1. People who are regularly exposed to The New Yorker.

What percentage of these people do we honestly expect will fail to get the joke? Do they even carry The New Yorker at Walmarts in Ohio? Doubtful. I was at a (fairly extensive) rest-stop newsstand in Ohio a month ago. I searched in vain for Lucky (though I did encounter a stack of Redbooks) and also noted that while they carried the Post, they didn't appear to carry the Times. Based on that admittedly unscientific survey, I think The New Yorker is probably a non-issue. While we're at it, perhaps we can also safely shrug off any provocative cartoons that appear hereafter in, you know, McSweeney's or Vanity Fair.

2. People who encounter the cover in the context of this "controversy."

Let's assume the worst scenario possible, which is that they're watching on Fox News. Controversy will be presented as such, and even O'Reilly can be expected to clearly and repeatedly state that the cover was intended as satire. Angle will likely be something to the effect of, "is that silly liberal media too vulgar and irreverent for its own good?"

If anything, Fox specifically is likely to tie this back to the original gaffe being that's parodied, which is the incident wherein some Fox talking head apparently coined the "terrorist fist-jab" reference. There will be a lot of indignation about The New Yorker mocking Fox, but probably no viewer will be left with the impression that the cover reflects any establishment consensus perception of the Obamas.

I, btw, am an undecided voter who has been leaning towards McCain. Mostly this is because of taxes and because I'm feeling exasperated by the righteousness and the boring, cloying earnestness of "Obamamania." But this cover made me grin, and I felt my sympathies tick ever so slightly in Obama's favor.