The New Yorker cover is both disturbing and in poor taste. It bothers me to see such a militant view of the Obamas with a Bin Ladin picture over the fire place. The Obamas are pushing their agenda, and have strong beliefs. This is their time to be strong and commanding. That is very different than being militant.

The New Yorker cover was a brilliantly calculated move, in SUPPORT of Obama. It was neither a mistake, nor an attack. The Obama campaign now gets hundreds of extra hours of news coverage, plus the race discussion continues; all to the benefit of Obama.

All I can say about the cover, the democratic party, is I am 65 never voted republican but I will never vote for a democrate in a national
election from this date forward.

Whoa – you guys shut down the live blog mid show? That's just wrong!

Some people are going to have withdrawal symptoms.

Brilliant cover illustration! Would the masses even know of the cover if the news hadn't done their usual blast of coverage. I don't think so. Take a look at the New Yorker Magazine subscriber demo! The illustration is wonderful and few can help but hold back the laughter.

If CNN were to take a poll on how many people actully understand what satire means I believe it would be in favor of ignorence on the definition. The New Yorker is read by many and those who read it Know what the magazines all about.

The New Yorker cover is NOT funny at all; a lot of people have, and will, mistake it as the "truth". It only feeds on the ignorance of those who believe the lies about Obama. Also, any satire that you have to "explain", is not a good satire.

Having " I Believe" and the sign of the cross on a license plate is not wrong. Come on can we debate something better. Its a choice! not a requirement. If you " Believe" Great for you. If you don't that's ok too.

Think about this, this's what excertly i thought its gonna be. They raise you up and destroy you. If you're an Obama supporter you should be very worry and cut down on your excitment because they gonna do it... trust me.

If the Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina doesn't support separation of church and state then he can't hold an elected position. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all elected officials have to swear to uphold the Constitution (on a bible)? I have some research to do...

Anderson,
Any reson why you did not cover the death of Tony Snow tonight?

Ref; The New Yorker magazine's attempt at "Satire".

I have a simple old observation that stupidity is universal. Not only are politicians stupid and out of touch, so are magazine editors.

The New Yorker has crossed the line from satire to character assassination – and has created another major distraction from the critical issues facing our country at this moment. Obama should sue the New Yorker!

The cover was an outrage and it is not satire.

ask mr carville to read mrs obama's harvard thesis on air...

I don't understand why the Bush camp is solicitng contributions for the presidential library. After all, how much can it cost to house a few 3×5 index cards, a box of Crayolas, a few Cliff Notes, and an Etch-a-Sketch?

Landolphe D'Aquin MD ThD
Cambridge MA

Regarding tonights guests and comments on the New Yorker "satirical" cover on the Obama's: Yes, it is outrageous, ignorant and disrespectful, and I certainly enjoy a good satirical shot when well and thoughtfully done. It appears, however, since Obama is no longer the "golden boy who can do no wrong," and "the race is on," the brilliant under-30 geniuses trying to make a name, do so with shock value to gain visibility and some kind of platform, and if it helps "their party" – so be it. Shame on the New Yorker!
Even John McCain was sympathetic and embarrassed. Lastly, with such very serious national fiscal and oil problems, and wars on two MiddleEastern fronts, why do people feel the need to bash political candidates, who, frankly, have an exceedingly difficult road to hoe. I was worn out and disgusted watching the horrific treatment of Hillary, and now this. Thank you.
Catherine

Bill Bennett's comments right on target. Carville is wrong. I believe the magazine cover will not be viewed as a satire by non-readers (i.e. those that do not read the content of the magazine) of the New Yorker.

Speaking about Carville, I am disappointed that CNN would invite him to participate as a political strategist. This is the same person that called Bill Richardson a Judist. How can the audience believe what he is saying whether for or against Obama. It is a disservice to the democratic candidate, Obama, to have him on the show. He is not eloquent.

Why doesn’t anyone talk about the fact that John McCain doesn’t know how to use the internet? I think the cover of the New Yorker is bad, but I also think tomorrows cover should have John McCain hooked up to a life-support system reading “The Internet for Dummies” with Cindy in the background popping prescription drugs with a beer in her other hand. That would even up the score a little bit.

In regards to the New Yorker Cover, I think Obama should stay on message and keep focused on making America better for all it's citizens including those who will never vote for him because of his race. No one will ever win over 100% of Americans, so we still work to restore our country for all of us. As a former United States Marine, a single father and a business owner I am not surprised that there are still Americans who think as they do. I say pray for them and care for them as God cares for us all.

I was shocked at your comment on Michelle and Barack "doing a terriorist fist bump." I have never nor have you seen a terriorist do a fist bump. That comment was definitely unneccessary especially when the New Yorker was really out of line with this cover.

It's funny how those with power (media) who see African Americans in positions of power as threatening, find a way to exercise their ethnocentricity and get very ‘elementary’ and start calling people names; without saying a word. A picture is worth 1,000 words as the saying goes; so with this picture you are calling the Obamas all the things that don't suit them in the least. And for the artist(s) of this picture and the magazine as a whole, a few words come to mind… Ignoramus, xenophobic and down right dim-witted. Good luck with your business.

The New Yorker should consult with Stephen Colbert on how to do satire. They clearly have no idea.

I think that it is getting ridiculous about the hoops Barack is having to jump through to convince everyone he is not a Muslim, etc. I have blogged about someone who suffered terrible hardship doing basic training in Georgia. He talked about the amount of prejudice against blacks in the south and he told me about a "joke" they used to tell about all of the white politicians making a young, intelligent, superior black politician do all of these incredibly difficult things to dissuade him from continuing. He bested all of them and then they finally said that they were having a big county fair and they expected him to show up and stump for them but there was to be a game, a physical challenge. So they buried him up to his neck in the middle of the dirt arena and loosed a hungry lion into the arena. (This is just a story that did not really happen) When the famished lion overjumped the mark, the black man bit the back leg of the lion to survive, and all of the white people jumped up as one in the arena, and shouted,"fight fair you dirty -–." They thought this was a hilarious joke. But it shows the awful amount of prejudice and stupidity that can be out there. With these attitudes still out there, this type of "satire" is totally humorless and offensive.

re: The New Yorker
The New Yorker, however distasteful, simply created a cartoon that they felt reflected what they interpret to be the Obama's views.

They are bringing to the front page that there is a clear gap that exists between the average citizen and the Obama's. Many people, like myself, cannot relate and are puzzled at the negative views that the Obama's have expressed in their campaign, interviews and other public arenas.

I don't see this cartoon as racist at all but purely political and it is meant to achieve a strong reaction. Take it for what it is.

Will the New York Magazine's next cover feature a drawing of McCain and wife in the Oval Office waterboarding a suspected terrorist?

I plan to purchase the New Yorker magazine and read the article.
I strongly feel that the american public take everything too seriously.
How do we know what Obama represents anyway? it is a known fact that democrats always raise taxes when their in office. That is a very scary situation at this critical time. Obama is an excellent speaker. We need a candidate with experience that will lead the United States and do exactly what he preaches.

I think the politicians need to address America's energy problem as both a long term and short term problem. I hope that the candidates can address our current enerygy problem with the idea that we need to lower our current oil prices, realizing that drilling off shore or in Alaska can have immediate effects that would breath a breath of fresh air into the economy. Moving forward, we need to address the fact that we can not rely on an energy resource that is depletatable. But if we can address the short tem problem while looking forward our our long term problem it will be the best answer for America. I feel that our leaders in congress need to come to an agreement, both compromising to come to a solution. Maintaining the Bloods and Crips attitude will not get us anywhere. We all learned how to compromise in elementry school, why can't we apply it to todays politics?

I have read the New Yorker for over 20 years and I understand satire.
This cover was an obvious smear and will do nothing to improve race relations in America.
Most everyone who reads KNOWs that the Obamas are Christian, that they are NOT militants and that they love their country deeply.
Theirs is a message of hope, not cynicism and "satire".
Shame on you, New Yorker! Are you so smug and cut off from the rest of the country and world that you don't even know when you're joining into the racist fear mongering? Wake up!
I am cancelling my subscription IMMEDIATELY and I hope that others will do the same!

The media has given Obama a free ride.
Maybe if Obama would answer questions about his Dad being a Muslim and discuss the way Muslims look at him, the issue could be dropped.
Obama never mentions that his Father was a "non practicing" Muslim.
His sister is a buddist and his mother was an Athiest.
Why?

This New Yorker Magzine is disqusting calling it a Satire Of the Obama's. 'tThis is low and disrespectful to the Obama's This is not a inteligent Magazine it is disqusting , low sicking cover and whom ever came up with this cover of the Obama's need to be a run out of town !! This New Yorker Magzine is a Big failer This New Yorker cover of the Obama's was to meant to bring harm this was not a satire this was a smear to the New Yorker do you think the Anerucab people are stuipid.

The reason for the smear campaign is a clear defination of what is written in the bloodcells of white Americans. America is a confused nation right now, so to see a black man running for the white house makes it worse. The New Yoker is a big disgace to the print media.
we in Africa can read the game better than Americans.