Obama is offended. According to this article from Briebert.com, one of his campaign spokesmen said this of the caricature: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create."
I can actually understand both POVs here. On the one hand, this is how many right wingers see Obama. On the other, it kind of does cross the line. If I were Obama, I'd be ticked off too.
It kind of reminds me of a year ago when Time magazine drew tears on the face of Ronald Reagan, which depicted an article in that issue that claimed that Ronald Reagan would be sad that conservatism is now dead. A claim that many conservatives say is not true(click here to read more).
And, while Conservatives like Ronald Reagan's son Michael Reagan claimed that Time magazine crossed the line with that cover, I think that it would be fair to say that the NewYorker has crossed the line with this one.
However, Time magazine has made great strides to maintain its image as fair and non-biased. It is not a conservative nor a liberal magazine. The New Yorker, on the other hand, has a history of using satire.
Still, I think this kind of cover should not have been made. Just like liberal democrats like Bob Beckel should not call Bush a liar without proof that he intentionally didn't tell the truth, no conservative can honestly say that Obama is a Muslim.
There may be evidence that sort of leads that way in both cases, but there is no proof. And even while the New Yorker may have good intentions with this cover, I still think its editors should have made a better decision regarding this -- unless they intend to be a right wing magazine.
There, I said something in defense of Obama. You'll learn what I'm referring to here when you read my post for tomorrow.