What's Mallard raving about today?
Hillary Clinton.
Did Senator Clinton make such a remark and then retract it? If so, I have just one question...why would she retract it? At this point, I suspect only the Kool-Aid drinkers and dead-enders don't see Republicans as the Party of terrorist fear-mongering.
That said, that's the most flattering caricature of Senator Clinton Mallard has ever done.
12 comments:
Here's the background for this forgotten month-old quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240011
She did indeed say that Republicans would benefit from another terrorist attack; by this, she meant they would be only too happy to exploit their own failure to protect the nation. (You know, AGAIN.) Personally, I thought the meaning was obvious.
I know Tinsley likes to take things wildly out of context to suit his own needs, but how he warped that into "Republicans are tougher on terror" is beyond me.
Hey Tinny! The last president named Clinton caught the terrorists who carried out an attack on the USS Cole and detonated bombs in the WTC parking garage! How's YOUR boy doin'?
Oh, DUH. The MediaMatters story Truce links to in the first reply tells us where Tinny gets "tougher on terror" from: he's swiping it from Neil Cavuto--a dirty little piglet in his own right. Lazy, Tinsley...just lazy. Make up your own smears!
Thanks, Truce!
In the interest of being fair a balanced, I fully expect tomorrow's strip to eviserate Guliani's repudiated claims of being at the 9/11 site as often as the rescue workers.
This is yet another Mallard Fillmore that has to be read twice, because it's predicated on a bizarre assumption.
"Huh?? Oh... the cartoonist really thinks that an attack will benefit Republicans because they are tougher on terror. He also thinks that Hillary believes this."
And as usual, even after I get the cartoon, it's still really stupid. It's not like Cat & Girl, which comes with a payoff after you Wikipedia the obscure literary reference.
Am I really the only one who's noticed that he depicts Hillary as taking the occasion to attack Obama? (See also the Moonie Times' claim that the "Obama madrassa" story was started by Hillary's oppo team.) My $cientologist friend would call this "third-partying". That great American philosopher, J. Wellington Wimpy, would call it "Let's you and him fight." I call it so despicable that the non-existence of a loving God is proved every day the Earth inexplicably fails to open and bodily drag Tinny back to his home in Hell.
I've noticed it too.
Why should someone who despises both care so much if they pick on one another? Isn't it best when you hate both to just leave well enough alone to tear each other to pieces if that's what is really happening? Sorry Tinsley, but since you've made it obvious you hate both my BS meter was going off as soon as I saw Hillary's face and Obama's name.
One of my theories is that he believes the Democrats will win and in an effort to secure the Pulitzer that Doonesbury once won, he'll take the time now to bash the candidate he feels will win relentlessly in the hopes that once she's president, he'll be rewarded.
My other is that he just hates women, and will take any opening to portray them as mean, stupid, or hippies.
I do feel a little sorry though. One or the other, sexist or racist, there's no winning.
Oh yeah, I noticed that too, but I've gotten used to that sort of thing from Tin-Tin.
Chances are excellent that we won't hear a peep about all the other current steroid and cheating scandals in sports involving white guys--but Tinny WILL do at least one more Barry Bonds strip. Tinny will continue to ignore the hate-filled rhetoric of Revs. Robertson, Falwell, Phelps, and other men of pale complexion, but will surely rant at great length about the "racism" of Revs. Jackson and Sharpton.
But of course, HE's not racist--YOU are, because you see a pattern of racism in that!
(As I write this, DaveyK doesn't have his take on Tuesday's strip up yet, so I'll take my potshot at Tinny here: he's so orgasmically delighted that he's got something legit to throw at Ted Kennedy--the old "drunk driver" joke seems to be off-limits FOR SOME REASON--that he's forgetting that it's those damned LIBERALS who are giving Kennedy the most crap over the wind-farm issue.
Conservatives? Don't care.
Not something I'd draw attention to, but then, my mind isn't destroyed by drink.)
I dunno about that, actually. Combover Librul Dan is all upset about it, whereas Mallard couldn't care less, except for the schadenfruede. And even then he doesn't care specifically what he's schadening about, as long as those Librulz are on the recieving end.
Second day in row he's covering liberal in-fighting. Focusing on others and their problems is a good way to distract one's self from the fact that your political party is corrupt and no longer stands for anything. If the president ever gets impeached (if he does something REALLY bad, like have sex), be prepared for a month of Britney Spears or "baggy pants" cartoons.
what's wrong with drinking kool-aid?
Nothing, as long as you're sure there's no cocaine.
Post a Comment