I'm really hoping the new Yorker will next lampoon Muhammad on their cover. Then we could all sit back and enjoy these idiots go at it for the championship. As was stated above, the new Yorker is simply unreadable.

yup. that drawing's as dumb as it looks.

The real cartoon is to depict Barack as an anti-war candidate. Something all of us idealists are going to have to swallow REEAAAL soon. 1. He can't get us out of Iraq and 2. Doesn't WANT to get us out of Afghanistan...dark days ahead.

"Three degrees, including a doctorate, from top schools. Nah, not stupid at all."

i'm sure you also have a black belt in kung fu.

we are going to win and be the next president.

awesome, bingo's back & now he thinks he's obama.

lolz!

Here's a good take on it from someone at Salon:

Vast swaths of the left have apparently been so traumatized by the Big Lie techniques employed by the Bush administration, its media lickspittles like Fox News, and the right-wing attack machine that they have come to regard all images or texts that contain negative stereotypes as too politically dangerous to run. If you satirically depict Obama as an Islamist terrorist, in this view, you are only reinforcing and giving broader currency to right-wing smears.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/07/15/new_yorker_cartoon/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/kamiya

east village idiot, you're going to be waiting for a while.

I offer all a chance to see what Remnick's intent was, and a chance to read something that is well thought and well written. It's not that hard to understand, assuming you're not illiterate.

About this week’s issue: Our cover, “The Politics of Fear,” combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. 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 prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover. In this same issue you will also see that there are two very serious articles on Barack Obama inside — Hendrik Hertzberg's Comment (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/..., and Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago (http://www.newyorker.com/repor....

On a note far more related to this article... why did the Obama campaign even bring this up? If the campaign and the media didn't blow this all out of proportion, nobody would've noticed.

Find me one person who believes Obama is a Muslim who also reads The New Yorker.

holyfrijole: And that's better than having McCain as president for the next four years? Seriously, are you willing to send this country deeper down the hole it's already in just because you're a sore sport?

Have you even bothered to read Obama's policy papers? If you stopped pleading blind ignorance, you just might learn that his platform is not "pitifully thin," but clearly laid out.

In fact, the media spawned the "Obama-stands-for-nothing" myth. You're just gullible enough to believe it. You can have several college degrees and still be stupid and gullible. And you can tack on the word "elitist" for your holier-than-thou attitude towards us. We aren't lemmings - we know that we need to win in November, and Hillary couldn't do that with a 49% national disapproval rating.

Hardly stupid. Three degrees, including a doctorate, from top schools. Nah, not stupid at all. Smarter than you, in fact, since, unlike you, I refuse to vote like a lemming along party lines.

And frankly, Obama's policies ARE different from Clinton's -- unlike Obama, she didn't vote for FISA. Clinton already had her foot firmly planted between the left and right -- a centrist, if you will. Obama, however, is proving to be quite the disappointment for liberals as he gleefully dances his way to the middle, flip flopping along the way. Gun control, death penalty, FISA, Iraq -- flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, flip flop.

Anyone who doesn't recognize the only change Obama is capable of enacting is within his own pitifully thin platform is the "stupid" one, though I would be loathed to use a word as sophomoric as "stupid" -- it sounds so 2nd grade. Then again, most Obama supporters are barely out of high school, so what more could I possibly expect?

"Ah, Zodak, I was wondering when the "you're a racist" bullshit would come out."

actually my default belief was that you were stupid (i listed it 1st), but i thought i'd give you the benefit of the doubt that you might just be racist. but you are, in fact, stupid.

"Obama could be as lily white as a fresh snowfall and I still wouldn't pull the lever next to his name."

because his policies are just soooooooooo different from hillary's. go ahead, vote for McSame. prove how stupid you are.

Hayseeds in the midwest don't read the New Yorker any more than thuglife in Flatbush or Parkchester.

Colbert is funny. This cover is not funny. Just what stupid conservative people need to see to jump to a conclusion. Way to go, David Remnick.

How exactly do you get from "thousands of members" to "millions of disgusted Democrats"? I've noticed you haven't answered my previous questions, so I'm not holding out for an answer on this one..

Ah, Zodak, I was wondering when the "you're a racist" bullshit would come out. See, when that's your default response to whenever someone disagrees with you, you lose a great deal of credibility. Obama could be as lily white as a fresh snowfall and I still wouldn't pull the lever next to his name.

Thanks Zodiac.. I was wondering what that meant and was unable to find anything that seemed to match holyfrijoles' attitude of disconnection from reality. I guess these people are the new Nader-ites..

there are also hundreds of Care Bear websites with thousands of members. but i guess you are either too stupid or too racist to listen to your own candidate.

from wiki:

Clinton herself has been quoted as saying, "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

PUMAs are an irrelevant fringe group of rumormongers? Hardly. There are now hundreds of PUMA website set up with thousands of members. That's in addition to the millions of disgusted Democrats who refuse to vote for Obama and will hold their nose and vote for McCain.

So go ahead, do whatever else you'd like to do to destroy the party unity that your candidate is so desperately trying to build... because asswipes such as yourselves have done more to ruin your candidate's chances than he has himself.

My single vote may not count for much, but there are millions of others like me out there. And my money (and the money of PUMAs everywhere) is going to McCain and not the cash-strapped DNC. So I guess we'll see come November just how "fringe" we are.

When was the last time the New Yorker even had a funny cartoon? I wouldn't read it if you gave me a free lifetime subscription. This is the same unoriginal rag that ripped off Jack Kirby. Pretty sad when you have to rip off a comic book.

"I'm more angered by the smug East Coast superiority which assumes anyone not from New England is too dumb to get a joke."

New England? Way too broad. I'd say downstaters usually consider anything north of Westchester as'flyover', as Bostonians consider western Mass. or DCer's anything outside the Beltway.

Thanks for the link, Zodak - I was wondering what a PUMA was. And, well, that sounds like a depressing thing to be. Maybe this irrelevant fringe group of rumormongers will get its own lame New Yorker cover someday, too.