New Yorker Editor David Remnick Talks to ABC News About Cover Controversy

Posted by: Doyle | Jul 15, 2008 3:27:01 AM :I am not, nor will I ever be, ashamed of the truth. It is the job of the press to reveal the truth, it's about time somebody had the guts to be honest! Anyone who is against honesty is against freedom and life.

And it is because a great number of the American population are this ignorant that our country has turned to sh*t in every possible aspect... And that intelligent people should know better than to print something and think that these people will understand it.

Sorry, Mr. Tapper. I'm no right-wing conservative. I'm an Independent, who as a matter of fact, donated generously last year to the Obama campaign.

I've turned 180 degrees. With Senator Obama's CHOICE of a 20-year membership to a church with a bigoted minister, and comments by his wife about not being proud of one's country (which is really distasteful given her years of privilege in the form of Ivy League scholarships and a salary that jumped from $121,000 to $316,000 in ONE YEAR - at the same time that Obama secured a contribution to the hosp. where she works), no one had to create any vicious or racist material. The Obamas cooked up and served their satirical material on a silver platter all on their own.

It's all over but the shouting, as far as this cover is concerned, so there's not much point in giving it yet another news cycle. But honestly, New Yorker, if you think that cover will help dispel the "America hating muslim terrorist" rumor nonsense, then you are truly among the dumbest smart people in existence.

They deserve some major league wedgies.

Just wait until he is elected. The political satirists will be out of a job. No spoofing the Great Obama. And blaming the Clintons for it? What's that about. There isn't have anyone else to take the fall, so you go back to that old tune.
I've seen Bush portrayed in much worse ways and no one seems to care about that. They even had Hillary nut crackers. No complaints about that being tasteless.

jeff,
As to making fun of the over-reaction ... I'm seeing a cartoon (not at NYorker itself) with their dandy in a top hat and monocle with a big quill pen sitting at a desk drawing this cover and past satirical NY covers -- with a modern mob outside waving ipods and what else in protest.

It would have been a funny cover if is showed McCain painted that painting.

I am NO fan of the Obamas and have no wish for B.O. to win the presidency, but I believe The New Yorker went completely over the line with that cover. It is in very poor taste.

I LOVE THAT COVER!!!!!!
hope it comes out in a t-shirt!

JUST SAY NO DEAL...P.U.M.A.

AND52: The mag is a liberal rag. They are punishing him for his turn to the right.

Flimflam...flip-flopper...fake...faux...fraud...fibber......Why did the DNC choose this guy? …When we are done with Obama...we will shake the DNC up!

Obama to me,seems to be taking this well. What I wonder about is that cartoonist a republican or does he just not like the Obama's I used to enjoy the New Yorker, but now I think it's snobby. The editor really goofed on that cover selection. Perhaps the cartoonists should have done one on a blind president trying to find the truth(of the economy).Put a sectatary of war that speaks no evil and some other cabinet member as hear no evil. People might relate to that.

Obama is losing some of his base because of the contant flimflam flip flopping..

a thin-skinned candidate and his surrogates who can't recognize satire for what it is cannot possibly survive the negative onslaught they will inevitably face when the general election gets into full gear

Does Obama and his wife really hate America???

As a highly educated professor of law, I bet Senator Obama thinks the New Yorker cover is riotously funny (I believe the candidate himself has been silent on the issue). His handlers on the other hand, think they are protecting him by criticizing a political cartoon as tasteless and offensive. I think their gross overreaction is offensive and causes me great concern for how they will handle any criticism of Obama if he were to become president. The more appropriate response from the Obama camp would be to commend the New Yorker for pointing out all of the ridiculous, over-the-top falsehoods/rumors circulating about their candidate. Apparently, the ability for those who support Senator Obama for president to discern irony in this political cartoon is sorely missing. I bet (and hope) there will be a flurry of political cartoons making fun of the knee-jerk reactions to the New Yorker cartoon.

dl said: "..almost every pol in the Chicago area is associated with Ayers ... including many repubs...duh."

That's the problem. Obama, raised in a gentle private school in aloha Hawaii, Ivy League grad, with the world open to him ... chose Chicago BECAUSE OF its 'Black culture' and 'Black experience', in which Ayers was admired and powerful. Obama chose to join that cultural package, which also included Wright's church, 'Black Nationalism', etc.

Sure it's mostly mellowed to softly faded radical chic by now, even in Chicago. But that's the culture and image that Obama chose to wear, so it's fair game for satire.

Love the cover. Its about time the media starts portraying Bam Bam as most of us see him. He is a fake, a phone yand he is not to be trusted. good Job New Yorker !!! Let him now feel what Hillary had to endure with the constant media bashing of her during the primaries. NO-BAMA 2008 !!!

The "official" Obama people should learn to loosen up a bit but not only that, they should see and think about the cover and give thanks to the fact that it's a perfect antidote to all of the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim email that the dirty tricks people are promulgating.
Actually, lack of sense of humor notwithstanding, the cover and it's aftermath will be doing the Obama campaign a huge favor by bringing this poisonous slander campaign out on to the national level by making fun of the idea that Obama's presidency will bring a radical closet Muslim to the Oval Office . Kudo's to the N.Y. for their daringness!

During the primaries, the lack of satire poking Obama, or the outright swooning and sympathy for him (always the innocent victim of the nasty Hillary), was amazing. Now it's Obama's turn to be in the headlights, and he is crying fowl. It's natural for Americans to be squeamish about someone as privileged as Michelle stating that after almost forty years in the U.S., she was finally "proud to be an American." Or Obama's membership in a race-baiting church. Or his disdain for those whose "cling to guns" etc. What I find even more interesting in that Obama and his supporters are so outraged. They didn't have much sympathy for Clinton when the media picked her apart for much less volatile characteristics (cackles anyone?).

I will vote for McCain even if he has to be carried into the oval office with O2 cart, paramedics and alzheimer's specialists in tow. The alternative is unthinkable. Unfortunately, as bad as some say the USA has it (which I don't really buy) the world situation is first and foremost. Other issues important, but don't mean a damn thing if we can not, nor will not, protect ourselves. Obama just does not have the experience nor ability, to do that -his changing course on Iraq does show his ignorance in foreign policy matters.