According to the stock opening lines of many hack journalists and bloggers, "critics" are "outraged" over today's New Yorker cover, which lards up a portrait of Michelle and Barack Obama with nearly every stereotype the Obamas face. (Well, they are not eating babies and/or watermelon, so not quite.) We're not sure who these "critics" are besides the Obama campaign (they sure don't mean "art critics" or "media critics") and idiots who are paid to blather on TV. Are Americans really this stupid? Has our media-blog-media cycle become so unfathomably imbecilic that no one is allowed to comment on anything? Wait, here's a critic! Meet Sean Gardner, prolific commenter on the Huffington Post, who has several specific complaints.

1. "The NEW YORKER cover doesn't have any explanation or attention grabbing headline. Just the illustration. Its is truly irresponsible." Ha, yeah, just like every week.

2. "I suspect THE NEW YORKER did this JUST to sell magazines: the bottom line of moving issues, not the common denominator of responsible journalism." Okay! Actually yeah, they'd better, because they're broke.

3. "All of those folks who blasted Obama for opting out of public financing can see why Obama will need every penny of the hundreds of millions he continues to raise: to fight the garbage that THE NEW YORKER is perpetuating." Good grief.

Syndicated humor columnist Maggie Van Ostrand has also lost her mind over this: "Not Lenny Bruce nor George Carlin nor even rap lyrics made me think that Freedom of the Press could go too far. This cover does."

Oh and there's James Carville: "I think they know what they were doing. They were trying to do a satire."

Pulitzer Prize winner Clarence Page, of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune (who is, incidentally, married to an incredibly hilarious and intelligent academic), thought that maybe it is "just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there" but what the hell would one of the most experienced black journalists in America know.

So maybe it is true that America is far too dim-witted to handle a little bit of cartooning. Notes an Illinois Channel 5 watcher:

I have had your news on since 5 AM and Kim Vatis has twice referred to the picture over the fireplace on the cover of the New Yorker as that of "Obama Bin Laden." Please report responsibly and ensure the reference is to "Osama Bin Laden" - you're creating a new story within a story with your incorrect reporting. ----- Rob Wick, Arlington Heights