Good morning,

As you all know, I wasn't very comfortable with The New Yorker's odd Barack and Michelle Obama cover last week. I thought it used incendiary imagery better suited to an editorial cartoon and so, as a result, muddied the magazine's message.

Nevertheless, I am saddened to see that the Obama camp's response has been to ban The New Yorker campaign writer from the candidate's plane next week. Here is what Rachel Sklar said in a Huffington Post report:

Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate — literally, as in, it carries with it the very real risk of chilling bold, outspoken coverage. Whatever one thinks of the New Yorker cover — that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire — a robust press can't operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items.

This notion that Obama is something new, a man divorced from petty politics, always has troubled me. JFK, the president Obama seems to channel, was the consumate politician with a petty streak now obscured by mythology.

Sadly, here is one bit of evidence that Obama may be more JFK like than many would like to believe. It turns out he is no more tolerant of diverse and controversial opinions than the president he strives to replace.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be president. But maybe it's time for some number of citizens, including members of the press, to take off the rose-colored glasses.

steve