Chicagoist: New Yorker Takes The Obamaist! Route

fremo

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:04:58 -0600

Just a hunch. Might be wrong.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:56:36 -0600

The Economist won't go for McCain... why would you think they would? They went for Kerry in 2004.

fremo

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:16:49 -0600

I'll wager, Ward, that the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and Economist will go for McCain. What's the difference?

Ward Up

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:35:36 -0600

Left-wing magazine endorses a Democrat. Surprise, surprise. Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone. What's the difference?

jennyblur

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:46:33 -0600

Actually, I have never made such a claim about having to defend oneself in the comments. Please direct me to such a comment if one is available. I think your posts are amazing! Thanks Marcus!

Marcus Gilmer

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:28:03 -0600

Actually, jennyblur has said before if a writer has to defend their post, they didn't do a good job getting their point across. In this instance, she's correct as my reference to the cover fiasco was meant tongue-in-cheek. When we covered it before, it struck as amazing that the cover overshadowed the highly interesting article actually in the issue. Mea culpa. That said, I too still marvel at the people who didn't understand the satire.

ednamode

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:20:06 -0600

Jennyblur is correct. How have we gotten so dense as a nation that we don't even know satire when we see it?

jennyblur

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:25:34 -0600

I don't think the cover was ever meant to be an insult to Obama and therefore I don't think that they have flip-flopped as you seem to imply. If anything, the cover was clearly satire meant to poke fun as the desperation of the GOP as they try to mud-sling the Obamas in the most outlandish ways possible.