670AM KIRN RADIO IRAN LA!(Persian)

New Yorker editor David Remnick defended the controversial cover.

(CNN) – Amid widespread criticism over The New Yorker cover illustration that portrays Barack Obama in Muslim garb and wife Michelle Obama as a gun-toting militant, the publication's editor told CNN Monday he doesn't regret approving the use of the controversial image.

WATCH Remnick on The Situation Room

David Remnick, the longtime editor of the highly-regarded publication, said he believes the ironic intent of the illustration will be clear to most Americans.

"The idea is to attack lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obamas, and their background and their politics. We've heard all of this nonsense about how they're supposedly insufficiently patriotic, or soft on terrorism," he said. "That somehow the fist bump is something that it's not. And we try to put all of these images in one cover, and to satirize and shine a really harsh light on something that could be incredibly damaging."

The cover — which shows the pair in the Oval Office, with an American flag burning and a picture of Osama bin Laden — has been widely criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike. On Sunday evening Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive." John McCain said Monday it is "totally inappropriate."

Bernard Parks, a California city council member and supporter of Barack Obama, told CNN he is calling for a boycott of the liberal-leaning magazine.

"I think it's outrageous that we have a cover that would depict racism, sexism, anti-religion, also anti-patriotism, and then on top of it to try to draw a conclusion that Mr. Obama has some sympathy towards terrorism, and all of those are depicted in this magazine cover with no explanation," Park said.

But Remnick, who has approved several provocative covers in the past — including a recent illustration of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad appearing to solicit gay sex in a bathroom — says he isn't concerned Americans will misunderstand the illustration.

"I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people, to be quite honest. Yes, there will be some people who will misunderstand it, not get it at first," he said. "But here we are on television, discussing something that's been a kind of subterranean theme in American politics, which is disgusting — these lies about Barack Obama, about Michelle Obama. And so in fact we're not even satirizing the Obamas, we're satirizing these rumors, the lies that have fed into the politics of fear."

Remnick also defended his publication's use of satire in general, likening it to the work of popular television hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

"If there's no possibility for satire, if you always have to look for the joke that every — absolutely everyone will get, you won't have Jon Stewart, you won't have Stephen Colbert," he said. "Stephen Colbert goes on and mocks right-wing commentary by pretending to be a right-wing commentary. In a way this is Colbert in print."

Conservative talk-show host and CNN contributor Bill Bennett said he understands why the Obama campaign is upset with the cover.

The New Yorker blew this," he said. "It has a distinguished history and great writing. I read The New Yorker occasionally. But it was tasteless and stupid. The intellectuals missed it…and it backfired on them. If I were the Obama campaign, I would be furious at these people."

But Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville defended the magazine's cover choice as satire in its "ultimate form."

"I don't know what the big deal is," he said.