Matt Yglesias

21 Responses to “New Yorker Endorses Obama”

1. sherifffruitfly Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am

   Looky! Matt made a funny!

   

2. Hector Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 am

   Um, Obama does support the legalized homicide (I will not say ‘murder’) of innocent children. He would still, on balance, do less damage than McCain, I think. (Rising sea levels will kill more innocent people than partial birth abortion, as would a war with Russia or Venezuela). The fact that the Democrat is the lesser evil, doesn’t make them any less of an evil.

3. stefan Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am

   Who is going to endorse McCain? Beyond the NR and WSJ? I’m pretty sure the FT and The Economist are going to endorse Obama. The WP also, I’d guess. No swing editorial endorsements for McCain.

4. Steve M. Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 am

   This editorial in The New Yorker endorsing Barack Obama is sure to sway the votes of anywhere from zero to four people.

   You vastly overestimate likely the influence of this editorial. Though, if it is to have any effect, it will cause a few people who would otherwise have voted for Obama to vote for McCain. So perhaps it will sway a net negative number of people to vote for Obama.

5. Jeffrey Davis Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 am

   The Republican promise to overturn Roe V Wade reminds me — I’m impressionable — to some lines from Keats:

   Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
   Though winning near the goal—yet, do not grieve;
   She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
   For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!

6. Tyro Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am

   Didn’t the New Yorker make its first endorsement ever in 2004 with John Kerry? I thought that was impressive because it was such a rare event– as if to say, “this election is so important we will break precedent and endorse.” If the New Yorker is going to make a quadrennial habit of this, it will take the punch out of their endorsements (as well as, in any case, being completely predictable).

7. Joe Sixpack Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am

   Oh the New Yorker endorsed him?! Well, previously I was totally on the fence, but if that’s the case, then I’m totally convinced.

   In all seriousness, though, this is about as newsworthy as The Nation’s endorsement of Obama. Betcha didn’t see that one coming. You almost wonder why these magazines even bother.

8. Delicious Pundit Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm

   I thought they should have left the concluding section for this week’s caption contest.

9. washerdreyer Says:
   October 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm

   Hector, your views on the issues are wrong in a fascinating, indeed mavericky way, and I congratulate your for it. Why are you differentiating dilation and extraction from the rest of abortions which I assume you also believe are homicides though?

10. Adam Villani Says:
    October 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    In all seriousness, though, this is about as newsworthy as The Nation’s endorsement of Obama.

    Who knows, they might’ve gone for McKinney or Nader.

11. Gordo y Flaco Says:
    October 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Surely the “nation” wouldn’t make an error like that? I mean, everyone knows that a fœtus doesn’t become an human being until it has drawn its first breath, and until then may be hacked to pieces to assure the further life, health (including fertility), or sanity of the mother. It’s obvious.

    It couldn’t even be manslaughter, as the Bible clearly differentiates between the penalty for accidentally causing a miscarriage (a fine) and accidentally killing a man (death, unless you flee to a City of Refuge).

12. Kevin Beane Says:
    October 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    I laughed, Matt.

    Commenters thus far, however, are showing why this is the blog of choice for lean-left political science wonks!

13. Hector Says:
    October 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    Washerdryer,

    Good point. They’re both assaults on innocent human life, and both grave moral evils. But I do feel that the evil is _more_ grave when the fetus is more developed. That isn’t to say that an early term fetus doesn’t have the _essence_ of humanity, but that a late term fetus has most of the physical form as well as the essence. I’m not sure that I can defend it intellectually- it’s true that as a matter of reason, an early term fetus is as _essentially_ human as an adult person. Intuitively however, it doesn’t seem to me to be quite as bad (although still pretty bad).

    Also, it’s worth noting that while I think that an early term fetus is a human person, that’s a subtle point and one that most Americans do not share. It’s also a point that most non-Christian and pre-Christian cultures did not share, with the honorable exception of Jews and Persians. A late term fetus is, however, much more obviously human, and its humanity is evident even to many people who have an atheist, materialist view of what makes a human person. That is why abortion becomes a graver and graver crime the later on in development it occurs.

14. cialis Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    cialis
    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

15. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 5:33 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

16. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 2:41 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
    tramadol

17. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:40 am

    tramadol
    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

18. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra