The only things that draw me back to the WaPo are "Opus" and the paper's ability to give me a great flush of indignation at the bilge their editorials excrete.
You can read Opus on Salon each Sunday.
I have a yearly subscription to Salon, but I believe you can read just for the day, simply by viewing their advertising.
A better cartoon would have been to put Huckabee or Romney across the table with the same cast of characters and have them sit there discovering how much they have in common in terms of fundamentalist misogyny.
Women are chattel? check
Disbelief in evolution and modern science? Check
Male patriarchy? Check
Terrified by female sexuality? Check
Belief in the literal interpretation of the words of a handful of bronze-age poets? Check.
And so on
I don't know why you think the WaPo is finished as a paper of note because of this. We live in a society that's very much like high school (the social and mental development of most Americans comes to a screeching halt in high school, after all), and as one of the "cool kids", the WaPo can make as big a fool of itself as it pleases without having to take any flack for it.
Actually, the real world is more like Junior High per a quote from Tom Brokaw at a Skidmore College commencement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/
1...agewanted=print
"You’ve been told during your high school years and your college years that you are now about to enter the real world, and you’ve been wondering what it’s like. Let me tell you that the real world is not college. The real world is not high school. The real world, it turns out, is much more like junior high. You are going to encounter, for the rest of your life, the same petty jealousies, the same irrational juvenile behavior, the same uncertainty that you encountered during your adolescent years. That is your burden. We all share it with you. We wish you well."
Oliphant is another piece of anecdotal evidence that the DC cocktail circuit is oblivious to the mainstream identity politics driving the Dem primary.
Like Thor's quote above indicates, DC is a junior high boy's locker room, with just about the same level of insight into gender and race - something between superficial and nonexistent.
Why do I think that the cartoonist is a long time happily married man who has not been on the losing end of a very pissed off woman. Not to be sexist but women are not the shrinking violets portrayed... ask any divorce lawyer.
Um, I keep forgetting - is THIS the paper that's a wholly owned subsidiary of the Moonies? This IS the sort of thing that's likely to tickle whatever passes for a sense of humor in the megalomaniacal skull of "The Great Father" Moon. Just saying.
Oliphant isn't a conservative, although he may be an asshole. He may have started out leaning right, but Viet Nam and Watergate changed him forever. He supported Larry Flynt during his supreme court fight, and published a particularly venomous collection called 101 Ways to Use a Conservative. He hits both sides of the aisle harder than any cartoonist working today, although this cartoon certainly isn't his best.
This kind of reaction, however, only bolsters the point of the cartoon: Liberals/Progressives need to grow a thicker skin, especially if we're going to be in charge. Leave the outrage over cartoons (& songs, TV shows, etc) to the pinheads.
Took the words right outa my mouth.
Right wing sexist asshole: yeah, about right. Not sure the "conservative" is needed, though.
I was actually disappointd to see it, because I remember when he was a decent, even a good cartoonist. During one especially difficult time in Poland -- we're talking 25 years ago here -- he did one that was a superb homage to David Low's style and in particular to that of "Rendezvous" -- Kee-rist, I see it has its own Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren...itical_cartoon)
It was called "Waiting for the tanks" and showed one of Low's dark, ominous scenes with a lot of people crammed up against against a dotted line on the left (a Low crowd scene, recognizable people in front, fading to a mass in back, like "All behind you, Winston"), leaning forward, heads turned to catch any rumblings from the huge dark area to the East.
But now he'a another craphead. To Hell with him. Or Hadleyburg even.
We note that a cartoonist could have commented on all the nastiness she took a few months ago about her remark that she's dealt with plenty of evil men.
Are the MSM conspiring to make me like Clinton? I'm sure I'm not the only one asking.
Meanwhile, Tom Toles did a cartoon on the same subject, which made me say, "Why is Toles doing straight reportage?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01092008&
type=c
Jim--No, the "Washington TIMES" is the Moonie paper, though the WaPo has drifted so far right it's getting harder to tell the difference.
I really hate to see such a rancid little wet beer-and-taco fart of a cartoon emanating from an artist I once admired. I still have some Oliphant collections from the Reagan years, and it's hard to believe it's the same person.
You guys know I'm no HRC fan, but this is such over-the-top misogyny (complete with the obligatory PMS crack) it can't help but piss me off.
Let's see: Fifteen-plus years of relentless persecution from wingnuts and the media. Your daughter labelled "the White House dog"; the Vince Foster nuttiness; Whitewater; Bill's impeachment and the apparent unlimited license it gave the Villagers to go rummaging through her panty drawer.
I wonder how well tough guys like our bow-tied, dweebish Pat (or most any of us) would have stood up to similar treatment. Even if you don't admire her politics, you have to admit, people have had nervous breakdowns over much less.
A point of clarification:
Tom Toles is the Washington Post's editorial cartoonist.
And while the Post runs Oliphant's cartoons at its website (alongside several other syndicated offerings), it doesn't actually publish Oliphant's work on a regular basis.
(It's possible that this cartoon might have appeared in the Saturday print edition's cartoon roundup -- but those cartoons don't carry the paper's editorial imprimatur.)
So while the Washington Post has a lot to answer for, it's probably not quite fair to blame them for this specific atrocity.
That should be:
... blame it for this specific atrocity.
Apologies.
I've started reading the Washington Post in 1987. I quit buying it because in the Age of Bush it is a neo-con rag.
As an Australian, I am very familiar with Pat Oliphant's cartoons. Rightly or wrongly, I associate him with the Murdoch press out here (he first worked for Rupert's old man in Melbourne), and with withering attacks on Bill Clinton over there.
That made a lot of conservatives very, very happy, but they were equally pissed off when he portrayed Condi Rice as "a big-lipped parrot".
Sorry, but I don't mind cartoonists taking it to the limit and the Hillary cartoon just strikes me as a bit lame and obvious.
There's a useful bit of background on Oliphant at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8...es/
mr980604.htm
Oliphant has been drawing cartoons that absolutely eviscerate George W. Bush from the very beginning of this benighted mal-Administration, including a memorable panel depicting the ghost of Nixon crossing the street to avoid being seen in Dim Son's company, and this single piece makes him an unregenerate right-wing conservative? Yeah, that follows.
There are plenty of Bush Hatin' conservatives.
The guy who didn't like the Condi cartoon called Oliphant a "lib racist", so I guess it's all moot.
That PMS crack is particularly stupid as well as offensive since it doesn't even work on the level of the typical misogynistic slam given that Sen. Clinton is way too old to get PMS again. But hey, everybody knows women are slaves of their reproductive systems--even years after menopause.
No, its not all moot. He is a right wing conservative asshole
What Prof Fate and Rachel said.
Next up: Oliphant portraying Obama in blackface, eating watermelon.
In my high school NY Regents exams, we were always asked to interpret historical editorial cartoons in light of what we had learned about that period of American history. This would be an excellent one to use. Initially, my disgust with the cartoon was balanced by hilarity at the cartoonist's delusion that 60-year old-women suffers from PMS. One of the great things about turning 60 is that both PMS and menopause symptoms are a distant memory. Hillary is an excellent exemplar of the postmenopausal zest of older women that the anthropologist Margaet Mead spoke about. Women my and Hillary's age would be the best guardians of the nuclear button if the US could summon up enough courage to watch a woman age each and every single day.
The more I thought about it, the more I suspected the cartoon has been completely misunderstood. According to Wikipedia, Oliphant's trademark is a small penguin character named Punk, who is often seen making a sarcastic comment about the cartoon. The PMS remark is an important clue. Hillary is depicted as an old women and people still rant about PMS.
In 2005, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee expressed concern that some of Oliphant's caricatures were racist and misleading. That is important to know. Oliphant is criticizing sexist media attacks on Hillary by equating them to the rapid misogyny in some of the Arab world. After all, the world leaders repeating the US media attacks.
The demand of some liberal bloggers for Oliphant's firing is far more offensive than the cartoon. Pat Oliphant is 72 years old. The New York Times has described him as the"most influential cartoonist now working." In addition to winning the Pulitzer Prize, Oliphant won the National Cartoonist Society Editorial Cartoon Award seven times in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1984, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Reuben Award twice in 1968 and 1972 and the Thomas Nast Prize.
The responsibility of political cartoonists is to offend us enough to shake up our knee-jerk assumptions and reactions. When a cartoonist with such a superb reputation produces something at first glance so offensive, we owe him the respect of thinking about it. My 31-year -old daughter instantly "realized that it was completely tongue-in-cheek and making fun of the idea that some people actually think this is what it would mean to have a woman president." My three other daughters agree with this interpretation.
Surely a cartoonist of Oliphant's sophistication knows Hillary is probably ten years beyond PMS.
Redstocking:
So you're suggesting Oliphant was playing the cartoon equivalent of a parody troll?
Could be. To be honest, this cartoon was so over-the-top I had my misgivings, too. (Even if he was serious, demanding his firing is more than a bit of an over-reaction.)
Though if you're right, I think Oliphant may have out-subtled himself this time. Because I'd bet the majority of people who see this cartoon are going to take it at face value.
After all, editorial cartoons aren't usually the first place you'd look for exquisite double entendres.
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to point out an alternative possibility.
Yeesh: ALTERNATE, not "alternative" possibility!
Repeat to self: "Preview" is your friend ... "Preview" is your friend ...
Hmm, that's a possibility. Maybe.
A satirist is supposed to offend people, and is hardly doing his job if he doesn't. Right. But if the offense is pointless, if you're going out of your way to offend people on grounds that are complete bullshit, then you're a satirist on the side of bullshit, or a simple troll.
Don Imus is a great satirist, then? Making fun of racist talk, sure, sure.
What's the actual evidence that this cartoon is a clever putdown of the famous Some People, who are known for saying so many dumb things? "Oliphant is a good guy." Was. But we've got a subtle clue: "Oliphant, being a good guy, wouldn't get an obvious thing like PMS wrong, so we know it's sarcastic." Color me unconvinced.
Where's the person or group whose stupid, contemptible viewpoint is being satirized? All I see here is Clinton and a bunch of easy-target evil people. No all-American commentators, who (unlike Osama bin Laden) have been involved in this BS, who would be the targets if it were meant as a satire on somebody other than Ms. Hysterical.
I'm not suggesting any sort of giveaway as blatant as, say, O'Reilly and Matthews with this stuff in thought ballons over their heads -- but that would, like, actually comment on O'R & M, not on Clinton. A great cartoonist could to it better.
Did I miss (I more or less hope I did) the detail where the petrified man in the background is thumbing his nose at us? Mark Twain knew how to do these things. If Oliphant hasn't figured it out after 30-whatever years, or he has lost it, maybe it's time for him to hang up the spurs.
she used a calculated tear taht paid off. he called her on it. why is this a big deal or sexist.
Commenting by HaloScan
