Vanity Fair has an editorial response [1] to the now infamous New Yorker Obama-as-terrorist cover [2]. The essential message: John McCain is old, and Cindy likes prescription drugs (where's the reference to her cash?!).

It all may be tongue-and-cheek, but the McCain-VF stereotypes differ from the Obama stereotypes. McCain's critics could legitimately raise issues of McCain's age, connection to Bush-policies, and constitutional positions, all topics illustrated by VF. But it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Obama is a militant that burns the American flag and worships Osama bin Laden.

While VF wants cover-gate to live on, the New Yorker seems happy to let it disappear, literally. At the airport last week, I noticed that all the controversial copies had a sleeve covering the cover as if to hide porn. (Perhaps thanks to a terrorist-image ban at the airport?)

Whether covered-up or out in the open — does one of these covers bother you more than the other?

Source [3]