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. 

Following Iowa, voters were pummeled with the word "change." Following New Hampshire, will we be soaked with weeping candidates?

What drives me nuts about the Crying Hillary meme:

• Senator Clinton did not, in fact, cry. She got a little misty. She was verklempft.
• The woman who asked the question that everyone attributes to Clinton's New Hampshire victory did not, in fact, vote for Clinton. She voted for Obama. As she told Hear & Now this morning, Obama's passion made her cry.
• How utterly stupid it is to make a voting choice based on a candidate's perceived tear duct expression.
  
• According to the meme, women voted in huge numbers for Clinton, not because of her positions on the war or health care or something substantive, but because she "cried," evoking sisterly solidarity against Senators Obama and Edwards, who were perceived to "gang up" on her once again during Saturday's debate.

This last point seems to confirm Gloria Steinem's contention that Clinton has "no masculinity to prove" - that she has broken through the "Muskie/Shroeder" barrier inhibiting expressions of "soft" emotions. Yet Maureen Dowd has an apt rejoinder to that notion:

But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.

One could argue that Dowd is conflating "masculinity" with national security "toughness," but I think she's acknowledging a conflation that has troubled Democrats since the war in Viet Nam, to the benefit of Republicans who indulge braying machismo. John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the war, too, making the same mistakes and with the same presidential ambitions.

Which brings me to the more substantive reason to oppose Clinton's candidacy: the needle of her moral compass points wherever political expediency attracts it.

Do I then apply a double standard, letting Edwards off the hook? No. Edwards has repeatedly acknowledged that he was wrong, blames no one else for "misleading" him, maintains a consistent criticism of the war in Iraq and advocates a foreign policy that reflects the lessons learned from this gigantic mistake (e.g., no "bellicosity on Iran.")

Tom Tomorrow's "The Trouble With Hillary" neatly summarizes my feelings towards her candidacy.

However, I do like the meme that suggests that, as Rebecca Traister put it, "New Hampshire voters served up a major 'Fuck you'" to the coronation of Obama by the news media and right wing pundits.