Daniel Larison, comparing the now infamous New Yorker's Barack-and-Michele-are-terrorists-ha-ha- ha cover to the John-is-old-and-Cindy-pops-pills responsive parodies, points out the obvious difference - - one is true (McCain is old and Cindy had a pill problem) and one is a lie (Barack and Michelle are not terrorists, d'uh).

Note that Larison, a definite paleo-con, is nonetheless an honest man, and did not approve of the New Yorker cover.  ("The problem with the original image, as I've said before, is that it did not exaggerate the claims, but simply repeated them. . . . More than perpetuating falsehoods, the New Yorker cover will now be invoked as a defense for every image that depicts Obama unironically as a terrorist and enemy with some remark along these lines: "Hey, this is just like that New Yorker picture, so there's no problem."")

Yet, Larison correctly points out the danger of rebutting falsehood with exaggeration, if by doing so you unintentionally concede the "truthiness" of both.

An interesting examination of a silly side issue (that will be forgotten by Labor Day).