Controversial New Yorker cover depicts Obama as Muslim, wife as armed terrorist

“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,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. “But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

Read the rest HERE….

Skulz Fontaine offers his own impression of the magazine cover below… (click to enlarge)


  1. adamdenker said,

    July 14, 2008 at 23:03

    Get a life! They are defending Obama and attacking the bigotries and prejudices that the right-wing hold! THEY AREN’T ATTACKING OBAMA! They are attacking prejudice! Why can’t you see this? Or do you WANT to be offended?

  2. Tony said,

    July 14, 2008 at 23:49

    I am sure if their cover picture depicted McCain, on his knees, wearing a yarmulke and sucking zionist dick, Republicans will find it offensive.

    Of course the cover picture of Obama and his wife is offensive and in extremely poor taste! There are much better ways The New Yorker could have conveyed a message against the obvious bigotry against Obama, if that is what they intended to do in the first place.

  3. lokis said,

    July 14, 2008 at 23:51

    Ron Paul is the one – the rest are neocon slaves

  4. Alex said,

    July 15, 2008 at 00:01

    Oh how the venom flows. The effect this kind of tyranny of good intentions has on the unthinking majority escapes Adam. Or does it?

  5. scarlett said,

    July 15, 2008 at 00:06

    They aren’t attacking prejudice. Would it have been more offensive if the picture had shown Obama with oversized lips, eating a slice of watermelon? Or they could have shown him snorting coke and getting a blow job since that has been an allegation as well — but they didn’t choose that image did they? No — they chose the one they could get away with in this age of Islamophobia — painting him as a closet Muslim. If the picture had been one of a redneck/KKK type imagining President Obama in that manner, perhaps they could have passed it off as satire.

    When will I see the satirical picture of John McCain in the Oval office wearing a yarmulke singing “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” while he pushes the nuke button — we could include shipments of cigarettes marked “to Iran” — the American flag burning and a portrait of the hooded/wired Abu Gharib prisoner and an Israeli flag hanging on the wall. That image would completely dispel all the fears that his critics have that he is pandering to Israel.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket. And the Nazi propaganda with caricatures of the Jews were just satire, too.

    Get a life! Are you so racist and prejudice yourself that you can’t recognize truly offensive material when you see it? Or are you just afraid that everyone is going to catch on to what is really going on?

  6. hANOVER fIST said,

    July 15, 2008 at 00:06

    Funny…I don’t see any cover copy stating that…

    In this age of COMPLETE and UTTER MORONS having ISLAMOPHOBIA shoved up their tuchises daily, you can’t truly believe that said individuals will take this stupid-ass cover at face value and will now find themselves convinced that PROOF is now being offered that Barack Obama can double for Osama bin Laden…who is LONG DEAD, by the way.

    The only way that the New Yorker can come out of this smelling like a rose would be to show John McCain buggering Uncle Sam while burning our flag, while the Viet Cong looks on in the background of their POW camp, with haggard REAL U.S. POWs in tow.

    Of course, that would veer waaay to close to the actual truth…


    The editors of the New Yorker should be thrown into a pit with wild dogs and made to perform bloodsports for the entertainment of the homeless that they spit upon daily.

    Effete scum.

    Satire, my bunghole.

  7. joe said,

    July 15, 2008 at 02:02

    Yeah, and when the nazis made ‘the eternal jew’, they were actually making a clever expose on how some other nasty racist group might deploy media imagery to demonise a target.

    In a wider sense, you see this idea used by the zionists in all areas. “If our excuse is possible, even if incredibly unlikely, you must accept it as true, in good faith”. A clever reversal of ‘occam’s razor’ that plays to a very badly educated mass population. Ever wonder why the zionists actively dumb down the population via the broadcast media and state education, whenever they get the chance.

    Propaganda for the masses will always play on the same mental vunerabilities used by classic criminal conmen. Any of us that has ever tried to educate a relative or friend on the avoidance of dishonest tactics used by dodgy salesmen or the like will know how frustrating the process can be. People, by and large, are ‘too clever’ for their own good, and can be played for suckers so easily.

    “The New Yorker” may take our breath away with the outrageous and disgusting imagery that it used on this occasion, but such crude, in-your-face tactics match those used by the nazis perfectly. Those grotesque nazi images that we have all seen were also placed in niche publications with the same specialised audience as this magazine. They were never ‘mainstream’ images.

    The irony here is that the zionists behind The New Yorker are not working for McCain’s victory, but Obama’s demise, with the expectation that in such ‘unfortunate’ circumstances, Clinton will be president. Obama may well be the perfect ‘house slave’, but his victory would be a dangerous signal to a lot of ‘upperty’ black americans, the one group that the zionists must supress at all costs. If black americans gained true justice for the first time in american history, it would be to the immediate detriment of american jews. If jews cease to be the dominant minority in the US (out of all proportion to their numbers) the zionists can kiss goodbye to the historic support the US gives to the racist extremist state of Israel.

  8. JamesGawthrop said,

    July 15, 2008 at 03:02

    This cover simply presents, in a single picture, everything that will be slung against Obama in the campaign. It worked against Dukakis, it worked against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, it worked against John Kerry, it worked against Max Cleland. I learned by watching Countdown that 13% of the electorate believes Obama is a Muslim. That represents millions of people whose votes all count as much as mine. (Sorry … that was “elitist.” ) In that same way, there will be millions of people who don’t “get” the cartoon cover. When the GOP attack machine gets going in full gear, we will all understand the New Yorker cover perfectly.

  9. Linda K. said,

    July 15, 2008 at 05:36

    I’m an American Muslim (converted in 1980) and sometimes my husband dresses like the caricature in the cartoon. My sons still struggle to understand why their own country treats them like enemies. This cartoon offended me as an Obama supporter but it offended me much more as a Muslim.

    When I converted, hostages were being held in Iran and I was called “camel jockey” and other names. Some told me to go back to my country. (Excuse me?) Twenty-eight years later we are fighting the same prejudices. When will it end?

  10. Mike said,

    July 15, 2008 at 06:40

    The comparisons of this image to depictions of Obama with big lips eating watermelon, etc, are blindly ignorant of the rumor mongering in America. The latter isn’t part of the smear campaign against Obama – accusations of Islamist tendencies (even collusion) and Black Power, however, ARE. Therefore, the New Yorker cover is OBVIOUSLY satire by ridiculing these baseless fear-attacks.

    That said, I wish the magazine hadn’t run the cover. It will ultimately serve to reinforce the confusion (rather than clarify it, as is their attempt), because the only people who will “get it” are the ones who already “get it.”

    Therefore, the magazine cover ISN’T disgusting or shameful, but it IS unfortunate because it will backfire. Those who attack this as Islamophobia are wasting their time – time that could be spent challenging the REAL sources of Islamophobia in the States.

  11. Perry L said,

    July 15, 2008 at 08:25

    Why does everyone keep saying Michele Obama is “depicted as a terrorist”? She is depicted as Angela Davis people…remember “Black Power”?

  12. Involute Mirage said,

    July 15, 2008 at 10:32

    The first comment must be from the jewish board of defense.

  13. The Joker said,

    July 15, 2008 at 13:30

    We are all being played like the world’s biggest violin…..

  14. Randy said,

    July 15, 2008 at 14:40

    Perry L — you are correct. Michelle is shown as Angela Davis.

    However, Davis and the “Black Power” movement were accused of being “commies” at the time; today the word “terrorist” serves the same function. Even environmental activists who splash paint on SUVs are “terrorists” today.

    They are the ‘enemy at the gates’ that justify the emerging techno-surveillance police state.

  15. Ayat said,

    July 15, 2008 at 14:40

    I’m an American muslim. I found the cover repulsive. It’s not that the “satire” is not understood, oh believe me I get it, it’s a depiction of every bit of fear mongering the right is doing and the right will only add the New Yorker cover to it’s arsenal of disinformation against Obama.

    Hillary and Bill also did something of the same to Obama that the right are doing now. I find it interesting that Hillary was never on the cover of the New Yorker shaking hands with klansmen for their support. Bill also crossed the lines a couple of times with race baiting and condescending tones about Obama’s blackness. The real issue is partisan politics. Those who wish to see Obama’s popularity diminish focus on issues that are irrelevant and continually repeat them until they become truth to the average Joe Voter.

    Mayor Bloomberg addressed a jewish advocacy group in Florida at one point warning the audience against the right’s fearmongering. He made it clear that Obama was not a muslim and this was actually being asserted so as to scare the jewish electorate into voting for the right. He also went on to condemn the tactics and praised the muslim and jewish communities strides in building dialogue and bridges between the two communities-much to the right’s chagrin.

    Oh, and as for Michelle being Angela Davis, most of white America at one time considered black activists to be terrorists….

%d bloggers like this: