Snooty Over Educated Liberals

I am sick of hearing people on cable news yak on and on about this cover from The New Yorker. I could be wrong, but isn't The New Yorker a magazine for snooty, dangerously overeducated liberals? And if you're picking a magazine cover, shouldn't you pick something targeted at your readers? All the news coverage I read talks about how its not satire if no one gets it, but as a snooty overeducated liberal I got it. I thought,

"Hey, heres a caricature of a caricature of the second coming of liberal elitism, it must be making fun of the knuckle draggers in rural Ohio that actually believe these things."

I feel like most other snooty overeducated liberals, when they're not being partisan about the Obama campaign, can see what the The New Yorker was going for. That in mind, you can't really blame the magazine for running it, in the following sense. Why should they worry about certain kinds of people (the humble, the reasonably educated, the conservative) appreciating their cover, when those same people are probably never going to appreciate the magazine? They shouldn't. Not that the cover wasn't a bit much, because it was, but I think its been blown totally out of proportion.

If the people in the media don't get the joke, then maybe they should get another degree, or find another means of becoming more liberal and snooty. Then they might get it, and if they had taken these kinds of steps first, they might have thought twice about plastering these images all over the news. That way, only the snooty liberals that read The New Yorker would have seen the cover (people capable of appreciating it) and we all could have avoided wasting time.