Cliched? Maybe. Cheap? Yeah, kind of. An inexcusable offense against Our Glorious President? Hardly. But the way the media is reacting, you'd think that someone was putting up posters showing the President as a vampire feeding on the Statue of Liberty. I guess it's probably just the shock of seeing Obama portrayed as something other than The Messiah. Far be it from me to imply that the media is perhaps overreacting to a negative artistic portrayal of The One. This is in sharp contrast to the applause that greeted the image of George Bush below. Or to the "HOPE" style image of Sarah Palin with blood running down her face. Or the series of photos of John McCain with razor-sharp teeth and a blood-smeared mouth.
But now a poorly-done Photoshop of questionable relevance has set the Liberals' noses a'twitching, Ralph Dibny-style. Why, God only knows. Are they really so thin-skinned that such a ridiculous image can send them into such a frenzy? Be honest: does that picture justify comments like, ""Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery [...] it is mean-spirited and dangerous"? Dangerous? Really? I doubt that the poster is going to turn the country against the country, at least not in the same way his health care plan will. So what's dangerous? Have we gotten to the point where any negative portrayal of the President is intolerable?
If so, when did that happen?