I'd love to hear some thoughts about the cover.

You know . . . who knows how this all plays out. I'm sure that it's possible that the cover draws all of the rumors and smears into the open and subsequently knocks them down.

However, I can already see from the posts that commenters are leaving at the ABC/Jake Tapper site that there are more than a few 'there's some truth behind every rumor' thoughts.

Who knows? I just don't think they get it.

I subscribe to the New Yorker, New York and Vanity Fair. Like most regular readers of the three, over time you understand where each of the mags is coming from -- its editorial perspective.

Unfortunately, I don't think a majority of non-regulars will get the cover. I think they'll be blown away by the whirlwind surrounding the cover and the inflammatory comments it will generate.

I think the cover illustrator's intentions were to convey his ironic message -- meant to be funny, you know like, um those "good jokes" mentioned earlier in the week that some folks like as much as the next guy -- but sometimes what's "ha-ha" funny to one guy, what is "do I amuse youse?" funny to someone else, completely misses to a third party, and may be just downright offensive to a fourth. Judging by the reaction of the Obama campaign, they are in the "it's not so funny" camp.

And one's reaction is also tempered by how you come in contact with it the first time. Will I (Did I) look at the cover untainted? Would I have laughed, thought it was cute? Or did knowing there was a controversy a-brewing alter my perception?

The disgusting thing is that the will get SO MUCH attention for this... sort of like FOX 'News' doing ridiculous and disgusting things because of the reactions they get. Outrageous, ignorant, and ridiculous cover choice... I will let them know what I think of their choice but I certianly don't read the New Yorker. Subscribers have more sway.

If you think that's something , you should get acquainted with the entire years' covers which have featured Cheney and Bush. I've got one in a portfolio book that shows Cheney as a pumpkin carving with his characteristic sneer agressively lit from inside. Another one this February showed the classic tophatted guy with monacle as a playing card - a joker actually. One way it was Obama, the other way up it was Clinton. Then there's Steve Brodner's cartoon of Oprah holding Obama like he's the baby Jesus.

Nobody even snickered on TPM about any of those.

If you don't "get" the New Yorker, just look outside the box.

Sad... guess the New Yorker is losing its touch...

Jonathan Swift is turning in his grave.

You all need to relax.

It's funny, but I went through a few moments of shock, and then outrage, and then more shock, and then curiosity. I asked myself why, what, how this ever got published. I realized that it was satire, because it was the New Yorker that did it.

Then I came up with the word that has become part of the lexicon of this year's race - inartful. It was a wonderful word to describe a piece of art. Inartful. Poorly conceived for reasons stated by other posters. It simply does not convey its satire well enough, while it does a great job of displaying, and to some perhaps, validating the beliefs it satirizes.

Still, I'm not sure making a huge stink about it is necessarily the way to go. I'm tempted to watch what others say, and perhaps make a stink about those who take it seriously or try to make it real. Perhaps I'm wrong, but as much as I disagree with what The New Yorker did, I don't disagree with their intentions, and now that the cover is out, the damage is done.

I think protesting, or at least letting the magazine know how your respond to it is absolutely correct. But at the same time, it will pass, like everything in this society, if we let it. The more we keep it as an issue, the longer it will last as a meme and a potential distraction from the message and the task at hand. Think about how many people would never see that cover if it didn't become news. Well it is news now, but we don't want to keep it in the public eye any longer than it has to be. Pull the cover? Maybe. Not likely, but it could happen. But other than that, we're not doing ourselves any favors by keeping this alive.

So I think I will call the magazine and rebuke them, but not calling them names or being abusive, but suggesting that their editorial staff should, perhaps, show a little more oversight and be a little more careful about the real effect they might have. I will politely suggest that the cover could be replaced by something more - artful.

Then I'll let it go and move on, unless some talking head on some TV show starts mouthing off with lies and distortions. That's who I really want to go after.

Others may want to take a more extreme approach toward the magazine, and I wouldn't even think to try to talk you out of it. I'm just speaking for myself.

Inartful, to say the least.

I think we're all missing the point. As many have noted, those who read this mag may "get it." However, to me, it looks like this mag is attempting to gain circulation dollars by appealing to those who profess to "reluctantly" admit, or unabashedly howl - that there may be, or is, some truth to certain elements depicted in the cover. Call me a cynic, but how's the mag's bottom line doing lately?

I think the cover is offensive and damaging for the Obama campaign.
The cable news media is going to headline this all week, and spread the image to those who aren't so familiar with The New Yorker, low-witted viewers are going to see the image and confirm the false lies that conservatives have already pushed out there about Obama. They are not going to see it as satire.

I looked at the previous New Yorker covers and they were far less obscene as this.

If the whispers and rumors suggested that Obama was responsible for torturing prisoners or that he watched without care as the citizens of New Orleans drowned or that he joked about WMD in the Oval office as soldiers were dying in Iraq, then the material would certainly be too offensive for even the New Yorker to satirize. But since it's only about maligning the character of a Democratic presidential candidate and his wife burning the American flag and honoring a portrait of someone responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, well that's laugh out loud funny.

I remember in history class how the satirists of the past presented Blacks and Hawaiians as ape-like, Asians as rats, Jews with horns and much worse. The purpose was not to shed light on the misinformation, but rather to reinforce the stereotypes and prejudices so that these people could be dehumanized, making it permissible in some minds to steal from them and to attack and butcher them.

I agree with many of those who have posted here. This cover is an offensive mockery.

The woman on the cover appears to be a secular Western feminist, probably Angela Davis. The man appears to be an Islamic cleric. As we know, it would be sacrilege for a cleric to engage in lewd relations with Angela Davis.

Do not allow me even to start talking about the way this cover parodies the ritual of velayat-i-faqih, or American-flag-burning.

Mistake me not; I completely get the joke. I understand that in New York it is considered amusing to represent many sacrileges. If this magazine would stay in its place, and be read only by the depraved citizens of New York, I would not feel that it fell under my jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, there is a chance that it will find its way to my country, where it may bewilder and confuse many of the yokhels, or so-called "swing voters."

This left me no choice. I have convened the Supreme Islamic Council of Najaf, and we have declared a fatwa on the New Yorker. Many of us also cancelled our subscriptions.

WTF!?!
This has left me dumbfounded. I must have missed listening in on a white meeting somewhere. When did hostile open racism come back into vogue?