Does anyone else find this controversy over the New Yorker cover a tad bit silly? Silly, and perhaps a little revealing? Apparently, there’s only one acceptable way to portray Barack Obama at this point in the campaign, and it is staring thoughtfully off into the distance, preferably with a halo somewhere near the top of his dome. Desecrating the messiah’s visage is verboten.

People: It’s a joke. I could kind of understand if this was on the cover of NR or TWS and people were flipping out. I’d disagree, of course, but at least I’d understand the complaint. But this is the freaking New Yorker we’re talking about; you can’t fault that magazine for how its clearly satirical cover might be abused elsewhere.

For more on the iconography of Barack Obama, check out this piece by JVL (which I’ve linked to before, but is so worth reading I’ll link to again). Isn’t one of the hallmarks of Fascism an undying reverence for even the images of Il Duce? Just sayin’.*

*No, I don’t think Obama’s a Fascist, so save your righteous indignation. But I do think there’s something vaguely Fascistic about his campaign–the massive outdoor rallies, the oddly reverent images, the cult of personality surrounding the candidate. It’s creepy.