The New Yorker Endorses Barack Obama

Perhaps this will make up for CoverGate: The New Yorker has just endorsed Barack Obama in an editorial just released online and on newsstands on Monday in the October 13th issue. The editorial — by "the Editors" — is called "The Choice" and should probably surprise no one, but man do they make their case: 4,214 words with a laundry list of areas in which the Bush administration has failed the country, and McCain has failed to lead or inspire. (That's the kindest way of expressing it. Here's a ess kind way: "John McCain [has] played the part of a vaudeville illusionist, asking to be regarded as an apostle of change after years of embracing the essentials of the Bush agenda with ever- increasing ardor.") In contrast, the "Editors" point out how Obama has done just that: Leading and inspiring, but also following up his promise for change with thought, strategy, work and action.

It is notable, too, that in an essay of this length, only a single paragraph is devoted to McCain's "cyicism" in choosing Palin. That said, on this, the day of the Vice-Presidential debate, it's the one everyone will read it looking for. Here's an excerpt.

We are watching a candidate for Vice-President cram for her ongoing exam in elementary domestic and foreign policy. This is funny as a Tina Fey routine on "Saturday Night Live," but as a vision of the political future it's deeply unsettling. Palin has no business being the backup to a President of any age, much less to one who is seventy-two and in imperfect health. In choosing her, McCain committed an act of breathtaking heedlessness and irresponsibility.

Here's their conclusion:

At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness... It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader's name is Barack Obama.

Of course, they would say that — look at their logo! The New Yorker is obviously a snooty Joe Sixpack-hating member of the gotcha media elite. So, they can't be trusted, just like the silly facts they cite. Right?

The full editorial is here.

Update: A spokewoman for the New Yorker confirms that the byline "the Editors" meant that "many people weighed in" but editor David Remnick and columnist Rick Hertzberg "took the lead."

Comments

[Brian Ross - Huffpost Blogger]

Missed here in the HuffPost Story is the best excerpt by far from the endorsement:

"Since the 2004 election, however, McCain has moved remorselessly rightward in his quest for the Republican nomination. He paid obeisance to Jerry Falwell and preachers of his ilk. He abandoned immigration reform, eventually coming out against his own bill. Most shocking, McCain, who had repeatedly denounced torture under all circumstances, voted in February against a ban on the very techniques of "enhanced interrogation" that he himself once endured in Vietnam"as long as the torturers were civilians employed by the C.I.A.

"On almost every issue, McCain and the Democratic Party"s nominee, Barack Obama, speak the generalized language of "reform," but only Obama has provided a convincing, rational, and fully developed vision. McCain has abandoned his opposition to the Bush-era tax cuts and has taken up the demagogic call"in the midst of recession and Wall Street calamity, with looming crises in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid"for more tax cuts. Bush"s expire in 2011. If McCain, as he has proposed, cuts taxes for corporations and estates, the benefits once more would go disproportionately to the wealthy. "

[larry278]

Are they trying to make nice after the satire of the cartoon cover fell flat? There have been times when a candidate rejected an endorsment. Is the endorsment offered in lieu of an apology? What will your maiden aunt in Iowa think of the endorsment? Enquiring minds want to know. The rest of us couldn't care less. Ross & Thurber are the epitome of the 20th century; ok, ok, Capote too.

[Julie02]

I guess to many people cancelled their subscription after the tasteless cover they did. Maybe they'll get half of them back now.

[Mysticalsister]

Hurrah! I can start reading the New Yorker again!

[Blain]

The New Yorker is irrelevant and that offensive cover that they did on the Obamas proves it. My family has had a New Yorker subscription for over 30 years consecutively but I cancelled it after that cover.

[NotMcCain]

Absolutely. This editorial will have a fraction of the impact that that cover did. The New Yorker's poor judgment left a bitter taste among its base that will not go away.

[kurttrail]

You are like the muslims going on jihad over a friggin' cartoon.

Only an idiot would think that the New Yorker cover was mocking Obama. It was mocking the 'tards that actually believe that nonsense.

People that don't get political satire should be conservatives!

[SHOPARAZZI]

there were only 11 u.s. presidents who've had 3 syllable last names:

washington, jefferson, madison, van buren, w. harrison, buchanan, b. harrison, mckinley, t. roosevelt, f. roosevelt, and kennedy.

obama would be the 12th. but "president obama" doesnt quite roll off the tongue like all the others.

i wonder what he'd like to be called when inauged on jan. 20.

***eisenhower is the singular potus that had a 4-syllable name.

cant u tell im bored out of my mind?

[Marilyn5401]

I THINK HE'D LIKE TO BE CALLED "PRESIDENT OBAMA" !

...works for me

[SHOPARAZZI]

i take offense to the cover - kinda.

nice article, but not fresh. no new positions from which the mainstream media hasnt already taken and summarized to pinpoint who obama is. no new news - the same has been said 1000 times over since the primaries. told, retracted and told again.

[Softnsweet]

Gawd, I loved this article. I could not have said this any better. Woot!! New Yorker!!!

[Nonpartay]

This is a FABULOUS article! I have printed it out and emailed it to friends. It just says it all. Let's hope it goes viral and everyone reads it! :)

[thecanadian]

This solid endorsement, written by "The Editors" is one of the most moving articles ever written or, which we have found. We want to say to the "New Yorker" - in a room of 6 people tonight, after sharing the article - one of us reading it to the group - there were tears flowing down everyones face!

We will seek out and preserve a physical copy of the Magazine - it will be part of History as will Obama's Presidential Win!
Thank You!

[nativesun]

Way to go NEW YORKER.

I just might subscribe again.........

[Jules1]

The article by the editors was really great, long and well worth it.

[SeanOcali]

Does this make up for the "terrorist jab" cover they did? No.

[TheSpiritAlchemist]

You do realize that cover was nothing more than satire about the outrageous claims against Obama, right?

[naeldwyck]

Exactly; and unlike last week's Palin cover, which actually satirized the candidate herself.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for Sean to read the magazine or listen to their podcasts (the campaign trail especially) before offering his opinion. Although of course simplicity is always so much more attractive than reality.

[SeanOcali]

Oh yes, I realized it was supposed to be satirical because I know what The New Yorker is. The problem is the other 95% of the country. I can picture my grandmother in the supermarket seeing that cover. We're talking powerful imagery that has a negative effect, even if only subconsciously. That cover is supercharged jet fuel for the engine known as The Bradley Effect.

As for the satire. It really wasn't because there was no context to it. It was an inside joke that only us liberals who read the New Yorker would understand. If the picture was in a thought-bubble of some redneck, then it would be satirical.

[Rossan]

Great news !! I'm behind Obama, I believe in the vision he has for our great country.

[Gary47]

Like this will make one wit of difference to any voter. But really, what in the world took them so long?