Apparently, Vanity Fair hasn’t. All the furor over the New Yorker’s Obama “satire” cover led them to conclude that… they needed to do exactly the same thing! This time, of course, the target had to be McCain, and it had to be just as offensive. Because, you know, the most mature way to handle the offensive Obama cover — even though just about every conservative and Republican anywhere derided it — is to do the exact same thing to McCain!
Here’s the cover:
Yes, that’s McCain with bandages on his head, presumably mocking his injuries as a POW in Vietnam. Yes, he’s got a walker — making fun of his age, how original! Yes, Cindy’s got an armful of prescription pills. Yes, that’s President Bush above the fireplace. And yes, it is what you think it is burning in the fireplace.
So original. And real mature, too.
No one praised The New Yorker for the Obama cover. They got slammed for it. So why on Earth would the editors at Vanity Fair feel like attacking McCain on their cover was a good idea? Again, ever heard of “two wrongs don’t make a right”? Of course, we have to remember there’s a difference here. The media is not going to slam Vanity Fair for having an offensive cover attacking John McCain. There will be silence about this. They won’t have to deal with massive outrage as The New Yorker did, because the mainstream media will be secretly applauding the cover, even though they won’t say so in public. It’s ridiculous how openly the media is in the bucket for Obama. What’s even more sickening is how smug and condescending Vanity Fair was about this. I’m just trying to figure out what exactly they’re trying to accomplish with this. Are they trying to show off that they have the maturity of a fifth grader?
You know what, that actually makes sense, now that I think about it, because that’s probably the best way to endear other liberals to them.