Sales Of ‘People’ Magazine With Obama On The Cover Just Kind Of Average

  troubling numbers

Losers, allZOMG has Barack Obama lost his MOMENTUM??? The megastar celebrity appeared on the cover of People last week, and sales actually DIPPED by 50,000 copies. If Barack Obama cannot stimulate enough reader interest to keep circulation at a healthy 1.45 million copies per week, is he really qualified for the highest office in the land? [New York Post]

Share This
 
Related video

About the author

Sara K. Smith was Wonkette's morning editor from 2008 to 2010, and now contributes a weekly (?!) column to Wonkette, to prove she still loves you all!

View all articles by Sara K. Smith

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

36 comments

  1. shortsshortsshorts

    [re=50011]tunamelt[/re]: HE SINGS IN THE SHOWER?

    OMG in love totez give it to me Barry now.

  2. Toonces

    There are serious issues that people need to evaluate when choosing who to vote for pres… “OH MY GOD!! Jennifer Garner is PREGNANT?!?!?!”

  3. AngryBlakGuy

    …does this mean people are masturbating to the cover in the checkout line instead of buying it and doing it in the privacy of their own homes?

  4. Delicious

    And Walnuts! thinks Hussein can hold a candle to the megawattage of Paris and Britney.

    “I’m John McCain, I’m totally out of it, and I approve this message.”

  5. WagTehGod

    Maybe it’s because a magazine called People put a bunch of 3/5 people on the cover?

    PEOPLE READERS ARE RACISTS!

  6. SayItWithWookies

    In further bad news for the Democrats, McCain’s cover of Lumbago Today increased that mag’s circulation by 20,000.

  7. sezme

    [re=50025]AngryBlakGuy[/re]: Can’t do it, with the rest of his family looking on. Think of the Kids! That’s why I bought Fortune this month.

  8. Electric Zen

    [re=50025]AngryBlakGuy[/re]: No, it just means that the prominent placement of the kids on the cover kind of kills the mood. Not good wanking material.

  9. Norbert

    [re=50011]tunamelt[/re]: Nobama is after your 12-year-old daughters!

    p.s. as I suspected, People readers play the race card

  10. weirdiowasculpture

    Laugh now, you elitist swine, but what this really means is that People is going to have to go all equal-timey and put John and Cindy on the cover looking hella goopy about each other.

    OMG, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

  11. tunamelt

    [re=50025]AngryBlakGuy[/re]: Well, I don’t know about you but I rather enjoy the florescent lighting in the Walgreens. It’s romantic and sets the appropriate mood.

  12. AngryBlakGuy

    [re=50035]SayItWithWookies[/re]: …the only circulating periodical that John McCain can get on is the “Publishers Clearing House”(do they even do that anymore?)

  13. TGY

    [re=50056]The Real JR Revisted[/re]: Or crotch shot. He could be exiting a car…just thinking out loud.

  14. freakishlystrong

    Is it too obvious to suggest that WALNUTS! will the hell outta “Unfunny, Racist Old Men” monthly?

  15. RooseveltFranklin

    No one wants to see Obama holding his daughter on the same page as the pregnant man holding its’ daughter or sea monster or whatever it is.

  16. WhatTheHeck

    Look fools, don’t diss my People mag. All I ever wanted to know in life I learned from People.
    It’s where Merica goes for news, tits n’ ass.

  17. Norbert

    [re=50075]greatgooglymoogly[/re]: good lord. but that would mean… black people… are screwing… in the White House… Armageddon (it on)

  18. shortsshortsshorts

    [re=50080]tunamelt[/re]: Yes but they gave him a post, which means he will be back, 10 fold, forever.

    I always thought it was Denton, so I would respond with “$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$”

Comments are closed.