Given that even this morning's CNN front page still has information about the chimp attack side-by-side w/ the brouhaha over the cartoon I really do think people are trying way too hard to be offended over it.
If one of the big news events was how cops shot a minority person of some type and the Post had a cartoon about the shooting of a chimp, then you might be able to make that leap. If the cartoon was about how a chimp was beaten up by another chimp over something trivial (alluding to the Chris Brown/Rihanna debacle) then, sure you could make the case that it was racist, but if one of the big stories of the day actually involved a real chimp going nuts and having to be shot by cops then a cartoon explaining a) why he went nuts (he was driven insane working with politicians as he wrote the stimulus bill) and b) commenting on the quality of the bill itself (it was written by a chimp) doesn't seem unreasonable by any stretch.
Does this mean that for the next 4-8 years we won't be able to draw or chuckle over any cartoons about chimps for fear that we'll be labeled racists? Seriously, WTF?
I would argue that being unable (or unwilling) to properly parse a political cartoon in light of actual current events is a serious form of intellectual dishonesty and I'm highly disappointed at folks like Sharpton et al. who seem determined to intentionally blind themselves to realistic alternate explanations about the things they take offense to.
It's one thing to say "you can't take a joke" without any substantiating evidence (something I find very annoying), but in this case it seems very plausible (in fact highly likely IMO) that the cartoon was not racist in any way. The Post has explained what it meant by the cartoon and any further bitching about it is just trying to make something out of nothing.