George,

The problem I have with the New Yorker's recent cover of terrorist Obama and wife is that it depicted nothing new compared to the images you can find on the Internet, posted by people who would have you believe the depiction to be true. The argument of the New Yorker is that they were parodying such posts, that the cover would lead people to see the depictions for the falsehoods that they truly are. If the cartoon had brought something new to such depictions then I would agree and it would have elicited a grin or a laugh. For example, essentially the same caricatures but with Obama and Michelle doing things very American and ordinary... perhaps making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the kids with lunch boxes on the kitchen table, Sesame Street on the TV in the background, fluffy Mickey Mouse slippers on Michelle and Obama wearing a Chicago Cubs hat - to better contrast and bring into question the absurdity of the jihadist label. Instead, the cover seems to be visually just more of the same 'crap' that is being sleazily pushed by the far right. It could have been funny and ironic, instead the cover lazily missed the mark and ended up not being creative or funny.

Arthur Lichtenberger (electronic mail, July 15, 2008)