(1) The overwhelming commentary that I have seen from both left and right on both TV and radio has condemned the cover.

(2) The negative images in this cover have been floating around the media (particularly the internet) ever since Obama was first noticed following his victory in the Iowa caucuses. It is difficult to imagine how highlighting those images in a magazine of quite limited circulation will hurt Obama, even though the cover has become a hot topic with other media. The scenario for this harm really does betray an elitist view. Does Professor Trout think that there are undecided voters out there (who have all heard over and over again that Obama is a radical Muslim and that he is so unpatritotic that he won't even wear a flag lapel) who will now say to themselves: “Well I wasn't sure that Obama was working for Osama bin Laden. But now the New Yorker, which is a left-wing, Obama-supporting magazine, has confirmed this. (By the way, I know the New Yorker is a left-wing magazine from reading it at the barbershop.) Therefore it must be true and I will vote for McCain.”

3) Professor Trout's elitist views about Americans also come through in his complaint that viewers might “act on its meanings independently with no guidance from the satirist” and that the “reasons [would] be left to the viewer to sort out… with whatever inputs and analytical skills the viewer possesses.”

4) Let's wait and see. Maybe America will suprise Trout. How about the audacity of hope?

These “other people” are “elitists” — not Mr. Trout or the Obamas, of course. These other people are variously guilty of “intellectual hipsterism”, “smugness”, or they “mock”, are “sanctimonious”, or indulge in the pleasures of gloating from their “high intellectual perch”. Mr. Trout has lots of adjectives, and a blanket characterization. He doesn't really cite anything as ordinary as “facts” — like the fact that the New Yorker's coverage of the Republicans has been ferocious, and its admiration for Obama noteworthy. He just has blanket generalizations “a nearly all-white mainstream cognoscenti” — ah, now we all must know exactly who we are talking about. Mr Trout evidently has a problem with the irony-producing classes.

Michelle and Barack Obama, two Ivy League lawyers, can claim many points of pride, but in running again a war hero married to a rodeo queen, flying the banner of persecution by “elitists” is neither accurate nor likely to be productive

Sadness engulfed me when a friend showed me his copy of the New Yorker. What did I think of it? I told him it's simply dangerous. And stupid. And unnecessary. Oh, come on, it's just satire. Yes. I “got it.” That's not the point. There are millions of us who won't. For them it will be validation of their gradually cohering discomfort at all the sneering half-truths, untruths, and questionable truths (CNN-type “Is it true that…?” truths) that is clouding their ability to actually see whatever real truths underly who the Obamas truly are. It ties all their snickering maybes into one neat package. See?! I thought so! And there's the media stamp of approval. It must be true.

I'm sorry, New Yorker, but I've seen too many proud parents plop their 7-year-olds behind the wheel of their off-the-road RV and let them head out alone down the trail. Proud? For God's sake, think of the possible tragedy. Some think it's macho to speed down the highway with their dog — unsecured — staggering to keep his footing in the back of a pick-up truck. I've witnessed the absolute disintegration of an animal when it hits the pavement at 65 miles an hour. Macho is not the word I'd use for its owner. Oh, and Hillary's protestation that she was staying in the primary race because, well, you know what happened to Bobby Kennedy? Just being a responsible back-up. Please. There are just some things that, if your are going to do or say them at all, you'd better be damned careful. Think about it twice and do it right. The New Yorker didn't. Proud? Macho? Responsible? It was, as Jon Stuart screamed, just an effing cartoon! But it was obviously not well done. These are treacherous times. And the New Yorker's mis-communication will feed the treachery by nourishing the wrong “truths.” Sadly, dangerously, unnecessarily.

If you hadn

(1) The overwhelming commentary that I have seen from both left and right on both TV and radio has condemned the cover.

(2) The negative images in this cover have been floating around the media (particularly the internet) ever since Obama was first noticed following his victory in the Iowa caucuses. It is difficult to imagine how highlighting those images in a magazine of quite limited circulation will hurt Obama, even though the cover has become a hot topic with other media. The scenario for this harm really does betray an elitist view. Does Professor Trout think that there are undecided voters out there (who have all heard over and over again that Obama is a radical Muslim and that he is so unpatritotic that he won’t even wear a flag lapel) who will now say to themselves: “Well I wasn’t sure that Obama was working for Osama bin Laden. But now the New Yorker, which is a left-wing, Obama-supporting magazine, has confirmed this. (By the way, I know the New Yorker is a left-wing magazine from reading it at the barbershop.) Therefore it must be true and I will vote for McCain.”

3) Professor Trout’s elitist views about Americans also come through in his complaint that viewers might “act on its meanings independently with no guidance from the satirist” and that the “reasons [would] be left to the viewer to sort out… with whatever inputs and analytical skills the viewer possesses.”

4) Let’s wait and see. Maybe America will suprise Trout. How about the audacity of hope?

These “other people” are “elitists” — not Mr. Trout or the Obamas, of course. These other people are variously guilty of “intellectual hipsterism”, “smugness”, or they “mock”, are “sanctimonious”, or indulge in the pleasures of gloating from their “high intellectual perch”. Mr. Trout has lots of adjectives, and a blanket characterization. He doesn’t really cite anything as ordinary as “facts” — like the fact that the New Yorker’s coverage of the Republicans has been ferocious, and its admiration for Obama noteworthy. He just has blanket generalizations “a nearly all-white mainstream cognoscenti” — ah, now we all must know exactly who we are talking about. Mr Trout evidently has a problem with the irony-producing classes.

Michelle and Barack Obama, two Ivy League lawyers, can claim many points of pride, but in running again a war hero married to a rodeo queen, flying the banner of persecution by “elitists” is neither accurate nor likely to be productive

Sadness engulfed me when a friend showed me his copy of the New Yorker. What did I think of it? I told him it’s simply dangerous. And stupid. And unnecessary. Oh, come on, it’s just satire. Yes. I “got it.” That’s not the point. There are millions of us who won’t. For them it will be validation of their gradually cohering discomfort at all the sneering half-truths, untruths, and questionable truths (CNN-type “Is it true that…?” truths) that is clouding their ability to actually see whatever real truths underly who the Obamas truly are. It ties all their snickering maybes into one neat package. See?! I thought so! And there’s the media stamp of approval. It must be true.

I’m sorry, New Yorker, but I’ve seen too many proud parents plop their 7-year-olds behind the wheel of their off-the-road RV and let them head out alone down the trail. Proud? For God’s sake, think of the possible tragedy. Some think it’s macho to speed down the highway with their dog — unsecured — staggering to keep his footing in the back of a pick-up truck. I’ve witnessed the absolute disintegration of an animal when it hits the pavement at 65 miles an hour. Macho is not the word I’d use for its owner. Oh, and Hillary’s protestation that she was staying in the primary race because, well, you know what happened to Bobby Kennedy? Just being a responsible back-up. Please. There are just some things that, if your are going to do or say them at all, you’d better be damned careful. Think about it twice and do it right. The New Yorker didn’t. Proud? Macho? Responsible? It was, as Jon Stuart screamed, just an effing cartoon! But it was obviously not well done. These are treacherous times. And the New Yorker’s mis-communication will feed the treachery by nourishing the wrong “truths.” Sadly, dangerously, unnecessarily.

If you hadn