Sexist Cartoon Depiction of Hillary Clinton Published by McClatchy's Sacramento Bee

[boston bean]

The 2016 presidential campaign season is upon us all too soon, and editorial cartoonists across the nation are busily drawing caricatures of candidates. Designed to be instantly recognizable to the reader, these renditions usually emphasize a person's distinguishing physical features, such as ears, hairstyle or nose.

So it came as a shock to see likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton reduced to a headless pair of crossed legs and a campaign button in the May 1st edition of the Sacramento Bee, a McClatchy publication. Editorial board member and political cartoonist Jack Ohman's approach to drawing one of the most accomplished and inspiring female politicians of our time left us dumbstruck. It is a gratuitously insulting, sexist depiction.

In a public radio interview, Ohman stated he did not intend the cartoon to be sexist. He also claimed to have the full backing of his editors and publisher.

Maybe so, but it's still sexist. To render a portrayal of any woman as a pair of legs is gender stereotyping in its purest form, and it follows a centuries-old pattern of repression of women that seeks to relegate their position to one of inferiority to men in which their primary role is to bear children. All too often this treatment is applied to women who seek higher office. Ohman goes so far in his drawing as to give the reader a view up and under Clinton's skirt. (Ironically, if she is known for any particular distinguishing characteristic, it's that she wears pantsuits exclusively.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-frank/sexist-depiction-of-hilla_b_7337916.html

[Oktober]

1. *shudder*

[boston bean]

11. curious to know what your one word response enclosed in *'s means?

[Oktober]

155. The *s indicate action...

... As opposed to just saying the word.

[Recursion]

180. It's an old thing from IRC, it means you're describing an action rather than "speaking"

Really old school people will say "/me shudders", but the asterisks save a character.

[tblue37]

182. Enclosing a word or phrase in asterisks signals emphasid when italics are not available or

when they are difficult to use (as on some mobile devices).

[KittyWampus]

2. that cartoon is malfunction.

[MoonRiver]

3. UGH!

Just sickening

[boston bean]

4. my reaction as well.

Sanders pondering...

and that small end table with the tiny pic of Bill in relation to her presence, to make it seem she is emasculating...

The whole thing is barf worthy, for sure.

[MoonRiver]

6. Very insulting of Sanders as well.

How low will the press go? I guess we will find out.

[KittyWampus]

8. finally something to bring Sanders and Hillary supporters together.

[MoonRiver]

44. Odd but true!

[Aerows]

138. No Kidding!

What a horrible, horrible "cartoon".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. Yes, hafta agree. Insulting sexist clap-trap with regard to both candidates.

[Aerows]

135. Absolutely awful

Demeaning to both candidates and frankly, I feel creeped out just looking at it

[workinclasszero]

5. Wow

No sexism there eh?

No face, just legs...

Bernie thinking like an intellectual being...Hillary doesn't even rate a face!

Just...bare legs!

[seabeyond]

20. ya. and our resident anti feminists mock or defend or... what? clueless? nt

[workinclasszero]

26. IKR?

This place is real sad lately.

[seabeyond]

32. sad... our mature adult woman democratic candidate. sexism? where? what? nt

[cyberswede]

7. What the actual fuck?

That's actually insulting to both of them, but egregiously sexist toward her.

[Cha]

159. Exactly.

[workinclasszero]

9. Liberal media

My ass!

[TreasonousBastard]

10. When did it become shameful for women to wear skirts?

Women do wear them, you know, although Hillery seems to have sworn them off, and they also wear pearl necklaces. And nail polish.

Yes, women do tend to dress differently from men so since when did highlighting such differences in clothes and makeup become "sexist"?

To my mind, this cartoon shows Hillary established as a powerful person who happens to be a woman. She overwhelms both Bernie and her husband and is neither hiding nor ashamed of her gender. Seems rather proud of it, actually.

Sexist my ass, this is as pro-woman as it gets. But, go ahead and keep complaining if it makes you feel better.

[boston bean]

12. I know... images chopping off womens heads and showing only their body parts

is just so NOT sexist, right??

LOL, you need to get a bit more up to date on your feminism if this is what you think is pro-woman.

[KittyWampus]

16. I'm in my 50's and never even clued into that tactic of minimizing women

until someone pointed it out years ago on DU. Which is surprising to me cause I do explore symbolism as a hobby. How did I miss that for so long?

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Maybe because it's not a tactic for minimizing women, but...

just another invented argument to push a point of view.

[seabeyond]

35. sure. all the women are just faux outraged and making up crotch shots and upskirt. all in our

little frazzled head.

[boston bean]

39. The guys who take upskirt photo's of uknowing women are empowering us, doncha know?? LOL

[seabeyond]

43. ya.. and their right, like the artist says, all his board 'guys' thought it just fine. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

55. Apparently, you have no idea what upskirt really means...

because this is not even close to a crotch shot. It's what maybe half of American women look like when sitting.

You don't like the view from below, but that's too bad and still doesn't make it upskirt.

But, keep complaining-- obviously someone is listening.

[seabeyond]

58. right says the dude. tis empowering.

[ismnotwasm]

97. Yeah if you are two

Because I'm generally sitting down across a sitting women.

[seabeyond]

99. oooops, dropped my pencil. ya. thats it.

hey ism.... isnt it wonderful to see misogyny so early in the morning.

[ismnotwasm]

112. Pfft

I worked 16 hours yesterday and get up to this crap.

[boston bean]

114. Did you wear the manly scrubs or the cute little nurses skirt outfit?

You know the empowering woman outfit?

You know I am being completely sarcastic, but it might fit in with some of the other comments here in this subthread.

Hope you have some time off to relax!

[ismnotwasm]

126. Bahahahaha!

Shit I do? All the blood I'm around? I don't know how nurses did it with that stupid hat and white dress. My grandmother used to wear a sensible skirt she could run in if she had too. How do you start lay someone flat, start chest compressions, give blood and other various with that 'naughty nurse' look? Ugh.

[seabeyond]

116. pffft, is right. nt

[geek tragedy]

179. Obviously some men feel threatened by women who object to

being objectified.

Yes, allies do listen. The MRA crowd not so much.

[JTFrog]

191. So fucking sick of the MRA crowd here.

I still can't believe the admins let that hate group setup shop here.

[Romeo.lima333]

194. crotch shot ... lol

[cyberswede]

75. Maybe you should open your mind to the concerns of others.

Your privileged dismissal is unbecoming.

[geek tragedy]

178. awww,mean old feminists oppressing you manly men again? nt

[boston bean]

30. Sometimes the things in plain sight and so common are more difficult

to notice the true meaning behind it all... It just is, is why....

[sufrommich]

80. It's hard to "unsee" once you see it and it's everywhere. nt

[workinclasszero]

15. Try again?

Maybe so, but it's still sexist. To render a portrayal of any woman as a pair of legs is gender stereotyping in its purest form, and it follows a centuries-old pattern of repression of women that seeks to relegate their position to one of inferiority to men in which their primary role is to bear children. All too often this treatment is applied to women who seek higher office. Ohman goes so far in his drawing as to give the reader a view up and under Clinton's skirt.

[MoonRiver]

56. It implies that sex is the only power women wield.

That cartoon is wrong and disgusting on so many levels.

[workinclasszero]

61. Totally agree /nt

[seabeyond]

63. perfect. "sex is the only power women wield". nt

[bettyellen]

74. This, exactly. Thank you!

[ismnotwasm]

113. Well said!

[seabeyond]

17. ya, cause crotch shots, and upskirts is ALL the rage. we get it.

[boston bean]

19. It's so empowering...LOL.... and making the men around us look small....

You can't get more ridiculous and anti-feminist than that.

[seabeyond]

25. fuggers, ... and calif too. hey, if you hear any outrage, or updates on this, let me know.

i expect more out of california.

[bettyellen]

24. A crotch shot is depicting her as powerful? What bullshit.

[seabeyond]

28. ya know. when men are telling women how "empowering" it is to strip for them, who would be surprised

too much

[yardwork]

104. Exactly. But the supposed cluelessness is informative.

We just heard the reasoning of the cartoonist as well. To them, a powerful woman must be recast as a pair of legs and pubic hair.

But she's wearing pearls! That's respectful, right?

[boston bean]

168. I think the pearl necklace was also sexually degrading her.

Purposefully intimating a sexual act.

Taken in totality of the entire cartoon it is not a leap to come to such a conclusion.

[Demit]

77. You are associating gender with skirts & pearls.

Is a man displaying pride in his gender when he wears a suit and tie?

Sure, women's clothing & accessory styles are different from mens. But what a woman chooses to wear is not a declaration of either pride or shame in her gender. Style is not substance.

[yardwork]

100. That isn't even a good try.

[Lisa D]

13. Because women only matter from the neck down

don't cha know. Ugh!

[hrmjustin]

14. Disgraceful!

[Cha]

18. Stupid.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Beside the obvious reducing HC to a pair of legs, I don't get it

What is the cartoonist saying?

[boston bean]

23. and upskirt image, with Sanders pondering how to get her to "move left"...

And making the men in the depiction seem small.

He's being a major sexist asshole, with a bit of anti-feminism thrown in for good measure.

That's what he told us all about himself.

[whatchamacallit]

31. Huh... Well it's a multiple fail then

It's so laden with code, I bet most viewers will scratch their heads.

[boston bean]

36. One look and I recognized the sexism in about 1 split second. nt

[Marr]

51. I'm sure you did. That doesn't mean it's actually there, it

just means you're very anxious to find an example of sexism against Hillary Clinton.

He cropped the figure to make her seem enormous. She's got the party establishment and corporate American behind her-- she's a big political force that Sanders has to deal with. It took me about 1 second to see that.

[seabeyond]

53. and the cutsey little upskirt included in picture? my friend that is always on womens side. nt

[Marr]

65. Your contention is that he's trying to depict Hillary Clinton in a sexually titillating way?

Uh... ok... I'm just going to leave that alone. I don't see that.

He depicted a sitting woman, in standard business attire. He cropped it so as to make her seem enormous.

[seabeyond]

68. please, do, leave it alone.

[KittyWampus]

103. So artist could have portrayed her as a giant… in the background, with her head.

And Sanders in the foreground with just HIS torso or legs.

Artist made a choice- consciously or unconsciously.

[TBF]

125. I agree - and I'm not surprised to see this out of San Diego -

that area really is a conservative cesspool (which I am very familiar with as I am currently residing in Texas).

It's a disgusting cartoon.

[frylock]

133. Sacramento is over 500 miles away from San Diego..

and no, we are not a "conservative cesspool."

[TBF]

165. Oh I'm sorry -

I must have mis-read. My apologies as I usually have a better memory than that.

I have actually been to Sacramento and San Francisco but it was many years ago. Beautiful area - I one thing that struck me was how many people were outdoors.

I do still think the cartoon is disgusting though.

[frylock]

176. hey, no worries, and I agree about the comic..

San Diego is pretty purple, having voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Pretty solid blue in the South Bay, as well as the city proper and surrounding communities. The county starts turning red east of I-125 and north of I-52.

[seabeyond]

37. unless you are a woman. then it is clear and fuckin fast, as the legs are bigger, forefront in

picture, with the HINT of upskirt.

for us women, it is really fuckin in our face clear.

as the sugggestion to change position, .... to the left, with the camera at the crotch

[yardwork]

106. I don't think it's as difficult to see as you imply. /nt

[whatchamacallit]

118. Maybe I'm slow

I don't argue with some of the interpretations, I just found the punchline muddled by the illustration. Sorry.

[MoonRiver]

70. Yeah, meaning moving her leg left, which would open the crotch up.

[seabeyond]

73. how much little boy giggling while he came up with/drawing this load of bile. nt

[MoonRiver]

76. Exactly!

I think his mental age is 12.

[onehandle]

29. It depicts 'the uphill battle' that Bernie will have to 'move Hillary to the left.'

He's 'small and meek.' She is big and powerful, thus 'hard to move.'

Not judging. Just translating.

Not particularly well done. Took me a couple of seconds to 'get it.'

[boston bean]

33. Take a few more minutes... LOL

[onehandle]

42. At first glance I thought she was sitting in a chair much closer to the camera.

I wondered what the point of that was.

Then I got that they were both on a sofa, at which point it made sense.

[whatchamacallit]

50. That's what I thought too

I guess the upside is that it's so poorly done many will miss the intended sexism.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Ah...

Thanks

[seabeyond]

38. ya, big and powerful with a crotch shot. move over a tad to the left, woman.... nt

[Demit]

81. Also, moving her to the left pushes her off the sofa entirely.

That is, knocking her out of contention.

[boston bean]

82. Move her closer to him, not physically move her to the left off the couch.

[Demit]

87. No, moving her to the left in space. Her left.

If Sanders told her to move left, she would move to her left. If you the viewer told her to move left, she would move to her left. Thus out of the picture.

This is how I read it. The fact that you read it differently means it is a confusing cartoon. So, not his most successful one by any means. He is otherwise a reliably liberal cartoonist.

[boston bean]

88. Really, it's pretty obvious that it was meant to move her closer to him, what some refer to him

being more left than her.. That you hang your hat on that the only way she moves left is off the couch doesn't pass the smell test.

It is sexist slop from start to finish and I'm not going to dismiss it because if she moves left when viewing it from one angle it's off the couch... That would be ridiculous.

[onehandle]

83. I thought of that too.

That's another point that makes it confusing.

She's sitting to his left, but she's to our right in the frame.

Being at the end of the sofa emphasizes 'immovability.'

The whole thing would have been better if the view point was from behind the sofa.

Would have eliminated the leg thing, too.

[boston bean]

84. Move her closer to him, not to the left off the couch...

and I guess it depends on how one looks at the couch from the front or the back...

If I were standing in front of the couch moving Hillary to my left would be moving her toward Bernie.

[seabeyond]

85. he was too busy giggling at the upskirt he was drawing. thinking how clever he was. nt

[workinclasszero]

40. I think the cartoonist was going for emasculating

A large female figure minus a face to dehumanize her, with bare crossed legs and up skirt a little to boot. Add one small and one tiny male figure.

Yeah.

I think an intellectual, intelligent woman scares the shit out of the cartoonist TBH.

[boston bean]

48. Two tiny male figures...

see the tiny end table, with the tiny picture of Bill Clinton.

[workinclasszero]

54. Yup Bernie is the small male and Bill the tiny male

The cartoonist is an ass IMHO.

Its actually insulting to Bernie as well. He looks like your crazy uncle or something.

[seabeyond]

60. fuckin insulting sanders, like he is a blithering idiot. nt

[workinclasszero]

64. Right

A republican cartoon all around I'd say

And they say the MSM is liberal? LOL right!

[boston bean]

72. I think the intent was to make Hillary appear to be emasculating..

by making the men in the depiction extremely small. Then used sex (Bernies comment, and head chopped off and leg, upskirt, crotch shot) as a tool to put her back in her place or disempower her.

[Boomerproud]

174. Like the SNL sketch with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

Fey (as Sarah Palin) : Quit using words like beautiful, attractive...
Poehler (as Hillary Clinton) : Shrew, Harpy, Boner Shrinker...

Does anyone really think this will be the last of it? Cripe, in 1992 we had to live through cookie-baking and headbands!

[seabeyond]

175. yup. but then, with economic equality, .... meh. just another example

that we are on that unlevel playing field that effects our very real lives, our pay, even with economic equality.

couldnt help it.

[awoke_in_2003]

147. Wow, I didn't see the pic of Bill

the low angle leg shot was too dominant/obvious

[Art_from_Ark]

59. It's a pretty stupid cartoon

The cartoonist is trying to portray Bernie as some little weakling who only wants to pull Hillary to the left. But Bernie is not "pondering how to move Hillary to the left". That is not the point of his campaign.

Secondly, Hillary is already shown far to the left of Bernie in the cartoon, which she isn't on the political spectrum.

[Romeo.lima333]

195. the cartoonist is saying that hillary is a huge force to be reckoned with and bernie is not (at

least not yet) and it's gonna be hard to move her to the left

[whatchamacallit]

196. I got it after several folks hipped me to it

It's a simple concept, but I think the illustration could have been better.

[seabeyond]

22. so, they are just gonna boldly go there. and those dems that want another, meh.... wha? nt

[Buzz Clik]

41. Rex Babin used to be the Bee's cartoonist.

I thought he was fantastic.

Ohman. Oh, man....

[boston bean]

47. Ohman is the current president of the "Association of American Editorial Cartoonists"

From the article linked in the OP:

For his part, Ohman, who serves as current president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, has instead accused his critics of seeking to defame him. That is not our intent, and by "our" we refer to the hundreds of people, including many prominent women's rights advocates, who have signed a petition calling on The Bee to apologize for the cartoon.

[Buzz Clik]

49. I wonder if the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists is having buyer's remorse?

[seabeyond]

52. thank you for this info. and fuck the whiney little privilege ass. nt

[workinclasszero]

69. Anyone have a link to that petition?

I'd like to sign it

[Marr]

45. Oh, brother. Really...?

It's a cartoon meant to make Clinton look enormous. Pushing part of her out of the frame is a great way to do that. There's nothing sexist about it.

[seabeyond]

57. couldnt have done it with upper body? needed a skirt, crotch shot and upskirt to accomplish that? ya

nothing there

[Marr]

78. Let me tell you a story.

I've been an illustrator for a couple of decades and occasionally do a book cover. One time, I was asked to depict two children riding on a blimp. The art director was adamant about two things: first, we needed to see the whole blimp, and 2) we had to see that the children were smiling.

Well, it's one or the other. You're either in tight enough to see the smiles, or you're out far enough to see the blimp. You can't do both.

Same thing here. 'Why not just the upper body?' Because they're sitting on a couch and you want to see the couch. Because, if the female's upper body was all we could see, we'd only see the top of Sander's head-- and you'd be complaining that it was a close up of her breasts. Or maybe he just wanted to draw it this way and he's the one drawing the damned thing so it's his choice how to compose it, and not yours?

[seabeyond]

79. no. i have no interest in your stories.

[whatchamacallit]

86. I'm curious

How did you ultimately resolve the contridiction of the blimp illustration?

[Marr]

156. :D

It ended up being a closeup on the characters, from about waist up, with the reflection of the ground below in the glass of the blimp's windows. So no actual full view of the blimp, but you could see that they were in the sky and looking out a window.

It's really funny what people tend to ask for in imagery-- especially if it's the writer who is doing the description. They tend to have so many narrative points they want to touch on that their covers would look like one of those old 1800's cartoons if you tried to fit it all in. Just a hodgepodge of 'things'. I always like the really conceptual covers, personally-- the less you actually have spelled out for you the better, imho.

[whatchamacallit]

158. Clever

I work in a related field and have to deal with similar focus issues all the time.

[Marr]

161. Thanks-- keep your head up. :D

[peecoolyour]

46. Insulting. nt

[Exilednight]

62. It is sexist, but that's the price of free speech.

[seabeyond]

66. ha. damn good thing you are exclusively about sanders economic justice, and do not have to worry

or consider or battle those pesky little social justice issues, right?

[boston bean]

67. Do the people who criticize have free speech to criticize it?

I assume they do. So, HURRAY for free speech!

[seabeyond]

71. free speech to yell for his ass to be fired. nt

[bigwillq]

89. Meh.

Cartoons often offend. I don't think it's a very good cartoon, but I can't get upset or feel offended by it.

[MoonRiver]

90. Maybe if you were a woman, like me, who's been sexually harassed since age 13

you would be offended. I started hating walking construction sites at a young age because of all the cat calls. I also feared for my safety on many occasions. Women have to constantly watch their backs and that's a fact. Cartoons like this don't help.

[seabeyond]

91. his dismissal was purposely to get that reaction from you. makes them feel all... oh, manly? nt

[MoonRiver]

92. Yeah, so manly to sexually harass young woman.

[seabeyond]

94. that is the reason men harass our girls. all about puffing that chest. their masculinity is

dependent on shaming, humiliating, degrading women, so they can feel empowered.

[bigwillq]

95. Sexist, racist, homophobic

my "dismissal" would have been the same. I can't get offended or upset over political cartoons. And I wasn't trying to get a reaction from anyone. Moon River responded to me, I did not try to provoke an argument with her. I just stated my thoughts about the cartoon.

[seabeyond]

96. meh... i just stated my thoughts

[IronLionZion]

93. Why is Bernie Sanders in there, and what's the deal with moving left?

[Prism]

98. I immediately thought of Basic Instinct

And was like, "What in the hell was this artist thinking?! How did an editor not figure it was very much not ok?"

Now, after reading replies, I understand what was intended.

But no. They really need to apologize. What a horrible misfire.

[snort]

102. Yeah, right?

[mcar]

108. That's what I thought too Prism

Since Hillary's pantsuits have become iconic, what possible reason to draw her in a skirt? Nothing but sexist and, yes, insulting to Sanders as well.

[scarletwoman]

111. Thank you. So did I. nt

[bettyellen]

151. Yep- the evil woman waiting to move her leg left to dazzle you with the money shot.

It's a pretty disturbing image to reference.

[JTFrog]

160. Basic Instinct.

Did you know that the leg cross in that movie is the most paused moment in all of movie history? (according to Conan O'Brien when he interviewed her)

And she moved the leg on top.... to her left to expose her crotch.

First thing that came to my mind as well.

[Prism]

162. Exactly

First thought, "What's being moved to the left here and why?"

I can't believe no one at the paper caught that.

[bettyellen]

166. Yep- the move left..... Points right to her knees which are posed exactly like Sharon Stone.

[seabeyond]

167. he drew it showing she is already starting to lift the leg to move to left, so we can wait for it...

wait for it....

her lifting the leg to the left with the crotch shot. so fuggin in the face obvious.

[snort]

101. This is sleaze.

Not only does it dehumanize Hillary it also suggests Bernie would like to get a look up her skirt, the 'moving to the left' bit. Disgusting. Did he think he was riffing on Sharon Stone?

[scarletwoman]

105. To all those poo-pooing the notion that this cartoon is sexist, answer me this:

Why is Clinton portayed wearing a skirt, when the singularly most obvious choice for caricaturizing Hillary Clinton is her well-known and exhaustively-commented-upon habit of ONLY wearing pantsuits? It's essentially her brand, one of her most distinctive and recognizable characteristics!

What kind of political cartoonist does NOT emphasize their subject's most distinguishing feature?

If the subject were a man who always wears bowties, would any cartoonist doing a caricature of this man draw him as sporting anything BUT a bowtie? Especially if his head weren't visible?

[Major Nikon]

109. It's obviously sexist whether or not HRC wears pantsuits or not

It's also sexist against Sanders.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

110. Obviously, he watches a lot of FOX "News"....

They're even crossed the same way.

[Nye Bevan]

115. To qualify as "upskirt", underwear or the crotch area must be visible,

at least according to Wikipedia.

Upskirt refers to the practice of making unauthorized photographs under a woman's skirt, capturing an image of her crotch area and underwear. The term "upskirt" can also refer to a photograph, video, or illustration which incorporates an upskirt image. The term is also sometimes used to refer generically to any voyeur photography – that is, catching an image of somebody unaware in a private moment.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upskirt

Those who are decrying the cartoon as "upskirt" are exaggerating a little IMO. Not only is Hillary's underwear or crotch not visible, hardly any of her thighs are even visible. The point of the cartoon is obviously that Hillary is a much stronger and more formidable candidate than Bernie, and I'm pretty sure no sexism was intended. Having said that, putting her in pants would have been better for several DUers' blood pressure.

[treestar]

120. What are the lines in her crotch area?

Those are her two legs, so what is inside the skirt?

[seabeyond]

123. certainly up the skirt. guess it does not meet mens porn until they literally get the crotch.

ridiculous.

[Nye Bevan]

124. OK, so this is an upskirt porno image of Barbara Walters?

"Ridiculous", indeed.

[seabeyond]

127. two different angles. one higher and down. one lower and... wait for it....

UP.

[Nye Bevan]

128. OK I give up.

Have fun folks!

[treestar]

140. Not the same. Can't see the tops of panty hose

which are right at the crotch area.

[treestar]

139. Yeah at most it is tops of panty hose maybe?

It the skirt shows that, well.

[KittyWampus]

145. And if she moves her leg "to the left"?

[Marr]

163. And if the Sanders cartoon character stood up and stripped off his suit?

My god, I'm so offended by what this collection of lines COULD look like if only it were completely different.

[KittyWampus]

170. except there is the CARTOON CAPTION about moving left. Comprehension fail.

[boston bean]

171. Lots of contortion... thanks for keeping it real!

[jomin41]

117. What are those red things on the couch next to Hill?

[treestar]

121. couch pillows

but weird shaped ones.

[Igel]

119. Meh. Too clever by half.

Most see what they want to see, without considering other options. Sometimes it pays to not just consider not just their own perspective but what the author might have intended. Understanding >> emoting.

The immediate context is that for many, women are sex objects. "Move left" = expose her crotch. Like it or not, it gets readers' attention. That's a good thing if you're in the caricature business. (No readers' attention = unemployment.) Many stop at that superficial level and self-confidently whisper to themselves, "A great ship asks deep waters."

There's another allusion that has to be considered, given Sanders' allegedly sexist satire from a few decades back. Yes, it's not a pro-Sanders position, so to speak, and not one that many want brought to mind, but nonetheless is appropriate in political caricatures. One can almost hear Sanders' thinking, in the cartoon, "Heh, heh, heh." Not all free speech has to be speech that we like. Wading past the tidal pools into the surf is risky.

Sanders probably has no chance of winning. His "winning" will get her to move politically left. That will not put her out of the race. But it will accomplish goals that he probably has no other chance of accomplishing. So "move left" doesn't just refer to sexist caricatures of women or Sander's puerile satire, but also a very real political reality. Again, one that many don't like pondering. But now we're clearly in the surf.

And at the same time if HRC moves significantly to the left, for (D) that makes Sanders less of an outlier and more of a player in the primary. It weakens the distinction between them. For sexists--and lets not delude ourselves, many working-class voters hold to what many progressives would consider obsolete stereotypes--that boosts Sanders' chances of winning. And would even increase his odds of accomplishing at least some of his agenda vicariously.

Then there's another layer of political commentary: The only way that Sanders is going to get past Clinton is to screw her over somehow, have her somehow exposed and then take advantage of her. In other words, he's looking and opening for an opening (and, after all, isn't that what the cartoon's saying?). She needs to be embarrassed. It's put crudely, to be sure, but that's also there. And leads back to the Sandersian puerility from the '70s.

One could go on. For some, it's not Clinton's brain that matters but the rest of her. She's a woman, after all. For many, that means she has to be disqualified. Yet for others, it means she's due what's symbolically theirs. Just as I knew a professor who was all breathless over an Obama presidency (even when I told her, knowing that all she saw was melanin, that Obama was in favor of the Iraq invasion and came out strongly in a speech against public health care), there are those breathless over a president with internal genitalia. They're afraid of hearing the words "tidal pool."

But like it or not, whatever else is said, that is one issue that will dominate electoral politics for many.

And given the current political field on the left, HRC is the only imposing thing in the picture. WJC is clearly sidelined in this, and isn't even in the picture except by reference--assuming that this is a picture of WJC. Sanders is definitely backgrounded, looking on hopefully.

Personally, I look at that little picture on the end table and I don't see WJC next to the headless HRC. I see a leering ayatullah. Which goes back to the Meet the Press "get the inner ayatollah out of her head" comment from a few weeks back.

But it also puts her, in the drawing, as not just the largest part of the picture but crowding out both the RW "ayatollah" and the LW Sanders, with both sides trying to dig up dirt on her and dispose of her. As though she were a thing.

Not sure what the red lumpy things are between her and the arm of the chair.

[jomin41]

122. She's hogging the couch

Bernie just wants a little more room on the couch. Simple.

[secondvariety]

134. Yeah,

I think that was the intent. Kind of a clueless representation of HRC, though.

[HassleCat]

129. I Know the Artist

I have met and spoken with Jack Ohman several times, although that was many years ago. My guess is he favors Clinton over Sanders, since his politics are pretty much centrist. I would say the point of the cartoon is to show the enormity of the Clinton campaign crowding out the Sanders campaign. Notice how Clinton is portrayed as huge, while Sanders is shown as much smaller, squeezed into a corner. The skirt and legs are to emphasize the fact of Clinton's being a woman. Yes, he could have shown the famous pantsuit, but some readers would have thought he was trying to depict Bill Clinton. The cartoon also contains some irony, since it depicts the enormous female overpowering the cowering male. The message could be either sexist or feminist, depending on what aspects of it hit you the hardest.

[seabeyond]

131. if he had not put so much effort looking up the skirt,

yours is a reasonable conversation.

[scarletwoman]

143. "...some readers would have thought he was trying to depict Bill Clinton" No, that's ridiculous.

As an excuse, it's utter nonsense. The pearls, the style of the blouse under the jacket, the nailpolish on the hands, the ring - all of those elements are more than sufficient to indicate "female", without the skirt. The pantsuit could have been drawn with enough space below the cuffs to show ankles with non-male stockings and woman's shoes.

Whether he was conscious of it or not, his choice to draw her in a skirt is still indicative of the pervasive male habit of sexualizing depictions of females.

[HassleCat]

144. Agreed

He still has to explain why he made the skirt so short. And the angle of everything makes it look like some pervert's "upskirt" photo.

[Ernesto]

130. Jack Ohman needs a new career........... that is all.

[TDale313]

132. Wow. Totally sexist.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

136. Strange

Don't know if the cartoonist's intent was sexist but it sure comes off ham-handed as hell.

[Throd]

137. I have followed Jack Ohman's work for years. He is not a sexist.

I see this as another reaction from people whose default mode is instant outrage.

[seabeyond]

141. so dismissive, of course, silly women. bet the artist is JUST as dismissive. why actually reflect?

just dismiss and carry on.

man. right?

[Throd]

154. Father of two young daughters.

My girls are the most important thing in this world to me. I am trying to raise them to be strong, independent, and to recognize and reject sexist bullshit when they see it. I have seen your posts here over the many years and know that you absolutely love to be in a state of righteous anger.

The Sacramento Bee always always always endorses Democrats and their editorial cartoonist has always been left-leaning. I've been a Bee subscriber for 20 years.

[boston bean]

169. You seem to be under a common misconception.

Misconception being left leaning men can't be sexist.

They can be. They are not immune to it.

[KitSileya]

187. Another common misconception:

Being the father of daughters automatically makes you immune to being sexist or dismissive of women's concerns. It doesn't of course. All misogynistic men have mothers, most have wives, many have sisters or daughters, but that doesn't stop them from treating women like lesser beings or objects.

[seabeyond]

192. +1, and teaching their daughters their role to play in society. meh... nt

[Rex]

142. LOL! Why did he make her 50 feet tall?

Why is HRC the size of a tractor trailer truck? She makes Sanders look tiny and insignificant, shows HRC as nothing but a huge pair of legs and a campaign button. In short, there is so much fail in that cartoon that it cannot all be described in a short paragraph.

Is he saying HRC is a giant that cannot be moved? Cartoons are bad when they confuse more than entertain.

[bravenak]

172. I was thinking the same thing.

[awoke_in_2003]

146. Sexist and insulting to both candidates. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

149. That cartoon tells us a lot about the person who drew it.

[Blue_Adept]

150. Every piece of artwork...

tells us a lot about the artist

and especially those who interpret it through the lens of their own lives.

[Romulox]

152. That's it! I'm not voting for Bernie! nt

[guillaumeb]

153. the cartoonist is simply exercising a First Amendment right.

By offending supporters of both candidates.

[Eleanors38]

157. I don't even get his point. Maybe it's perspective. Or some movie he saw...

Maybe a fart joke.

Time to go get a beer & smoke a doobie, no matter what McCartney sez.

[Snobblevitch]

164. Even worse than this editorial cartoon

being sexist is that it does not accomplish anything. If it made a point, at least it would make a point.

If showing Clinton's legs somehow has anything to do with 'moving her to the left', I don't get it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

173. ugh

[daleanime]

177. Scratches head.....

isn't the point of the cartoon the difference in power, in the cartoonist opinion, between Hillary and Bernie? And that Bernie is unlikely to move her in any fashion? Hillary is portrayed as a large, powerful present, too big to be contained in the frame. This is insulting?

Guess it possible to be offended by anything.

[historylovr]

181. WTF?

What a horrible cartoon. Besides being sexist, it doesn't have a point. Epic. Fail.

[nilram]

183. oh, I like Ohman. Not this cartoon, though.

Besides, I don't think Bernie wants to move Hillary to the left, in any sense of the word. I think he means it when he says he wants to win.

[CBGLuthier]

184. I think the image here is saying if she moves to the left she will crush him politically

Which might be true. I would rather vote for someone a lot further left of the the slightly RW-skewed centrist warhawks that the Clintons are.

[joshcryer]

190. No.

It's sexist and demeaning to both Sanders and Clinton.

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. What is amazing is the number of stereotypes here

and it is actually on both candidates. One for the classic, show too much, woman... legs and all that. And yes, she is asking for it...

The portrayal of Sanders is that of a creepy old man.

I call this... a twoffer. I have not looked, but is our artist a tad on the RW side of the house? Some are. Some are not.

It might be the years of now doing photography. I tend to notice weird stuff these days.

[TexasTowelie]

188. It's McClatchy

and the right-wing editors and "journalists" there are so stupid that they don't know the difference between sexist and exist.

[dreamnightwind]

189. I'm pretty sure this is a date metaphor

It shows Bernie as a small inadequate disempowered male next to the large and powerful front-runner. Bernie is depicted as being a guy wanting to get with the girl. She is at the extreme other side of the couch from him, he wants her to move closer, but he is clearly out of his league.

The legs are emphasized to make the date metaphor clear.

The two red things are throw pillows. Note how large she is compared to them, he is showing her as huge and in control.

This guy is slamming Sanders, showing Hillary as the one with all of the power.

IMHO