This was a link on The Huffington Post's front page today, 7/14/08:

How Scarborough Went From Conservative Congressman To Liberal Favorite

Which is a link to New York magazine's online article:
Morning in America by Mark Binelli

After reading HuffPo's title it took me a while to regain my focus
and read on ...

New York's food editors yesterday took a less thoughtful approach reacting to a piece in The New York Times on the eating preferences of the voting public.

The Times piece is best summarized as such:

The Bush team studied food preferences, among dozens of other traits, as a shortcut to finding independents who might lean Republican, he said.

For example, Dr Pepper is a Republican soda. Pepsi-Cola and Sprite are Democratic. So are most clear liquors, like gin and vodka, along with white wine and Evian water. Republicans skew toward brown liquors like bourbon or scotch, red wine and Fiji water.

When it comes to fried chicken, he said, Democrats prefer Popeyes and Republicans Chick-fil-A.

Click through to get your fill of how New York misinterprets this...

I just watched Morning Joe just now and Joe was interviewing Elizabeth Edwards.  He asked her point blank that there was a NY magazine article that talked about why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Barack Obama.  In that article it said that one of the reasons was that Obama got in an argument with Elizabeth Edwards over health care and was "condescending".

Well she just said that that article is false and that Obama was really charming in discussing a variety of things including health care. She said that people should just be careful what you read for many things aren't true.

[Promoted by DHinMI:  There are a lot of very sharp, energetic people at Daily Kos, the kind who aren't cowed in to obsequious submission by the foolish experts, the banal people who fetishize credentials, or the "wise, serious people" who write for the other "wise, serious people," the kind who rave about the latest inanities of David Brooks.  Some of these banal and insecure pundits, these protectors of privilege and suck-ups to power, feel threatened by the media revolution of the last decade.  They were accustomed to talking to us, but they haven't grown accustomed to us talking back to them.  Instead of adapting to this change, or even embracing it, occasionally one of the more insecure but reckless of these "important people" takes a pot shot at us "rabble" at places like Daily Kos.  And invariably someone steps forward to show that the "important person" is actually a fool.  Kurt Andersen's pot shots at the Daily Kos community are foolish and inaccurate, but he at least inspired this witty demolition not only of his shallow article, but also of his shallow-sounding novel.]

Kurt Andersen argues in the current issue of New York Magazine that "The Surge Is Working!^TM", lambasting DailyKos for failing to rejoice appropriately. While Andersen has been reading White House press releases, I have been reading his recent book, Heyday. I'm not sure who's better off. So, as much as I detest the "open letter," I feel it is my duty to respond.

Dear Kurt Andersen,

I have, of late, finished reading your 620-page tome Heyday, and in light of your recent comments about DailyKos, feel that it might be worthwhile for us to discuss both works of historical fiction in concert. Frankly, I felt sort of forced into volunteering for this task, because I don’t know anyone else here who’s even managed to read any of your book. We, on the other hand, have on average 487,391 page views per day, so while it is possible for others to join you in poorly-researched criticism of this website, the task of commenting on your book has fallen to me. Luckily, I read your book thoroughly--a technique you yourself might be wise to try--and feel confident in discussing your book on the merits of what it actually said.

On the cover of this weeks New York Magazine (NYM) there is a teaser that says "Kurt Andersen on why liberals hate good news." Here is a link to the article La Vie en Morose

While I enjoy NYM I often find it kind of obnoxious. If you read it enough you start to think something is wrong with you if you aren't helping your kids brush up on their studies for entry into the best pre-school, or if your kids aren't on 12 different psychotropic medications. However they are usually pretty progressive.

What annoys me about this article is that Andresen says he wants progressives to win, but then opines about how we have to ignore "good news" e.g. "The Surge is Working". Its bad enough when you have to listen to Lou Dobbs blathering right wing talking points, but to see this guy get it so wrong really pisses me off

The cover story of New York Magazine this week is entitled, The Cancer Monologues.  You can and should read it. Here's a link.

http://nymag.com/

It is about a group of New Yorkers diagnosed with cancer. How they reacted to the diagnosis, and how they coped.  Sadly and as you might imagine, some are uninsured. The editor, Jon Gluck writes his own first-person account of battling bone cancer and his health insurance company.

The timing of this heart rending and deeply personal article comes on the same day that Nicholas Kristof, an Op Ed columnist at the New York Times strongly endorses single-payer health care.

In a scathing indictment of the U.S. healthcare system, Kristof comes out firmly on the side of single-payer. But he openly acknowledges that the forces of evil are lined up against the American people.

The Op Ed page of the New York Times is expensive and important journalism real estate. Make no mistake, the endorsement of single-payer by Kristof is very significant.

The release of SiCKO could not come at a better moment, it will focus immense international attention on our great national shame.

       So there was this brouhaha yesterday afternoon over the fact that Geoffrey Gray of New York Magazine called VoteVets.org

a left-leaning version of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

While the manner in which New York Magazine peddled the article to other media outlets (like Daily Kos) can be legitimately questioned, the whole uproar over the wording takes away from the larger issue.  That issue being this: Many prominent Republican leaders like to talk a lot about "service," "support the troops," "pro-military," "The War on This," and "The War on That," but when it comes right down to it, they’re really a bunch of draft-dodging chickenhawks.  And despite his debatable choice of wording, that’s what Gray’s article was really about.

Let's say you're a magazine and you're ready to break a story about how a certain Republican presidential contender -- maybe one who's said about terrorism and the Iraq war, “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president” -- is actually a draft dodger.

After receiving several deferments as a student, Giuliani applied for an occupational deferment as a law clerk, but his application was rejected. Giuliani appealed their decision, and asked the federal judge he was clerking for to petition the draft board for him. Which the judge did. When his deferment expired in 1970, Giuliani became susceptible to the draft. He received a high number and was never called.

And let's say you were interested in fostering discussion about that -- and maybe a gold mine in links -- from the right-wing blogosphere. How would you frame the story?

You might ask, as article author Geoffrey Gray did:

How long will John McCain—a real-life war hero down seventeen points in the polls—stand for such bluster?

That'll turn heads at McCain HQ, right? But given McCain's collapse in support among the right, that wouldn't be enough, would it? Of course not. You'd have to throw this in:

“If Giuliani is the nominee, we’re going to hammer him with ads, and it’s going to be easy because the issue is simple: He’s a draft dodger,” says Jon Soltz, an Iraq vet who served as a captain and runs VoteVets.org, a left-leaning version of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Excuse me?

VoteVets.org is a left-leaning version of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

Fuckyouverymuch, Geoffrey. That's a goddamned awful comparison.

Now, despite the fact that your article lays the groundwork for a blistering attack on Giuliani, with bullshit reporting like that, how could you possibly curry favor with the left netroots? Well, if you're New York magazine -- the publication in question -- you e-mail the Daily Kos editors and pitch the story with the following quote:

“If Giuliani is the nominee, we’re going to hammer him with ads, and it’s going to be easy because the issue is simple: He’s a draft dodger,” says Jon Soltz, an Iraq vet who served as a captain and runs VoteVets.org.

What's missing?

That's right:

a left-leaning version of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

That little hook was edited out of the version New York pitched us with. They included a link, of course. And the story's only three paragraphs long. But somehow, they thought we wouldn't notice the editing, or feel like they were trying to play us.

So here's your story, New York! Congratulations on really "getting" the netroots!

Update by kos: The New York PR hack who sent this by responded to an email from me about it:

I absolutely stand behind the writer’s item as printed, which you can tell by my inclusion of the link to it. I was simply trying to be economical with words in my email, in order to get you to take a closer look.

Apparently, email is now metered by the word...