From the cover of the New Yorker, I find the picture of Michelle Obama taking on an Angela Davis-SLA look funny as hell. The fro' and kalesnikoff machine gun, wow. Somebody at the New Yorker is getting a call this morning from the DNC and told to pack up there shit and hit the bricks.

Obama's angry over the New Yorker cover. Barack try to remember what you told your kids, no whining.

What is funny is it is the truth. Look at BHO's web site, all of his beliefs are based on shria law.

Thanks for the link, Red. Verry interesting article.

My brothers and sisters to the Right mightn’t probably like where this Great Orange Satan correspondence about the New Yorker cover (NSFN, you were warned) goes, but I think it does raise the same question as the jokes about Iranian dead people and in fact a whole lot of “humor” we’re seeing this year: i.e., so long as one terms it “irony” or “humor” or “a distanced comment on X”, is any humor too tasteless or offensive? Why? How?

After years of seeing cartoons with Condi Rice as Aunt Jemima or Justice Thomas as Step n' Fetch it, we will see how far is 'too far' when it comes to lampooning a dem.

Jason, would you care to provide some examples of the connections between Obama's "beliefs" and Shariah law? You may note that many of the comments on this site include links to source material. We like to see evidence.

Winston/Redbeard: As far as the New Yorker cover is concerned, I think this one pushes the envelope a bit, but only because there is no accompanying text to clarify its satire; that's just how the New Yorker does covers, and they've done them that way for a long time. In terms of selling magazines, it's a stroke of genius; people who believe the Fox News Muslim/madrassa/terrorist-fist-jab smears will snap it up as justification, while folks on the left will snap it up to wave in outrage.

Redbeard, why do you find this perceived change "astounding"? I keep telling you that the media's only bias is toward sensationalism.

I thought the cover was rather...flattering.

Here's a telling comment, from a participant at TPM:

The New Yorker's take-away message is: Unlike the hicks who actually believe this crap, our readers are sophisticated enough to know we are merely engaging in naughtily satirical fun.
At a swoop, the magazine has stereotyped the Obamas, the hicks, and its own elitist readers. The trifecta.

Satire that is indistinguishable from what it purports to satirize fails as satire.

The article wasn't satire.

No, but it's also far less "bombshell-ish" than was the cover.

Of course, the cover is generating far more discussion than is the article. Real discussion of the article would require that people actually--gasp!--read said article and--double gasp!--devote actual thought to its content. We both know that precious little of either will actually occur. Sure, we'll see folks quibble over a sentence here or a soundbite-worthy quote there, but very few are really going to sit down an offer a constructive analysis or rebuttal.

I beg to differ. The article really is a bombshell. The cover is simply silly, poorly motivated, and not very good satire.

You might find this Lizza article on Obama interesting as well.

Well, I scanned the article quickly--I'll read in detail later--and didn't see any "bombshells." What revelations do you consider noteworthy?

For good satire to be funny, a certain level of truth must be present. I guess The New Yorker feels that even though they were for the cover before they were against it (as an hour ago), they thought some perception of the Obama's in the cartoon was life-like.

"For good satire to be funny, a certain level of truth must be present."

And a certain level of exaggeration and going beyond what's being satirized as well. That's why the New Yorker cover fails as satire

It's been well-nigh impossible to satirize the extreme right for going on several years now, if not more. Try to do it, I dare you.

Rosie;

The Cheney satires about him wanting to waterboard libs or taking people hunting were funny. So the oh' woes me for Obama isn't going to cut it. He needs to toughen up.

Obama will be our first openly metro-sexual presidential candidate.

Even better!!

"Our first openly metro-sexual cold calculating unprincipled frightening angry black candidate who is an extreme left zealot without a single core belief whose armies of similar radical extreme left ideologues are deserting him because of his phony posing as a moderate."

This is pretty much what "struggling vainly to get some kind of purchase" looks like.