially George Bush, as a blubbering fool, but we must make Obama an untouchable.
This is America. Since when has artistic freedom become outlawed!
The cartoon is flattering and will help his cause and makes the lightening rod wife look good for a change. He should be portrayed for what he really is, a blundering flip flopping traveling preacher, who should get his facts straight before he opens his mouth. A person who even abandons old friends and his church. I wonder if he will change his mind after talking to our top advisers and military generals in Baghdad.
We made the wrong choice for a Democratic nominee.

[Katherine, London]

Sal, your comment that the majority of Americans fear the "Hussein" aspect of Obama essentially translates thus - that the majority of Americans fear the foreign aspect of him = the majority of Americans are xenophobic.

Let's hope those who share your narrow-minded views aren't as many as you think, otherwise we really are doomed.

[Katherine, London]

Scott- racism isn't just the belief that one race is superior to others, it is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities" (Merriam Webster) - ie that someone is a certain way because of their colour. Therefore the assumption of many Americans - that Obama, because he is black is unpatriotic, anti-American, possibly a terrorist and probably lying about his religion - is racist. Nobody ever even entertained such ideas about Hillary, did they?

[Ryszard Kocielski]

Good! Now people have more sympathy for Obama then ever before, and that is good…

[glen]

Katherine, You are so wrong and clearly misinformed in every aspect of your post it's pitiful. You have no idea about the United States and have been taken in by Leftwing propaganda hook, line and sinker. I know others like you, and when I point out the errors in their beliefs about the US, they sulk, it's as though their lives have been shattered, - all purpose gone, their reasons for hating America are being dismantled! Pitiful, really pitiful.
Obama is not considered unpatriotic because he is black. That is an assumption that people who are race-obsessed make. Obama is considered unpatriotic by some Americans, because he was reluctant to wear an American flag pin, because he stood with hands clasped during the playing of the National Anthem while all others had their hands on their heart. Because of his 20 year association with racist bigots and America haters, people like Wright, Phleger, Cone and his subsequent lying about it. Because his wife is a bitter, angry woman who has never been proud of her country, (until her husband became a presidential nominee), and who considers her nation to be a 'mean country'. Because of his friendship with WIlliam Ayers, a self-confessed American terrorist, whose deep seated hatred of his country led him and his wife to join the Weathermen terorrist group and bomb their nations capitol and NY Police headquarters, and who on 9/11 only wished they'd done more bombing. Ayers held a party for Obama to celebrate his election to the Senate and Obama was a willing attendee; Images of Ayers can be Googled, you see him proudly trampling on the American flag. A vile man who was prepared to murder his fellow citizens. Is this truly the sort of friendship a presidential candidate should have? These are the reasons, as well as Obama's Marxist policies and views that many Americans do not want this man to be president. But you prefer to see racism ok that's your prerogative, but you'll need to move on because in 2012 there are going to be some Conservative candidates running and they ain't white!
Hillary for all her faults, did not have the associations and glitches that Obama has; your attempt to label Americans as racists is farcical.

[Wayne Cook]

As a Conservative Republican, I DO get it! Liberals love to bash Conservatives at every level. Republicans take it all in stride, just considering the source. Dem's have a glass jaw and want to go home crying to Mommy screaming unfair!.
Grow up you whining little Libs., it was Satire! Just go back and review the past few years cover with GW on it.

[Stephen]

I think the New Yorker should apologize at the very least for depicting him that way...Help me force an apology or else: https://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/the-new-yorker-should-apologize-for-the-obama-terrorist-cover

[Scott]

Katherine, London - I know the Merriam Webster definition and that definition is inherent in the broader statement that racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. In what other possible ways could any group consider themselves superior to another except in traits and capabilities?

First, I don't see how you can presume to know the mind of "many Americans" and how or what they think with any accuracy or without engaging in gross generalizations, and second, the cover has nothing to do with Obama being black; rather it is entirely predicated on his statements, his actions, his voting record, and the unfortunate statements of his wife. They have given the New Yorker a lot with which to work.

[Rawlings]

I dont bloody care who gets America out of this mess, even if its a cat. Obama at leaast has some taste, Mccain is simply tasteless in ALL aspects. If he (Mccain) is elected American President, I will renounce my citizenship till he is out of the white house.
It will be a disgrace.

[Jarek, Zielona Gora, Poland]

No, no, no, I'm reading most of the comments, and I can't believe my eyes. C'mon guys, have you got no sense of humour?

I follow the campaign, I really support Barrack Obama, and I don't find the cartoon offensive or stupid. I immediately understood the intentions behind it. I think it's amusing.

OK, I admit it's a bit "risky" for the Obama campaign, as it might reinforce the silly myths about the Democratic candidate,
but I don't believe editors should constantly calculate which polician benefits from their published materials and which is harmed by it. They should publish what they feel is right - and they did, by mocking all the right-wing anti-Obama propaganda.

By publishing the cartoon they showed guts and belief in the intelligence of their readers and American public. Mr. Obama's campaigners overreacted, just as they did when preventing the Muslim ladies from taking part in his rally. My great hope is that the Obamas themselves can laugh at the cartoon.

Down with political correctness.
GO OBAMA!

[kp]

the problem is, the only group portraying obama this way is the left so it doesn't wash. who of any consequence on the right has protrayed obama in this fashion? no one.