Such paranoia! Obama was “vaulted” to the national scene by the voters of Illinois who elected him their Senator in the U.S. Congress. IN MARKED CONTRAST, what experience did GWB have in the national arena before becoming president? NONE. He was a Texas governor (Thanks, dad)! GWB had no national/federal experience. Same for Bill Clinton. [HRC did not dare say that Obama does not have sufficient experience to be president because as a 1st-term Senator he has much more experience than Bill Clinton did before he went to the Oval Office.] Confess, Star, you vote for GWB to be our worst President ever with NO federal experience.

Yea, Andrea. Let’s say I agree with you 100% — who cares??? That and $2.00 will get you on the CTA [The Chicago Transit Authority] here in Chi-town. What I’m saying is that the game is getting Obama elected, not in getting the cognoscenti — and you would define them —to approve of him. This is not personal. Who cares what New Yorkers/sophisticates think? If you’re so sophisticated, get pragmatic and see that what it is important is that he gets elected!

Exactly: the nature of satire is why this does not work! If the NY wished to satirize the neanderthals who think that the Obamas are a couple of covert, Harvard-trained terrorists, nutured in the corn-fields near the Illinois General Assembly, it would have put those neanderthals on its cover. Instead, by putting the Obamas themselves on the cover, the NY— implicitly and explicitly — made the Obamas its target, and consequently, the issue is the accuracy of its depiction of them (the Obamas). One of the first commentators on this blog (I don’t remember the name) would make a good satirist for the NY — and described how it could have satirized Obama’s critics!

Well, I’m going to confuse things here, because I’m another Linda. But I’m not letting the NY off the hook based on its disingenuous claim that it did not realize how controversial its cover would be! This is the NEW YORKER!!! The ultimate sophisticate! It cannot plead ignorance of the impact of the media, or that it did not realize that the cover would be seen by the unwashed west of the Hudson! PUH-LEEZ!!!

Lorraine, there’s no comparison, plain and simple. McCain in a wheelchair would be seen as a figure of sympathy: how can a person enjoying a beer be compared to a person who burns the flag and hangs the portrait of Bin Ladin in the Oval Office? The NY must have been aware that its attempts at satire would give credence to those who seek to undermine the patriotism of the Obama, who defends the right of every American to disagree with his or her government — and who, therefore, is truly patriotic!

I just want to respond to the many comments about the perceived journalistic bias in favor of one candidate or the other. Personally, I believe that Senator Clinton got the better of the deal, but let’s be honest and admit that our perceptions are, themselves, biased. But I would like to add a point that I have not seen elsewhere, and which is directed to most who posted on this subject, not just Carol L. Media bias cannot be judged based on one-on-one comparisons, such as how a single outlet treats one story (e.g., photo coverage of the PA. Primary) on a single day. You can only assess bias — or lack thereof — by viewing coverage over time. Furthermore, the real issue is not whether the media outlet or commentator is tough on a candidate (one function of press scrutiny is to demonstrate a candidate’s ability to withstand the spotlight of the White House), but whether it is equally tough on all candidates. And in our society the press is free to be biased, and it is up to us to perceive those biases and to judge the press’s credibility accordingly. Well, I have gone on too long, and notwithstanding everything I just said, I firmly believe in the public’s right to call a media outlet and complain about their treatment of a story if they want. I believe that the real legacy of these two historic campaigns is the level of engagement that we see in the supporters of Senators Obama and Clinton, and it is wonderful.

In my opinion, whatever Clinton says or does (or does not do, such as concede) at this point is all about the $$$. That is, HRC is doing whatever she thinks will convince or pressure the DNC to pay off her campaign debt, and in particular, to help her recoup the $11 million she and Bill personally stand to lose. Interest in the VP slot is mere posturing, as the Clintons know it won’t happen. (It is a disservice to Hillary’s passionate supporters to fan the flames and keep their hopes up about an Obama-Clinton ticket that the Clintons must know is a “no-deal.”) Clinton is publicly playing the VP card to get what she REALLY wants from the DNC. But we won’t have to have any tag days for Hillary — she’s probably already working on her book deal about the campaign, and she can use the millions she’ll make from that to retire her debt. The Dems should not ask contributors who are on pensions, or the “hard working white” people whom she feels so strongly about, or the wages of any other hard-working people, to pay off her debt. The whole idea is offensive.

Re: Star L (5/10, 5:28 p.m.) Your suggestion that Sen. Obama’s failure to move his family to D.C. indicates that he merely used his Senate post as a stepping stone was off the mark. Many Congressmen “bach” it in D.C. while their families reside in their home states or districts. In Senator Obama’s case, his daughters are 9 and 6, and he obviously did not want to disrupt their schooling. Michelle Obama has an established career at the University of Chicago, and her family-support system is in Chicago. This really does not bear on his qualification for the Senate or POTUS.

Doesn’t wowowow have anyone monitoring the website for offensive and inappropriate content? I refer to the comment by “Alesson O” on 5/11/2008, at 3:56, stating that He [i.e., Obama] could be accused of raping a child and having a love child, and it would all get swept under the carpet.” While I am aware that not everyone favors Senator Obama as the Democratic candidate, this statement clearly crosses the line. I am disappointed that the high-profile women behind this enterprise do not devote sufficient resources to monitoring the website to remove such garbage after an appropriate period of time. This garbage has been on the site for 3+ days. It should be removed immediately.

Six months ago, I considered the Democrats to be very fortunate to have 2 candidates like Senators Obama and Clinton running for Presiden: how can we lose in 2008? I thought. At that time I decided that Obama was the better candidate because he would change “business as usual” in Washington, and has a history of bringing people on opposites sides together, whereas Billary always seems to find a way to get a financial return out of their position, and Sen. Clinton alienates people. That is no longer the case: I believe that Clinton’s “scorched earth, take-no-prisoners” approach to winning the nomination is toxic to the Democratic party, and she should drop out of the race now if the Democrats are to have any hope of winning in November. Recently, numerous Obama supporters I know have spontaneously declared that they will not vote for Clinton in November because of her complete lack of principles in pursuing the nomination. Based on what I hear, most will vote for Nader. If Clinton gets the nomination, Nader’s vote total in 2004 will look like the returns from American Samoa, compared to the votes he will get from disenchanted Obama supporters Democrats who can’t, or won’t vote for Billary. Others say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. Personally, I would be loath to vote for a Republican, but at least McCain appears to have principles, and there are things that he would NOT do to win the election, but I believe that there is nothing too low, or underhanded or dirty for Billary to do to get what they want.