The cartoon's intent was clearly satirical. The only issue is the result.

[Zynx]

The result is unfortunately that the cartoonist, Mr. Blitt, has given the internet right-wing fear-mongers a single image they can put on all of their sites that encapsulates all of their fears.

The cartoon itself is so over the top that there is no way it is not satire. Maybe if the National Review had put it on their cover I would be concerned, but I'm no more concerned about this than if The Nation had done it in terms of the intent of the cartoonist.

[stray cat]

1. Its like banning Colbert because a few think he is really a conservative character

[uponit7771]

3. Delay and a number of politicians thought he was real too, yes...America is lead by mouth breathers

[ellacott]

5. So very true

I don't think people understand how guillable some people are in this country.

[catgirl]

2. He really screwed up by not adding a "politics of fear" banner

He's mocking these idiots. Hopefully it won't be used against Obama.
Perhaps he needs to make a similar McCain cartoon (only using real facts).

[ellacott]

4. I agree that his intent was satire

That is not an excuse for the reaction that it has received. I would not be surprised if the right uses this and because of that there should have been more sensitivity.

Just a few days ago people were condemning Bernie Mack for a joke he told. They didn't want to give him a break and realize that he's a comedian.

[frazzled]

6. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Intent and 25 cents will get you on the bus.

The intent of the cartoonist is immaterial here: you're right, it's the result. And that result is as bad as if he intended to suggest the Obama's are flag-burning, gun-toting, radical black power Muslims.

Look, the fault lies not with the cartoonist but with the editor (s) of the New Yorker, who should have sent the toon back to the drawing board to make the intent of the satire less ambiguous.

I am an editor, and I have this discussion with my authors all the time: "I don't understand why you are saying this when your argument elsewhere suggests the contrary." "Well, what I am saying is .... " "Your readers will not understand it that way; it's not expressing your intent ... let's rewrite it in this way to make your intentions more clear."

The editors at the NYer failed, either unintentionally or intentionally, to vet this cartoon sufficiently.