I never got to draw Sarah Palin during the election year and always regretted it. If anybody deserved a less-than-flattering, satirical poke in their eye(glasses), it’s Palin. I had a conversation with a friend the day after Barack Obama had chosen Joe Biden as his running mate, skipping over Hillary Clinton (although I doubt she was ever a serious contender). Jokingly, I offered that if John McCain really wanted to throw a wrench in the electoral gears, he’d pick a female running-mate. Apparently, the NSA had tapped my phone (which is what I get for prank-calling Joe Lieberman) and relayed my tip to McMaverick, because that’s exactly what he did.
And what a wrench she turned out to be. I couldn’t stand Palin from day one. She struck me as an opportunistic, pandering know-nothing — trotted out by McCain’s cabal of advisors as an obvious grab for disillusioned Hillary supporters (note to GOP: if you’re going to try to pick up the Clinton vote, you should find a candidate who isn’t the antithesis of everything Hillary stands for), and an even more obvious play for the affections of right-wing conservatives. And while she may have winked and nudged her way into the hearts of the Right, most Americans didn’t buy it — something I’m pretty proud of, in general. Center-left, baby.
To cut to the chase: When my editor said she wanted an illustration of a shopaholic Palin (inspired by her alleged $150,000-worth of campaign wardrobe) for the inside cover of the Current’s annual Holiday Gift Guide, I was totally ready for it. And I’m pleased enough with the results to post it — I’m actually very happy with how the piece came out, which doesn’t happen all the time.
Honestly, I’m torn about all the blame that Republicans are assigning to Palin — not so much the accusations of incompetence part, but the thinly-veiled sexism that accompanies claims that she met with campaign aides while only wearing a towel, or that she went binge-shopping on McCain’s dime. On one hand, I don’t feel bad that the GOP is making her the scapegoat of 2008 because she embodies so many qualities that I fundamentally disagree with. And I certainly don’t feel bad if people knock her for being unitelligent — I mean, you saw the interviews. On the other hand, if people chalk her inadequacy up to simply being a woman, then that kind of sucks.
New York Magazine’s Amanda Fortini wrote an interesting take on what 2008 meant for women in politics, and I think she sums it up nicely. I think we haven’t seen the last of Palin. But hopefully we haven’t seen the last of Hillary either — or any other smart, capable women who want to run, and won’t just try to wink their way into office.
The entire 20-month 2008 presidential campaign — summed up in a 4-minute rap song and delivered by the Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta, Georgia. All political pundits have been rendered completely obsolete. Somebody give these kids a cable news show.
After all the talk of bitter, disaffected Hillary supporters at this year’s DNC, and the alarming trend of PUMAs trying to divide the Democratic party (although many PUMAs may have, in fact, been Republicans — and very good actors, apparently), there was only one voting bloc that I was waiting on to choose a candidate before I made my decision.
Forget about PUMAs. For one thing, polar bears are way cuter, and probably smarter. And now, they’re under attack by the Republican party, led by the perky and shrill Sarah Palin. McCain’s new No. 2 (but apparently his No. 3 or 4 choice to be VP — ouch) may have energized the GOP’s conservative base with her pro-life, pro-death-penalty, pro-guns views. But she’s definitely alienated the polar bear base with her enthusiasm to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and her objection to placing polar bears on the Endangered Species list.
Well, Mrs. Palin, the polar bears aren’t taking this lying down, and they’ve started a grassroots (tundra-roots?) campaign for your opponent, Senator Barack Obama. (Their slogan: “Polar Bears for Change … As Long as it’s Not Climate.”)
The Current’s cover story this week is an essay by activist Tom Hayden about how Barack Obama will cause and affect the progressive movement in America — and how Obama alone is not enough to create positive social change.
For the cover, I decided to subvert the typical red-white-and-blue-spangled look of most election coverage in favor of warm golds (a nod to Obama’s golden image) and other party-neutral colors. I wanted to visually juxtapose Obama the Myth and Obama the Man, and where those two converge. I found it interesting that Hayden suggests that, despite his historic candidacy (which is progressive at its core), Obama will invariably disappoint many liberal progressives since he will move closer to the center as the campaign rolls on. Thus, Obama’s larger than life shadow isn’t grinning optimistically, but rather more stoic and reserved, with a hint of uncertainty (it’s subtle, but it’s there … I think).
Anyway, read the article, it’s pretty interesting. This week’s cover in its completed form below (and check the lower left for some Brent Evans/John Cougar sleevefacing — more to come on that soon).
