No those images of McCain are not satire, they are true. But the images of the Obamas are so far from reality they remain satire.

Repeat they are far from reality, in fact the opposite is true, so what are you so worried about. The cover mocks the Republican smear of the couple.

And you can't see that?

the actual "what" of what's wrong here:

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

Excellent points, I totally agree. The actual subject of the satire, those who are perpetuating or believing the stereotypes, aren't present. What is present is the Obamas embodying the stereotypes so it looks like they are making fun of the Obamas themselves instead of those who are stereotyping them or spreading false rumors.

This is the email I sent to the New Yorker and to Barry Blitt. (Who actually responded to my email. Kundos to him for being a decent guy. I actually kinda feel bad for him. Kinda.

"You know I understand that this may have been an attempt at satire but I defy you to point out any other New Yorker cover that portrayed a presidential candidate and his wife, as anti-American terrorists. I find this offensive on so many levels its actually given me a headache. First as an American, the level of disrespect in that image in stunning. An American Flag burning in the fireplace. Never mind that we have troops in harms way that are literally dying for what that flag represents, just the idea that the editors would find that acceptable is appalling. Then you have Sen. Obama dressed in the tribal garb from the photo that was used to perpetuate the lie that he is a Muslim. And what did Michelle Obama do to offend your magazine so much that you would show her with an assault rifle slug across her back? Then there are those things that offend me deeply as an African-American. I thought the days of print media portray ling blacks with exaggerated lips and noses were over. It seems I was wrong. Here we are in the latter half of the first decade of the 21st century and the bigoted imagery of the 19th century is still considered, by some at your magazine, an appropriate way to portray minorities. My god you even have Mrs. Obama's hair in an Afro. Why not go whole hog and stick a Black Power Fist shaped, afro pick in it while you are at it. I take you also mean for the fist bump he did with his wife to represent a 'terrorist fist jab'. I'm 41 yrs old and for the most part had been fortunate to see imagery of this kind in history books or as a part of a museum display on prejudice. Now I get to see it every time I walk past a newsstand or in a bookstore. And of course the far right will have this on every hate filled website and viral video as proof that even a respected Magazine like The New Yorker thinks Obama and his wife are terrorist.

I can't begin to fully express my disgust with this cover. You've managed to find yet another way to offend African Americans and Muslims. But I guess your staff doesn't think we are part of your readership so its OK. No we're just the ones who will have to bite our tongues and sit in silence while white co-workers have a good laugh at our expense. "

His response:
"Please. This image was meant to hold up to ridicule the hideous innuendo [on Fox and
elsewhere] about Obama. [does the image not appear totally ridiculous and preposterous?]"

My reply:
"I thank you for responding however I suggest you look at which way this is tacking. The comments are telling.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html"

His Next reply:
"Yeah, believe me, I know, I'm getting lots of mail and it's all of a piece.

I'd rather not read the comments you sent. I get the picture; it's distressing."

So as you can pretty much see He really didn't think his artwork would draw this kind of ire.

Jesus, what an earnest, humorless bunch. "Why didn't the New Yorker remove any subtelty from the cover by hitting us over the head with the meaning behind it?" For Christ's sake, the whole world isn't about the Obama campaign. The New Yorker has absolutely no reason to change their cover because it might get e-mailed around and misinterpreted. What fucking planet are you people on? If Obama's elected, he's going to be criticized and parodied every day. You are all going to get ulcers.

And guess what, ultramagnetic? A lot of blacks do have bigger lips than many whites. That's not an insult. Caricatures exaggerate the most obvious features of someone's face. But in this case, the artist should walk on eggshells so he doesn't "offend" anyone?

The New Yorker recently had a very funny cover of Ahmadinejad in a men's room stall, with someone's foot reaching over to tap his foot, a la Larry Craig. But of course I took it to mean that Ahmadinejad's gay, because New Yorker covers are meant to be taken literally. They really should have run a big banner across the cover explaining the joke. That really helps the humor.

Funny how you all have this ability to become outraged at the drop of a hat, until Obama does something like the FISA vote, or reneging on his public financing pledge. Then it time for the excuse making. Hypocrites.

Talk is cheap.

I want to see the NYer give equally viscious "satire" to McCain.

If they don't, they prove they aqre typical backstabbing GOP-ass-kissing so-called "liberal" media. They kind that just loved to savage Clinton over Lewinsky but has cowered for the last 8 years under Bush.

Is that how you drew your cover illustration? He drew it the way he drew it and your suggestions as to how he should have drawn it are just damned silly.

Sorry, Britt.