Little Hawk,

I was being satirical.

When I looked at the present New Yorker title in the context of the old ones I saw that the current ones are indeed attacking the Obamas and not those who attack them. I am conviced of this because it is obvious that the ones attacking Bush are attacking Bush.

In my mind they don't get to use the same style they used to attack the Obama's that in the past they have used one everybody else and say that this particular attack in the context of all the other attacks was meant ironically.

The argument that the editor used was that this picture was so over the top that people could not possibly believe that it was an attack on the Obamas. Yet one of the covers in the links I posted shows Rumsfeld's face on a bulldog tied up on the White house lawn. Obviously the Rumsfeld cartoon is much more over the top. So which are we to believe, That the Rumsfeld cartoon was ironic or that the Obama cartoon was not?

I believe that the Obama cartoon was not. It was a cheap, dirty, below the belt shot from the New Yorker.