No matter why they ran the cover, it was a dumb idea, plain and simple. They did it to try and shock people and catch their attention, but they made a marketing miscalculation. It was a dumb move.

The fact that all of the attention is focused on the cover and not the article only proves how incredibly mindless and inappropriate the cover was (which had nothing to do with the article).

The cover was not clever or intelligent or satirical. If anything the cover was mean-spirited and inflammatory. Anyone who defends the cover doesn't understand satire.

And what is really tragic here is that the cover has the same effect (albeit less so) as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright situation: instead of focusing on the issues, CNN and Fox News and the rest spent endless hours on this stupd cover and once again the focus is on Obama's race, religion and family background and absurd allegations about Michelle. That is what is truly tragic here.

There are only so many ways to say it but… they missed the effing mark!

See how David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker with Obama on the cover, votes

http://www.webofdeception.com

I think the cover was way over the top. I think it was too shocking so it took away from the satire.

We were supposed to laugh. Instead I literally cringed in shock. I love satire, but I just couldn't swallow this one. Something was missing from the delivery.

Perhaps if Americans weren't so ignorant in general, it wouldn't be as bad. I think this would have the adverse effect.