It is utterly impossible for me to look at the new New Yorker magazine cover as doubly ironic: that is to say, as meant only to make fun of some of the silliy ideas floating around out there about Senator Obama. (That he is secretly Muslim, that he and his wife hate America, etc.)

And because I'm unable to entertain the idea that the pubishers of The New Yorker are anything but staunch Democrats, I find myself somewhat confused.

Certainly the The New Yorker may publish what it likes, because (1) this is America, and (2) Obama isn't a Muslim. (And Mohammed is not present in the caricutature. Also missing: dogs and pigs.)

So to the first question that crossed my mind last night, as I toggled back and forth between being offended myelf, ("they've crossed a line this time, and for no real good reason") and childish partisan glee ("this cannot hurt McCain"), the answer seems to be "yes." There is nothing about political figures in this country that are sacred; there is no taboo against doing what the New Yorker did, and therefore no reason to do it just for the hell of it, just to make a point about what speech is and is not permissible in this country.

So did the folks at The New Yorker do this simply to . . . sell magazines? Just to get those of us who rely for our news and opinion on this internet thingie to march down to a magazine stand and ask for a copy of the print version of their little rag?

Oh, yes. Hell, yes.

It isn't that "New York Money Men" don't like guys whose middle names are Hussein. It's that New York Money Men find that they have a strange desire for . . . well, money.

It's not yellow journalism! It's journalism that's been color-corrected for what used to be a blue-ish tint.

The Obamas burn a flag in the Oval Office under a picture of Osama bin Laden, while unwinding in their favorite leisure wear: Muslim garb, military-style fatigues, a 'fro for Michelle, and an AK-47. No scare tactics here

Captain Ed at Hot Air:

Obviously, the New Yorker wanted to go for satire, poking fun at what they see as the image of the Obamas among conservatives. Just as obviously, the editors of the New Yorker showed very poor judgment in approving this cover. A satirical cartoon on the inside would have been more appropriate, but having this on the cover shouldnÂ’t just offend the Obamas, but also conservatives who have a number of substantial issues with Barack Obama.

This makes the third bigoted attack from the Left on Obama. Two weeks ago, it was Ralph Nader acting as the arbiter of black authenticity, and last week it was Jesse Jackson wanting to castrate Obama. One side in this cycle certainly seems obsessed by identity politics, but so far it isnÂ’t the Republicans.

Update: “Third bigoted attack” was tongue in cheek, people. Get a clue. The New Yorker is attacking conservatives, but Obama’s the one taking offense (and for good reason). Obama warned that the Republicans would obsess over his ethnicity, but so far only the mainstream Left has made it an issue.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:45 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.