Some random thoughts for a beautiful Sunday in Los Angeles.
1. Just imagine the media cycle if the July 21 cover of the New Yorker was on the National Review, or Weekly Standard. Do you think the response would have been the same? Doubtful to say the least.
2. Oh the arrogance of New York liberals, thinking that this cover will help Obama's image versus reinforcing ridiculous stereotypes held by many in the country. I imagine many will cancel their subscriptions of the weekly after this debacle. So why would the outlet do it? To force Obama to the left... doubtful. Probably just complete sheer arrogance... at the cost of subscriptions and a lose of respect from media observers such as myself.
3. At least the New Yorker forced the McCain campaign to agree with the Obama camp on something. This has been a pattern of the McCain campaign, following the media cycle versus leading it.
It truly baffles me why McCain did not use the period between early February through June to define Obama in the terms that suited the GOP. Following in the footsteps of a President with less than a 30 percent approval rating, one would think McCain would realize he would have to run a near perfect campaign to claim the Oval Office. However, instead of setting the November election on terms favorable to the GOP, McCain had a completely disorganized campaign message and team... and even took off most weekends from the campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Who do you think reads the New Yorker? Liberals in big cities who will get the satire. The people who won't get the satire probably won't even see the magazine on newsstands, let alone buy a copy.
This is minor.
Post a Comment