I'm curious -- would Earl Ofari Hutchinson have made such a statement regarding the many hateful depictions of George W. Bush during his presidency? And if not, why does he make such a demand regarding the originators of this depiction of Barack Obama?

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."

"We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama."

Now I'm somewhat perplexed. What makes this poster dangerous? And what makes it any more mean-spirited than what was done with pictures of Obama's predecessor? Where were Hutchison's demands for Bush critics to come forward and publicly tell why they used offensive depictions of President Bush? Or is this simply a case that Hutchison has decided that the sort of criticism he welcomed when it when it was against a president he opposed is no longer patriotic after his clown became the occupant of the Oval Office.

UPDATE: Somehow Hutchison was able to contain his outrage when a national publication published this image of Bush 43 as the Joker.

He also never spoke out against these sort of things during the Bush years.

I wonder if he will hypocritically criticize this image, too.

Because remember -- this is the very sort of dissent that was called "patriotic" by liberals of Hutchison's ilk during the Bush years. Do they really have any legitimate basis to object now?