1. Some people are never going to like Obama.

2. The reason why some people are never going to like Obama may be irrational, or even hateful.

3. Some of these people get to vote.

There is nothing you can do about it.

Move on.

None of this is new: take Obama's name out and put in your favorite politician's name and it's the story of American politics.

But question: How many pictures of George W. Bush have you seen over the years depicting him a a monkey or a dunce?

Where was your umbrage then?

(A magazine brave enough to depict Obama as a monkey and call it a satire: now that would be something to see.)

The difference is that when someone depicts Bush as a monkey, it's because they think he is foolish and are making fun of him. We assume The New Yorker doesn't think Obama is a terrorist, so why are they putting a big cartoon on their cover that makes him look like a terrorist? Because they are making fun of those who think he is one? A bit too subtle for the cover if you ask me. I have no problem with freedom of expression and The New Yorker can put whatever the hell they want on their cover, I just think they are getting the opposite message across from what they intended.

This is a brand spanking new story. Telling someone to move on requires the passage of time and for a story to have been beaten into the ground. This ain't even come close.

Shoot, your RightWingNutJob pals are still going after President Clinton over a silly blowjob by a fat chick. IF anyone needs to "move on," it'd be y'all.

Regarding your analogy to poking fun at the Pretzeldunce, there is a significant difference. Bush really looks like a chimp and he really is stupid. There is no substance to the made up fantasies about Obama and his wife. And calling Bush a stupid chimp doesn't cast him as a traitor or a terrorist.