The New Yorker Crosses the Racist Divide

Posted by on Oct 05, 2012 at 5:29 pm

Now this is going to leave a mark on the frail Obama psyche. Via John E.


14 Responses to “The New Yorker Crosses the Racist Divide”

  1. Dobby on 5/05/12 at 5:50 pm

    “President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” – Clint Eastwood

  2. CatoRenasci on 5/05/12 at 5:53 pm

    This is pretty significant – it’s a license for quasi-chic, quasi-literati New Yorkers (and New Yorker readers out there in the great beyond across the Bridges) to entertain the thought that maybe Obama really is an empty suit. This will resonate in Westchester, Bergen and Fairfield county suburban living rooms (this class doesn’t have drawing rooms).

  3. Tom on 5/05/12 at 6:00 pm

    Huge, if real. Not only does it allow liberals to talk about Obama as an empty suit (chair), it also implicitly validates Eastwood’s speech that liberals universally panned.

  4. D on 5/05/12 at 6:11 pm

    This is incredibly offensive… An actual empty piece of furniture would have given a much better performance.

  5. boqueronman on 5/05/12 at 7:28 pm

    I just googled The New Yorker. It looks, unless someone has hi-jacked their site, like the real deal. As a one time New Yorker reader, I must say that Pauline Kael must be rolling in her grave!

  6. frank k. on 5/05/12 at 7:57 pm

    Never forget the Upper Westside quote from 1984 , when Reagan took every state , except Minnesota …. “But , but , how can this possibly be ; I know hundreds of people , and every single one of them voted for Mondale?” … frank k.

  7. Stephen Powell on 5/05/12 at 9:04 pm

    Sweet Jesus. If that is a real cover it will be the first issue of the New Yorker I will have ever purchased, to frame on my wall!

  8. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 5/05/12 at 10:56 pm

    As a Kubrick fan, I have to say when I read Pauline Kael’s obit I had to smile. Good grief, what an insufferable lot New York ‘intellectuals’ are.

  9. John on 6/06/12 at 12:21 am

    Hell hath no fury like an angry liberal magazine editor scorned — while it’s nice that The New Yorker has come over to Clint’s way of thinking, they’ve only ‘sort of’ comer over. You know they’re irate at him for not unleashing a big can of progressive whup-ass on Romney, just the way they’ve been waiting for him to do it with all conservatives since January of 2009.

    If this was a bond movie, the editors of The New Yorker and other east coast liberal intellectuals would drop Obama into the crocodile pit on Nov. 7 for failing them and The Cause by being too much of a wimp when it counted and allowing Romney to win the election. Of course, the cover was thought up and approved as a lashing-out act of anger — after Friday’s jobless numbers, they’re probably already a few on staff regretting it, because it damages the narrative that the debate debacle was just a one-day blip on the road to re-election.