Laura Flanders: Vanity Fair's Retort to the New Yorker's Obama Cover Misses the Mark

Posted by Laura Flanders, Firedoglake at 3:02 PM on July 24, 2008.

If Vanity Fair wanted to flip the New Yorker cover on the GOP, they'd have to portray the media's lies about the candidate. Not the true stuff.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
6 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

AlterNet Social Networks:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

PEEK RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Vanity Fair has released a cartoon cover online in response to the New Yorker's swipe at the media coverage of the Obamas. The fake Vanity Fair cover shows John McCain, in a walker with a bandaged head and Cindy with a bundle of pills giving her hubby a fist-jab. A portrait of George W. Bush hangs over the mantle-piece; the Constitution is burning in the grate.

Some are finding it funny. I'd say not so much. Worse, it's all wrong. If Vanity Fair's cartoonist wanted to flip the New Yorker cover on the GOP, they'd have to portray the media's lies about the candidate. Not the true stuff.

Sure, she's no drug addict, but the candidate's wife has been forced to admit that she was once addicted to prescription drugs. She even stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief outfit. And while McCain doesn't use a walker, it's not as if the media misrepresent his age. Those aren't the media's wrongs where the McCains are concerned. It's not her looks, it's her wealth themedia understate, and it's not his physique, it's his politics.

To do the media hit job fairly, Vanity Fair should have taken aim at the media's lies: pundits pretend McCain's a maverick. He's not. He's voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. The equivalent to the lie about Obama being a muslim is the lie about McCain breaking with the Bush pack. The equivalent to the lie about Michelle being dangerous -- is the lie about Cindy being one of us. She's a $100 million aristocrat -- who stands to win big from her husband's tax plans.

For all the flips and flops of the McCain campaign so far, the one thing that's true is that the Constitution might as well be burning in the grate. And if McCain ever wins the Oval office, you can be sure GW's policies, if not his portrait will be on display. Again, that's not satire. Satire, sadly, would be the Constitution safe and GW banished.

Funny it's not. We can only hope that this sales-boosting silly season's over.

Tagged as: bush, gop, satire, obama, mccain, candidates, election '08, new yorker, vanity fair, cartoon covers

Laura Flanders is the host of RadioNation and the author of Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians.

Return to PEEK » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 6 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in PEEK
Could the Stupak Amendment Get the Boot in The Senate? Sens. Barbara Boxer and Max Baucus seem to think so. But how ConservaDems will react is still unclear. Post by mcjoan. November 10, 2009.	Woops! Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Remember What the Public Option Is Called, or That It's Pretty Popular (Video) Big Bill was shut down unexpectedly last night by fellow Fox Newser Brit Hume. Go figure. Post by Ben Armbruster. November 10, 2009.	Call Joe Lieberman's Bluff: A Real Fort Hood Inquiry Would Likely Shut Him Up If Lieberman were to actually have his calls for a "terrorism" investigation answered, he probably wouldn't like seeing the results. Post by John Nichols. November 10, 2009.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid? [Report this comment] Posted by: TKirwin on Jul 25, 2008 6:17 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Laura Flanders is spot on. The New Yorker cover was about projecting all of the lies and misrepresentations that the press is complicit in perpetuating about the Obama's. If Vanity Fair was interested in shedding light, they would have skewered the McCains with the aspects Flanders suggests. Clearly, Vanity Fair neither understands what the New Yorker was up to nor why so many people are honestly crying "foul." Vanity Fair should now project the Obama's in the same way they did the McCain's and project the things that are true that detractors attempt to hurt them with. Like...Michelle being both too strong, honest and well educated "for a black woman," Barak being so youthful that he brings dangerous, counter old guard ideas, etc. It might be instructive for either the New Yorker or Vanity Fair to acknowledge that the suggested alternative views of the unshown candidates would reveal their (and the rest of media's) double standard: Hurt Obama by perpetuating disproven lies; hurt McCain by stating the truth. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid? Posted by: jimidee » RE: Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid? Posted by: TKirwin Why the Bandage? [Report this comment] Posted by: astockton on Jul 25, 2008 9:05 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] I don't get why there's a bandage on McCain's scalp. I thought the skin cancer was on the left side of his face, not the top of his head. Are they perhaps trying to say that when he ejected from his bomber over Nam, his head hit the canopy--and if he has a couple of screws loose, this is the reason? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] WHAT'S THE DIFF? [Report this comment] Posted by: soowee on Jul 26, 2008 6:27 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] I agree with Laura Flanders that the real issue is McCain's voting record supporting George Bush's noxious policies. But, Obama's recent voting record supporting the FISA wiretap law and the reauthorization of the execrable USA PATRIOT Act are also highly relevant. Too many McCain/Bush opponents are giving Obama a pass on these problems. Obama is not much better than McCain and does not deserve to be elected President--EITHER. H. W. Ellerson PO Box 90 Hadensville, VA 23067 (804) 457-4243 [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: WHAT'S THE DIFF? Posted by: daniel w vermillion

«	November 2009					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

» RE: Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid? Posted by: jimidee

» RE: Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid? Posted by: TKirwin

» RE: WHAT'S THE DIFF? Posted by: daniel w vermillion

Newsletter

PEEK archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search:

» RE: Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid? Posted by: jimidee

» RE: Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid? Posted by: TKirwin

» RE: WHAT'S THE DIFF? Posted by: daniel w vermillion