Tit for tat
Here's an answer to the New Yorker Obama cover.
| Posted at 4:13 PM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 15, 2008 4:13 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Anonymous commenters, take note.
The next post in this blog is Impartial news coverage? Not in Portland.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (9)
Since both the New Yorker and Huffington are in the Obama corral, I'm not sure I'd call it tit for tat. Maybe tit for tit?
Posted by Bob W | July 15, 2008 5:17 PM
No kidding.
The New Yorker was trying to cast aspertions at Republicans by lampooning that Republicans would make a cover like they did.
Well Republicans didn't and now the Huff Post, another lib, is further playing the one sided nonsense.
The New Yorker cover was ridiculous and demonstrative of the left's falling all over themselves to cast Repubs in bad light.
Now they've managed to fall all over their own candidate.
Posted by Ben | July 15, 2008 5:31 PM
You guys are even more tired than McCain.
Posted by Jack Bog | July 15, 2008 6:58 PM
omg that is great! thanks for sharing!
Posted by CPMCD2000 | July 15, 2008 7:16 PM
However he marches, BSO's hat will be askew, and he'll remain out of step. He's deaf to the beat, and blind to the uniform he aspires to. 4F. Not qualified. Can't find his records. Should never have applied to enlist. Would probably make a good activist/organizer in a midwest setting.
Posted by veiledorchid | July 15, 2008 9:29 PM
I read that editor of the New Yorker said "the cover was chosen because it had something to say."
Could that be "We wanted Hillary?"
Posted by Jon | July 15, 2008 9:46 PM
He's deaf to the beat
In contrast, if there's a word that describes McCain perfectly, it's "beat."
Posted by Jack Bog | July 15, 2008 11:49 PM
Here's another one.
Posted by Jack Bog | July 16, 2008 3:33 AM
Great riposte! Hope its widely circulated.
Thanks for posting it.
Posted by Grumpy | July 16, 2008 8:16 AM