I've only just read the review, so I'm coming into this from an outsider standpoint. Here are my impartial takes on what you've offered:
1.) The idea that the author of the review is "too close to the issue" is fair. However, what you should be focusing on is whether or not that makes them unqualified to say what they've said, or whether or not that makes what they've said wrong. In other words, saying that they are too close to the issue does not seem to do much towards reversing what the reviewer has nonetheless pointed out; if they were not as close to the issues, how might one's interpretation of the contrasting messages that the comic's author gives be different? If they can't be seen to substantially change, then chances are being too close to the issues covered in the comic isn't as much of a problem as it initially seems to be.
2.) I think you're confusing the idea that Editorials don't need punchlines with the idea that editorials don't need visible punchlines; the Sight Gag is an extremely common form of humor in any piece of media intended to be comedic. In fact, the panel that you linked as a supposed example of your point carries an unwritten "punchline." Obama is black, and he's in a house that is white and has previously been occupied solely by white people. He then decides to paint it black. Race is the punchline, it just isn't written down. The exploding bus panel and attached text, as far as I can tell, in fact criticizes the author for hamfisting his punchlines instead of exploring them visually or naturally as the clip above. This would, in turn, mean that what you have presented is in fact closer to what one would expect or want from this cartoon series.
3.) Reviews that are outdated are often updated with new information. Likely what matters for the review isn't what new targets the author has decided to shoot at, but whether or not they're still shooting at them in the same unfunny and awkward ways.
I'm pretty sure that people at the BWW know what it means to be offended, and know that other people's rights to create certain kinds of art doesn't go out the window just because a few jimmies end up rustled in the process. The focus of the review seems to be on the low-quality and contradictory nature of that rustling, rather than on anyone's personal feelings. If you feel that it still swings too far towards personal feelings, perhaps a second writer can swing it back in the proper direction.