When I first saw the image of Obama and Michelle (full names not required, you know who I mean) in caricature on the cover of the latest The New Yorker magazine, with “the Illinois senator portrayed as a Muslim and bumping fists with his gun-toting, camo-wearing wife, Michelle, in the Oval Office before a portrait of Osama bin Laden, while the American flag smoulders in the fireplace”, I was, admittedly, a little taken aback.

Many Obama supporters are up in arms about it, there is a lot of chatter reverabating around the blogosphere and media outlets (both left wing and right wing). Of course, comparisons to the Danish Mohammed cartoons/outcry are being made.

The artist behind the cartoon, Barry Blitt, has defended his drawing, saying:  

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

The editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, also defended the choice of artwork by saying:

What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics. I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed “lack of patriotism” or his being “soft on terrorism” or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.

Oh, and he’s also fully aware that The New Yorker has many times lampooned the Bush Administration, lest there should be any pro-Bush supporters out there, as I have seen in comments around the internet, bleating how they’ve seen worse from The New Yorker about the Bush White House.

The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are… We’ve run many many satirical political covers. Ask the Bush administration how many.

Anne Davies for the Sydney Morning Herald also points out: 

It is clearly The New Yorker’s wry-smile reflection on the endless internet rumours that refuse to die about the Democratic nominee despite his efforts to stomp them out: that Senator Obama is a secret Muslim and his wife is a less-than-patriotic black semi-militant.

The cover is so over the top it is hard to see it as anything other than satire and a commentary on the bigotry of a small section of the American electorate.

That is true. I can’t help but wonder, however, that it will backfire for Obama, because there are some elements so doggedly determined to convince themselves and others around them that Obama is, inter alia, a Muslim terrorist. I have no doubt that they will completely miss the satire in this cartoon and point at it as PROOF! that Obama is a Muslim terrorist. They’re desperate for him not to win the Presidency.

The Obama camp has denounced the cartoon, saying:

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. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.

The McCain campaign immediately sent out a press release, also calling it “tasteless and offensive”.  

One lefty blogger, Jane Hamsher, argues:

Fifteen percent of people in this country believe that Obama is a Muslim. You have to be really stupid to believe something like this, but as Roger Simon notes, it probably doesn’t encourage people to vote for him in America today.

Most people who see this cover are just going to see the image of Obama in a turban. It reinforces a critical piece of misinformation that right wing propagandists have advanced in order to poison the political climate in this country and make it that much more difficult for a person of color to be elected president. These people are really stupid in order to believe something like this, but they’re not going to get any smarter by viewing this image.

I’ve already seen a number of ridiculous comments that fail to realise the whole point of this cartoon, such as this:

Leave it to NYC to “ahem” uncover the truth about Obama. Well done. Thank you!

And another stupid comment:

BALONEY, the New Yorker cartoonist didn’t get it wrong at all. Matter of fact, they pretty much summed up what barack [sic] Hussein Obama, and his wife Michelle are all about.

Among a few things: THEY BOTH HATE AMERICA, HATE OUR FLAG, HATE OUR SYSTEM, HAVE SYMPATHIZED WITH OUR ENEMIES, WERE TETHERED 20 YEARS TO BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY, HAVE TOTAL AMNESIA ABOUT 9/11, WILL SURRENDER THIS COUNTRY TO ISLAMOFASCISM!

So, what do you think, readers? Was the cartoon offensive or clever satire? Even if it reinforces the negative image of Obama to some, do you think it went further than that and was racist? Made too much fuss of Obama’s ethnicity? What about Michelle being a Black Panther revolutionary? What about the comparisons made to the Danish cartoons uproar — or is it a different situation altogether?

American politics is just so interesting, innit?

Former US congressman Bob Barr has announced plans to run for president on the Libertarian Party’s ticket, in a move some analysts say could hurt Republican presumptive nominee John McCain.

This is bad news for McCain. As pointed out in the article, Barr will steal those conservative votes that McCain desperately needs and is relying on, votes from conservatives who aren’t too happy with the Republican nominee for various reasons.

Barr, who has hired Ross Perot’s former campaign manager, acknowledged that some Republicans have tried to discourage him from running. But he said he’s getting in the race to win, not to play spoiler or to make a point.

It would take a miracle for Barr and the Libertarian Party to win. Highly unlikely, and I’m sure he knows it. So, he’s not in it to win, he’s in it to spoil or make a point. Has to be. Don’t lie, Barr.

However,

“I’ve heard from Americans from all walks of life … they want a choice,” he said at a news conference in Washington. “They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us.”

Admirable in trying to give Americans a choice. Democracy and all that, of which the US in the past 8 years has been trying to spread to other parts of the world, not always with much success.

So, does this look good for Obama (or Hillary)?

Well, not really. Bob Barr could just as likely steal those votes from Obama (or Hillary), not just from McCain. There are also still a lot of American voters pining for the other libertarian, Republican Ron Paul, who is still campaigning (I had to check, I’m shocked he’s still going; you certainly rarely hear anything about him campaigning in the primaries), so it would be interesting to see just how disastrous Bob Barr may be for both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Still, if it did come down to a McCain vs Obama battle,  as seems most likely, Obama should be wary by the latest poll showing that McCain is still a strong candidate despite the lack of support for Bush (and, effectively, the Republican Party).

In hypothetical general election head-to-heads, Obama leads McCain by slim 51 to 44 percent margin, with the public split 49 percent for Clinton to McCain’s 46 percent.

Can I just say, COME ON OBAMA!

Oh, and bring on the election already.