Where's the false advertising?

Some birthers sued Esquire for defamation, putting them in a false light, tortious interference, and false advertising under the Lanham Act over a satirical blog post.  Hard to imagine this is "commercial advertising or promotion," among the other barriers.  Notably, plaintiffs' lawyer Larry Klayman is no stranger to false advertising litigation (or litigation of many other kinds).  Not sure he's ever won such a case, but I hardly think winning is the point here.