Cover Artlessness

Sen. Barack Obama wants people to know that the right will bring up his race, ethnicity, and religion in attacking him. That hasn't happened, but the left that hasn't embraced him has attacked him in spades.

The latest evidence?

The New Yorker's cover for their latest edition. I'm sure that the New Yorker loves this kind of exposure since it means people might pick up the magazine for the first time in years outside of a doctor's office. Obama's staffers have already derided the cover as tasteless and offensive.

However, I'm more interested in what the article says than the tasteless cover art. The New Yorker defends the piece as satire of the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign. So far, the only folks who have been busy on that front have been Sen. Hillary Clinton's shills during the primaries. It's been left v. far left (and I'll leave it up to you to figure out which of those two is further to the left.

Besides, you don't need scare tactics to attack Obama's policy positions on anything. He has stuck his finger in the wind and seen which way the wind blows. That's how he's shifted his position on Iraq, though he still favors a calamitous and hasty withdrawal. He's flipped and flopped on the status of Jerusalem. His energy policy doesn't create a single watt of new power generation or a single barrel of new oil.

Obama's tax policy is tax, tax, and tax some more. And if he doesn't think that oil companies are paying enough in taxes, he'll tax them more too.

Who needs cheap shots like a New Yorker cover when the reality is so much worse.

UPDATE:
Ed at Hot Air and DrewM at Ace delves in to the article, and indeed finds that the Obama campaign is probably wise to focus on the cover, because the article does him no favors.