The New Yorker takes aim at the McCains and their houses

[NYCGirl]

The cover of the new issue of the New Yorker spotlights Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) multiple houses, contrasting his wealth with the foreclosure crisis many Americans are struggling with



ThinkProgress spoke with New Yorker spokeswoman Alexa Cassanos, who said that the McCain cover is in no way intended to be a response to the controversy over the satirical Obama cover in July.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/06/new-yorker-mccain/


Edited for typo

[Muttocracy]

1. they must have had that cover ready before the Fannie/Freddie bailout too! nt

[maseman]

2. Has this hit the newstands yet?

:rofl:

[NYCGirl]

3. Probably on Monday. NT

[flyingfysh]

6. my copy just came in the mail

[frazzled]

4. That's just a caricature of the left-wing perception of McCain

I'm still pissed to hell at the New Yorker, especially after subscribing for 25+ years. I received that cover in the mailbox yesterday, and it pissed the hell out of me. This "joke" doesn't operate the same way the Obama one did. Although it is hyperbole to show Johnny in tuxedo with the martini and Monopoly board, there is an underlying kernel of truth: he's rich and has a lot of houses. The Obamas don't celebrate Osama bin Laden.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

5. The Obama cover was a compilation of the right wing lies about Obama.

And people who read The New Yorker (my dad was probably reading it on papyrus scrolls) are supposed to be smart enough to know that that cover was EXPOSING the right wing propaganda about Obama and his wife.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

7. Hilarious cover solid reporting got mine yesterday

Saw the amusing cover online on Monday. Too bad caribou barbie choice missed press time. Check http://www.newyorker.com/ on Sunday night or Monday morning-- I bet ms palin might be near

"McNopoly" is the name of this cover, and it has little details that keep telling-- the smug rich boy with the seven hotels on boardwalk and park place; the tumbleweeds and foreclosure sign not on the poorest side of the board, but the more middle class area: people that have made it by any definition are the ones so screwed by the current state of affairs; Cindy wealthy cindy in the background just glancing over enough at YOU the viewer: are you going to have to be thrown out like his last playmate?

As far a the new yorker being framed by a question that is divisive to start of course the answer is no--this cover is NOT an attempt to placate upset readers from the Obama cover. I don't believe there were too many canceled subscriptions from that manufactured hoopla, just another week of distraction from failed bush policies and a never ending, brutal, unbelievable -but-for-filled-Arlington cemetery WAR.

Conde Nast ownership notwithstanding new yorker has been publishing truth to power for as long as I can remember. Their writers are often more observant than me, which is what I want in a reporter AND a president. The right HATES the smug new yawker, interrupts the brainwashing.

[Frank Booth]

8. "in no way intended to be a response to the controversy over the satirical Obama cover"

Sure......

[Undercurrent]

9. This cover

is a satire, a caricature, because it has it's genesis in fact. McCain is very, very wealthy. Therefore the humor is clear. The other cover had no connection to reality at all. It only had a connection to ideas in racists minds. No facts involved. It was not satire, or a caricature. It was dumb.

[Growler]

11. agreed!

[NYCGirl]

10. Kick

[npincus]

12. ooooooh, that's good!

:rofl:

[nc4bo]

13. Ack - is that monoply? Oh crap. Now I can snicker at this one - not that "other" one. nt