It'll look swell on your coffee table!
Michael Wolff gives a rave pre-review at New York magazine's Metro.com - En Guardian!

The British are coming—again. The launch of a U.S. edition of the unabashedly liberal Guardian may be just what the Bush-whacked U.S. press needs.
...
Then, during the next break in the conference, Rusbridger took me across the street to his office and showed me the prototype for the new American Guardian. Its tentative form is as a weekly magazine, quite unlike any other weekly magazine that has been started in the U.S. in the past generation.

Wowee - that ought to be grist for the mill. The UK leftists cross the pond to give us benighted folks the benefit of their wit and wisdom! Based on their recent treatment of the Imamu Baraka flap where they initially identified the governor of New Jersey as a Republican, I'd say there will be plenty of hijinks to keep us amused. But how do they expect to come out ahead on the deal? Socialist toilers daily consuming the pages with devotion? Not hardly.

A clue is provided by Michael Wolff himself. In case, you are unfamiliar with Mikey, he was most recently famous for hauling his skanky butt over to Qatar during the Iraq war and complaining that he was only being briefed by a one star general. He wanted Tommy Franks to drop everything and hop on over to answer questions. Before that, Mikey was famous for writing a book detailing his experiences as a dot.bomb entrepeneur which famously featured his screwing over of employees and investors:

Those who worked with Wolff and were owed money won't let him off that easily, reserving special language for him: "megalomaniacal scumbag," "unbelievably sleazy," and "scoundrel," all gladly on the record.

Beginning to get the picture? It's that new kind of leftism without all the grubby hoi polloi. Mikey's Guardian rave elaborates:

there’s been something of an exceptional, and profitable, highbrow British invasion. Arguably the two most successful print publications to be introduced during the past decade in the U.S. market are The Economist and the Financial Times.
...
Both The Economist and the FT succeeded by pursuing the opposite strategy of almost every other U.S. publication: offering too much, rather than too little, information—and charging plenty for it.

Rather than a lot of readers at a small price, the idea is fewer readers at a greater price (whereas most U.S. magazines discount their subscription price as much as 80 percent). Rusbridger figures that the American Guardian, charging a hefty subscription price, will be in safe financial territory at a 100,000-level circulation. (Advertising, in this approach, is welcome but not the main driver.) In other words, against the trend of all other commercial media (wherein the price the consumer needs to pay or is willing to pay gets progressively lower), the job here is to make the magazine—the writing, the attitudes, the opinions, the content—worth more by being better, smarter, more exclusive.
...
Being foreign helps. It’s not a mass-produced American product. It’s imported. Authentic. Hand-tooled. Tasteful. Indeed, in some fine irony in this jingoistic age, its non-American-ness (and, hence, its ability to be anti-American) makes it worth more.
...
The smarty thing—which runs against the Fox-led Zeitgeist—might, counterintuitively, work here too. The Wal-Marting of the publishing business (as well as every other business) invites the inverse strategy: You’re too dumb, too low-class, too fat for our magazine. Sorry, it’s not for you. That’s a marketing approach that could potentially be worth real dough.

The American Guardian, lovingly and exclusively crafted for the coffee tables of limousine liberals. I can hardly wait.