Borowitz hits the nail on the head again.
Here's the thing: I was clearly sympathetic to Obama's campaign throughout the primary, and I certainly don't expect him, or any Democrat, really, to be on my side on every or even most issues--I'm too far to the left for that. And I don't expect to vote against him (not that it matters where I vote from), in spite of the fact that his "move to the center" has so far included a huge capitulation on FISA, a soundbite that suggests he approves of Faith Based Initiatives, and the fact that he is clearly pulling back on his signature issue--i.e. Iraq. If I were interested in purity, I wouldn't be looking to politicians for my model.
As I have said in the past, anyone who isn't corrupt when they make the decision to run for president is corrupt by the time they put their hand on the Bible, and I don't expect Obama to be any more straight with us than any American president, or really any politician in the history of the human race, has ever been. Nor do I expect my interests to be his--I know they aren't, and I am convinced of the power of oligarchy to convince even the most idealistic human that their own self interests are identical to the interests of the nation. So I'm not expecting the man on the white horse with the silver bullet. Nor, really, do I want to deal with the wake that inevitably arises when the masked man leaves town.
All that said, I'm impressed, and not in a good way, with the way some supporters of the Obama candidacy have toed the line, and how thoroughly they have howled down even the most creditable criticisms of Obama's words. As I learned it, a healthy opposition was a crucial aspect of democracy, and--pardon me if it seems like I bought into the message that was being touted during the primaries--as I understood Obama's message at that time, and as highlighted in speeches such as the one he gave on race, or even the one he gave prior to his candidacy regarding the centrality of faith in American discourse, discourse is crucial to a healthy democracy. Vigorous discourse. Heated discourse. Discourse in which all parties acknowledge the possibility that they are not in the right. Party lines tend to try to blur any such possibilities into non-existence, and people who adopt them as dogma do no credit to a campaign that is built on the premise that discourse is what has gone missing in our public lives.
As to the New Yorker cover--as I said, I think Borowitz puts it pretty well. As someone who has a keen interest in art, and in the way symbols are used within discourse, I feel that the outrage that was expressed by the Obama camp is entirely misplaced, and is perhaps symptomatic of a disturbing trend toward an air of "righteousness" that some of these followers have become convinced they have a monopoly on. Say what you want about a "move toward the middle," and say what you want about how candidates' spouses shouldn't be targeted, the fact is, this is how the game is played. Obama showed more than a few very savvy moments during the primaries, moments in which it looked very much like he was quite aware of how to run his campaign. If he thinks the media--the American media, within which lurk far greater, and far less gentle, psychic monsters regarding the issue of race than are depicted on the NY cover (Larry Sinclair, anyone? THAT'S twisted stuff)--is going to ignore the symbols his identity places at their disposal, than he clearly doesn't understand the game as well as I thought he did. They will...and there's worse to come. He and his supporters need to show considerably more grace than was shown in response to this cover--a cover that was so OTT that it was very obviously a blast to that portion of the electorate that cannot think more cogently than the "I've had enough of Hussein" woman who played such a crucial role in the West Virginia primaries that so totally turned that race around. Will there be rednecks that print a copy to hang up in the office of their used car dealerships? Of course there will. But honestly, does anyone believe this is in any way going to damage his candidacy? It's more likely to be dealt that blow by a distinct lack of humor, a defective irony meter, and the disproven campaign strategy of "inevitability" that some of Obama's less thoughtful supporters have adopted since the primaries.
For my money, this cover was well done, insightful and to the point, and any talk about how Obama's candidacy shouldn't have to contend with such developments is not only irrelevant, it misses the larger point: this caricature was clearly done by someone who is sympathetic to Obama's candidacy. If that candidacy can't deal maturely with someone who has juggled the symbols in jest, how does it hope to deal with those who take such things seriously? Face it: there's a segment of the population that is a write-off, as the fact that Bush's approval rating still isn't 0% should attest. Let them spend the two dollars it takes to buy a cheap frame at Wal-Mart and let them frame it--that'll at least help the economy enough to keep a Wal-Mart greeter employed for another 2 minutes, and with a little luck, they'll pick up a copy of the New Yorker at the same time. It's even possible that a few of them may read the article that comes with the cover--though I'll admit that's likely to be a mighty slim subset of that population. Meanwhile, if they're yukking it up in their office, who cares? Most of us--I sincerely hope--understand that the charges depicted in that cover are fatuous at best...and much more likely, straight out malicious.
And...if the majority of Americans don't understand that on election day, I'm with Thomas Jefferson, who was known to observe that the people always get the rulers they deserve.