This blog will be truncated after the first paragraph. So go to the first comment where the full piece will appear in all its glory

Chalk up another republican victory thanks to the New Yorker. Not the cover. That will only hurt Obama with a segment of, face it, ill educated voters who never had any intention of voting for him. But what the cover didn’t do will be done by Ryan Lizza’s “ “ Making it”.

But first why “another” republican victory? Because it was Nicholas Lehmann’s contrasting profiles of Bush and Gore in 2000 which surely gave W more that the 200 votes by which he carried Florida. (Remember the official margin of 500 votes would have been cut to less than 300 if the West Palm recount hadn’t missed the deadline).

If you don’t remember, check the Net: Nicholas Lehmann “The Sons”. An attractive portrait of a good-natured W whom Lehmann first met in the apartment of his Divinity School friend; a hostile portrait of a pretentious Gore. If articles have any effect surely those two profiles by that talented writer persuaded at least 100 Florida voters to switch from Gore to W.

And now David Remnick strikes again with the editing, or perhaps, non-editing of Lizza’s hatched job.

Take these paragraphs about Chicago patronage:

“E.J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reelected. Dionne wrote about a young Barak Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked”…

“It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political practice.etc”

Why “artfully”? How about “clearly” ? Or “succinctly”?

Why did Lizza employ a loaded term like “artfully” with the connotation that the speaker can’t be trusted? More to the point why did the New Yorker’s diligent editors not …edit?

This sort of covert advocacy, in which the publication’s position is conveyed not in the selection of facts but in the selection of adverbs, once the hallmark of Henry Luce’s Time, has found a new home in the magazine that’s not for an old lady in Dubuque.

Or take this example. Obama was preparing to run for State Senate and Alice Palmer intended to run against him. The Dobrys, political reformers and Obama’s supporters reviewed her petitions which were filled with irregularities. Sounds OK.Now read on:

“One skill that the Independents had mastered in the years of fighting the first Mayor Daley was the machine’s tactics of challenging ballot petitions…” Hmn . Then two pages later we find this

….” Obama had won his first campaign by using old fashioned Chicago machine tactics”.

Some readers will remember the antecedent for this slur.Which was that Obama’s team had successfully challenged illegitimate petitions. Many won’t and will just carry away the impression that Obama had done something wrong –machine like-in that first campaign.

Maybe that’ll swing 200 votes in Florida. Or more likely many more.

It would be tedious to go on like this (I know, it’s already tedious) but one more example of the New Yorker’s homage to Timestyle.

“Obama ……”” understood that some people were upset about the “conflict between old loyalties and new enthusiasms”. Privately however, he unleashed his operators.”

Unleashed? Why not “permitted” the challenge ? In case you wonder, dear reader-both of you- it’s because Lizza and the New Yorker editors want you to identify Obama with the sort of person who would attack his enemies with a dangerous beast.

It’s clear what Lizza was up to. Harder to be sure about the New Yorker editors. Perhaps they endorsed Lizza’s approach. Perhaps they were incompetent. But either way they’ve swung those 200 votes in Florida. As I say: Remnick strikes again. …….

.