Alright I talked about the New Yorker cover, so I figured I would talk about the Vanity Fair response. While the Vanity Fair cartoon is in poor taste, it isn't as bad as the New Yorker. Let me start by saying I think the Vanity Fair response would be for the most part acceptable except for one thing: The constitution in the fire place. Now I know most would think that it is simply because of my bias that I think this. However if you look at the two cartoons there is a big difference, TRUTH. Like I said the burning constitution is plain wrong. However Cindy McCain did have a problem with pills, even though it is somewhat in poor taste. John McCain would be the oldest president we have ever had. Also the picture of George Bush really shouldn't be offensive, since Senator McCain now promotes most of Bush's ideas. The difference with the Obama cartoon is that there is that he's not a Muslim, his wife has no ties to Black militants, and he has no ties to the nation's most hated enemy Osama bin Ladin. Also in my last post I talked about the historical factors. If the Vanity Fair cartoon would have been first, I most likely would have condemned it. I feel that Vanity Fair was not only trying to balance the scales, but also take some shots at The New Yorker. While I believe the Vanity Fair cartoon is not as bad as The New Yorker's cartoon, neither are really helpful to the political process. Diminishing the McCain and Obama to negative caricatures takes focus away from the issues. The issues that are going to decided what kind of country we live in.