There is nothing at all new in newspapers or magazines printing caricatures of politicians. Caricature allows the critical artist to exaggerate aspects of the individual graphically, and if done well, is both humorous and informative. However, the New Yorker's attempt at caricaturing the Obamas was not a caricature at all. It was a caricature of a caricature. This is simply unacceptable, because, at least in this case, it is neither humorous nor informative, and it can only serve to perpetuate, rather than dispel ugly rumors among those susceptible to such nonsense.
Instead, if the artist (s) wanted to illustrate a caricature of the way the Obamas are viewed by a small percentage of the population, those people should have been the subject of the drawing, not the Obamas. Perhaps, in such a caricature, such ignorant Americans would be watching the Obamas on television. One might say to the other something like, "why aren't they dressed as Muslims, isn't it their big holiday, Ramada Inn?" If one wants to caricature the politician himself/herself, then something true about the candidate needs to be the focus of the drawing. One could, for instance, caricature McCain by showing him ready to go on stage, wearing around his neck an 8x12 inch photograph of himself as a hostage in Vietnam. He could be illustrated saying to an aide, "this is a great idea, it will remind me not to use my war captivity for political purposes in this campaign."
I'm quite disappointed in the New Yorker. It's one thing not to be "fair and balanced" (will we ever see McCain caricatured in this way by them?), for whatever reason, but it's another thing not to understand the most basic elements of your own craft. The only decent thing for them to do is to step forward and admit that this is not really a caricature and that they should never have published it. However, perhaps it is best if they do not do apologize, because, frankly, I'm tired of watching fake, forced apologies anyway. Let them go down in history as defenders of this disgrace.