I know that you’ve already read about, and probably seen, the New Yorker’s latest cover, the “parody” of “right wing” views about Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama. I think Charles Johnson has the best summation of the New Yorker‘s thinking (along with a reproduction of the cover):
The cover is obviously a moonbat parody of what they think are right-wing ideas about their messiah. But they got so meta with it, they ended up wrapping around and making themselves look stupid.
I’m going to go a little bit Freudian here and wonder whether, even if that was the editors’ intention, if there wasn’t some subliminal desire to harm a man who seems so quickly to be betraying the “Progressive” promise he offered them during the primaries. I say this because this week’s New Yorker also runs a Ryan Lizza article that tackles Obama’s Chicago political background — and no matter how you try to dress that one up, short of actually lying, it’s not pretty.
Lastly, with regard to the cover, I think it’s worth visiting Michelle Malkin’s post on the subject, because she makes the ultimate correct point: if you’re going to be in American politics, you’d better toughen up, Mr. Obama, a point she illustrates with the truly vile attacks against Condi (racist in the extreme) and the President (murderous to the point of treason).
As it is, Obama has distinguished himself by whining about every single attack leveled against him. If this frail little flower can’t handle the rough and tumble world of an American election, how is he going to handle the burdens of office? Sure, you can get the media to back off when you cry “racism!” (at least, in the beginning you can), but I can guarantee you that Kim Jong-Il or Ahamadinejad or Chavez or Putin, or any other tin pot tyrant who takes the world stage, is not going to back off. Instead, these bullies will be delighted to have someone so easily cowed by a discouraging word.
On this point, you’ll also want to read Rick Moran.