Straw Poll: What Do YOU Think Of The Rolling Stone Cover?

So here's my lingering issue with Rolling Stone's April 2 "Gossip Girl" cover -- and the reason why I am still sort of mulling it over, a few days after it hit stands: it is no secret that the show is on the decline. Not only are we almost over the hump of its existence, with the second season winding down and the stars admitting in the article itself that "four is a good number," but the show -- like its late Cali counterpart "The O.C." -- has left plot and coherence in the dust. The already-low ratings are down in the new year. Maybe because to watch the show right now is to be literally bludgeoned by cliches. On Monday, in order to convey the impressive pedigree of main man Nate Archibald, the writers gave us a scene in which the cast perused some oil portraits of the Vanderbilts. Then, there was some touch football -- in vintage rugby sweaters -- and some sly tackles, which were of course just an impish way to win Grandfather's approval. He taught Nate how to sail, you know.

Anyway, that's my beef -- not only is the waning show not worth the simple acclaim of being on Rolling Stone's cover this week, but hello! It's been done. A bajillion times. To better effect. As in, check out New York's now-famous soliloquy from a year ago. Even the photo from the New York cover and Rolling Stone double-truck of the cast in bed sheets are shockingly similar. And if the recession is supposed to be the peg -- Gilded Age Show Finds Itself Out of Touch -- well, that angle was already covered by Vogue more than two months ago.

The photos themselves? Kinda cool. I like the cover, though I have a minor grudge against the inside shot of Leighton Meester literally deep-throating a Twizzler -- my lunch is gurgling ominously. I don't find them "sexist," as some are claiming. (For sexist, might wanna check out the Nov. 2003 cover of Jessica Simpson pushing a Swiffer around in underwear and heels).

But what do YOU think?