Sunday, July 20, 2003
Drudge reports that the Secret Service is “concerned” about the following cartoon from the LA Times:
Now, this may be in slightly poor taste. But it’s hardly a call to arms against the president. Lighten up, guys.
Just the opposite, in fact: it’s an indictment of political posturing doing damage to a serious person.
That’s the intent, anyway. Ramirez is very conservative cartoonist, odd though that may sound coming from the LA Times.
I wonder what sort of response a ‘caricatured naked, napalmed Hillary Clinton running down a village road with arms spread and face wide open in a scream would have?
(to jog the memory)
I’m sure someone could drag up some word to write in the cloud behind to license it.
Analogy doesn’t work. Naked body of a little girl isn’t equivalent EVER to that of a naked adult post-pubescent female.
Also: Kevin is right. This cartoon’s intent is to support the President and his Iraq policy. There’s no way such a cartoon about Hillary (or anyone–think of a Vietname-era female who supported that effort) could be read as an endorsement of the action there. Or a reasonable critique. It would just be silly and pointless.
> This cartoon’s intent is to support the President and his Iraq policy.
Well, that’s not immediately obvious. I know that upon viewing it, I really didn’t have the stomach to analyze the intent.
> There’s no way such a cartoon about Hillary (or anyone– think of a Vietname-era female who supported that effort) could be read as an endorsement of the action there. Or a reasonable critique. It would just be silly and pointless.
I didn’t say that any cartoon featuring Hillary in the role of napalmed little girl would have to apply to any specific issue. Pick one. Wouldn’t matter. To place a current politician in a historic photo where the violence and fear is so uniquely human, so completely personal, is crossing into territory that I think political cartoons should stop short of.
I can see your having that sensibility. But I’m not sure I agree: political cartoons are supposed to provoke thought and inflame (possibly dormant) passion. I can’t really think of a more effective way to do that than to employ a familiarly brutal situation, and place a public figure there.
On second thought: I’ll bet there’s a line that could be crossed for me. When that happens I’ll probably be saying all the same things you are now, and you can call me a hypocrite.
Let’s say I feel Ramirez played footsie with the line, rather than actually crossing it.
Heh, guess I’m late to the game — I just posted that the Ramirez cartoon is pro-Bush. The cartoon is in bad taste, as James says, but the people who should be outraged are Dems.
I know exactly what would happen if the object of this cartoon had been Hillary. I was on Hardball a few months ago debating the issue of free-but-offensive speech. Some sports guy said he wanted some athlete’s wife to be “smacked,” and during the Hardball debate I mentioned that, after listening to one particularly annoying screed by NY’s junior senator “I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron.”
For a month after, I was pounded on lefty websites for “threatening the life” of Sen. Rodham. What I couldn’t get the dopey lefties to admit was that, whatever they thought of the comment, it was ridiculous to call it a “threat.” Please.
But they never backed down: “Idiocy in the defense of ideology is no vice” is the new liberal mantra.
Make a one-time donation
Washington Post Pulls Political Cartoon Depicting Ted Cruz’s Daughters As Monkeys
Comedy Central Censored Mohammed “South Park”
Newspapers Reprint Danish Muslim Cartoon
Arianna Huffington Launching Massive Group Blog
Manifesto Against Islamist Totalitarianism