New Yorker Cover Clearly Satire

Asserts Alan Stewart Carl, a moderate blogger who is leaning toward supporting Sen. John McCain for president: "The most recent cover of The New Yorker magazine has ruffled some feathers. The satirical cover shows Barack and Michelle Obama as essentially terrorists who’ve taken over the Oval Office. The magazine calls the cover a lampoon of all the ridiculous rightwing claims about Obama. The Obama campaign has complained that the cover is tasteless. The John McCain campaign has also called the cover inappropriate. The rest of us are left to either take offense or see the cover for what it clearly is: a silly satire. I mean, come on, The New Yorker plays to a specific, well-educated audience and the story inside the magazine does not make any challenges to Obama’s patriotism. It’s not even a satire of Obama. It’s a satire of the idiots who believe he’s some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate. I’m all for civil and respectful political discourse. But humor, even strident humor, is a necessary component of free speech. We can’t get offended every two minutes. It’s not healthy."

My response: What's up with Obama looking Al-Qaedaish and Michelle Obama looking like a boho BAP version of Angela Davis? If it isn't a satire of critics of Obama who argue that he is an "undercover Muslim" and not the Obamas, then why are the latter the focus of the satire? While not foul per se given the purpose of the article accompanying the cover (although Eric Zorn's question is valid), it is not the cover that I'd have chosen.