Another faux controversy designed to let Obama play victim.

See also "Nutsgate."

Typical New Yorker cover. Wouldn't have thought even once about it if the whole world hadn't gotten outraged. Turns out the whole world is pretty stupid and has no sense of humor.

Obama's complaining has only made this worse for him. Now people who never would have seen the cover will see it.

1. How many people would have seen the New Yorker if there was no controversy?

Not many. Just New Yorker subscribers.

2. How many of those people (New Yorker subscribers) are Greenpeace supporting, Prius driving, arugula eating Obama voters?

95 percent.

I guess Obama lets his wife hold the AK-47 post-Heller.

If the potential POTUS cannot take aggressive criticism, go back to the Senate.

I heard that if given the opportunity, Jesse Jackson wouldn't have even cut Obama's nuts off. Pfff. Weaksauce.

Wait, the depictions on the cover aren't true?

"Lest you think we're getting into political coverage here at ATL, we'll point out that both Obamas are lawyers and HLS grads."

If that's the case, let's discuss evolution (lawyers are human beings), space exploration (GULC has a SPACE LAW moot court program), and AIDS (Philadelphia took place in a courtroom).

Most politicians are also attorneys; the Obama's JDs are a poor excuse for delving into political coverage.

ATL = scope creep

way to get the point of the cover, 9:31.

Why can't it just be funny. I liked the retort found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080715/cartoon20080715.gif

Here is a legal angle: Can a cartoon be defamatory?

Remember when Obama was speaking to the farmers in Iowa(?) about how much arugula costs at Whole Foods? Oh man, he's funny.

"So if you're a left-leaning news mag, can't you make fun of the leading liberal candidate?"

What? You quote the New Yorker editor as saying the point is "to attack lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obamas and their background and their politics."

Kash, in what way would the cover be an appropriate way to "make fun of" Obama?

9:37(2) - LOL, that retort is good (and frighteningly true).

"9:37(2) - LOL, that retort is good (and frighteningly true)."

I love it. Satire of Obama: obviously comical, borderline libelous. Satire of McCain: hilarious, and frighteningly true.

"9:37(2) - LOL, that retort is good (and frighteningly true)."

I love it. Satire of Obama: obviously comical, borderline libelous. Satire of McCain: hilarious, and frighteningly true.

Who gives a hoot whether it's fair or not? Barack says crap like this (assessing our war effort in Afghanistan):

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

which is blatantly unfair to the guys in Afghanistan (who by the way cannot really defend themselves), and we're supposed to get worked up because of a caricature of him. Yeah, right.

That picture makes me proud of my country for the first time in my adult life.

I loved the cover. seriously, what was BHO supposed to say? Talking about how funny it is could easily come off poorly in a soundbite.

"...borderline libelous"

He's a public figure - not a chance in hell of proving anything. Get Over It Dali OBama.

I don't recall an uproar near this when Colin Powell was drawn as a monkey w/ GW holding a music box.

The love it when the Left ciotinually demonstrates that free speech applies only as long as you agree with them.

I think pointing out the fact that they are HLS grads is a weak excuse to report on something that is basically a political, and not legal, issue. They may be HLS grads, but it's obvious to anyone that you reported on the issue because Obama is running for president, not because he is an HLS grad.

Broke Obama should get used to it, particularly when he returns to the Senate in mid-November all bitter and aloof like John Kerry.

liberal guys in my high school used to get worked up about obviously comical, borderline libelous cartoons and then retort with hilarious, frightingly true criticisms of old white conservatives all the time. It was no big deal.

The retort featuring a senile, war-mongerring McCain with his drug-crazed wife is funny, but it's certainly not insinuating an equally politically damaging theme.

What's worse (i.e., more politically damaging) in this country: (i) being old and taking prescription drugs to deal with life's every challenge (a description that fits a big share of the electorate), or (ii) being a black militant or Islamic terrorist?

There are actually millions of people in this country who believe that Obama is actually a member of a sleeper cell. Most, of course, are complete morons (and are the same rednecks who, against their own economic interests, voted for Bush, especially in 04'). Yet there is also an bizarre, pervasive bias against Obama lurking around in some of this country's largest cities (and in FL). Despite being (for the most part) a very liberal and highly educated segment of society, it views Obama's positions on the Mideast with great suspicion (because of Rev. Wright, Farakhan, etc.), and verges on accepting the trite insinuation that he is a Muslim. (I too would like a stronger pronouncement from Obama as to his support for Israel, but I also don't think he's going to let it fend for itself once he's elected.)

The retort featuring a senile, war-mongerring McCain with his drug-crazed wife is funny, but it's certainly not insinuating an equally politically damaging theme.

What's worse (i.e., more politically damaging) in this country: (i) being old and taking prescription drugs to deal with life's every challenge (a description that fits a big share of the electorate), or (ii) being a black militant or Islamic terrorist?

There are actually millions of people in this country who believe that Obama is actually a member of a sleeper cell. Most, of course, are complete morons (and are the same rednecks who, against their own economic interests, voted for Bush, especially in 04'). Yet there is also an bizarre, pervasive bias against Obama lurking around in some of this country's largest cities (and in FL). Despite being (for the most part) a very liberal and highly educated segment of society, it views Obama's positions on the Mideast with great suspicion (because of Rev. Wright, Farakhan, etc.), and verges on accepting the trite insinuation that he is a Muslim. (I too would like a stronger pronouncement from Obama as to his support for Israel, but I also don't think he's going to let it fend for itself once he's elected.)

BHO is no extremist. He is the same sort of silver-tongued middle-of-road whore who ends up in office 9 times out of 10.

McCain might be principled, but many of his principles suck, (which I say as a registered Republican). Obama makes me comfortable precisely because he is a sell-out - he can do some SCOTUS appointment damage - but that's about it.

Why is there a burning American flag in the fireplace? Did Obama take a position on flag-burning? Has TX v. Johnson become a campaign issue?

"...The conclusion seems to be that he's just too perfect."

They mean "...just too Black."

Obama-ites sound more and more like members of the Peoples Temple - ooh, maybe they'll all move to Guyana also

10:04, it's b/c along with beiong a secret gay muslim space alien, BHO also hates Amurrica.

i'm a BHO supporter, and I think the cover is funny. problem is, most people won't get it (including seemingly-intelligent people like Kash, apparently).

Perhaps there is so much outrage precisely because B.O. doesn't expect his good friends in the media to do anything but sing his praises. In reality, the New Yorker was trying to draw people in, it seems, in order to then debunk what it sees as misconceptions. But, B.O. will have none of it. I agree with the poster that horrible cartoons have been drawn about Bush and his appointees (Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) and they haven't expressed the same outrage, with the support of the media. This is life, he's a politician, and he wants to run the country, so he'd better grow a pair and hope Jesse doesn't cut them off.

McCain may be a lot of things, but "principled" he is not.

"The New York Times did an article on the difficulties late-night comics are having coming up with Obama jokes. The conclusion seems to be that he's just too perfect."

What a load of crap. People are terrified of lampooning him or his wife becaues they are terrified of being called racist. Rest assured that if HRC or Edwards or was the candidate, ridiculous caricatures would abound. I think there should be caricatures of candidates, but I sense that the Obama campaign will continue to be humorless and thin-skinned.

10:24: Agreed. Even Letterman had the pant suit jokes about HRC. No one wants to touch a nerve with BHO for some reason. And, I think we know what that reason is.

If they "satirized" Hillary, would everyone say "It's a joke, just get over it"? No, they would scream sexism, sexism, sexism, the media is beating up on ol' Hillary again. If we took all the sexist and false rumors about Hillary and put them on the cover of The New Yorker what would it look like?

A picture is worth a thousand words; which, sadly, is much further than the average American could get into the New Yorker.

This is simply another pathetic display of a lack of humility and a lack of any sense of humor by BHO and his entourage.

He needs to get over himself. All he's managed to do thus far is shore up black votes (shocker!) and drum up enough white guilt among white voters to raise massive amounts of money and fool people that he 1) has accomplished anything with his life, and 2) will not implement far left-wing, anti-growth economic policies.

This man is a caricature of a real politician - when will people wake up and see this? There is so much to make fun of when it comes to BHO: his self-importance, his shameless pandering, his lack of any substance, his lack of any principles, his hyperbolic and hateful wife, his condescending attitude, etc.

10:29: HRC supporters would probably get that the cover was on HER side, not her detractors' side. Those sexist and false rumors would far exceed the margins of a New Yorker cover, I might add.

And, yes, everybody would just say "It's a joke, just get over it."

10:33

Tell us how you really feel. Don't sugarcoat it, dude.

I agree.

For those of you who "observe" that BHO needs to toughen up to this sort of satire, do you really believe that Obama is deeply offended by this cover? 9:51 is dead on. Obama's campaign was making what it felt was the most appropriate response to the cover - whether it was the best response (i.e., drawing more attention to it) is another issue. My guess is that BHO can appreciate the absurdity of the image.

Political cartoons are the price you pay for politics - look at the crud that has been drawn about McCain, Bush, both Clintons, Rice.... etc. Check out Michelle Malkan - she had it right - Obama needs to grow a pair. The dude just plain whines too much - sounds like a spoiled 2 year old!

10:33, I agree. No one stood up for Hillary when she was being attacked, because it comes with the territory. Critics were (rightfully so, imo) bringing up issues of her sex, her flip-flopping, her record. And, at least to me, it helped her because many people realized that she actually has a pretty strong record of doing what BHO claims to do which is work in a bi-partisan manner to get things accomplished. She lost because white guilt is an overpowering force.

10:33

I think your analysis is quite flawed. Clinton supporters screamed sexism at every turn, especially when she was losing. By the way, it's nonsensical to claim that sexism and false rumors go far beyond the New Yorker when we are talking about the New Yorker, not what goes beyond it. And no, her supporters would scream sexism. Obviously, this can't be tested but given what occured during the primaries, it seems obvious that any opportunity to claim she is being mistreated is always taken regardless of whether such a statement is grounded in fact.

10:37: I couldn't agree more, especially with your last sentence.

I thought the media was very tough on Hillary but also couldn't deny that being treated as harshly as the established white guys is, ultimately, a sign that one's arrived in politics.

Its amazing that when faced with issue of being Muslim, Obama doesn't point out the fact that those who use it as an insult are bigots.

The mainstream news media doesn't either. Where is the discussion of how bigotry is what makes calling him a Muslim, a liability.

10:37

You are wrong. Many commentators on both CNN and MSNBC stood up for Hillary when she was being attacked. For goodness sake, it was highlighted as a central issue of the campaign on Saturday Night Live. By the way, she lost because the Amercian people chose Obama over Hillary. Perhaps whites have a lot to be guilty about. Go figure.

10:46 -- My thoughts exactly. I'm not a Muslim, but if I were, I'd be pretty peeved with that whole situation. He should acknowledge and be proud of his heritage...not pander.

Irresponsible journalism. Stereotypes are never funny.

10:46

SNL did stand up for Hillary. But they were the first to do so (and the mainstream media followed their lead for a whole two weeks), and it was mainly in response to the ludicrous and unfair debate questions and format. They didn't directly take on all the hits she was receiving in media coverage - more the fact that the debates were a disgusting display of bias and a lack of journalistic integrity.

10:48: Well, he has already written two memoirs, so I'd say he's pretty proud of his heritage.

10:46

He didn't pander. He didn't do anything. Some people are deeply ignorant, and the New Yorker staff was quite irresponsible. The people they are making fun of don't read the New Yorker. The people who understand that Obama is not a Muslim don't need to be preached to about what they already know.

10:46

Saturday night live mad fun of the fact that the left-wing media continually attacked HRC while their legs tingled evertime the MessiaBama spoke.

If we (whites) really do feel guilty about something (not sure what), you would think that we would pick someone who actually represents why we are guilty.

I for one feel no guilt because the MessiaBama attended exclusive private schools throughout his entire life.

10:46.

I'm glad you acknowledged the point. It goes to the refutation of the fallacious reasoning of an earlier post.

The New Yorker doesn't aim its journalism at the lowest common denominator - thank God.

The whole problem with thi is that it's just not very funny or intelligent. Also, I guess, if and when Obama wins the election, the New Yorker will forever have an issue cover showing the commander-in-chief burning an American flag, which is kinda not cool. But the main problem is not being funny. The punchline isn't worth the tastelessness and lack of imagination that it took to get there.

So the Obama campaign says "dude, that's not cool" not in so many words - because it has to. And the McCain campaign lazily springs to Obama's defense - because it has to. This is a non-story. Move along.

10:46

With your "maybe whites should feel guilty" comment, you expose your ignorance. People should feel guilt for their own actions, not those of their parents, their friends, their siblings, their spouses. You can admonish what someone close to you has done, but you should never feel guilty about it. We are each directly responsible for ourselves and our own actions. I have never had slaves, nor did I vote for LBJ (whose "war on poverty" had horrifying consequences for black communities), and I have always treated all races as equals. And I look forward to the day when everyone else does too.

I'll admit I didn't read his memoirs, but he could have at least acknowledged something on his 'fight the smears' website. "Pandering" was the wrong word to use.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/christian

- 10:48

"Perhaps whites have a lot to be guilty about. Go figure."

Oh, kindly go fuck yourself. This is precisely the sort of collectivist nonsense that my family came here to escape. Why in the world should Peter have to atone for the misdeeds of Paul, you f-ing schmuck?

10:58

It seems you are the one who is quite ignorant. There's a causal relationship between (a) guilt and (b) privilege. Anyone who has done a cursory reading of American history knows that whites (including white immigrants) have benefitted from slave labor. Slaves built this country. You are a beneficiary of that system. Go read a book. The guilt is a direct result of the privilege you receive as a white male or female. How much history have you read? Not much it seems.

11:05

The good gentleman resorts to profanity when he cannot competently make an argument. Checkmate.

I resort to profanity when I cannot straighten out my slice.

11:05, Thank you kindly for using (a) and (b) to help me understand that guilt and privilege were two items in a list. It assisted me in understanding the point of your comment, i.e. to announce that you are stuck in 1964.

Douchetard.

How sad.

Broke Obama, MessiaObama, Dali OBama,

"...Obama needs to grow a pair."

"Obama-ites sound more and more like members of the Peoples Temple..."

"This man is a caricature of a real politician..."
---------------------------------------

Dear Lord, Sean Hannity, stop posting already. Don't you have a show to tape?

When you have to resort to ad hominem, it means you have lost the battle and the war. Checkmate.

This New Yorker cover art, and this comment string, are proof that white people still aren't ready to own up to how good and easy they have it in this world...

Either that or they fully well know it, and are just being bastards about it.

"The good gentleman resorts to profanity when he cannot competently make an argument. Checkmate."

The good gentleman resorts to profanity when the contempt he feels toward his adversary is coupled with the understanding that such adversary is profoundly and irreparably ignorant, capable of no more than spouting Marxist bullshit, haphazardly adapted to current political issues. The good gentleman recognizes that any attempt at discourse with such an adversary will lead only to frustration.

Therefore, kindly go fuck yourself.

Cheers,
11:05

11:12

Does it frighten you when you are no longer surrounded by your ultra-PC far left friends?

"Stereotypes are never funny. "

Clearly you haven't heard the right stereotypes.

The anti-Muslim bigotry is open and notorious. Nobody cares. No politician and no news source would discuss another major religion in such a defensive context. Why can't they say "The whole discussion of Obama being a Muslim is pure bigotry and in a free society his religion shouldn't matter."

10:01-

"There are actually millions of people in this country who believe that Obama is actually a member of a sleeper cell. "

Citation? Or just speculation based on the obvious inferior intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you.

"Most, of course, are complete morons (and are the same rednecks who, against their own economic interests, voted for Bush, especially in 04'). "

It's the latter. Never mind.

11:15-
Maybe because Muslims have a reason to be criticized.

11:14

You signed "Cheers". I hope you aren't English, because Bertrand Russell would be ashamed of your reasoning skills.

So not only do you resort to profanity but also the ad hominem attack. Checkmate. You really can't make an argument to save your life. I'm the blood that pumps through your ventricles.

"Slaves built this country. You are a beneficiary of that system."

umm, did not the Dali OBama also benefit from that system then?

My ancestors from Ireland didn't see many benefits of that system unless you count being allowed in this country provided you joined the union army. And oh yeah, my ancestors that came later couldn't get jobs because of their religion.

Apparently you selectively read, if at all.

11:12 --

Oops, you're right! Must be off now. Sorry to clog up the board.

- Sean

P.S. - I'm gay.

11:05, since I'm living out here in Oregon, how exactly have I (white person) benefited more than equivalent black Oregonians from "slave labor"?

"I'm the blood that pumps through your ventricles."

Who even says garbage like this? How pretentious...

- No dog in this fight

Does spell check turn Obama into Osama for anyone else in Outlook?

Whoa conspiracy!

11:21-

Why the hell was "I'm gay" thrown in there? Are you making fun of Sean Hannity. If so, he's not gay, and why is using the word gay OK as an insult but ridiculing Obama's idiotic speeches is off limits?

11:18

Obama was not a painter named Salvador (wink, wink).

Yes, we can see how he benefitted. The front cover of the New Yorker is a prime example. Did you really need a lesson on the racism during the primaries? Hopefully, you've been paying attention to the candidates, their underlings, and the media.

You are right, they were religiously persecuted. True. However, did they have to contend with the Black Codes, Jim and Jane Crow, and the psychological, financial, and moral destruction of their humanity? If so, name the laws to which you refer and the 400 year institution that prevented them from achieving their goals.

Bah.

The whole point of political satire and many other rhetorical tools is that anything taken to the extreme becomes ridiculous. This was ostenisbly the New Yorker's point. The problem is their cartoonist failed - the cover came off looking more like a racial insult (although the couple giving each other a "pound" is quite funny) than a jibe at the extreme right.

11:29, I just wanted to reiterate my previous plea that you go and fuck yourself. ktks bye.

If some people spread rumors that Abraham Lincoln was Jewish (because of his first name), and liberals countered that it was a nasty smear against Lincoln, people would rightly agree that the liberals are anti-Semites. For most open-minded people, there is nothing actually harmful about being inaccurately perceived as Jewish.

Yet there is something wrong with being inaccurately perceived as Muslim. Why are liberals such anti-Muslim bigots?

11:29

I strongly and politely suggest Copi's "Introduction to Logic" and Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning". They are a lot better than profanity and ad hominem attacks. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not a lawyer with such argumentative skills.

11:31,

Exactley. Being Anti-Muslim is OK.

11:29, so only one racial group, the one that was persecuted the most, gets special treatment and immunity from criticism? If the Irish were persecuted and the blacks were more persecuted, the Irish deserve zero special treatment?

Okay then. The Native Americans were way more persecuted than blacks. Therefore, by your logic that only one racial group gets special consideration for past injustices, blacks deserve zero special treatment. QED.

Scope creep, indeed. ATL's silly attempt at Monday morning quarterbacking. Now posts that don't concern the law. Had the column been an article on whether or not the New Yorker cover was legally actionable as defamatory--- sure, that would have fit. But the poster who said scope creep is absolutely on point. Clearly, the heyday of ATL has passed.

11:31,

Exactley. Being Anti-Muslim is OK.

11:35,

Your magnanimity is appreciated, but I'm actually a V10 associate. As I mentioned earlier, I just don't care to actually "argue" with you. Can't argue with communists, that much I know.

I think that Hillary had more balls under that pantsuit than Obama!

The cover of the New Yorker is actually Anti-Muslim. The irony of their own bigotry is lost on them.

Posted by guest | 10:54 AM

I for one feel no guilt because the MessiaBama attended exclusive private schools throughout his entire life.

****
yeah, he had it pretty easy. it's not as if he attended those schools on scholarships or anything. just another country-club kid.

NY Times - conclusion seems to be that he's just too perfect.

uh as has been mentioned many times in this post, i think we all know the reason for the difficulties late-night comics are having.

just another time where the "All The News That's Fit To Print," paper of record has distorted information to fit its own agenda. people you need to read the journal!!

That was not my reasoning sir/ma'am.

Actually, Native Americans and African Americans both suffered at the hands of whites. Your comparison of the persecution of all three groups is disanalogous. The degree of suffering of a people certainly does matter. This is why it's taboo to say anything negative about Jews lest you be accused of being an anti-Semite (see Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby). This is due to the degree and magnitude of what Hitler did to the Jews.

Secondly, the original point is that whites are the beneficiaries of racism toward African Americans in particular in virtue of simply being white. That is, immigrants receive the privileges of whiteness when they arrived on the shores of the Newfoundland. These privileges before they arrived and they certainly took advantage of them as anyone would. Thus, as a direct descendant, you are beneficiary of such privilege.

I understand your resistance to this argument. I just want us to have a healthy dialogue.

Dow under 11,000. Thanks, Bush!!

correction

"That is, immigrants received the privileges of being white, which were already in place, when they arrived on the shore of the Newfoundland. As such, they took advantage of them as anyone would."

11:47, and both blacks and whites are beneficiaries of racism toward Native Americans in particular in virtue of simply not being a Native American. Thus, as a direct descendant, you are a beneficiary of such privilege, such as the ability to own land long-ago forcibly taken from Indians.

Therefore, just like you argue that the Irish cannot complain about past injustices because they benefited from the blacks having had it worse, blacks cannot complain about past injustices because they benefited from Native Americans having had it worse. QED.

You know what would bring the Dow up? More corporate taxation. Hooooah

11:46, the race issue was discussed pretty heavily in the NYT article. maybe you should read the article before accepting someone else's tongue-in-cheek characterization of it.

my favorite quote, by Bill Maher:
"'There’s been this question about whether he’s black enough,' Mr. Maher said. 'I have this joke: What does he have to do? Dunk? He bowled a 37 — to me, that’s black enough.'"

my own correction:
blacks received the privileges of being not a Native American, privileges which were already in place, when they arrived in America.

Republicans former joke candidate is now their last hope. Thanks, Bush!

11:54 thats the point. they discussed and dismissed like in no way is that possibly the reason. and dont say that the comics themselves said that because the timea did not quote anyone on that.

though i will vote for mccain because of defense reasons for which you can call me crazy etc. i like obama and i just think that the times is just doing what they always do

You need to reread the first paragraph of my statement.

(1) You haven't addressed or disproven the disanalogy hypothesis. That is, the claim that whites far and above any other group are the beneficiaries of their own actions against such groups. If you truly disagree with this, you need substantive argument to back it up.

(2) You never responded to my question:name the laws to which you refer and the 400 year institution that prevented them from achieving their goals.

(3) How exactly were blacks the beneficiaries of the systematic destruction of the Native American population? Please refer specifically to the way in which blacks were the beneficiaries when they were enslaved for 400 years, no 40 acres-no mule (i.e., no reconstruction), the Black Codes, Lynch Law, Jim crow law, et cetera.

(4) Also, is it not the case that those who murdered and enslaved were the beneficiaries of murdering and enslaving? Please explain why this is not the case.

You need to reread the first paragraph of my statement.

(1) You haven't addressed or disproven the disanalogy hypothesis. That is, the claim that whites far and above any other group are the beneficiaries of their own actions against such groups. If you truly disagree with this, you need substantive argument to back it up.

(2) You never responded to my question:name the laws to which you refer and the 400 year institution that prevented them from achieving their goals.

(3) How exactly were blacks the beneficiaries of the systematic destruction of the Native American population? Please refer specifically to the way in which blacks were the beneficiaries when they were enslaved for 400 years, no 40 acres-no mule (i.e., no reconstruction), the Black Codes, Lynch Law, Jim crow law, et cetera.

(4) Also, is it not the case that those who murdered and enslaved were the beneficiaries of murdering and enslaving? Please explain why this is not the case.

Can the Irish guy please stop comparing the persecution that the Irish faced in this country with the persecution that blacks have faced (and continue to face). Any group other than white protestant males have been persecuted at some point in American history, some much worse than others. But unless you are descended of a Native American, your ancestors' persecution can't hold a candle to what blacks dealt with.

Some have to be led to the precipice of their own fallacious reasoning and then pushed off, while others willingly commit intellectual suicide. So let him bring his Thrasymachus-like powers of persuasion, because I like to watch them jump.

Obama is perfect...perfectly delusional. He'll solve eveyone's problems and give a pony and free ice cream to every American child (and every illegal as well).

The New Yorker cover isn't funny for the following reason:

Political cartoons (and all charactures for that matter) are funny because they are exaggerations of the truth. Take the McCain cover: old drooling McCain, in his wheelchair, singing "bomb Iran." That is an exaggeration of 1) McCain's age, and 2) his hawkish position (at least compared to Obama's) toward Iran. The problem with the New Yorker cover is that it suggests that there is at least a modicum of truth to the things that it depicts. Of course, there is no truth, and thus, the New Yorker cover winds up being offensive, rather than witty. We all know what the New Yorker was trying to do, they just didn't do it.

Then again, the New Yorker's cartoons always suck and make no sense, so is anyone really surprised about this?

12:04, look it's very simple. You're arguing that even though the post-1865 Irish were not slaveowners, they benefited from the privileges created by previous (non-Irish) slaveowners. You lump the Irish with earlier whites in a larger category of "whites" who benefited from the privilege of slavery. The fact that the Irish also suffered greatly is irrelevant to the fact that they benefited from blacks.

By your reasoning, even though the blacks were not Indian-killers, they benefited from the privileges created by previous (black and white) Indian-killers. One example is the ability to own land formerly held by Indians, but taken away from them without compensation. The fact that blacks also suffered is irrelevant to the fact that blacks benefited from Indians. I lump blacks and whites in a larger category of "non-Indians" who benefited from Indian eviction and massacres. Or are you saying that no blacks today own land forcibly taken from Indians without compensation?

12:04, you are my hero.

10:37 I really don't see how Hilary's sex was a legitimate issue. As even young Obama supporters noticed, she was treated more harshly than McCain or Obama.

Anyone who thinks Obama is getting a free pass has their head in the sand. Everyone keeps talking about whether he is: 1) black enough; 2) too black; 3) fatherless (this was early on in the campaign); 4) 'playing the race card'; 5) winning based on 'white guilt'; 6) "elitist"; 7) a pansy; 8) dumb (the 110 IQ 2.1 UG rumors); 9) un-american; 10) a "crypto-muslim"; 11) a member of an extremist Christian Church.

McCain has gotten no similar scrutiny despite: 1) leaving his first wife after she was disfigured in a car crash to marry an heiress who he was dating while they were still married (adultery in the party of morals, how shocking); 2) the "bomb Iran" gaffe which got polite chuckles; 3) publicly calling his wife the c-word (although, granted, that was a long time ago); 4) opposing the new GI bill and then not voting on it; 5) no scrutiny whatsoever of the ministers who he accepted as "spiritual advisors" (google Rob Parsley or John Hagee or just read this link http://www.236.com/blog/w/katie_halper/top_10_outrageous_quotes_from_6125.php).

And most importantly, if Obama's blackness is important, why isn't McCain's whiteness and insularity? If we want to talk about elitists, who do you think has more money? Any guesses?

truth is that the new yorker had an excellent marketing idea which has obviously worked maybe even beyond their dreams

It seems you asked me a question, which is fair, but you failed to answer the ones I asked you above. I think it only fair that you respond directly and substantively to my queries and then I will do the same to yours. Now if this discussion ends here because you refuse to respond, I can only assume that you were unable to. Be that as it may, I doubt you will respond in manner suggested. That's fine, I've enjoyed this back and forth. It would have been much more interesting to break bread over this topic, but i guess this will have to do. I will suggest reading Franklin's From Slavery to Freedom, Mills's The Racial Contract, and, more recently, Rediker's The Slave Ship. If you have reading suggestions for me, please pass them along. Thanks.

6) Reversing course on torture. Which I cannot forgive him for.

11:50 if you are an attorney, i hope you dont practice corporate because you obviously have no idea about business etc!!

The New Yorker crucified the Easter Bunny on a cover a few years back -- and the crowd that's now howling was applauding. What goes around, comes around.

OK, someone please settle this for me once and for all. Is he or is he not in fact a Muslim?

My favorite quote by McCain's former spiritual advisor, John Hagee:

Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with "fierce features." He will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual," the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, "There's a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/325628

This didn't get into any MSM, unlike Jeremiah Wright. Interesting.

Famous funny (but tasteless) magazine political satire:

Hustler/Falwell:

http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:70688

Ted Kennedy/National Lampoon

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/Media/Images/tedvwsmall.jpg

Hillary Clinton/Spy

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hillary20clinton20su20spy.jpg