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.

I’m very excited to say that I voted today. But I’m a guy who doesn’t conform to the norm — and therefore, I cast my vote for a ticket that doesn’t have the big, flashy, corporate campaign of a Barack Obama, or a Sarah Palin. I didn’t even vote for a third-party ticket (although, Babar would probably make a good president). 

Nope, I voted for a twenty-eighth party ticket, way out from Scranton, Pennsylvania: Michael Scott and Dwight Schrute.

Why Scott/Schrute in 2008? First of all, they’re the perfect pair to handle any crisis. Scott, having managed a branch of a mid-size paper company, has the diplomacy skills and economic know-how to guide our country to prosperous shores. Schrute, on the other hand, comes from an agricultural and law-enforcement background, meaning both our hardworking farmers and heroic military will get the tools they need to keep America eating and fighting the War on Terror.

But don’t take my word for it, here’s Michael Scott himself weighing in on the issues voters care about most:

• On Labor: “You may look around and see two groups here; white collar, blue collar. But I don’t see it that way, and you know why not? Because I am collar-blind.”
• On Health Care: “Well apparently in the medicine community, negative means ‘good.’ Which makes absolutely no sense. In the real world community that would be chaos.”
• On Illegal Drugs: ”When I said that I was king of forwards, you got to understand that I don’t come up with this stuff. I just forward it along. You wouldn’t arrest a guy who was just passing drugs from one guy to another.”
• On Jobs: “I just don’t want my employees thinking that their jobs depend on performance. I mean … what sort of place is that to call home?”
• On Gambling: ”I know it’s illegal in Pennsylvania, but it’s for charity, and I consider myself a great philanderer.”
• On Gay Rights: ”Did you know that gay used to mean happy? When I was growing up it meant “lame.” And now it means a man who makes love to other men. We’re all homos. Homo sapiens.”

Michael Scott and Dwight Schrute: The right guys for the most important positions in America.*

*That’s what she said.

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.

(Thanks to Andrea.)

Pop quiz, hot shot: You’re a internationally renowned photographer — you’ve done shoots for album covers, national magazines*, memorable ad campaigns, and you’re good at making people look really shiny. You’re also a die-hard (and I mean die-hard — you once made toddlers cry so you could photograph them for an exhibit that obliquely commented on the Bush Administration) Democrat, and you’ve been asked by Atlantic Monthly to shoot a cover portrait of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. 

What do you do?

If you’re Jill Greenberg, you jump at the chance — and hey, while you’re at it, you dupe the poor geezer into taking some “special” shots that might make him look like, I don’t know … a vampire.

There’s more (a lot more) at Greenberg’s official site, and they’re definitely meant to shock and offend (McCain supporters).

At first I have to admit to being unsure of what the controversy was. Skimming the headline, I thought, Uh-oh, somebody didn’t put those magic words, “photo illustration,” somewhere on the cover. (There’s plenty of wiggle room for editorial satire, thankfully.) But no, the photo Atlantic ran on their cover wasn’t the issue: It was Greenberg’s unused out-takes, which she repurposed for her Photoshopped political statements and are now spreading around the interweb.

Now that — that’s a problem.

As someone who designs a publication, I’m pretty stunned at Greenberg’s audacity and contempt for Atlantic. I mean, I send photographers on assignments on a regular basis, and if one of them pulled a stunt like this on our time — and dime — then that’s worthy of blacklisting. By taking the gig and then purposefully shooting the subject with the express purpose of making them look (more) like a vampire, you’ve spit on the trust that the publication has placed in you. It’s not her politics (or her Photoshopping skills — which are pretty damn good) that I disagree with, it’s her disrespect for the magazine that she has wrapped up in controversy that really doesn’t have anything to do with them. I feel bad for those guys, and I think their statement regarding the issue is fair. And then! She never really apologized either, only to say that it was Atlantic’s fault for hiring her in the first place, knowing what her personal feelings about Republicans were. 

Right. 

However, as someone who is incredibly annoyed at the vast number of photoshopped Obama pictures out there — many of them poorly crafted, racist, or both — I can’t help but feel like the cosmic scale has been tipped a little. And while she’s definitely shot her first, last, and only cover for Atlantic, there are enough sympathizers in the liberal elite media who will still keep her in their talent pools. So she’s not exactly washed up — this will probably make her more popular than ever (except with McCain supporters.)

Going back to Atlantic’s statement, I find it interesting that they denounce her “manipulated” images as though their cover shot wasn’t manipulated. I mean, John McCain just isn’t that shiny — nobody is. It’s possible that Greenberg achieves this effect through lighting alone (photographers, is this possible?), but I’m guessing that there was still a fair amount of airbrushing/retouching/Photoshopping going on. The fact is that everything you see in print has gone through Photoshop first, and everything gets minor adjustments ranging from brightness to sharpness. Notice I didn’t include putting a mouth full of blood-encrusted shark teeth in there — I think that falls outside the normal Photoshop procedures.

Googling around brought me to this video interview with Greenberg circa 2006 for coolhunting.com where she describes her philosophy about photo manipulations and goes into detail about how she got those poor, well-paid toddlers to cry. It’s pretty interesting. Plus: bonus Gwen Stefani cameo!

*Henry was the first person to show me this cover, and I still think it’s awesome.

No, Matt, tell us how you really feel. (Thanks to Sahar for the video.)

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.

On August 29, the polar bears made their choice: And they’re voting Obama.

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.”)

Consider the game changed … again.

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).

Barack Obama has made history by securing the Democratic nomination to run in the general election against John McCain. This will likely be an exhausting trial for the nation, and to keep our strength up between now and November (or until 2012, depending on how things go) we should do what Senator Obama does when he needs a protein boost: 

Cook up some Obama Family Chili!

Chef Obama (that’s a photo illustration above there) talked with Current writer Ari LeVaux about agricultural policy — but also divulged his secret Obama Chili recipe. Read the whole interview here, and be sure to comment!

Barack Obama: Chili We Can Believe In.