After all the hubbub over The New Yorker’s cover featuring the Obamas, the magazine’s Condé Nast rival Vanity Fair has posted on its blog a version featuring John and Cindy McCain. The blog post reads:

“We had our own presidential campaign cover in the works, which explored a different facet of the Politics of Fear, but we shelved it when The New Yorker’s became the ‘It Girl’ of the blogosphere. Now, however, in a selfless act of solidarity with our downstairs neighbors here at the Condé Nast building, we’d like to share it with you. Confidentially, of course.”

And, of course, this isn’t an actual Vanity Fair cover; just one created so that people like me would post something about it.

Many found the Obama cover offensive, including both the Obama and McCain campaigns. Do you find the McCain one offensive, as well?

The Obama campaign calls it “tasteless and offensive.” The McCain campaign agrees. David Remnick, The New Yorker’s editor, told The New York Daily News: “Our cover … combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.” The cartoonist, Barry Blitt, defends his work at The Huffington Post: “I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.”

What do you think of the illustration on The New Yorker’s July 21 cover, which hits newsstands today? Should it be written off as pure satire, or does it wrongly reinforce certain negative stereotypes of the Obamas?

Michelle Obama, appearing this morning on “The View,” said she appreciated Laura Bush defending her last week for her infamous February statement about her pride, or lack thereof, in the United States. Obama, who wrote the current first lady a note thanking her, said:

“But I was touched by it. And that’s what I like about Laura Bush. You know, just calm, rational approach to these issues. And you know, I’m taking some cues. I mean, there’s a balance. There’s a reason why people like her. It’s because she doesn’t, sort of, you know, fuel the fire.”

In an interview on ABC last week, Bush, in referring to Obama’s “first time in her adult life she was proud of the United States” remark, said, “I think she probably meant ‘I’m more proud,’ you know, is what she really meant.”

One thing is missing from the media obsession with Obama’s new campaign against negative advertising: McCain’s exoneration.

After naming Michelle Obama “a Republican target,” an article from CBS News uses conspicuous name-dropping to associate “the first blow” with Cindy McCain. Quoting a speaker who introduced Cindy as “proud of her country, not just once but always,” the article labors to establish the offense to Michelle—but skates around the fact that Cindy had nothing to do with it.

John McCain and Barack Obama agreed last week to keep the campaign “civil,” and avoid the negative advertising strategies that have marred previous presidential competitions. Yesterday, however, the liberal online magazine Salon.com published an article linking McCain to various conservative groups that have produced ads opposing Obama. The column calls on the candidate to ask for his party’s “fat cat donors” not to support negative advertising. Disregarding McCain’s statement publicly distancing himself from some recent negative ads, the article goes on to make the accusation that “This year’s McCain likes to talk reform and act unreformed.”

Does he? In April, even before the gentleman’s agreement to be civil last week, McCain asked the North Carolina Republican party to cancel an anti-Obama ad. And of the supposed anti-Michelle campaign, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin says, the criticism isn’t coming only from Republicans. Asked about some of the rumors about Michelle Obama circulating the internet, Malkin noted, “if you go online and you look for some of these rumors, the proponents of these rumors are Hillary supporters. It’s coming from the left wing, not the right wing.”

For all the media protestations against Republican groups’ negative ads, the continual tie-ins to McCain may well constitute their own negative “smear” campaign—but the Democratic party isn’t leaving it up to chance. Despite the candidates’ agreement on June 4, the Democratic National Convention has been airing an anti-McCain spot since late April.