From: mrs_brooklynite	Date: July 14th, 2008 04:32 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I heard about the controversy on NPR this morning and didn't think too much of it. But seeing it is another thing.

It's crazy. Just crazy.

For me, the satire is a bit too subtle. It reminds me of how people claim to be post-feminist to excuse their misogyny.

	From: kevin_t_keith	Date: July 19th, 2008 04:04 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Don't Get It

That's exactly it. Or, the way self-proclaimed feminist men or non-racist whites think they can make sexist or racist jokes because they've established their bona fides.

I just didn't get the "satire" explanation at all. It's obviously not a parody - it's exactly the kind of thing the right wing does, perfectly seriously, all the time. And that makes it hard to be sure it's satire also. It could have run in a right-wing publication without alteration and not been a satire. For it to work as satire, it has to be obviously tongue in cheek, and, frankly, the way almost all the media have become right-wing lickspittles, I don't think you can immediately assume it wasn't serious no matter what publication it appears in.

It might have worked in The Nation. The New Yorker, not so much (though it is reassuring in a certain way that they're own vision of themselves is such that they believed it would be accepted unquestioningly as satire).

	From: bugsybanana	Date: July 14th, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah, you're right. Or even after he actually gets the nomination, maybe.

I admit that his change on FISA has me wondering if the Democrats can string him along at the convention or something, but it probably won't work.