The New Yorker's Damnable Cover

New Yorker Editor David Remnick has a credibility problem. His outrageous cover was defamatory and designed to Willie-Horton a candidate for the presidency. Every major lie about Obama's background has been collapsed into this cartoon.

His lame, wormy pathetic excuse for an explanation, aired on CNN, that the new cover was just "satire" doesn't wash. He's making fun of those who think this way about the Obama's, Remick suggests. Yeh, right. Does he hear himself? And too many liberals, determined to display that they too "get" satire, above all else, are reluctant to complain. It wouldn't look "sophisticated." They ignore this at their own, our party's and our country's peril. This is WAY over the line. And it will only go downwhill from here.

It may be about satire, as many drawings in the NY are. But it is also about so much more. And David Remnick knows exactly what he is doing. There's satire, and there's pretense at satire masquerading as a hit job. I don't care what his excuse is. As CNN showed in on-the-street interviews today, gullible individuals don't get it. Some of them actually thought the cartoon was telling the truth about Barack and Michelle Obama.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama's campaign has registered a strong protest. But that didn't matter a bit to those who smugly value their highbrow cred over integrity. Either you think this was right, or you don't. There is no middle ground on this one. Until recently, I subscribed to the New Yorker. But there is no NY author, not even Seymour Hersh, or cartoonist, still worth reading, who is attached to this publication. Had I not already ended my subscription for other reasons a year ago, I would do it now. Sometimes, you have to wonder whether the supposed highbrows at NY have any sense at all.