Mitchell Marks: It’s not surprising that a topical event would stimulate multiple editorial cartoons in response. But these two are so thoroughly similar, from the over-wordy setup to the mild or disguised cursing.
Earlier this week, President Obama and his family had a seder in the White House.
Now, I could understand if Rahm Emanuel invited the Obama to his home for a Passover meal; but to have their own seder, just their immediate family… what was this, Act Like a Jew Day? There’s a religious significance to a seder — it’s not just a fun custom. Not to mention the tricky political implications of “Next year in Jerusalem.”
Now, as Joe Biden would say, “He’s the f****** president so he can do whatever the f*** he wants” — but still, it’s just weird.
When I placed this in the queue a few weeks ago, I had no idea what they were talking about. In the interim, I read The Audacity to Win, which discussed the fact that President Obama is seriously bowling-challenged. So this is no longer a CIDU, but a question remains: Is Obama’s inability to knock down tenpins common enough knowledge to make this comic work?
Sarah Palin complained that this week’s Newsweek cover is sexist, and… well, I think I sort of agree, though we might be dealing with semantics here: Certainly Newsweek chose this particular photo with the inten of trivializing Palin (the photo is real, but was taken earlier this year as part of a spread for Runner’s World magazine). And they probably wouldn’t have used this sort of photo to trivialize a male politician (can you imagine a cover story about Obama’s domestic policy agenda being illustrated with this?
So if using a “sexy” cover photo of a female politician is a context where you wouldn’t use one of a male politician is sexist, then I find myself in the odd position of siding with Palin.
Of course what I found most interesting about all this was Palin’s comment on the cover, ending with “If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin” — clear proof, I guess, that she writes her own material. I mean, I sort of maybe know what she’s kind of getting at here, but…
And actually what makes that quote more interesting is the fact that it was written (apparently) on the same day that she vigorously defended racial profiling on the Sean Hannity show.
I’m wondering whether anybody knows… When the President travels to campaign for, say, a gubernatorial candidate, who pays for the Air Force 1 expenses, security for the President, police overtime onsite, etc?
And just for the record, I can’t speak for Virginia, but no matter what you might hear, the New Jersey election was not a referendum on either Obama or the Democratic Party: it was a referendum on Jon Corzine. When New Jerseyans went into the voting booth yesterday, Barack Obama was the last thing on our minds: We were too busy holding our noses as we decided whether the thought of reelecting Jon Corzine was distasteful for us to vote for Chris Christie.
Personally, I voted for Chris Daggett, since in this case voting for the third party candidate wasn’t taking a vote away from any decent candidate. He had me at “I’m not Corzine or Christie.”
As it happens, despite recent polls predicting up to 20% of the vote for Daggett, he ended up with about 5%. Which means, God help us, New Jerseyans got the governor we deserve.
Nicole: Perhaps I have a sick twisted mind — I have been told as such, but to me it appears that Obama is getting ready to give congress a proctology exam
Chuck Douglas and Nicole:
Sarah-Louise Holmes:
Mitchell Marks:
Janice Rey: Definitely an EWWW for me – but I have to give Conley credit for the expression on Bucky’s face in the third panel.
So… Was anybody’s kid exposed to Obama’s speech today and come home a gay, socialist Kenyan? My son’s school, which originally offered concerned parents the option of sparing their children from having to listen to the speech, changed their minds and banned the speech altogether.
Today’s civics lesson, kids: School policy should be set based on the fear of upsetting a vocal minority, even if that minority doesn’t even offer a rational explanation of their concerns.
I got a message from my son’s high school this afternoon assuring me that he would not be forced to watch Obama’s speech next week, and that the school would provide an alternative educational program for all students whose parents opted them out of watching the speech. I understand this sort of thing is going on in schools all across the country.
Is there any explanation for this other than mass insanity? I could understand it if Obama were intending to ask children to tell their parents to support his health care reform, or suggest they go through their mothers’ pocketbooks and send him all those little pieces of green paper with presidents’ pictures on them… but apparently he’s only going to offer a pep talk about working hard in school.
Just the sort of underhanded thing you’d expect from a native-born Kenyan!
Does anybody sincerely think this is controversial? And if so, why not just follow with an opposing viewpoint such as a clip from Ferris Bueller?
Chris Reaves: Okay, this Doonesbury went over my head. Is the idea that the birthers won’t believe even the actual physical document? That they won’t show up to see it? That displaying it would be giving in to terrorists? That the birth certificate in fact DOES say “Kenya” on it? None are really funny. Furthermore, the language itself seems to imply that it’s the last option (the sentence trailing off where it does suggests the problem is with what they would see) which would be an incredibly uncharacteristic joke for Trudeau.
Not that President Obama has asked me for my opinion, but…
Of course I understand that as a role model for kids, the fact that he’s trying to quit smoking is a good thing — but honestly, with all his many responsibilities, do we really want him dealing with the distraction and crankiness that come with nicotine withdrawal?
(Of course, having just signed a major anti-smoking bill, he doesn’t have a lot of choice, does he?)
The New York Post. Because it’s inconceivable that anybody’s going to top this one (and yes, “inconceivable” does mean what I think it means).
Where do you even start? As racist as it is, and it’s plenty racist, this political cartoon doesn’t even begin to make any sense.My first thought when I saw this was, Does the New York Post have no editors? Nobody whose job it is to say Whoa, this is probably not a good idea?
But it turns out the Post continues to believe no mistake was made. Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said, “The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.”
Well, of course he is. But like the broken clock that’s correct twice a day, Sharpton’s absolutely right this time.
It is being said, metaphorically, that George Bush turns over the keys to the White House to Barack Obama today. Which got me to wondering… Does anybody know offhand whether the White House door actually has a key? I have this mental image of Bill Clinton slipping out some night to hit McDonald’s, locking the door behind him.
I’m sure there’s always Secret Service agents standing guard at every entrance, but can the front door be locked if necessary?