New York Hammers the Hog Butcher

From a Republican perspective things are going nicely: New York has decided to take out the Obama. Two evidences of this:
--The New Yorker July 21 cover, showing Obama as a Muslim, and his wife as a gun toting revolutionary; and in the same issue
--An article by Ryan Lizza: "Making it, How Chicago Shaped Obama", indicating not a great deal of accomplishment, but a certain comfort with the city, mayor, cronies, et al.

The hammer is falling. Why must it fall? This is the argument, from the beginning:

Obama is a puppet. The proof is that he's a dope, but he's been very successful. How can a dope be successful? Answer, only if somebody is pulling the strings. Who's pulling the strings? Well, Obama's never been anywhere but Chicago, thus, Chicago is pulling the strings. But who's "Chicago"? Not known, not determined, but it's clearly, et al. It realy doesn't matter, it's Chicago.

But in the most perfectly proper of all worlds who is it, properly, who "pulls strings", controls nations, sways governments, intimidates presidents, and just in general has knowledge of all that is moral? Why, The Great City. Surely. New York! Always! And always must it be so. So what happens if Puppet Barack becomes president? Fate! The World! Who would control the world? Well, not New York... but... dare it be said... the Hog Butcher! So gross!!! This the estimable men of the Center of All can not allow, and so they must take down the puppet (not that they have anything against the puppet, mind you) but they just can not allow goodness to be left to the ham-handed mercies of the Masters of Chicago. The spinning globe would unbalance, things would tilt, confusion would reign, men would be dizzied, the compass askew... And anyway, so gross, a president Hog Butcher defacto.

So the puppet Obambi must die. He may not win!

First strategy? Smear. Second strategy? Smear. Et al.

Supposedly the New Yorker cover is mocking the rabid Right's racist view of Obama and wife. My: "Bad racist Right. Shame!"; and the article is "objective".

If the Cover satirized the Right, some sort of rabid goon should be apparent somewhere, how else establish that only in the eye of a mind like that could there be such a racist view as this? But there is no such goon, and only one "eye" in this composition, the overview of that splendidly liberal cover moniker, The New Yorker. It's only, The New Yorker, as the "eye" sitting atop this scene, that casts down its gaze on this most problematic couple. And this is in fact what that eye sees: a problem. Never mind just what problem, and to whom, but they are a problem, and one thing you can do to people who are a problem is make them a threat. In an electoral system, those seen as a threat, if it's a wide enough and great enough threat, are no longer a problem. It's threat that the New Yorker wants to convey and it's threat they do convey, though not of the Right, but of the man they actually do fear.

So, so much for the cover. --The article, on the other hand, seems not to be a smear. I've read about as much of it as any ordinarily healthy American is going to read (they do have dull writers) and from what I've seen it seems fair. Damaging, of course, because, relatively at least, fair.

So, the Titans struggle. New York takes v Chicago. Goody. All we actually need is a tie. A death grip would be nice but a tie is just fine. That will give the reasonable part of the country an entertainment and a rest, and then that part of the country can give john McCain something to do for the rest of the next four years.