The New Yorker endorsement of President Obama

A long thoughtful piece. It’s been out for several days, but is worth a reading.

Speaking of the president:

And speaking of the challenger:

And conclusion:

It took them this long to endorse him? I thought the New Yorker had already endorsed the Democrat in the 2028 election.

If you ever doubt Joe Scarborough’s street cred as a tea party-watercarrier, see his interview with NYer editor re: this editorial, in which he attacks this man’s defense of the editorial with startling viciousness and contempt. I’ll see if it’s on You Tube.


Interestingly, the New Yorker’s long and thoughtful endorsements have always been the Democrat.

What are the odds?

The odds against the GOP putting up a thoughtful, intelligent, consistent candidate who doesn’t pander to right wing lunatics?

Pretty steep, I’d say.

Maybe in 2028. :smiley:

David Remnick comes across as a thoughtful, informed person.

Joe Scarborough comes across as a douchebag spoiling for a fight.

Oh really? How the fuck is protecting torturers, prosecuting whistleblowers and fighting to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial “progressive” or “decent”? These are not policy failures, these are deliberate betrayals of what should be fundamental principles.

I’m not overly surprised by the New York Times endorsement of Obama.

I was surprised, however, by the Salt Lake Tribune endorsement of Obama. Are they a leftie paper?

No, this is The New Yorker. Magazine, not newspaper.

I don’t think so, but they endorsed Obama in 2008.

Oops. Even less surprised, though.


What is your point, precisely? Are you responding to the claim someone made that the New Yorker was a politically centrist magazine and that the fact that they chose to endorse Obama is evidence that Obama appeals to independent voters?

Because you’re right, that is a somewhat relevant response… to a claim that no one in this thread made.
If one of your favorite conservative thinkers writes a piece endorsing Romney that lays out the pro-Romney argument in what you think is a particularly succinct and elegant way, it’s entirely reasonable for you to link to that article and endorse its contents, and if you do, someone pointing out (the non-secret) that that’s a conservative thinker who presumably usually endorses the Republican is in no way relevant to the point you were attempting to convey.

This is just the break the Nader campaign has been waiting for!

When do I ever do that?

Maybe instead of saying, “What are the odds?” you could explain why your comment is relevant. Because I can’t come up with any way your comment is actually contributing to the discussion. Nobody here is expressing surprise that the New Yorker endorsed Obama. The news isn’t that they did so. The point is that it’s a (what word appeared in the OP?) thoughtful endorsement.

In other words, rather than discuss the fact of the endorsement, this is a thread to discuss the content, and merit, of the endorsement.

Edit: and because Bricker is certain to ask whether I’m being fair, I think it’d be better if everyone were talking about its content instead of horse-racing it.

In your view, which of the posts thus far discusses “…the content, and merit, of the endorsement?”

The OP. If your defense is, “but they started it!” you’re gonna make me go all third-grade-teacher on you.

Not really. OP quotes three passages, but apart from a general laudatory comment, does not discuss the merits in any kind of detail. The OP’s contribution boils down to, “I like what this guy says.”

Do you disagree with specific parts of the endorsement? If so, which parts?