Cartoonist Pat Oliphant is a brilliant caricaturist and political cartoonist. But this is downright sexist. It takes Senator John Edwards' criticism of Senator Clinton's emotional moment (as I will keep saying, she didn't actually cry, she got verklempft) to an even worse level. As much as I support Edwards over Clinton -- in fact, because I worry more that Clinton is a hawk is dovish costume -- I object to the caricature of Clinton as a "weepy, weak female" (to put a stereotype in irony quotes) who can't be "tough" (ditto) on the international stage. Indeed, it is such sexist stereotyping that Clinton has consistently sought to overcome in her public persona and that may have motivated her (and her Democratic male colleagues) to take such cynical positions granting war powers authorization against Iraq and supporting Kyl-Leiberman on Iran.

My good friend Barry Deutsch has taken me to task on a cartoon I did a couple months ago portraying Clinton as weeping into her husband's arms following criticism she received during the October 30th debate. Remember, "politics of pile-on"? Kate Phillips provided further context for the controversy, and indeed it is that context, as well as Clinton's cynical attempts at foreign policy "toughness," that inspired the cartoon. In my view, Clinton's defensive use of gender identity in response to legitimate criticisms from her political rivals was not an instance of her being a "weepy, weak female" but of being a (more gender-neutral) "cry baby." Instead of handling the criticism directly, she tried to make it seem that she was the target of a "boy's club." Put together, such defensiveness, cynical use of gender politics, and bringing in her husband to defend her against "those boys" created the impression that she was not the feminist ground-breaker she claims to be.

That's where I was coming from. But what an artist intends and what the art does on its own can be two different things. Barry is probably right that the final panel of my cartoon plays into sexist stereotyping, no matter what I intended. That experience has made me a bit more cautious (and I think I'm pretty cautious as it is) in how my artistic responses to political events and politicians' behavior reinforce stereotypes, cant and other moronic assumptions. Had Bill Clinton been the candidate responding in a similar fashion (minus gender politics), my portrayal of him as "cry baby" would have been more clear, at least by not being clouded by cultural attitudes toward gender. Yet had I portrayed him weeping into his wife's arms, would it have implied that he was "emasculated" or "less than a man"? Possibly yes.

In conversation (in person, not online) Barry had asked me if I thought Elizabeth Edwards' defense of her husband against Ann Coulter's "faggot" remarks were any different from Bill Clinton's defense of his wife. I would say, yes, given the context: Coulter's criticisms were indefensible, whereas the criticisms from Hillary Clinton's rivals were reasonable responses to contradictions she had made in a debate; and, again, Bill's "those boys" comment followed on the heels of Hillary's "boy's club" comment and her campaign's "pile-on" YouTube video. That said, my cartoon should have been more explicit in criticizing these tactics and clarifying that context. To some extent I was trying to do too much at once. The image itself - Clinton sobbing in the arms of her husband - resonates far beyond my own intentions and serves to subvert my criticism. 

Click image to enlarge

While watching CNN's breathless coverage of the returns from the Iowa caucuses, my daughter Katie cheered on both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. At nine years old she thought it would be a great thing if a woman or a black man became President. For an adult, such thinking seems superficial; you vote on the issues, you vote for the candidate who offers the best hope (or on my more cynical days, who will do the least damage), all in the context of competing interests, corporate influence, existential crises in the environment and geopolitical theater. Yet for a young biracial girl, these matters are not superficial. They are a pretty big deal.

I cheered on Obama, too, as well as the white man with the Southern drawl who knocked Clinton to a close third place. Of the three speeches delivered by the Democratic "frontrunners" I think John Edwards delivered the most passionate critique of America's class system with a clear eye towards how to level the playing field — or at least make it less tilted. Obama invoked the Civil Rights era, evoking a whoop from my daughter, who has been reading up on her Black history. Meanwhile, Clinton sounded like she couldn't get out of Iowa fast enough. If we end up with Edwards or Obama getting the Democratic nom, I'll be happy.

As for the Republicans, Huckabee is probably a flash in the pan. He has no organization, despite his charm and Ed Rollins. But I could be wrong. I am more interested in seeing Romney go down in flames, taking Giuliani and Thompson with him.

As someone who strives hard to nail the essence of a politician or a public figure through caricature, I have a longstanding love (and envy) for the work of Pat Oliphant and Steve Brodner.


Pat Oliphant, 12/19/2007. And here's one where Cheney is skeet shooting children which offended readers at The Houston Chronicle. Survey the field of editorial cartoonists and you'll find a lot of artists inspired by Oliphant but few who match him for wit and bite. Two aspects of this drawing make it a great caricature: its subject is immediately recognizable and the artist's attitude or feeling toward (or in this case, against) is obvious. Oliphant has brought out key features of Cheney here: the smirk, the hunk, the glare, the side-of-the-mouth talking, and the overall sense of a conniving, criminal mind full of machinations.

Machinations!

Working in a more exaggerated and painterly style, Steve Brodner is often compared to Ralph Steadman and Gerald Scarfe (who get compared to each other often enough.) Yet Brodner is far more accurate in both his rendering and in his grasping the core of his subject's persona. The examples from Brodner's Person-of-the-Day blog), below, are excellent, although they don't reflect Brodner's watercolor work, which is the artist at his best.



From Steve Brodner, 12/5/2007.

And now Brodner riffing on Andrew Sullivan's remark that Hillary Clinton is really Dick Cheney  in a pantsuit.

Cheney in both drawings is deliciously grotesque, a snarling figure - or as George Bailey might put it, "a warped, frustrated old man" and a "scurvy little spider." The only thing recognizably "Hillary" is the hair and the pearls. I don't think the purse is necessary, as I don't think I have ever seen Senator Clinton carrying one. The bombs falling his/her sleeve is an apt touch.

Here is a cartoon by nationally syndicated political cartoonist Mike Lester:



Here is what Pacman Jones looks like:





The real solution to this discrepancy is that Lester needs to learn (or to remember) how to draw people period. Then he needs to remember that caricature exaggerates recognizable features of the subject. For example, Hillary Clinton has apple cheeks and heavy lidded eyes, so most caricatures of her focus on those features. Barak Obama has a long neck and big ears. Pacman Jones has dreds. He does NOT have big lips. Unless the only people Lester knows are tight-lipped WASPs, he should realize the Jones' lips are about average for a human being, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex. They are clearly not his most recognizable feature. At best I would focus more on set of his mouth, a kind of ironic smirk that befits his bad boy image. It would still not take up half his head.

Do political cartoonists have seminars on this stuff?