Here is the thing missed by most analysts while discussing the now infamous cover: Unfortunately, there are people who, after only looking at the cartoon, that are not going to get the joke. Fortunately however, in the days following this issue's release, every pundit in every news media, those on the left, right, and impartial, have been talking about it, and in their discussions, the same point is brought up over and over again: "The cover mocks the myths surrounding Barack Obama and his wife". This is

For many who actually believed the myths, this week was the first time they heard that some of what they believed was untrue.

After all is said and done, fewer people will believe the trash that has been forwarded to them in their e-mail boxes making unsubstantiated claims about Sen. Obama's faith, or his history.

Nice try, Ms. Gladstone, to minimize the impact of this cover by declaring 'its' over.' The real target of this cover is not Mr. Obama but Mr. McCain. The subtle suggestion of both the article and cartoon is that anyone who challenges Obama's views is the kind of racist loon who views him through the lens of vile prejudice. Neither Mr. McCain nor most others who have legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's past votes, present statements or future potential policies have suggested them to be anything close to the cartoon's image. But the cartoon now gives Obama's allies an easy way to dismiss criticism of their candidate without having to account for the actual content of his rhetoric.

past tense missing. The main difference between this satire and most other recent satirical cartoons is that it is not based on actions or words of Senator Obama and his wife, but on the spin of his opponent. Most of the other successful cartoons have been based on actual words and actions of the person satirized. Perhaps if it satirized a crazed McCain or the person whose thoughts that these were believed to be, it might have worked as front page humor. Who is being satirized here?

Many of our politicians give us plenty to satirize without using their opponents spin.

Minor edits were necessary.
The main difference between this satire and most other recent satirical cartoons is that it is not based on actions or words of Senator Obama and his wife, but on the spin of his opponent. Most of the other successful cartoons have been base on actual words and actions of the person satirized. If in fact, perhaps you had satirize a crazed McCain or the person whose thoughts you believed these to be, it might have worked as humor. Who is being satirized here?

The main difference between this satire and most other recent satirical cartoons is that it is not based on actions or words of Senator Obama and his wife, but on the spin of his opponent. Most of the other successful cartoons have been base on actual words and actions of the person satirized. If in fact, perhaps you had satirize a crazed McCain or the person whose thoughts you believed these to be thinking this it might have worked better as humor. Who is being satirized here?

Thank you.
Joanna Cullen
206-329-8514

So, Lamour and Oliver, do you really think, that the 12% or so voters, believing that Obama is a Muslim, should be the ones the New Yorker has to consider, when printing a cartoon? Is it now a magazines responsibility to protect political candidates from stupid people? Are they the ones serving as the standard on what can be published and what not?

I really don't think so, and after the "liberal" part of the blogosphere was such a huge disappointment on this topic, it was really nice to see two of the media commentaries I actually care about (The Daily Show and OTM) be a voice of reason on this. So, thanks Brooke...

" ... why so many supposedly smart people assume the rest of us are so dumb"

Your naivete is almost touching, really. You seem to think that you live in the United States, and the United States is like you. Well, you don't and it's not. How do you manage to report "58% of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11", "18% of Americans can find England on a map", and "less than 50% of American believe in evolution".... and conclude that most American will recognize the New Yorker cover as satire?

It simply doesn't compute - you have completely disconnected your empirical knowledge regarding the ignorance of the American public from your wish to believe that Americans are well-informed bright people. Well, no one is paying you to "believe" or "hope" that things are as you wish. American know virtually nothing about their political system, the majority do not vote, they cannot even name their own congresspeople... and you're shopping "satire" which posits a presidential candidate as a murderer? Hello?!

As the euphonious Dan Rather might say, "fake but accurate".

Seriously, Stewart pegged it. Always with a touch of humor.

" ... why so many supposedly smart people assume the rest of us are so dumb"

And what the percent of Americans who believe Barack Obama is Muslim? That's not an assumption; it is a fact.

And that's why this cartoon is tasteless.