What's Mallard raving about today?
Sexism, caricatures, Hillary Clinton.
I think we can all be proud of ourselves here, by Mallard's standard. We've definitely made fun of Mallard's attempts to caricature both Barack Obama (earning him a Golden Ellipses nomination) and Fred Thompson (the one and only time Thompson appeared).
But I started this blog on 23 August, 2006. In that entire time I cannot recall Rudy Giuliani ever appearing in Mallard Fillmore.
16 comments:
As one of those people who e-mailed Tinman in a vain attempt to maybe bring some semblence of gender fairness to his block of newsprint, making someone look funny is not quite the same as "making someone look like the wicked witch of NY."
What a complete and utter dick. Tinsley manages to combine the very smartassed smugness he was decrying a couple of strips ago with his penchant for bald-faced lying. Add blathering overuse of text and two expressionless duck heads, and Tinny has achieved a new low, even for him.
Best Rudy Cartoon Ever. (You know damn well that's how Rudy sees it, too.)
Pointing out the obvious, when discussing a MF cartoon seems curiously redundant, but...
Clearly there is a difference between making someone look "funny" and/or engaging in caricature, and in drawing them in a grotesque manner.
To make a point I've made before:
Can you imagine a character with whose point of view Tinsley disagrees who wasn't drawn as simply physically repulsive in one way or another (except for the case of someone, like the Newscasters, whose preternatural physical beauty is the whole point --which, in its own way, helps prove my point).
But all of this pales beside that stunning last panel. Just try to conceive of a mind that dares lecture anyone --however ironically-- about "abandoning their sexist gender stereotypes from the 1950" after that amazing "at least they look like women" NOW-related strip from a few months back.
whew...
Drawing someone with enormous buck-teeth is pretty unattractive, whether the person is male or female. (coughcoughTedKennedycough) Sexism has nothing to do with it.
A new standard for hypocrisy. Mallard has actually done what he falsely accused Hillary of: Randomly accusing people of sexism to take the moral higher ground.
Maybe Hillary can hire Tinsley to draw Obama in African ceremonial garb, as an adjunct to her current smear campaign.
That's a "smear campaign?"
Was the photo taken secretly, without permission, or was it already freely available?
Or are you just pissy because it looks worse than the Dukakis-in-a-helmet picture?
"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."
--Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams
Pro tip for experienced pols: if you don't want to be photographed wearing it...don't wear it.
Additional note re the "smear campaign:"
The gossip and news Web site The Drudge Report posted the photograph Monday and said it was being circulated by "Clinton staffers"
Oh, that's brilliant. Because Matt Drudge is a friend and willing pawn of the Clintons, amirite?
How perfect. Make Obama's supporters urinate on themselves and attack the Clinton campaign, while simultaneously firing up the rightwingers' terror at the sight of anyone in a "turban." That's win-win for somebody, isn't it?
Anonymous, are you familiar with the phrase "useful idiot?"
Sure, Billy, you are the dictionary definition of "Useful idiot."
OH SNAP!
...Because "NO U" is the most intelligent argument ever, used exclusively by geniuses--and never by tools just making themselves look even more ignorant [/sarcasm].
matt-
Ah, so you're the "readers."
I know this isn't the place, but the Clinton campaign's non-denial isn't exactly convincing. Given how negative they're being lately, it seems a bit naive to claim that they would NEVER! stoop to such levels. Sure, the photo existed. But you REALLY think it's inconceivable that Obama's increasingly desperate opponent would circulate it with an implicit "look! he's a mooslimb!" message? Huh. I would tend to disagree, and I think it makes you look willfully obtuse to suggest otherwise.
Geox, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree, whether it makes me look obtuse or not. There are several reasons why it makes no sense at all for Clinton (or any sensible member of the campaign) to have done this. Chief among them:
(1) Hillary just loudly called out Obama on his own dirty campaign tactics (documented since at least Nevada's Spanish-language ads) the day before. To swipe Obama's standard comeback: "...Come on! ...Come on!!"
(2) Again: Matt Drudge? No one's explained to me yet how you "leak" a two year old, publicly-distributed Associated Press photo to a gossip who passes himself off as an investigative reporter--but why would the GOP's pet tool against her husband be the one to pick?
(3) Again: Matt Drudge. Most reporters (even the shills) won't reveal their sources because then sources dry up. Drudge announces loudly, "LOOK WHAT CLINTON STAFFERS GAVE ME! CLINTON STAFFERS!!"...making certain the source becomes the focus of attention. Yeah, that doesn't smell funny at all. Not even a little.
The Clinton campaign issued a "non-denial" because they can't be absolutely certain some complete idiot didn't sabotage their campaign, deliberately or not. But from a common-sense standpoint, it seems a lot more likely that the party holding McCain on a short leash is the only one who could reasonably expect to gain anything from this stunt.
(Fortunately, the leash wasn't short enough. McCain managed to make himself the headline of the day with his idiotic "retraction" of his own comments about how "fine" it is with him to leave soldiers in Iraq for 100 years. Move over, "bomb bomb Iran" and the "Chelsea joke;" you have company on the McCain Foot-In-Mouth Express. HA!)
(1) Hillary just loudly called out Obama on his own dirty campaign tactics (documented since at least Nevada's Spanish-language ads) the day before. To swipe Obama's standard comeback: "...Come on! ...Come on!!"
OBJECTION. Are you seriously claiming that the fact that HRC calls out Obama for underhanded tactics means that she herself would never use underhanded tactics? Is that really what you're saying? Your argument really rests on the presumed shining integrity of the Clinton campaign? Seems to me like a classic example of begging the question.
I don't have any particular vested interest in this argument, but given the incompetence/poor judgment that they've displayed to this point, it seems perfectly plausible that they would have tried something like this. It's the same as that dopey plagiarism thing--throw whatever shit they can come up with at the wall and see what sticks.
OBJECTION. Are you seriously claiming that the fact that HRC calls out Obama for underhanded tactics means that she herself would never use underhanded tactics? Is that really what you're saying? Your argument really rests on the presumed shining integrity of the Clinton campaign? Seems to me like a classic example of begging the question.
Don't be silly, and don't try to put words into my mouth.
What I'm saying is this: Hillary Clinton is an intelligent person who understands completely how the media operates, and for her to deliberately do something like this the day after chiding Obama for "Rovian politics" is so foolish that it's beyond even Tinsley's level of idiocy.
Your argument rests entirely on the premise that Hillary's campaign* is suicidally stupid (to the point it never would've gotten off the ground)...and your evidence? Loosely-defined "non-denial," and the word of Matt Drudge.
*...although you make a point of insinuating she is personally responsible for the "leak"
Don't go into law practice.
Note: Obama copped to the plagiarism charge; it was so "dopey" he felt compelled to apologize for it. If Hillary had been the one accused, would it have been so inconsequential?
Point A: I didn't "imply" anything about the source of the leak. Your imputation of nefarious behavior seems un-called for. This isn't something I particularly care about one way or the other.
Point B: Do I think the campaign would have been dumb enough to do something like this? Maybe. They're clearly feeling desperate, and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be shining examples of good judgment. But as I believe I've previously noted: I don't know, and I don't really care. As I've said, this is a non-issue to me. It's just that the absolute presumption of innocence merely strikes me as somewhat questionable.
Point C: Re plagiarism--I mean REALLY.
I DEMAND THAT CLINTON APOLOGIZE!!!11...wait, no I don't. Because this is standard political behavior, and that would be SILLY.
Point D: I don't know who you think you're arguing with, but I'm not an Obama cultist. Yes, I support him, but I'll have no problem voting for Clinton if she wins the primary, just as I assume you would vote for Obama. I enjoy your posts, and I don't really want to fight with you. I apologize if I've been overly confrontational here. That is all.
Are you seriously claiming that the fact that HRC calls out Obama for underhanded tactics means that she herself would never use underhanded tactics?
What I have done in this thread (beyond my initial post) is note that the "official" story about this issue smells phony, based on the circumstances and the source.
Not that Hillary is beyond reproach; not that it is out of the question that some dimwit involved in the Clinton campaign could've actually posted the photo; simply that immediately scrambling to accept Drudge's word--even if it serves one's politics--is not wise.
From this point I'll just let the sheer spluttering-with-outrage intensity of the reactions to that point testify for themselves.
Like I said earlier, what I believe to be another dirty trick (from the party known for dirty tricks) has died in the wake of McCain's latest flip-flop--which would be hilarious were it not so potentially tragic for those who would die as a result of his "leadership."
Post a Comment