Did Obama fail on strategy in response to the New Yorker cover?

This post from the Economist suggests so:

First, the vast majority of commentary I've seen from Obama supporters has contained some variant on: "Yes, of course the elite readership of the New Yorker will get that it's satirical, but some of the Morlocks will take it seriously!" This is, to a first approximation, probably true, but it sounds terrible, especially if your man is trying to shake an "elitist" rap.

First, the vast majority of commentary I've seen from Obama supporters has contained some variant on: "Yes, of course the elite readership of the New Yorker will get that it's satirical, but some of the Morlocks will take it seriously!" This is, to a first approximation, probably true, but it sounds terrible, especially if your man is trying to shake an "elitist" rap.

Second, the campaign's reaction makes the story. The New Yorker's circulation is almost entirely concentrated in true-blue coastal enclaves. It might have gotten some play on hard-right chat boards and blogs, but those audiences are a lock for John McCain as surely as Manhattan is a lock for Mr Obama. Now, however, the cover is plastered all over the cable news shows, for the viewing pleasure of millions who would never have seen it otherwise. And the reason, of course, is that the cover is "controversial". Try to imagine the same story running had the Obama campaign said something along the lines of: "Oh, yes, we saw that and were tickled; it really shows effectively how absurd and desperate some of the rumour-mongering on the right is." Would it be running then? Of course not—and if it did, PowerLine would have an anyeurism about the news devoting air time to Obama propaganda.

As it is, their reaction plays into another unfavourable narrative by making it look as though Mr Obama is thin-skinned.

Your mother was right—not every perceived slight demands a reaction.