Link: http://bagnewsnotes.com

...has ignited a firestorm in the media and commentary circles.
My view: the fact that the editor of the New Yorker has been obliged to explain that the cover was mean to be satirical shows that it failed as satire. If you have to explain a joke, the act of explanation proves that the joke did not work.
There is a discussion here about the visual aspects of the cover. The cartoonist Ruben Bolling also explains here very neatly why the cartoon does not work in its published form. As he says:

But it's actually less clear what the satirical intent of The New Yorker cartoon is. It just shows an America-hating, terrorist President Obama. Of course, I'm certain Blitt intended to make fun of people's paranoid perceptions of Obama, not how leftist/radical/Muslim Obama is. But that's because I've seen his cartoons before, and because I know what could or couldn't be the stance of The New Yorker. But if this same cartoon were created by Sean Delonas and published by The New York Post, I'd think it was satirizing Obama himself, and that's a very different (opposite) point -- it would be tasteless and offensive.
A cartoon shouldn't rely on the context of its creator and publisher in order to successfully make its point. Some more indicators should have been utilized in the cartoon in order to make the target of its satire clearer.

I'm just pissed off with the magazine for playing into and playing up all of the negative stereotypes and falsehoods already circulating about Barack Obama. They screwed up big time on this, but I am hearing the same obstinate denial that I hear all of the time from media folks these days about their poor performance.
Memo to the editor: an error is not a mistake until you refuse to admit to it. Guess where you are right now?