Top News

  We asked what you thought of Vanity Fair Magazine's cartoon showing the McCains in a spoof of the New Yorker's cartoon depicting the Obamas. Here are your responses:


I believe that the New Yorker must be owned by republicans. While dirty jabs are all a part of politics and now a big part of what America has become. Our politics represent what America stands for, these magazines show the world what our government actually is and does, play dirty! The Vanity fair cover was done only to cover up what it had already done with the New Yorker (just trying to take the heat off itself, both magazines are owned by the same company). --Tarl Michael

New Yorker's cover clearly showed a satire, we know it is not true but Vanity Fair's cover shows immaturity and a spoiled brats demeanor, also showed bias and rudeness to older people. Shame on you. --Ernie

The New Yorker cover hits the mark: excellent depiction of all of the fears about Obama. The Vanity Fair cover comes across as mean spirited and smacks of the publisher trying to escape critcism about the New Yorker cover. The publisher loses credibility with the second cover. --Glenn

I don't like either cover, it is very offensive for both candidates. Its as though this race has turned everything this country stands for into a joke. Where is the respect the political system stands on lets get back to candidate issues and good politics not satire, this the a serious time for our country and I think everyone needs to understand its not about making fun its about uniting and trying to draw our country together not tear it down. The New Yorker and Vanity Fair should set the example not show the way to wrong doing. --Stephanie

Satire has long been a tool used in political cartoons. It usually involves varying degrees of poor taste mixed with an element of truth reflecting peoples conceptions and misconceptions. People need to recognize this about the nature of satire, not become overly offended or concerned, and get out and vote the issues in the upcoming election despite these spoofs! --Debbie Miller

If humor is supposed to have a little truth in it, then the Obama "satire" is not too funny. None of it is true. It is thinly veiled (and unpaid for) political advertisement to dispel silly rumor. They can pour out their outrage and everyone can sing the 125th stanza of how they are victimized. The McCain picture on the other hand has a little (maybe too much to be comfortably funny)truth to it. Obama isn't Muslim. McCain has age and health as a handicapping issue. Michelle Obama is not a member of the SLA but the rumors persist of Mrs. McCain's substance abuse problems and no one rushes to her defense. --David Johnson

Good try, but short. Age (elderliness? really now) is not a choice. Rx should have been Vitaman V. And New Yorker had the 'nads to do it for real, not a cop-out "spoof." --Phil Strickland

I like bad satire but consider both to be in very poor taste. --ischriscrazy

I know the New Yorker but was shocked at the cover and found it offensive and soooooooo not funny! The Vanity Fair spoof on the other hand gave me a chuckle. --Suzanne

all I know is that Obama does not get that same feeling I get when I hear the national anthem on the 4th of July watching fireworks, he gets that feeling listening to himself talk, McCain for better or worse is the guy that's gonna lead us out of this war with a victory which we're on the brink of right now, and yet Obama still talks about pulling out, he's the most flip flop canidate I've seen in a while and can only get away with it because Americans actually think he's going to come in and just make this huge difference, newsflash people, there's a congress, house of represenitives, etc., one man doesn't make anything happen in this country, much less someone who flip flops more than other politician because all of them do it, so let's hope the majority of people wake up and realize McCain is the best bet this year, I mean it should be every independant or democrats dream, McCain is the most liberal Republican you will every see, a happy medium, and regardless of how Obama and the media try to twist things, McCain is as night and day from Bush as Obama is, Obama has voted for for Bush sponsored plans than has McCain, get the facts people, don't let the media tell you your opinions, and for those worried about the economy and gas prices, well before 9/11 it was at it's best, all this is tied in to the wars so I really don't want to vote for someone (Obama) who is just going to quit and admit defeat, whether he admits it or not it would be a defeat and only strengthen the ties of those who hate us, so in reality we'd be back to square one in maybe 2 years, maybe 20 years, but would be back at square one if we don't win this war on terror, maybe you'd fill different if you lost someone in 9/11, and yeah, yeah, Iraq ain't afghan, blah, blah, blah, it's all the same over there, --Big Tex

The Vanity Fair cover is a mild spoof of New Yorker. It is "Inside Conde-Nast", not the shocking outrageous depiction given Obama. The VF cover is based on fact: McCain would be the oldest first term president in history. He himself has poked fun at his age in numerous appearances on TV comedy shows. That issue has grown stale and is not funny. On the other hand, New Yorker's cover is based on scurrilous rumors and crosses the line by mocking both race (Michelle's Afro hairstyle, fist bump) and religion (The Muslim dress of Obama, who happens to be Christian). To view the covers as comparable misses the point of the outrage the New Yorker cover generated. To sink to the same level, Vanity Fair could have pictured McCain wearing KKK robes in bed with Miley Cyrus with a picture of his first wife on the mantle while his marriage license burns in the fireplace. That would not only spoof New Yorker while offending McCain but also help publicize its own controversial covers. --Allan Drebin

Vanity Fair cover was actually much funnier,since it had some basis in reality. New Yorker was way out of line, even if they were satirizing the right wingnuts, they did it very very poorly. --Jeffrey Jarrad

I think both, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker Magazines are part of the problem with our Country today. By taking shots at the candidates your taking the heat off the lying scoundrel of a President in office now, but there again, y?all probably voted for him in the first place. --Steven Brown Greenville SC

These magazines are good at spoofing. However the statements made by your reporter should be more of a concern. He stated that one of the spoofs were true and the other wasn't. He was implying that the McCain spoof was true. But McCain does not use a walker nor does Obama wear the head garb. Cindy McCain is presented as a drug addict and Michelle Obama as a gun toting radical. Neither of these are true. So your reporter needs to report the story and not editorialize. We can make our own judgements without reporters helping us. I do not support either candidate so just tell us the facts. --Don

Excellent and truthful especially with the Constitution burning in the fireplace. Too bad Bush wasn't added in the pic as well. Thank you! --Thomas G. Henning

I think that the Vanity Fair Cover is hilarious. I believe it is ok to poke fun at someone's age, credibility, experience, etc... Making fun of someones gender, race, or religon is just in bad taste. Especially when you have some voters who will not realize that these aren't real. Voters lack knowledge in important aspects and vote just on a whim. People rarely take the time to research, they go by what others say, or what they see on T.V. I wish people would have to answer a few questions before they were allowed to vote, to show they really know what they are voting for. PS YOUNG PEOPLE GET OUT AND VOTE!!! --Brent

This is an awful example of how low the print media has fallen. your coverage of the vanity fair cover puts you in the same league with the ultra elitist hip media who have lost touch with America. botht he cover and your coverage are examples of what is ugly about politics --Bill Faris

The candidates are fair game,there is little humor in burning the constitution. The spoof is not working. Most people that see it fail to see the humor. --Jan Hart

Is the Barrack Obama cover really a satire? He really has not come out and denied that he's anti-American. He has not shown any indication that he is not a Muslim. He also has not shown any pride in America. He does not pledge allegiance. I'm not at all surprised that people still think very lowly of him. McCain's depiction is pretty radical. Burning the constitution is actually pretty right on the money. Since he is the most liberal Republican. He probably needs to be listed as a Democrat. --Jerald Russell III

Vanity fair is a silly magazine anyway. They are just ignorant liberals anyway. That is how liberals work, and they don't want to see the fact that the New Yorker actually posted fact on their cover. Liberals like to be blind to the truth and they are mean extremist when they don't get their way. If they would use common since this world would be better.They are narcisistic people, and politically, morally blind. --Barbie Janisch

Plain and simple satire. Both candidates said they expected these kinds of jabs, and even McCain stepped up in saying that the Obama cover was offensive - even though he's running AGAINST Obama. Whether that's a show of courteous sportsmanship or good publicity is beyond me, but the bottom line is they both understand the point that it's meant as jokes. Political cartoons have poked fun at cultural references and hot button issues since the start of newspapers and Democratic elections. This is no different. --David Buchanan

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, but it doesn't define that it should be in good taste. Whichever side of the free-speech coin one is on, we should remember that karma has a funny way of biting us in the butt. I hope Vanity Fair and The New Yorker let us know how that goes for them... And kudos to both candidates for knowing how to let things just roll off instead of taking it personally. --April Kenney-Kauth

While it may be true that if you HAVE to explain to someone that something is satirical, then the point of the satire is lost, the inverse can also be stated that if they have to come out and tell everyone it IS satire, then it is the creators of these covers who have truely lost the point. Satire should be witty and humorous, these covers were more half-witted or even dim-witted in nature. In todays society most people get their "information" in the electronic media (web, radio and tv) and perhaps a few localy printed publications. As such I believe these attempts at satire truly herald the onset of a death nell for these publications on a national basis as they both are slowly decending into irrelevancy. Please can't they be kind enough to just fade away quietly and not behave like a bad actor in a horible play overacting their death scene to hog the spotlight a few minutes more? --Alan J. Cohen

Scare politics and lack of professionalism by both magazines, which happen to be owned by the same company. If the purpose was to attract new readers or to just sell the mags, why did not both the New Yorker and Vanity Fair provide meaningful articles with cover tag lines to attract new readers? Well guess they can hide behind freedom of the press at he expense of providing their readers and the media substance that would be more in tune with what readers and everyone seem to have a lack of these days. The New Yorker could have had a picture of the Obama's and a tag line saying, Myths & Facts We Need To Share For The Sake of Journalist Professionalism. Like wise the Vanity Fair piece could have had a picture of the McCain's with a tag line saying, Reality & Fiction What Reporting Has Not Disclosed and Why: Let Set The Record Straight. This would have been my choice for reading because as it stands, I choose not to purchase either mag because of not wanting to support presentation that is in bad taste. --Ramwick Glasper

I love what Vanity Fair did. They slapped the NewYorker in the mouth.The Obama cover was over the edge and they needed to be brought back down to earth..... --Dwayne Wilson

My understanding of satire as a literary genre or artistic expression is to poke fun at a person or idea with the general purpose of bringing about improvement. Neither of these two magazines achieve this purpose. Instead, both demean the candidates. I find no redeeming value in tearing down a person. --Paul Hussey

I'm canceling my subscription to Vanity Fair. It's a new low and an insult to the McCain's and all elders. --Charles Stuparits

The pictures are funny but how can either magazine say anything but that they are only giving the Democratic Party Line and pictures, and that is all we will see! Where is "equal treatment" for the two political parties? I feel sorry for all those Democrats who are led blindly to vote by the media and not their own personal judgement. Guess that is why we have so many unqualified workers in the USA, as they all take the Democratic handouts without asking why... --jimday

Both are rude..regardless of the fact that they are supposed to be "funny". And as I was listening to your news report you mentioned that the Vanity Fair depicted McCain as he really is but that the New Yorker depicted Obama the way he isn't? How do you KNOW he isn't the exact way the New Yorker portrayed him to be? Whoever was in charge of publishing of both covers should be fired. We the people have enough to worry about! --Rhonda

I think it is absolutely brilliant. It just goes to show that people do have "double standards." The Republicans were quick to call the spoof of Barack and Michelle Obama "typical sattire" but as soon as the spoof of John and Cyndi Mccain comes out it's "tasteless" and "offensive". --Darrell James

Two big time money losing magazines which are no longer relevant are desperate. Typical of the old media. May their bankruptcies be quick. --Tom Drew

The lower half of the bell curve of our population remembers what they see. The New Yorker was slanderous, as many will remember what they saw of the Obamas, not what is said nor written. Perhaps Vanity Fair should have countered by showing Mrs. McCain's addiction to those prescription drugs and Mr. McCain at a desk with nurse on his lap and an attorney holding his hand to sign documents? --A.W.

Touche. Thank you for the comeback. --S. Clark

Both are in very bad taste. --Beba

STUPID, DUMB , both magazines should apologize --Albert D. Mahoney

...both magazines are unprofessional...not the least amusing....bad enough there really is no choice in this election since Hillary has dropped out.....this really takes the cake...what on earth is happening to our country?....let us worry about that....please --Ms. S. Dallos

I do not think the covers are a shame, I think it is the level of ignorance in our country that is a shame. I think it is a shame that you will get a much greater response to this, than you would asking Americans what they think should be done to save this country. We are massively distracted. Kind of like the Roman Empire who had games most days of the year while the barbarians were at the gate. I am very concerned to hear people on the street discussing the issues in this country who think the main issues are the fringe issues that the extremities of our political spectrum spout. The main issues should be what effects EVERY American. For example nobody seems to want to talk about the fact that the Chinese have a multi-trillion dollar surplus, while we have a multi-trillion deficit. What this will mean to our freedoms. What impact this will have on our economy. What impact this will have on our daily lives and future generations. The real problem in this country is that we have such a short attention span that we will respond to political cartoons, we will respond to sound bites, and that we will respond to extraneous matters that mean nothing.... Wake up America- We need to really assess our situation, involve ourselves in the decisions being made, and galvanize as a nation before we end up in the history books as the shortest lived empire in world history... Why are the covers of 2 magazines even being covered? Who cares about Madonna and A Rod? Since when was American Idol a national issue? Why are we concerned with Janet Jackson's right breast? This country needs to WAKE UP!!!!! --E. Kelly

All's fair in politics and editorial covers--and it was so FUNNY, too! As a history teacher, I'm gonna have so much fun teaching my kids lessons using these covers! --Andrea

I think the New Yorker cover is VERY inappropriate! So many forwarded emails have been circulated about Obama being a Muslim and that Michelle isn't happy in America. I have a subscription to the New Yorker through Chicago Public Radio and I feel like cancelling my subscription. The Vanity Fair cover just accentuates the fact that John McCain is old (almost as old as I am) while the New Yorker seems to take the email stuff to another level, almost making it seem true. In fact, being a Muslim should be acceptable because it's the religion of a great many people. I am voting for Obama in any case. --Kay Wade

It's a sad thing, in this country that so many people don't understand political satire. I guess the more modern version would be The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. The fact that these two cartoons must be explained points to a larger issue that so many of our voting public are mostly uninformed. --Anne Anderson

I think that Vanity Fair is an accurater representation of what a McCain Whitehouse would be like. It is unfortunate that the New Yorker would choose to dress up its blatant attempt at discrediting Obama as satire. I think that the owners of both magazines realized their err in judgement and cooked up the Vanity Fair cover to pacify the outrage at the lies they continue to proprogate against Sen. Obama and his family. They would have never done this to the Clinton family. You didn't see any caricatures of Bill, Hillary and Monica sharing a bed. But of course they didn't want to address that truth. --Pamela Manuel

I think the Vanity Fair magazine wasn't shameful. It's more truthful. The New Yorker is shameful and ignorant and not at all true. It's sad when satire can be so hurtful. --Joanne Utsler

As a brother who has been following political events since the primaries, I see both as political satire. Both make me laugh and shake my head. I think their target readership would understand but I would be shocked if I saw these images in the New York Daily News, Post or some other tabloid. --Mr. Nori

Frankly, I think both covers are excellent. I grew up during the era of political satire and daily cartoons that poked fun at both government & religious leaders alike. It's a sad commentary on our times when people have become so concerned with being 'politically correct' that they can no longer recognize the purpose of satire. I hope Vanity Fair and New Yorker will continue to present thought-provoking covers in the future, for those of us who are still able to understand and appreciate the value of satire at it's finest. --D. Gray

I was worried when I saw the New Yorker because there are so many uneducated people who will look at that and think it's "true"--I actually think it did harm to Obama, whom this country needs so desperately to help America recover from being ransacked by a bunch of criminals who care nothing about people, rights, dignity, etc. Kudos to Vanity Fair for this attempt to counter, but it falls way short, except for the Constitution part. Thanks for listening to one of the "People" who is disgusted by almost everyone in Washington who no longer represents Us. --Cheryl Dvorak

Kudos to vanity Fair for taking the sail out of the New Yorker cover. This was more in the vein of satire than the New Yorker one because it is obvious to almost anyone. Unfortunately there are many humorless people out there or many who simply "don't get it". The Vanity Fair mock cover plays on the reality of Sen. McCain and his wife whereas the New Yorker cover fabricated something that was and is not true about the Obamas. Anyway, neither candidate is immune from satire and we should always have the freedom to have it as part of our "gestalt" I am a Barack Obama supporter and hope that this defuses some of the controversy over the New Yorker cover. --Carlos

Vanity Fair took the fact that John McCain IS old and his wife DID do drugs as a joke, almost making the issues less important. Everyone knows that having John McCain in office would be like another term for Bush. The New Yorker on the other hand took fear and lies to depict the Obamas as something that they are NOT. This was dangerous as there are many uneducated people who may actually be fearful that perhaps that picture of the Obamas is a true depiction. Hopefully the Vanity Fair cover will help lighten the effect that the New Yorker cover may have had. --Bimala

The New Yorker cover was bemusing - the Vanity Fair cover made me just shake my head - it wasn't really funny at all. And I read both magazines - very dispappointing that Vanity Fair couldn't think up something else besides focusing on the elderly aspect - which I think offends many Americans right now who are elderly themselves. --Averell McKenny

As someone who regularly reads the editorial page, both covers are interesting commentary that tweak my intellectual curiosity and are consistent with other editorial cartoons that appear daily around the country. Apparently, the general public is not used to having editorial cartoons splashed on national magazine covers. I think the media is voracious for anything it can make a big deal about. The next thing will be making a big deal about making a big deal. --Don Samsal

The two show that Obama's is racistly biased, and neither funny or satirical. McCain's age is a fact. Nothing in the Obama cover pokes fun at him. A satirical cover equal to Obama's would show McCain dreaming of bombing in Iraq and Iran while his wife is handing him money from a liquor machine that is equally spewing money to communities of color where the industry promotes alcohol, meanwhile ignoring the burning flag, crumbling homes, unemployed and hungry people. --Di

we all know politicians lie through their teeth to get elected. They pander to whoever is listening and we never really know what they think in private. Will we ever find out if this is satire or the truth uncovered? We can only hope they're both satire. --Howard Ring

I think that these 2 covers are tasteless. We have freedom to say what we want but please, where your rights end, mine starts. Shame on both Vanity Fair and the New Yorker. --Jose Ortiz

(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Editor's Picks

• CBS 2 WeatherTrak Forecast
• Gay Celebrities
• Famous People Pigging Out
• Did You Know? Stars From Chicago!
• 2009 Celebrity Deaths