I strongly feel that the intro by Hillary's supporter borders on inciting violence. Given the horror we just witnessed in Pakistan with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, it was at minimum in very poor taste, and at worst, a veiled threat against someone's life. I do not believe it appropriate to joke in any way shape or form about political assassinations in referencing someone running for or holding office. However, doing it referring to the "first viable African-American candidate" is even worse. Given that the cartoonist is in the UK, he/she may not understand the depth of the very real dangers Obama faces and it's likely that the target was meant as "he's in Hillary's sights to beat". I don't know. As you can tell from my post, my immediate thoughts are visceral too. However, this discussion does remind me of the freedom of expression issues that arose around the publication of the Danish cartoons about Muhammad.

Sent by SF | 4:01 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I share your reaction to this cartoon. And I while I applaud your restraint and effort to examine all its possible meanings, I can't help but think it's chiefly about the dangers Obama faces as a black man with a real chance to gain the White House. I've regrettably learned never to underestimate the depths of American racism.

Sent by Douglas Smith | 4:28 PM ET | 01-11-2008

My initial reaction was that the cartoonist was commenting on the way in which Obama was coming under political attack as the front-runner coming out of the Iowa caucus. I wasn't aware of the deplorable comment from the Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire. Nor am I African American and party to very many conversations about Obama's safety as America's first viable black candidate for president. (Perhaps I naively want to believe we've moved beyond such small-minded ugliness.) Viewing the cartoon with both of these issues in mind causes me to believe it's quite possible the cartoonist was commenting on Obama possibly being targeted for assassination. However, I don't think that makes it a bad cartoon. The purpose of editorial cartooning is to expose important, sometimes unpleasant, truths and to provoke discussion. And if it's the case that, in 2008, a black man still faces extraordinary risk in running for president, then we ought to be talking about it.

Sent by Greg Orwig | 4:33 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The link to this post was sent to me by a friend of mine. At first glance my first reaction was "oh my god, that's horrible". I immediately thought that it represented Obama as an assassination target and I couldn't believe the poor judgement that was excercised by the cartoonist.

After reading the post I learned more about the other possible meanings the cartoon might have but I still think the cartoon was in very poor taste based on what most people's first reaction is going to be.

I'm not african-american and I do share the same fears about Barack Obama being an assassination target.

Sent by Erin | 4:49 PM ET | 01-11-2008

One of the difficulties with analyzing racist comments or images is that there is always the danger of being "overly sensitive". As an African American woman I am constantly editing myself for fear that I am taking things too seriously. That being said, we all can acknowledge the power of words/images, in this case I do take offense to the cartoon- I do not believe the same terminology would have been applied to a Clinton or Edwards. I agree that the comment by Clinton's supporter about the Kennedy assasination is a direct reference to Senator Obama and to my mind tantamount to a warning that he should not get in their way- a sentiment that is often thrown at people of color when they enter into any public or professional arena for the first time. This is just another reminder of the apparent arrogance and feeling of entightlement the Clinton's obviously feel towards the presidency/campaign and their graceless approach to not wanting to acknowledge that Obama is their equal in competing for the presidency. These types of images and comments merely seek to solidify my decision to vote for Senator Obama, his grace in the face of such ignorance is astounding and something that I can aspire to.

Sent by Jabu Dayton | 4:51 PM ET | 01-11-2008

My first reaction is disgust at the nature of the rendering of Obama and I'm very comfortable with it being reactionary. I have zero expectations from the media in regards to their sensitivity to the matter. I'm more offended by the cartoonist's skills rather than the "target." If you're going to make commentary with a cartoon, you should be more creative. Check out cartoonist Keith Knight and see how smart and insightful political cartoons can be. This above is just tacky and easy. OMG a target on OBAMA -- give me a break and go back to drawing school!

Sent by DM - Seattle, WA | 5:08 PM ET | 01-11-2008

No matter how the cartoonist intended for this to be interpreted, the editors surely should have known that this could be miscontrued. It's irresponsible and insensitive, in my opinion.

Sent by LJew | 6:22 PM ET | 01-11-2008

LJew took the words right from my keyboard. I'd be surprised if the ambiguity was overlooked by the Guardian.

Sent by KGill | 6:37 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I don't underestimate for one moment, the depth to which foreign journalists (including political cartoonists) are aware of the real dangers African Americans face in America, specifically intelligent, hopeful/heartful, males with real potential to lead. There is nothing so far that can be used as a strong enough weapon to kill Barack's integrity, character or capability, and even the argument about experience is waning in significance. Everyone knows that the current "C" student leader is enough evidence to kill any argument about Barack's rediness to lead. And as hard as I have tried to keep the thoughts out of my head, I was standing a few feet from Barack during a campaign visit in Seattle, and I had a flash of fear that his life could very well be in danger. History shows us the real danger an African American of his capabilities poses to the status quo. This was not in the master plan and while I am not a conspiracy theorist, I've been proven ignorant on this too many times before. The danger, I believe, is very real.

Sent by Vivian | 7:20 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Innuendoes and undertones are frequently used in the high stakes game of politics in the USA. Talented editors, political surrogates and consultants spend a lot of time thinking about this. I don't believe they overlook anything. I am not surprised, and fully expect to see more of the same....

Sent by Chike | 11:50 AM ET | 01-13-2008

I apologize in advance for the tome??? I did not know that I had so much to say.

Though I cannot comment on all of the political cartoonist???s (Steve Bell) motives, I do think the cartoon IS politically incorrect. There are many ways to make people think and/or stimulate discussion about the US presidential race and Obama???s candidacy and this is not one of them.

I recognize that his job in crafting this and other pieces is NOT to make us feel comfortable or to create heartfelt joy. Political cartoonists thrive on their ability to use caricatures to communicate the irony in current events and to distill controversial issues into their most basic elements???they offer political commentary by sketch and hope that it is insightful enough to garner feedback. A cartoon such as this does exactly what the cartoonist needed it to do???we come away with the understanding that Obama is a target (hopefully, the subtext is that he???s the candidate to beat or that Clinton is within striking distance and not something more sinister) and now we are talking about it. It is likely, however, that there was a better way to communicate this point. And since he had his choice of visual stimuli for this piece, I am sure that he was NOT going for anything as light hearted as a simple ???Obama is one to watch???.

To comment on the cartoon. I take issue with the red lips that make Obama look like a clown, the elongated head which is more akin to a drawing of President Bush (and I know what I think about what is contained in Bush???s head) AND the use of the shooting range target. If this really was a ???one to watch??? comment, he could have easily communicated it most innocently with a track race (you know, finishing line, strip of tape, etc.). I would have sanctioned the use of a rear view mirror with the words ???objects in mirror are closer than they appear??? (with Hillary in the rearview, of course). If Bell wanted to raise the stakes, he could have depicted an Obama figure with a target on his back (the innocent, dart-game, red and white circles type???this is usually how we see it, right?). He may have even thought to include a drawing of Hillary in there???just for good measure so that we could clearly identify who was chasing/targeting whom.

I have gone through and reviewed some of the artist???s other political cartoons???they look innocent enough, with a visual joke or two about the current state of affairs. I would like nothing more than to give the political cartoonist an "out" for innocently using the target as a way of providing us with "how they see us" commentary... Essentially, we could have thought of it as a look at the US Presidential Race from a UK citizen's perspective (subtext, ???they???re after that Obama guy???). However, in light of what we know about the lives and deaths of two of the people to whom Obama has been compared???Kennedy and most recently (after the win in Iowa), King???I think that the target used in this cartoon pushes the cartoon into another realm. It gives the drawing new meaning??? it speak volumes (it could say ???you know what happened to those other two people who were agents of change when we were comfortable with the status quo??? or, more aggressively, ???marked for death???). I find both interpretations troubling, thus, I find the cartoon politically incorrect.

Sent by KH | 1:26 PM ET | 01-13-2008

As far as I am concerned there is zero ambiguity intended. Anyone that has ever fired a rifle at a paper target has to agree that the cartoon is positioned just so. Even sicker is that people (crackpots) can take the time to blow the illustration up and then use it as so. This is just another example of people wrapping themselves in: Amendment I - Religion, Speech, Assembly, and Politics. Or you could view in this light, every war ever fought, every life every given in the name of war, was given so some idiot cartoonist could make a really bad drawing regarding a presidential nominee. Too bad ole "Johnny-on-the-spot" Al Sharpton is too busy probably running his mouth for some other piece of self-promotion to pay attention to things that need attention.

Sent by Just Another Fed Up American | 8:25 AM ET | 01-17-2008

Not only is this cartoon offensive and insensitive, but to me, an African American male, it is frightening! Psychologically it seems to soothe the conscience about placing Obama or any other Black man in harms way...much like an hypnotic suggestion...seeing the unthinkable often serves to make it more palatable.

It ignores the fact that Black men have been and continue to be considered targets and disposible by police and even other Black men. Of course it stirs up fears that Obama could be assassinated should he win the White House, but would any other candidate be placed in such a caricature?

Ultimately, it says to me, that Obama is a real threat and needs to be gotten rid of! This might sound irrational to some, but I have been both Black and living in America far too long to not be aware of the similiarities between this cartoon and the runaway slave "reward for capture or kill" posters of just a few generations ago.

Sent by GBranch | 2:52 PM ET | 01-17-2008

The "cartoon" is politically incorrect--it's also racist, shallow, offensive....
However, the objective of cartoons is to (?) tell everyone that Steve Bell is a bitot? perhaps. On the other hand, its great to see people actually envisioning Obama as the elected President--the first African-American President of the United States...which is electrifying. Thank you for being so moved, but lets try to be tactful and state things in a positive way.

Sent by Enthusiastic | 10:36 AM ET | 02-23-2008

"This is just another example of people wrapping themselves in: Amendment I"

Actually, it's not. It's a British cartoon, and last time I checked, the US constitution doesn't apply over there. But neither does the taboo against the subject of presidential assassinations.

I'm not entirely comfortable with this cartoon. I like and admire Bell's work, and British political cartooning leaves more room for interpretation than its heavily-labeled American counterpart, but he generally needs time to understand a figure -- his Bush cartoons from 2000 are much weaker than the ones post-election -- and he's at the same stage here with Obama. A bit too broad, a bit too superficial.

But as a British expat in the US, I can understand where Bell's coming from -- it's the perception that any black man who rises high enough to make a real difference in American politics has been cut down. My friends in the UK hear the comparisons to JFK and RFK, and thinks of their fate: 'anyone good gets shot.'

These things are uncomfortable, but you can't deny they're there. I've heard jokes about Obama naming Clinton as his running mate in order to make potential assassins think twice. And when the news channels stay with Obama rallies, I start thinking, 'are the producers trying to avoid getting scooped if something bad happens?'

It's a laying bare of our genuine fears.

Sent by holgate | 12:38 PM ET | 03-13-2008