OK, I'm holding my breath ... (probably a bad idea).

Destor is completely wrong, that the masses will see this as 'satire'. If that were so the Southern strategy would not have been so effective since 1964 that no major Democratic Presidential candidate has carried the majority of white votes since.

What a crock.

The Southern strategy of racial polarization has kept white majorities voting against their own economic interests on the basis of racial solidarity for over FOURTY years. So for anyone to imply, infer or suggest that the white masses will see this as a caricature of misperceptions vs an affirmation of their own fears they must have ignored current American political history for decades.

Geez.

the actual "what" of what's wrong here. Here's my list:

1. Set in an Oval Office the revolutionaries have cleared of the desk (because revolutionaries don't do desks, so much as lairs), the self congratulations -- especially at this early, pre-convention stage of the campaign -- ascribes a massive sense of entitlement to the Obamas.

2. Minus the eye contact of the actual fist bump in St. Paul (and adding the arched eyebrows), Angela Davis Obama's expression is transformed from "I love you" to "You're SUCH an evil genius, baby ... and no one ever caught on!"

3. Besides Barack's pursed lips -- which have turned into code in the MSM for this arrogant (read: "uppity") black man -- the most damning element in this illustration, by far, is Obama's eye. The furtiveness lends the perfect Machiavellian effect, and the fact it's directed our way suggests we should really know better what this guy is up to.

4. Of course, the gun, the ammo clip, the cammo pants and the crossed legs (like crossed fingers) suggest what an angry, war-like creature Michelle is.

5. It's not just that Old Glory is on fire ("thank Allah I can finally toss that damn pin!"), the crumpled flag at floor level is reminiscent of the flag good old Bill Ayers was stepping on.

Various campaign images in the traditional media echo more extreme right-wing hate imagery -- conveying Obama as a man with a covert, anti-American agenda, or a deliberate and calculated mastermind, or a closet Muslim and Islamic Manchurian candidate. In hitting the trifecta here, many will argue this illustration is simply a satiric representation of the sophomoric attacks being tossed at Obama from far right field.

If that's all there was to it, though, than why do I sense Rove is chortling tonight?

The reason -- besides the fact that the New Yorker demographic is a pretty narrow one -- is that visually-based racial, religious and character-based framing does carry cognitive weight across a spectrum of higher- and lower-level reasoning, and, more than anything, it gains strength and veracity through repetition.

So, forget about "don't think of an elephant." Try not thinking about the guy's name in the turban-thing without not thinking about his brother's name in the portrait behind him.

Do the masses read the New Yorker? My wife subscribes to it, and we keep it next to my copy of the latest Mad magaziine.

Thanks for info, but I believe McCain, himself should step up. Unrealistic? Perhaps. But, it's still the right thing to do (no pun intended).

'My' culture or 'Your' culture is not the same for everyone across our country. I moved from big city to rural and can positively assert that there is a huge difference in 'political awareness' as well as many other categories.

We all tend to become enmeshed in the culture of our environments - seldom taking into account that the Midwest 'culture' is not the same as Northwest, et al. Where we live, for most, becomes the boundaries of our experiences.

North, South, East and West along with the rural/suburbia/city lifestyles and again, our cultures are as vast and different as our tastes in food and music. Even our speech isn't uniform.

Thus, our 'political and social' views are neither practiced nor understood in the same manner.

The late night shows are not given the same weight, value or comprehension as a magazine cover.

Knowledge and understanding of other 'cultures' humor and satire is not widely held.

And strange as it may seem, many Americans who do not come from New York, do experience some of the same culture shock as 'foriegners' when visiting the 'Big Apple'.

As all things - art and satire are subjective to the vision and comprehension of the audience.

Americans overall are very cynically sophisticated about the selling of politicians, just as they are cyncially sophisticated about advertising of products

Lots of projection going on here.

If Americans are so sophisticated, then why do tactics such as Swiftboating work so well?

Those were the days.

I also remember reading that Obama burned an American flag in his Indonesian madrassa as part of his Islamic "studies." So that part is real too.

I agree with destor 100% that the American public will get the cover as it was meant. Like me, they'll have a good chuckle over it.

I come from Ohio: I am the American public.

Since when have I ever agreed with you, Aunt Sam? I'd rather kill myself. (HYPERBOLE ALERT!)

do you all often speak for all of us?

I doubt it; even when you try ...

how about humor in the face of hate? or at the face of hate?

humor instead of hate?

Mark Twain thought humor was humanity's main weapon ...
you know, for all our ongoing human struggles etc ...

as I usually do: considering the source, dominating influences, motivations, etc ... also remembering that there are lots of wackos in every religion as far as I've gathered up to this point ...

It should make those who might be seduced by the common view think twice.

thinking tickles my brain and feels real funny ...

You're point is a good one, but by now you've probably remember just how much you did roll on the floor laughing with Heller.