The Blog

Nice optimism there. And this covering-out-ass explanation is right up there too...

I agree with you about the reason for the cover, but wish you could have waited a day so Obama could bask in his glory. He'll have to face the chaos soon enough.

I like the cover. Anyhow, for the ignoramus who called your offices and said "we're assuming he'll screw up because he's black", for one he is not just black. Hello, he has a white mother. And two, Black people will continue to use the race card even after the presidency has been one by someone who is other than white!! Give me a break.

Henry: The paper isn't done hitting the streets until Thursday, so we sort of were waiting a day. But the Internet, it don't wait. Dude: Optimism alone isn't enough. That's the point of the cover. Also, what Alison said about the role of the press.

So what do you say after you say "Hallelujah"? That's what this week's Reader cover is about. I can see now why the New Yorker likes to let its covers speak for themselves -- especially that cover of the Obamas bumping fists (which I like now more than I did when it ran). A paper or magazine chooses one cover over another because it feels right -- not because it's easier to argue in court. So about our Obama cover, which some readers find insulting... Here's why I like it -- and it's not exactly the reason my editor, Alison True, gives. In life there are no happy endings because there are no endings. The sun comes up Wednesday morning and Barack Obama wakes as the president-elect of a country with bigger problems than it's had since World War II. And on his shoulders isn't simply the responsibility to tackle those problems; he's also toting his ardent supporters' lofty expectations that he will be transformational, the president who leaves American society fundamentally more decent than he found it. That's some load. And it's not like millions of Americans aren't thinking one thing -- "Hey, we're getting our government back! -- and drawing up totally incompatible lists of what they think should be their man Barack's top priorities. And its not like there aren't millions of other Americans hoping Obama fails so they can climb back on top. Have you ever watched a tightrope walker perform without a net? As he coolly climbs the pole maybe we think, "Wow! Magnificent!" But once he's inched out onto the swaying wire and there is nothing below him but air we have only one thought: "Don't fall." And now the tightrope walker is juggling big colored balls labeled "Hopes and Dreams." The Reader's not dissing Obama. We're holding our breath.

I have been a fan and enthusiast of the Reader for years, and have never even looked at the paper's blogs until just now. I usually read your paper on the El on Wednesday afternoons (on Thursdays until recently), and today I found the cover so embarrassing that I carefully folded it over to hide it while I read. Think of the major accomplishments of African-Americans over the past 300 years. Last night ranks in the top three, easily. Yesterday I overheard a black CTA worker talking about how she took the train all the way out to Bolingbook to vote yesterday. I hid your cover from her, on this day after the election. Of course Obama will be held to standards, just as Bill Clinton was when don't-ask-don't-tell became an issue soon after his inauguration. But let's take at least -- at least -- a few hours to celebrate the occasion, whatever reservations we may have about his coming term. And just to make it worse, look at this: I know you can't control Google ads, but look at the particular one appearing at the bottom of this blog's page as I write this: http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CP2x2t6Q44PMIxCsAhjvATIIJu-6jErW_4o

Yeah, Reader, why didn't you go through the big expense and hassle to completely change your publishing schedule so we can all feel warm and squishy for a few more hours? Lord knows your company can afford it. Eric, I have a feeling that CTA worker, if she has the resolve you credit her with, doesn't need you to infantilize her and "hide" what you deem is offensive material.

what ever happened to "feets, don't fail me now!"--you guys REALLY missed the boat

People need to chill out...I know we all have super high hopes for Barak but we are currently in an extremely sensitive global economic downturn. One mistake in the first few months may prove to be costly for. This cover is honest representation of the times we're in. Shit - I couln't have said it better...I would hate for my conservative friends, family and coworkers to say "I TOLD YOU SO". Just because he won the election does not mean we are headed for good times. He better not screw this up!

The fact that the default is to a 'bot' as opposed to a human being tells a lot of the expectations you have for your readers. The cartoon is offensive and distasteful - not well thought out. The implication is Barack is unqualified and is being allowed a chance. Barack is qualified - not because of his shade - but because of his integrity, leadership skills and ability to problem solve. The assumption that he could screw up is not supported after having withstood almost two years of proving how capable he is.

It seems to me that the problem is one of timing. Today the story is that history was made- a major historical figure was born, America woke up and spoke out after years of complacency, African-American and all American history has changed forever. Yes, it's important to hold him to his promises, and no one is asking for "cheerleading," but to play the watchdog today is at best to be posing as jaded and world-weary no-nonsense, hard news, and at worst, a slap in the face to all the peoplefor whom BHO's election was one of the most significant things of their lives. Disappointing.

Already? I still have confetti on my shoulders.

Eric the Google ad asks a very important question. Did Obama, who raised and spent more money than ANY Pres candidate ever, buy the election? You know, despite being slammed by the hyped up folks over at dailykos, Ralph Nader and John Cleese both recognize that the amount of money American Politicians spend to get elected is part of the reason they are in debt to their contributors. Just because we like a candiate doesn't mean we get to stop questioning his methods.

If McCain had won (phew!), the "Please Don't Die" cover would have been a welcome balm of laughter for troubled & bitter tears.

It's funny how our current administration has and still is until the last day screwing up and noone has placed any demands on him. Heck, black or white, our new president could wear a paper bag singing the star spangled banner everyday and still do a better job. However, I do understand what is meant by the banner and agree, but he can't fix things overnight because they didn't get messed up overnight. We can't pressure this man when we sat by for 8 years and let things get this way in the first place. Everyone should just be fair and remember it's not going to be easy cleaning up the mess of others. We'll see, but I am always optimistic.

I thought the whole great, wonderful thing about Obama was that he was post-racial. Certainly there wasn't much else to be excited about. His policy proposals are pretty much boilerplate tepid DLC stuff and his background is super thin, ambiguous and dicey. . But instead, race seems to suck up every last molecule of conversational oxygen. We have to be hyper, hyper, hyper aware and sensitive to race when discussing Obama and never, never forget it. This entire campaign, I think, exceeded all others in my memory in its childish and counterproductive harping on this subject. By comparison, the media's stupid pursuit of Palin's wardrobe expenditures looked like lofty discourse. But only in comparison. . After nearly 2 years of this all-race-all-the-time nonsense (Kass, by the way, being one of the few to depart, honorably, from the line), it will be fascinating to see whether we any of us can nudge the needle into anything like a substantive discussion of whether Obama actually proves to be worth a damn as president.

Prescott, I wasn't worried about offending the CTA woman, who wasn't on the train when I held the paper -- I thought of her because I saw the cover outside the same station where, 24 hours earlier, she had beeen talking about how excited she was to have made the long trip to vote. And when I picked up the paper and saw the cover, and then read the banner, I thought of her, and of all of my friends who just this week had gone to Iowa, Indiana, and Wisconsin as volunteers. We were still in the first 24 hours of celebrating that, remarkably, the country had not screwed this up -- and that no single person had screwed up election day; no cop or nut had screwed up the event in Grant Park that had raised so many fears. I understand it's the media's proper role to throw a turd in the punchbowl, but the distrust and cynicism of that cover, again on that particular occasion -- on streetcorners around the city on the day after many of us unified to get something positive done, and did -- is what prompted me to hide the cover while I read the paper, to not want to share it with anyone.

And, anyway, which U.S. presidents do you think "screwed it up" and which ones did not? And was that clear at the time they made essential but unpopular choices? That's part of the problem I have with the statement itself.

i have never heard the media ask any other presidential elect to make sure they" dont screw this up"....hmmmmm timing.... So justify it however you racists feel like justifying it...the people who see you for what you are have just seen more proof!

Maybe the next Reader cover could feature the salty Rahm Emanuel with the headline "Don't Fuck This Up."

There's another stream of comments about this over here: http://tinyurl.com/6aatgs

God knows George Bush and every other president has done their share of screwing the American public. Why should Obama be held to any other standard. I, for one, haven't had a stable job in the last 4 years, thanks to the Great American Heist Bush and Cheney pulled off. Obama can't do anything worse. Just thank God the witless Sarah Palin didn't get a chance to destroy us further.

I voted Obama, the cover statement is very true, even Barack addressed the hardships ahead of his own cabinet in the years to come. My question is why didn't you wait and ask the question after he was actually the President, you know, on January 20th of 2009? Remember Bush is still in office. Give that guy the headline, "I screwed up".

Living abroad, but a former Chicagoan, I find the comments very humorous about the so-called racist overtones. Is this what we have to live with for the next four years? Any criticism of Obama will be shot down as racism? Harold Washington must be spinning in his grave -- what a bunch of wusses who cannot stand up on their own and fight back fairly about Obama. "Yes, we can" has been replaced with "Yes, we did." Now appropriate: "Yes, you better."

It's not pretty, but it's exactly the sentiment I was feeling Tuesday night. I voted for Obama, I'm glad he won, and hope he is a great president. But so many expectations have been placed upon him, and our problems are so many, that I can't help but hope, "Don't screw this up." It's the same advice I give myself when I've been offered opportunities: new jobs, heading a committee, being elected to anything from church council to condo board. People place faith in you and expect you to deliver. It has nothing to do with his color. It has everything to do with faith, hope, and expectations. I'd be surprised if, in private moments, Obama hasn't said the same thing to himself.

Not being a cheerleader doesn't = taking a crap all over a transcendent moment in American history. You could have done a lot better.

Well from an artist and a African-American perspective I take extreme offense to this cover. I love the reader's diversity but I never remember in the history of the reader them publishing such a cover on Bush when he was elected. Our country has suffered the last past 8 years and for the BUSH atrocities he should've been impeached sometime ago. Also the use of a cartoon versus a real image tells me that the publisher or creative director who approved this apparently felt it was comical to depict our new president as a fake, not real or a person unworthy of this job. No other local paper has printed anything like this and be it that Obama is a local guy I feel this was totally disrespectful.

This cover expressed my sentiments exactly. And only _because_ he is offering such a wonderful change - a true breath of fresh air...and it has nothing to do with skin color but everything to do with politics and the human condition....and the "if it's too good to be true" idea. There is so much good about him being elected...and I just really hope he can keep true to all he's said that has been so up-lifting and inspiring and that he can govern from the center as a president really ought. I fear the extreme left may woo him and that his good intentions may lead him...well, you know where the road to good intentions leads...and I would have felt this about _anyone_ who ran such a beautiful campaign and offered such a new vision (or really as I see it reminded us who we are!). It has nothing to do with blackness - good heavens - but everything to do with being human and being placed on a pedestal - it's a tough spot to be (for anyone, not for a black person, but for any person) - he is going to attempt to adjust the sails and it's a tough, strong wind -it is easier said then done in the murky world of politics. Things would have been easier for McCain I hate to say, only because the expectations would have been lower, status quo, if it ended up that way, wouldn't have really raised an eyebrow. We are used to disappointment and watching our leaders not live up to their promises for one reason or another (and I'm not such as cynic to say there aren't many leaders out their doing an excellent job - but we are always ready to watch them fail and it's not a shocker when they do). I really, really, really want to see him blow that idea out of the water - I want him to shock us by actually bringing about what he's sold us on...finding solutions that involve listening to both sides and anywhere in between -finding the truth where it is - somewhere in the middle and helping move those truths into play. And I do hope he keeps encouraging us to engage locally, to lift each other up and find solutions locally. It's exciting times and I would have said it to anyone who won as he did with his message "don't screw it up" - don't' let it get to your head and forget your own message and ideas...keep humble and keep above the fray!

I too was disappointed by the cover. Yes, Laura, most of us are rooting for Obama to fulfill his promise and promises. But why not put that in a positive way? Even the McCain cover said "Please." The Reader headline for Obama's triumphant moment sounds cynical, arrogant, and imperious, which I think is one reason some people are saying it's racist.

Rama B, I would argue that it's not a cartoon, or a caricature-- it's a portrait--but everyone's entitled to his own perception. (And Maureen, extrapolating anything from our spam filter seems like a stretch.) No, we didn't run a postelection cover telling Bush not to screw things up. We had no sense that he'd do anything but screw things up, so it wouldn't have been funny. Our intent was not to imply that Obama is incompetent--quite the opposite. It was to point, succinctly and with a touch of gallows humor, to the incredibly high expectations (including "magic") laid on a guy who's really just one key cog in an enormous machine that--if you'll permit the overuse of metaphor--is running totally haywire across a field of land mines.

Just to be clear if anyone is wondering,I'm not the "Eric Z" who is posting here. Whenever I do post to blogs I use my full name.

I can't believe that so many people consider such a valid statement racist. I'm ecstatic that we finally have someone other than an old white man in the Presidential office, but the idea that we can't be critical of who is in office because he's black seems absolutely outrageous to me. Besides, I don't even consider the cover that "critical" - it was just echoing a pretty common feeling. We've placed so many expectations on Barack that a lot of us are now just crossing our fingers and hoping he delivers on his promises - not because he's black, but because he's a politician,

Everyone needs to wake the hell up!!! I think that was wrong. It seems like no one wants to even give him a chance. If Mccain would have won this election what would have been said then??

It's interesting that Michelle said the same thing to Barack right before he stepped onstage to give his keynote speech at the 2004 Dem Convention: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/221458,CST-NWS-mich21.article "The remark is classic Michelle Obama -- a woman who faces reality head-on with candor, humor and tenacity, who keeps her husband grounded, who keeps him real."

"Dude: Optimism alone isn't enough. That's the point of the cover." Of course not. But "Don't screw up"? YOu could have just as easily have conveyed your message with something like "We're counting on you", "Don't Lose Our Faith", etc. "Don't Screw Up" as a first response to something like this is something a parent says to a kid who they feel has disappointed them time and time again. "Don't Screw Up" contains none of the objectivity that the press (I guess that included you to0, right) is supposed to display. Hell, even "Please Don't Die" contains more objectivity. Whatever...

Your cover got people fired up and talking. Good job.

I experienced "Don't screw this up" as a humorous riff on Obama's theme of hope. Hey, EVERYONE is crossing her/his fingers in this very anxious time. The alternate McCain cover was a humorous riff on a very different type of anxiety.

Everybody relax and consider a rudimentary concept: sometimes art critiques culture and politics. Obama himself has taken his face and made it a Warholian icon, as omnipresent as air or water. One cannot commercialize words like HOPE and CHANGE without a fair amount of push back. I am relieved and inspired by Obama's victory, and am excited to be taken into a post-racial era, but I also don't want to forget what it means to be challenged.

Obama the person, not Obama the black person? That comment right there showed that this paper is woefully underqualified to talk about racial issues. Since race colors everyone's experiences in this country, how exactly does someone divorce themselves from their color? In addition, the cover for McCain begs him not to die. The cover for Obama begs him not to screw up. Why the assumption that Obama would fail, and the assumption that the only thing that would go wrong for McCain would be him dying? The media folks can pretend that this was unbiased, critical thinking but they are fooling themselves. Typical.

He might not screw up, but you sure did!

How the hell can anyone see that cover and think it has anything to do with race????

Also, this cover is FANTASTIC because it helps prepare us for the inevitable: Obama will not be able to fulfill all of his campaign promises, at least not in the first few years. Blind supporters are setting themselves up for a colossal dissapointment. Be excited, but be prepared.

Obama's vote on the FISA bill and, importantly, how he spoke with his supporters afterwards gives one clear picture of what is ahead. Outside of right-wing blogs and radio, I haven't heard anyone associate "magic" with Obama. He won the election in part because progressive Chicagoans put great time and effort into getting out the vote in Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa, most essentially in the primaries but also this fall. To assume they are naive or delusional is to condescend to those of us who have felt kinship with the Reader for so long.

I heard an excited supporter use "magic" on WBEZ this morning.

I appreciate the fact that the media is suppose to have an objective point of view. However the implication of racism comes into play when you choose to expresss that objectivity only in certain situatiions. Now we all know what expectations we have when ever we elect any officials but never before have I ever heard qoute "Screw UP" implied to a President entering into office and considering the shape things are in now anything contrary to the present circumstances would be considered a fix. I know you could have chosen many other adjectives to express the same concerns but instead you seemed to have taken the most racial approach express your deepest fear. It makes me sad to think that as far as we've come as a nation there is still so much hidden racism.

"but I also don't want to forget what it means to be challenged." "Don't Screw Up" is not a challenge, it's an admonishment. "Make us proud" is a challenge. Would you tell an astronaut heading into outerspace for the first time into unchartered territory "Don't Screw Up"? That's your message to someone embarking on an history journey?: "Don't Screw Up"? "Hey, Lewis and Clark, don't screw up, OK?" How about acknowledging the history of this occasion, Reader, while reminding Obama that he carries the hopes and dreams of a lot of people on his back, of ALL races? "Don't Screw Up"? Really? That's the best you guys could come up with. And I find it hilarious that you guys offer a downloadable version on this site. What is someone supposed to do, print it out and frame it as a keepsake of this pivotal moment in U.S. history. "Don't Screw Up". And the fact that you continue to defend that trite, snarky, hipster-ironic decision as sound journalism. And I'm not even throwing the whole race aspect into it, though I could see how someone could. C'mon, just admit it. You fucked up.

Racism is the new witch hunt!

Anthony, we took the most racial approach? OK, then so did Michelle: http://tinyurl.com/2huk3c. As did Obama himself: http://tinyurl.com/5upxxp

Contrary to what is being implied by many of the cover's critics, the subtext of this piece is the assumption is that everyone reading the Reader is 100% in the tank for Obama already and have spent two years working to make Nov. 4th happen. The "This" in the banner is supposed to be something intimate between "us" and Obama, and rather than being a racist, cynical attack, this is a grounded, good-humored dose of reality.

Come on, folks. This is a remarkably oversensitive reaction. Racist?? Does that mean that every time someone says something negative about the persident he will risk being branded a racist? That is pathetic, and unworthy of our great republic. to me it was a completely fair and not unhopeful slogan. It shows that our hopes are resting in him, which is pretty optimistic and downright complimentary. it also acknowledges that we are holding our breaths hoping that he is up to the challenge. There also is a dash of of recognition that we have all been burnt before, and we are desperate to quiet the little voice in the back or our minds that says, even when we support the new guy, "We get on our kneees and pray... we won't get fooled again!!" one more thought... the most delightful part about it is that, because Barack is our own hometown guy, for once in its life the plucky lil ol' Reader can speak directly to the soon to be President of the United States via its front page, and have a reasonable hope that the message will cross his line of sight right in your own honor boxes. That is COOL!, and somehow makes it finally hit me that our local guy is the Leader of the Free World.

One more thought ... not to be morbid, but your McCain cover could go just as well with Obama's, for different reasons. I will pray every day from yesterday until he retires, that God will shield him from the genuine racists who would do him more harm than publishing a snarky cover illustration.

Slogan, I meant to say. your McCain cover's slogan could go with Obama's pic, but for different reasons.

Just for the record, I never called the cover "racist", although I could convincingly argue how some could see that side of this. "Contrary to what is being implied by many of the cover's critics, the subtext of this piece is the assumption is that everyone reading the Reader is 100% in the tank for Obama already" Well given the Reader's history, its approach to various stories and the past politicans they've championed, why is that a difficult assumption to make. Oh wait... Creative Loafing... slash and burn staff cuts. Yeah, I guess I was thinking of the old Reader. Sorry. So have their been any direct requests such as this with any other politicans. I mean with the ample ammo given to them by Daley over the years (as well as a myriad of other local pols), I figure there must be at leat ONE instance of a "Stop Screwing This Up" headline for them. Right?

I gotta agree with Jesse and others that said the problem is with the timing. I came to chicagoreader.com to celebrate online with my fellow Chicagoans and the cover was kind of a bucket over ice water poured on the celebration. But yeah- big overreaction from most commenters. All you shrill "Rascist!" screamers- Obama doesn't need you to stand up for him, thanks. He's the freakin' first black leader of the free world!

Amanda, Obama is one half Black, one half other...and ALL RED!

I just saw a vid on youtube of obama talking to his campaign HQ after earing the Democratic Party nomination. Expounding on their new obligation to do their best on behalf of the entire party, to win the election, Obama says, "We don't have a choice, because now, if we screw this up, all those people that I've met, who really need help... they're not going to get help." Not quite a direct quote on your cover. But pretty darn close. Its at minute 11:40 on "Barack Speaks to HQ Straff & Volunteers." So please, can we all just lay off the Reader?

"We serve our readers: we're observers and reporters and commentators." First, you have obviously not served your readers. Second, to argue that you are not 'cheerleaders' but then say that you are 'commentators', including a 'naysayer' comment on your cover seems like quite a contradiction. Maybe a high school debate team member could help you form a more cohesive response to your disrespectful, untimely, and disconnected cover this week.

"We don't have a choice, because now, if we screw this up, all those people that I've met, who really need help... they're not going to get help." " So what if he said it? That's not the point. The line in the banner on the Reader cover is not a quote, it's the Reader's assessment of the situation as it stands right now. If they were quoting him, perhaps everyone would just "lay off the Reader". But they weren't. They're apparently giving him instructions for governing, as if he hadn't a clue about not "screwing up" before. And it stinks even further, given all of the press the Reader has given Obama over the years, most of it positive and encouraging, and NOW they think they have to remind him not to screw up? It's as if they haven't read their own stories. I personally don't even have a problem with the choice of words, just the timing. This couldn't wait a few weeks, months? Hell, print it on his inauguration day. The Reader prints a new issue every week; it isn't like they won't have another opportunity to chide Obama into doing the right thing. They're going to have four years to tweak him. And I understand all about counterprogramming: while everyone else goes one way, the Reader can go the other. I get it. It makes you stand out, gets people talking (like this, I guess). And the Reader, of course, has every right to create this cover. I just think it would have been cool for people to be able to include the Reader cover in their collection of newspaper front pages that lots of people will invariable collect. I'm going to guess that a lot of people won't be doing that. Which makes that downloadable version more of a joke. Is it supposed to be framed or something. How about creating an alternatve version without the words and see which version get downloaded more?

I know that your intention was absolutely to address Obama as the next president and not as the first African-American president, but since Nov. 4, 2008, was an extrordinary important date in history, imagine how these headlines might look now: 1849: Elizabeth Blackwell, you're the first woman in the United States to receive a Medical degree: don't screw this up! 1922: Rebecca Felton, you are the first woman to serve in the U.S. Senate: don't screw this up! 1932: Amelia Erhardt - you are the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic: don't screw this up!

Don't mess with my Messiah! Too little, too late!

You mean you don't want Obama to screw up his term the way you all screwed up the cover of the Reader?

Dear The Reader, I do not like your cover. Sam I am. I do not like it on a boat. I do not like it with a goat. Sincerely, Graham Jorgenson

I am certainly willing to give the Reader the benefit of the doubt: it was trying to make a pungent political statement, not a racial slur. But don't you have even one--just one--African-American on your editorial staff who could have warned you of how offensive people of color will find your cover? Is the Reader that lily white, that out of touch?

I've been an avid fan of the Chicago Reader for years... Until yesterday. I am competely disgusted by the choice of words used after such a historical day. I am a african american female, i didn't take the cover as racist, but took it as ignorance... " Don't screw this up" did he " screw" up his well managed campaign... did he screw up the 650 million dollars that people donated to him. with which he used to send out text messages, advertisement on video games, 30 minute of air time to fully state why he should be president. However, the reader didn't capture his moment. Instead you attempted to break him down even before he began... I am an avid barack obama supporter, but even if Jon Mccain picture would have stated "Don't die i would still be disgusted by the choice of terminology.. the issue we have is terminology... Your right it's not the chicago readers choice to side with a political figure. but it is my choice to no longer advertise, or real this paper.

Mark, you assume all African Americans think with one mind. Things will get a little easier for you when you STOP LOOKING TO BE INSULTED! If everyone were as fragile as you, nothing could ever be accomplished. This cover is a little something we like to call "humor". I think you are not as delicate as you would have us believe...is the color of your skin your defining characteristic? Neither is mine. Evolve.

Sounds like a McCain voter. The reader? I didn’t know it was still in existence, interesting “antics” for trying to gain some market share. Should have tried a photo, like the Sun-times, (250,000. Reprints) I understand the economy is bad, an as the rest of newspapers in the country, circulation is dwindling. But be careful the chance of, trying to obtain market share doesn’t have the opposite effect. Look out the window ! Look at the economy ! Look at the stock market ! George W. IT CANNOT BE MORE MESSED UP ! !

Mark, I just re-read your comment. Accusing the Reader of being "lily white" because you disagree with them shows you have along way to go.

It's amazing that guys like Eric Z quickly attack The Reader for the cover. I ask, if McCain had won and they used their optional cover, would you have been as quick to cry? Don't get me wrong, I am not a McCain supporter but a strong supporter for freedom of the press. The fact is either you want a press that monitors a government or a "feel good" press that agrees with your viewpoint.

I don't mean to tie up the comment page here, but the reason I care isn't because a newspaper printed this cover but because the paper I have thought of as my paper of record -- as a Chicagoan, as an artist, as a progressive citizen -- did so. If Lumpen had run this cover, or the McCain one, it would've reminded me why I'm glad that they exist but also why I don't read them often. Also, now that I've read that this stemmed from Michelle Obama saying "Don't screw this up" to Barack O. right before his 2004 convention speech, it makes a world of sense. In an art gallery or a coffeehouse, especially with that context, it might make me smile. But without that context, it sends a very different message.

Didn't take long. Leno wouldn't touch him. Letterman hit everybody but... But when The Reader quotes Obamas wife from 2004, the crying towels come out in droves and people light their hair on fire. Folks, he wanted this office. He asked for it. He knows what every past president, and especially during the last 8 years has had to endure. He knew what he was getting into. And if he's as fantastic as you all say he is, why does he need you to defend him? Just because your audacious optimism is tied to this guy doesn't mean he's not going to made fun of. Deal with it! And continue to deal with it. Only half the country feels like you do about him. If he's good, he'll win some of the respect of the other half. Either way, the cartoons will only get more caustic.

Last comment... "I ask, if McCain had won and they used their optional cover, would you have been as quick to cry? Asking someone not to die is a little different than asking someone not to fuck up. Of course McCain is going to die someday (probably sooner than most of us). That was obviously an attempt at humor, given the fact that he can't really control his death (and given what was waiting in the wings, which is a joke in itself). We get that. But the Reader has gone out of its way to state that it was serious about "Don't screw this up". McCain can't control his death, which is funny of them to ask. Seriously asking someone not to fuck up something as important as the presidency, as if he had a history of fucking up and they didn't want to see this become another one. Not the same. See the difference?

In the same paragraph that you try to defend your position you poke fun at a white woman...all in jest?

I think the paper made a good statement after all Obama has asked for in thinking HE IS THE ANSWER to all the problems that beset America today. If he proceeds to do 25 to 30% of what he thinks he can, I believe he is in for a rude awakening.

I find it quite interesting that when Bush was elected these kinds of comments were not made. White america looked upon this man as the best thing since Ronald Reagan. Yet, Bush turned out to be the biggest moron to ever step into the white house. He is almost single handedly responsible for the biggest increase in gov't, and the greatest increase in the deficit that has ever been in America. Where were the republicans when this idiot ran rampant over the last eight years. Why didn't they check this fool? Yet, the caption on your racist paper says, "Don't Screw This Up"? in reference to Pres. elect Obama. Did you tell bush the same thing? What about during his second term? Did you raise up in arms over the Bush mismanagement of Americas affairs? Your cartoon is clearly racially motivated and to try and cover your bigoted butts with that bogus statement don't cut it. The current white president has sent this country down the toilet, a black president can't do any worse than him!!! I would urge people to stop supporting the Reader IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

I find it curious that so many assume the cover had to do with Obama's race. I took the snarkiness to refer to the fact that we're in deep Sh*t and have placed such high hopes on Obama to rescue us. My reaction was also chagrin that there always has to be someone to piss in everyone's Cheerios, who thinks it's clever and superior to be cynical when so many people are feeling positive. It's a juvenile cover, Reader, given all the choices you could have made. It just is. So I propose that we act as though we've really been listening to Obama's message and realize that this cover could be a real reflection of HIS message TO US. Individual responsibility. Works for me. Getting him elected was just the start. So let's be aware, upright and determined, and understand that the task ahead belongs to all of us. And we can't afford to screw it up.

At a time of great hope and pride and optimism in the country and especially CHICAGO, I found the cover to be an example of the Reader trying way too hard to be "alternative." Yes, like any politician, Obama is fair game for our criticism but don't belittle the historic nature of his election. Let's revel in it for a bit!

I agree with Elizabeth. If the Reader really wants to provide or be an "alternative" publication, why don't you try to present the positive. We have enough negative press! In addition, you run the risk of losing a number of readers and supporters because your attempt to stir controversy may actually back fire on you. Correction, it HAS back fired on you!!!! Your title presumes that President-Elect Obama is incapable of successfully correcting all that Bush has done. Give it a year or two before you begin to imply anything.

Oh, yawn. I'm sick of Alison True lecturing us all the time on what she meant -- what she meant by this cover; what she meant when she fired some good people and kept others; what she meant by being a toady for Creative Loafing. Who cares what you meant? Isn't it obvious? If it's not, ask yourself why before dashing off a manifesto. Seriously, have you no shame? You are largely responsible for bringing down the quality of our beloved paper, and you want us to understand that you are always acting for a higher ideal? Spare me. The cover is a bit predictable, don't you think? I miss the days when the Reader's editor was an invisible hand. Back then, a cover like this would have been OK, because we all admired the Reader. No more. Now you are just trying too hard to be provocative. The cover is fine; the paper, and the smugness of its editor(s), is not.

Steve, very well said!!!

Steve, you needn't read a paper you hold in such low regard. There are so many mainstream papers that worship Obama... I am a new reader, you have been replaced. And so it goes...

That was Classless. The reader is making a comment like that a day after the election. When have we never watched the office of the president. We all know that this is a sensitive time for the country, it was a sensitive time during the depression. It was a sensitive time during the recession and mini recession of the 70's and 80's. Never has a newspaper directly or indirectly insulted the President Elect in this manor. People need to wake up and realize that the world we live in is changing. You can either be spectators on the sideline and complain and nick pick or you can be contributors in the game. Do your part in making this country right. Restore dignity and pride among our citizens. This was very unamerican and very dissappointing.

"This was very unamerican and very dissappointing." Actually, it is quintessentially American and not at all disappointing. In fact, it is the essence of American, an essential skepticism that is painfully absent in our citizens' perspectives' of local governments. Many citizens have substituted cynicism for skepticism, thus resulting in an apathetic, ie., lazy, reaction to the many dishonest, deceptive and egregiously crooked activities of our city, county and state elected representatives. To question is the essence of thoughtful living. To placidly accept is the essence of thoughtless existence. There is a difference between hopeful optimism and naive gullibility. To paraphrase the ever erudite Stan Lee, "With great power comes great responsibilty". And the one, essential quality that the citizens must exhibit, for there to be a chance of our ever enjoying the potential benefits of a successful Democracy, is thoughtful scrutiny of those to whom we grant the powers of government. A more accurate banner would have been "Don't Fuck Us Over."

Cover Stories. In 1995, the Reader ran What Makes Obama Run, 4344 words In 2000, it ran a piece on Obama and Bobby Rush, Is Bobby Rush in Trouble?, 7787 words. In 2008, Obama, against odds and logic, reaches the presidency, cover story, 409 words. What it raised in my mind was not outrage and indignation, but why not more words? Because the historical moment is exhaustively covered in the mainstream press and other media? Because the paper doesn't have the costly space to expend single story analysis it might have had eight years ago? Because the day to day is covered in blogs? Because he hasn't done anything yet and doesn't need to be kept honest? Because webly and cerebrally, it is the era of linkage journalism? Because the onus is now on the user to interpret and seek out more content, if needed? Is it just coincidence that Please Don't Die cover is only pages from the longer Hot Type column about a newspaper veteran and the shifting, “augering,” place of print media? How many people didn’t get beyond the cover? In the end, whether people disliked the concept, the art, and the brief text, television stations gave multiple seconds for interpretation, callers voiced disapproval, and, some people talked about the Cover Story more than usual. Look how long this comment string is compared to other stories. So, ultimately, was the intended effect achieved? On the bus home, a woman had the Reader open and turned the page to the Hot Type column, paused long enough to scan a few paragraphs, paged to the McCain Please Don't Die inside cover art, read a few lines, and paged on.

Dear Andiedam, or whatever your name really is: I admire your obstinate and contrariness. But I disrespect your willingness to twist people's words to suit your own agenda. I asked whether the Reader had any editorial staffers of color who would warn them of how much offense their cartoon would give to black readers. I suspect the answer is: they don't. Of course I didn't mean ALL black readers--even Obama didn't win 100 percent of the black vote. The Reader has many virtues, but racial sensitivity does not seem to be one of them. But with new readers like you I guess they don't need to worry about that.

"The Reader has many virtues, but racial sensitivity does not seem to be one of them." Actually, 'racial sensitivity' is many things, but a virtue isn't one of them. It's a defect, a crutch, a means of leverage, a weapon, a weakness, a placebo, a poison, a feeble excuse, a false substitute for reason, a deception and a lie, to name a few. As long as there are people who will choose to use their race as an excuse for their own, personal failings, foibles and individual deficiencies, there will be no true equality. Perhaps that is what those who use their race as leverage want.

Hi Steve! The editors before me didn't have email and the Internet to compel them to answer for themselves. I agree it'd be nice to let the Reader and our actions speak for themselves, but some readers (I guess they're not as smart as you) want explanations and sometimes the situation warrants one.

Why does your Obama have stubble on his chin, but your McCain is clean shaven? Are you trying to say Obama doesn't shave?

The same message could be conveyed without the negative-psycology of "don't screw this up"! What about "Good Luck!" or "We're counting on you!" Michael Miner said it's what you say after "hallelulia"... or to a Tight Rope Walker.... but mature adults have a bit of responsibility to not say the first negative thing that pops from their gut.. not to mention journalists. Would Obama tell someone "Don't scew this up"? Or would he say "It's not gonna be easy... Show us what you got" or something more encouraging? I hope this country can learn by his example of how to speak with positive psycology. That's how hope is built, and action encouraged.

"The editors before me didn't have email and the Internet to compel them to answer for themselves." Really? How long ago were you named editor again? A year? When did the Reader get an internet presence? Hell, when did they get email? But on the plus side, you've gotten some pub out of thi which i guess is good for you... http://cbs2chicago.com/local/obama.chicago.reader.2.858247.html

Given the historical significance of this election, I think the cover was pretty weak. The image was sophmoric,and it was apretty weak headline, not provocative, very negative, and in fact quite frivolous.I am sure the editorial braintrust can do better. You must have left the cover to an intern. That would account for it.

While it's true headlines that are shallow and provocative have a built-in defense against anticipated backlash, I thought of the Reader as being a bit more refined and deliberate than this. I'm not offended, just disappointed.

"White America" did not look on Bush as the best thing since Ronald Reagan! Take a look at any photograph of a protest march against the war and see who's there, man.

You know i already commented at how annoyed i am at this cover yesterday, but now i want clarify more - This man is tasked with the most enormous burden, an international man at a time of great historic momentum, the course of the world is up for grabs - and some small, local publication in his hometown looks at the epicness of this, the absolute seriousness. a man who called 12 world leaders today and spoke to them by telephone . . . and the reader says "Don't Screw This Up?" Screw what up? It's already screwed up. What an unbelievably annoying, idiotic decision.

I will try to look past this since there were, no doubt, many whites who voted for Obama with that same skeptism in their minds and voted for him anyway...it is still insulting to suggest "Don't screw this up" compares to "Please don't die" in its tone and meaning.

Reading all of this heated and sometimes hilarious debate, I could only think: Wow, isn't it great how Barack Obama has united the country already!?

I whispered the exact same phrase four minutes after the election was called. Nothing to do with race, as I would have screamed it if McCain won.

Great cover.

What many of you are searching for is "propaganda". You will find that in the Sun Times.

Mark? Racial Sensitivity? Wow...A Fascist at the Reader. Guilty as charged of "Thought Crimes"!

I like Derek Erdman - have some of his art up in my office even - but what's up w/Obama's neck?

"What many of you are searching for is "propaganda". You will find that in the Sun Times." And this isn't? In their explantion, they say "the media's job isn't to cheerlead for elected officials" (which countless editorial board decisions at paper's all over the world would disagree), but if "Yay, Obama won" is propaganda, then so is "don't screw up". They're both stepping away from neutrality. And you don't have to send people to the Sun Times for propaganda. As blatently left-leaning as the Reader has been over the years (well, at least in the past), "propaganda" has a home here too.

"Would Obama tell someone "Don't scew this up"? Or would he say "It's not gonna be easy... Show us what you got" or something more encouraging?" Actually, he would say "Don't screw this up." And he did. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172008/news/politics/obama__dont_screw_this_up_134050.htm So did Michelle Obama: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/221458,CST-NWS-mich21.article

What visionary leader, from Jesus Christ on down, hasn't taken the risk of screwing things up? I mean this as an honest question: how is "Dont screw this up" different from "Play it safe"? Gerald Ford didn't screw it up. Nixon went to China. Clinton made it harder to be gay in the U.S. military, but he also left office with a balanced budget. If you're looking for affirmation that Obama has "screwed it up," you won't have to wait for long: Matt Drudge blamed yesterday's stock-market fall on him. I'm sure many newspapers and networks will blame him soon enough for plenty. In the meantime, in the same week that Studs Turkel finished a long life, John Burge was arrested, and Barack Obama won the presidency (imagine being able to send this sentence in a time capsule back to 2002), not only did the Reader choose not to make a commemorative cover that would be framed in Chicago bars and offices for the next century, it chose to mock those who took that one day to celebrate.

I thought the cover was funny. Obama would get the point of it, he's a smart guy. The reader obviously has some progressive minded people who want to see Obama do great things with his position. With Democrats controlling the presidency and both houses, it's a rare chance for them to do some big things for normal people. I hope they don't screw it up as well.

I did a double take when I saw that cover and banner. What? Then I realized it was obvious that the Reader doesn't have any colored people up in the editorial office. If you did this wouldn't have happened. To compound the issue Mike Miner uses the term "Halleluja" in his pathetic defense of the cover. I never thought I'd live to see the day when the Reader was way behind the curve. By the way, I'm a 60 year old Catholic Republican.

Frank? Colored people? Get with the new, hip lingo. African American is the phrase of the day. If you are so concerned with political correctness, you would know this!

I must admit, as I walked into the library this morning and saw your cover......I WAS IMMEDIATELY PISSED!! Still have to say that, I think more thought should have been put into this one. I'm a faithful African American reader of the Chicago Reader and I'm very disappointed. BAD TASTE.....BAD JUDGEMENT!!! So how do you explain the McCain photo inside. "PLEASE DON'T DIE"?

Tyrone, does the color of your skin define you?

"How long ago were you named editor again? A year? When did the Reader get an internet presence? Hell, when did they get email?" Alison True's been the editor of the Reader for 14 years. If you're going to make snide comments, at least get your facts right.

Why would anyone be upset over those four words? You can bet Obama has been muttering them to himself silently ever since the evening of November 4. And every black person in the United States knows what they mean. As the nation's chief executive and leader of the "Free World", George W. Bush was the most ignorant screw-up since Ronald Reagan. Dubya never did learn how to pronounce the word "nuclear". Finally, after two terms, an unwinnable quagmire of a war and an economic meltdown, his approval ratings are in the toilet. But no one says of him, "See? I told you white people couldn't do this job." But that's what whites will be saying about Obama if he makes even one misstep, and in their minds, it'll be a reflection on every black person in this country. I don't envy Obama or his family as he tries to clean up this mess.

Ken, perhaps the four words reflect the notion of putting so much faith in the Democratic Party, as they overwhelmingly chose them...I thought the ONE thing this election did was prove that people have faith in the man, not the color of the man. Also, you specious argument regarding "white people" not being able to do the job is just silly. Bush represented a political party, same as Obama. Stop looking for color discretion...geez!

Imagine my chagrin! I meant discrepancies! Color disrepancies! Multitasking...

14 years! Now I know who to blame for the Reader's decline. The only news in it comes from Miner and Joravsky. The rest is just listings and pop culture. All the stories are gone, and so is the humor (this cover notwithstanding). I used to pick up the Reader to read. Today it is a train wreck. True may blame it on Craigslist or the Internet or the general collapse of print. But I blame her for changing the Reader fundamentally in the last 5 years or so. It's been at least 5 years of watching the Reader shrink, not only in size but in ambition. It is not the same, although I did like this cover. I was in college 14 years ago. Everybody seemed to have e-mail.

As for the "Please Don't Die" -- it's because if he did, we would be stuck with Palin. We'd be stuck with Palin because of his poor judgment. So that cover would be accusing McCain of having bad judgment, which seems like a much worse admonishment than "Hey! You've inspired a lot of people, now live up to it! Don't play fast and loose with our hopes and dreams!" I think Ken's comment captures how important this is, and why race does matter. If you're "immediately pissed" by this, maybe think about your reaction and their intentions for a second. You don't have to just go with your first visceral reaction. And I'm gonna go out and say it -- the sentiment is the same as "Good Luck," but you know what? "Good Luck" isn't funny; "Don't Screw This Up" is because it's so pithy and captures what so many people are hoping. Props to the Reader for having the guts to be funny. I hung both covers in my living room, along with the Trib. So there -- it IS commemorative.

"True may blame it on Craigslist or the Internet or the general collapse of print. But I blame her for changing the Reader fundamentally in the last 5 years or so." Uh. Look at EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN PIECE OF PRINT MEDIA IN THE COUNTRY, and EVERYONE is losing money, EVERYONE is doing regrettable things to cut costs, and it's because the internet is eviscerating their revenues. Fact. It's not just the Reader. Why would you think that Alison would get her job and think, "Gee, I really want to make this newspaper worse! Let me hop to it" and start doing things like firing John Conroy? That's completely absurd. No one would WANT to do that. There's just no goddamn money. Why are you so quick to attribute malice? And the Reader does a lot of original reporting online, even while their print product has to get smaller. Read Clout City if you want more politics. I do find it interesting that you think covering culture makes a publication worse, though. I value their food and music coverage very highly.

"...Props to the Reader for having the guts to be funny. .." Oh, so that's what it was: being funny. So when they said, "We serve our readers: we're observers and reporters and commentators.", they just mistakenly left out "...oh, and comedians too." Cancel my Onion subscription. There's a new satirical rag in town!

Dear Chicago Reader, As a fellow journalist, I understand it is our duty to bring forth non bias information for readers rather it is fact or entertainment. However, there is a line you have to draw when it comes to ethics. I understand where you guys are coming from, but would it not been better to take a different approach? A, the man is not even in office yet, and B, this is the first black president ever elected. Yes, we know he is biracial, but is that the way he is being portrayed by the media?

Andieiam, need I remind you that 46% of the electorate did not have faith in Obama? That they were willing to overlook John McCain's associations with Rev. John "Katrina is God's wrath against New Orleans" Hagee and Watergate burglar and convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy? That it bothered them not one bit that McCain didn't even know how many houses he and his wife own, and that during the campaign, he called this faltering economy "basically sound"? It's that stubborn 46% that Obama is going to have to be successful right out of the gate to convince. Otherwise, they'll be comforting themselves that black people, as a race, are only suited to singing, dancing, rapping, dunking basketballs, and hosting #1-rated TV talk shows. And another thing. That 46% may hate Obama's guts. They may not have wanted to see a black man as president. But they can't deny that Obama is both intelligent and charming, two qualities he will need in 55-gallon barrels these next four years. And this country will have achieved full equality when a black man as crude and box-of-rocks dumb as Dubya could be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and then actually be elected. Twice.

I think all Americans need to realize that WE can't screw this up. Barack Obama cannot shoulder the entire responsibility of repairing this country himself. We elected him to do his job and to do it well. I have faith that he will. We as the people have to prove that we're willing to continue to fight and stand up for him and to accomplish OUR goals as a nation. DON'T SCREW IT UP, AMERICA! And don't be so quick to point the finger and blame at just one man. We all are responsible for our nation.

Jarvis...something you disagree with is now labeled unethical?

Satire is a proud American tradition and not necessarily disrespectful, though I worry about a public that expects its media to be "respectful" of its elected leaders since that often implies that you just can't criticize them (and then complains that the media never took Bush to task -- you can't have your cake and eat it, too).

i have backed obama since the beginning and i still back him. i don't think this cover was racist at all! stop reading into it so much.

Andieiam, Yes, and if you want to know why, we schedule sometime to talk about it over coffee.

No one said you can't criticize Obama. They were just questioning the choice of words. And anyway, what is there to critcize? He hasn't even taken office yet. As for satire, yes it is a "proud" tradition. But most publications maintain a steady stream of it, not just up and decided to employ it one day (and a historic day of all days). YOu can't be a stairical publication one day and a straight news publication the next. So now I've heard that the cover was A) satirical, B) a serious request for Obama to do his best and C) a quote from his wife.

Andieiam, one more thing, I said nothing about the title being right or wrong. I just suggested a different way of wording things.

"A) satirical, B) a serious request for Obama to do his best and C) a quote from his wife" These aren't mutually exclusive. I guess satire isn't the right word - it's just funny, and the Reader, even in its news coverage, consistently employs humor. In that sense, it's not a straight news publication. It's a sincere request couched in humor that references his wife. What's the problem?

We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed. - Unknown American

Katy (11/7, 2:53 PM) is right on when she says "all Americans need to realize that WE can't screw this up." The liberal Democrats in Congress need to pay close attention to that. THEY are the ones who need to be told "dont screw this up" the way they screwed up Carter and Clinton's presidencies.

" Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent. " George Orwell

"It's a sincere request couched in humor that references his wife. What's the problem?" Nothing. 'Cept that's not how the people who WROTE it describe its intent or purpose. And when it comes to explaining the intent, I'm going to listen to them first. Unless YOU wrote it...

Chill...okay, okay! The Reader hates all black people and wants them to fail. This cover is part of their evil plot to undermine Obama's presidency. You caught them! Good work!

What??? I go out of my way to NOT mention race, don't even think this cover is racist in anyway, but appparently race is on YOUR mind when it comes to this cover. You should go take a nap. You've exhausted any rational thought you may have had when you came in. Have a great weekend.

My reaction was pretty much the same, just not in those words. Mine went a little something like this,"I pray that this man can restore some of my faith in nat'l politics". That's it, that's all...oh and I'm black so does that make me a racist?! Better yet does that make me republican?! Hell No! Everyone needs to stop being so damn touchy about Obama. Yes I understand some folks seem to be spellbound, in awe or just plain stupid to believe he's going to wave a magic wand on 1/20/09 and we'll finally be living a utopian kind of life. FYI the man said himself it'll take two presidencies to get'er done. Could have been my face, your face or the next Joe Schmo with that banner, because the bottom line is this we are all in this sh*t knee deep and have very little room, for trial, error and oops I did it again. Let's just all be hopeful.

If they had bothered looking inside the paper, they would have noticed that your racism is even worse than it appears - you hatefully assumed that just because McCain is white, he might die sometime. Is there anyone you creeps don't hate??

If McCain would have been elected, what make you think that he wouldn't screw this up. Give the man a chance after all Bush really screwed us up for 8 years now.

"To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended. Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don’t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about “flyover states”). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people. It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it’s wrong to use the term “black” instead of “African-American,” they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference. White people also get excited at the opportunity to be offended at things that are sexist and/or homophobic. Both cases offering ample opportunities for lectures, complaints, graduate classes, lengthy discussions and workshops. All of which do an excellent job of raising awareness among white people who hope to change their status from “not racist” to “super not racist.” Another thing worth noting is that the threshold for being offended is a very important tool for judging and ranking white people. Missing an opportunity to be outraged is like missing a reference to Derrida-it’s social death. If you ever need to make a white person feel indebted to you, wait for them to mention a book, film, or television show that features a character who is the same race as you, then say “the representation of was offensive and if you can’t see that, well, you need to do some soul searching.” After they return from their hastily booked trip to land of your ancestors, they will be desperate to make it up to you. At this point, it is acceptable to ask them to help you paint your house."

Patrick, I laughed so hard my coffee came out of my nose!

more of the Readers crappy journalism....this is Chicago. Do better.

You're judgment was incorrect. This cover is in poor taste. It's that simple. I'm embarrassed for you.

worst reader cover ever.

Eff U! Unless your friends are used to your insulting antics and pricky sarcasm, the subtleties of irony won’t carry well in the text messages you send them, they’ll just assume you’re total asshole. I might’ve implicated the wrong tone in “don’t screw this up,” but I don’t know you that well reader, are you being sarcastic? I think you are, so I won’t be insulted cuz it totally sounds like the shit my parents would say through tight lipped smirks and anticipating wide eyes, waiting to gloat, “I knew you’d screw up.”

Now that we're several days removed from the cathartic election night, I think we can all agree that President-elect Obama faces a laundry list of major problems for this country and the world. I admire him, but I don't envy the job he has ahead of him. The inauguration will be amazing and euphoric, but as soon as that's over, Obama wlll lead our nation into an uphill battle which will be fraught with downhill swings. He will be scrutinized and criticized every step of the way, possibly more than any of our recent presidents because of the high hopes and enormous potential now associated with his name and image. Hell, he's had only one press conference and the critics are already stomping about his choice of Chief of Staff (an excellent choice in my opinion, Emmanuel gets stuff done) and his joke about Nancy Reagan (not smart in my opinion, even to those who are resentful of the Reagan era; Obama apologized later). As a person of color, I just hope the race card isn't drawn every time a negative headline is typeset over a photo of him. This election was symbolic of the progress of racial issues in our country, but we can regress, too. I'd even argue we still have a ways to go. Whether I'm playing soccer on the lakefront or just walking down a street in my neighborhood, I sill hear racially degrading comments directed at me and others. These occasions are not as frequent as in the past, but it still happens. That said, I feel the Reader covers for both Obama and McCain did not communicate the message about journalistic integrity you intended, and, therefore, failed as a concept. Kiki, you can call the illustrations "portraits" if you like, but the color and illustration style is cartoon-like and overtly simplistic, so I saw it as an attempt at humor, maybe even satire. It just was not funny. If it was, as you claim, an attempt at political commentary or satire, it does not say anything except perhaps that you don't have confidence in either candidate . . . and that's shallow commentary when you don't say, or even hint, at why you don't have confidence. Alison claims the covers say "we'll be watching" as serious journalists. That's a huge stretch. The covers do not communicate that without someone providing an interpretation — and even then, I don't buy it. In his election commentary, Michael Miner says that "The Reader takes its duties solemnly." Are you serious? If you are, this cover certainly is not. This poor attempt at humor and commentary regarding this moment in American history exemplifies that The Reader still plays in the minor leagues of journalism and communication.

Geez, I can't believe how anyone would think that cover as racist?? Was the McCain inside cover sexist b/c of the implied Palin presidency in the event of old man McCain croaking?? "Don't Screw This Up" made me laugh, b/c that's what many of us are thinking. We're hopeful, we want it all to go well, yet maybe we know that politicians are only human, too. I chalk it up to "cautious optimism" on the part of whomever made the cover.

Perfect headline. Most of the people I know - of all colors - are thinking the same thing. And we are all crossing our fingers for him - and for us.

I was one of those folks put off by "Don't Screw this Up," and it's no surprise to me that it made others uneasy. One blogger wrote that it's not the paper's job to be a cheerleader for politicians. Okay. Here's my gut feeling about it: after eight years of irresponsible, destructive, possibly criminal political leadership at the top levels of American government, we look to Obama for an antidote, and it's hard to imagine he could screw things up worse than they are. There is nothing in his rhetoric or political philosophy that seems to indicate he would screw things up. It's not unlike the expectation Americans had after FDR won in 1932 - just give us real leadership, statesmanship! And analogy but comes to mind: the fire department pulls up to a house with smoke pouring out of its attic and they bust down the door and take a pick ax to the roof and the owner says to the fire captain, "hey, don't wreck my house!" I feel uneasy because, on some level, "Don't Screw This Up" sounds insulting. Not because of race, not because we need a cheerleading press; maybe because it's snarky and smarmy in the yuppiesh, droll, too-cool-to-fool way. Now that I think of it, the Reader can go fuck itself! I don't know if Obama is the second coming of Christ, but that's about what we need right now.

Hmmm. "Snarky," "smarmy," "Yuppiesh," "too-cool-to-fool." Hey, Reader . . . don't screw up. Oh, wait, you already have.

I agree with Miner's position: we put Obama there, now we'll be watching. My "cautious optimism" stems from the disappointments experienced during the Clinton period - an incredible opportunity to fix broken systems wasted by a "leader" that controlled both the House and Senate. Now Obama finds himself in a similar position - albeit facing much greater challenges - and now all we ask is that he do the right thing, to not be corrupted by political paybacks, to not engage in safe, centrist policy-making. Obama sold himself on providing a vision, a hope, for a new way of governing. He was elected on this promise. It is our responsibility to remain vigilant in ensuing that he does not forget about protecting and advancing the interests of those he claims to represent.

I think everyone agrees, of course, and hopes Obama doesn't screw up. The discussion here was about the cover, and this cover -- and the paper's recent contribution to any debate -- doesn't merit that discussion. Just a handful of years ago, the Reader might have had the very same cover, but inside there would have been a story about something substantive, like the role of William Dawson in the rise of Chicago's black political muscle. Something, anything, besides music listings. Back then, this cover wouldn't have felt so undeserved. I am not advocating that the Reader become boring -- it was not boring, and there used to be more humor in it. The Web site hasn't replaced anything.

The cynicism underlying the controversial Obama cover is rooted in past defeats and disappointments, much like the entire conservative movement. Obama needs no reminder from the Reader that the world is watching. The Reader should celebrate with the rest of us and then admit that it's time to hand over the media watchdog role to the national and international media. Then it can get back to local politics where it might have some impact.

Evan, thanks for perfectly expressing what's so wrong about so many of these comments: "The Reader should celebrate with the rest of us."

I am disappointed in the fact that readers continue to make asinine comments such as, "blacks will continue to play the race card," most specifically because callers (race unspecified) decided to voice an opinion about how they felt the cover was related to Barack Obama being black. I would imagine that many readers, across color lines may have shared in this sentiment. Thanks Steve, for being so limited in your view of the world that you feel the only people showing sensitivities toward the President Elect would be black.

I took this as a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the immensity of the mess Obama is inheriting, and the fact that people's hopes are likely to be impossible to live up to. I can see why someone might be disappointed if this was the first thing they saw on the 5th, but does the Reader ever do cheerleading? I'm glad they don't, and glad they didn't. It's not a question of being snarky or hip, IMO, so much as the Reader is the last place in Chicago we can see the inner workings of politics exposed truthfully, and I have some bad news for you folks out there - Obama got a LOT of money from a lot of questionable people (Wall Street and banking concerns, biofuel/clean coal folks) and it is going to be very important going forward to make sure we keep him honest. I am not very happy about him alluding positively to yet another government bailout for backwards & failed big business (the auto manufacturers). So be glad (I certainly am) he won, but if you think voting means your citizen participation has been fulfilled for the next 2 or 4 years, you do need a bucket of ice water poured over head.

Yet another reason to be glad of the outcome: your artist can sorta draw the winner. M Guy asks, "What's up w/Obama's neck?" Where to start with the potato on page 12?

"Don't screw it up" this could have applied to both candidates because the new president has inherited such an enormous problem that will take more than one term. By putting the words "don't die" on McCain suggests that he won't screw things up so long as he stays alive. therefore the comments on OBAMA are unfair. We have such a huge debt but now how is it TAXPAYER responsibility to bail out banks, auto dealers and others business when we are struggling to survive. I hope OBAMA closes the open checkbook policy that BUSH is doing the last few months in office. Bring out troops home and stop wasting so much money and lives irresponsibly.

Andieiam, to answer your question. YES IT DOES!! It is who I am. I'm not saying the anyone at the reader is racist, I just think that things could have been worded a different way. I will admit that reading some of the comments on here has helped to open me up to seeing the caption in a different light, but I still think it could have been worded differently.

"By putting the words "don't die" on McCain suggests that he won't screw things up so long as he stays alive. " or, it means Sarah Palin is such a disaster anything would be better than her taking office.

This was one of the worst covers ever. Here's why. First, it's not a good drawing. You could have picked a better artist. Second, "don't screw this up" is a negative message in poor taste that doesn't match the sentiments of the country that elected him and certainly doesn't reflect how average Chicagoans and people from Illinois feel. Hello! He's our Senator! It was a bad decision to print it and that's why people didn't care for it. Do a better job next time or people will just stop picking up your paper. Obama rocks!!!

Tyrone. Wow! What can I say? Many people are a culmination of their experiences, they are influenced by people they have known, places they have been and books they have read. Most people are multifaceted and would be hard pressed to define themselves in a 2,000 page book, let alone a single phrase. You are African American. Okay. That's it? Is THAT all there is?

Re the response by Panther (11/10, 12:43 p.m.): the comment that "blacks will play the race card" isn't "asinine." It's a PLOY, deliberate and unfortunately effective, meant to intimidate African-Americans--and non-African-Americans--from criticizing subtle or not so subtle racism in the public forum. There is NOTHING WRONG with anyone, black or white, voicing an opinion that the Reader's Obama cover reflected an insensitivity to how the "don't screw up" headline would be offensive. Racial relations isn't a card game -- it's a fundamental part of American history.

"You are African American. Okay. That's it? Is THAT all there is?" To much of this country, sadly, yes, that's all there is to him. So you learn to address that first before you can allow your "multifaceted" self to show through.

In many of his speeches, including on election night, Obama has attempted to defuse unrealistic expectations. He's also asked to be held accountable. It's been a refreshing thing to come from someone who is also good at inspiring rhetoric. He doesn't demand or even want deference. That was Sarah Palin. He's also known for making jokes about scewing up and being irreverent about his own abilities. The Reader, being made up of people who follow his story closely felt this. I think they captured the self-deprecating side of Obama, but clearly not everyone saw this. Plus Obama is part of the Democratic Party, which has screwed up with several disappointing decisions since their 2006 victories. Obama's team will include people who disappointed before - including Joe Biden. And Obama himself went along with at least one notorious event: the rush to approve a FISA bill with telcom immunity. It is possible to back a candidate and thing he's a best one but still dislike his flaws. The Reader was coming from that position. It took it in that spirit and found it amusing. I can, however, understand if someone have no patience for such jokes.

Writers and editors alike... doesn't seem like you guys employ copywriters though. Point taken. I'm not sure if racist is the right word, but clueless or naive might be better. Certainly your timing could have been better. Oy.

I CAN'T BELIEVE I MISSED THAT! That's because they didn't bring the Reader to "DA HOOD" last week. (We didn't get one this week either, what's up with that?). I know I certainly would have kept it. I would be telling everyone to look at it. Nobody loves a good joke more than I do. Cause that's what it is, a joke. To call the Reader a "NEWS PAPER". I'll check again but I can't remember the last time I got any "NEWS" from the Reader. As an artist I do like the paper, and will continue to read it. As a Black (yes I said it, BLACK) Woman I was not offended by the cover that I saw, but I certainly wasn't expecting that. But it's ok. Most "NEWSPAPERS" were celebrating history and making plenty of money doing it. The Reader is free. Free to state "Don't screw this up" to President-Elect Obama. As well as free not to state "What a screw up" to and about "THE PRESIDENT", George W. Bush. I'm not sure if you are racist, I don't know you personally. Printing that doesn't make that arguement either way. But you don't have to know someone personally to question their poor taste. Yeah, I'm gonna go with poor taste.

Add me to the list of people who think the cover was probably the wrong thing, and definitely at the wrong time.

After thinking about and reflecting on the cover, I think that it's not racist, but it is rather juvenille and in poor taste.

Eh. The artist is an idiot.

get a life. i can't believe the amount of time people dedicate to making a fuss about any and everything possible. yes, the reader posted this cover just to piss you off and they are indeed implicating that obama is an idiot becuase he's BLACK! HE's BLACK OH MY GOD! HE's BLACK! He's black. one more time, he's black. Jesus Christ you all need to get a life. Write a letter to the editor about a fucking drawing - people are getting their heads hacked off in other countries, people are starving to death, people are being born with AIDS. You're in your cushy condo bitching about a fucking cover on a free paper. Get over yourselves you make me sick.