IMO it is a bad, very bad idea to re enforce a negative. That is exactly what this magazine cover does and in a national forum to boot. We are at a place in this race where many Americans are barely if at all paying much attention and to even put the thought into their head that this candidate with the funny name has the slightest connection to our enemy is not a good idea.
They will wish they could take this cover back.
I agree ... mostly. Keep in mind, though, that there is much more going on behind the scenes than we know about. Republican and Democrat black ops people are constantly searching for -- and shopping -- stories. I don't believe the magazine cover of a well known pub, particularly one as Left as The New Yorker is chosen without very careful attention to what it does for circulation and for pushing the editorial agenda and image of the magazine.
It's quite possible they're trying to inoculate against new revelations, or it's possible that their internal polls are telling them the lingering doubts with some groups they think they can "turn" about Obama's associations haven't been laid to rest.
I've said I think this might backfire.
The idea that The New Yorker somehow "get's it," espoused by some people on this and other like minded threads is palpably laughable. Smug and secure in their little island (literally and figuratively) the editors and cartoonists of The New Yorker are too insular to ever "get it." They're as clueless about what's really happening in the world as children; They're so clueless they think we don't know when we're being laughed at. We do know. We're used to it. We just don't care. Nobody whose opinion matters to us works for The New Yorker.