Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Reading Tonight | Currently Hanging »

Monday, March 31, 2008


posted by on March 31 at 10:18 AM

On Saturday, the P-I printed the following cartoon by David Horsey, titled “Hillary Under Fire”:


Attached to Hillary’s jacket: peace sign and flower pins, a decal reading “First Lady,” a tiny blue dress with the word “Monica” on it (subtle!), a pin reading “White Water”… and this rather, um, peculiar pin:


It says “Bimbos,” and yes, those are a pair of breasts. Way to keep that “family newspaper” classy, Horsey!

(Thanks to Slog tipper Quimby.)

RSS icon Comments


Cartoon breastesses! I'm going to write a positively huffy letter to the Editor.

As soon as I can find the right color crayon to express my indignation.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 31, 2008 10:19 AM

ECB hate posts coming in 5... 4... 3...

Posted by Matt from Denver | March 31, 2008 10:21 AM

Before you get bucked off that high horse you always ride in on, you might want to check the editorial content of your own paper.

Ahem ...

Posted by Jeff | March 31, 2008 10:22 AM

Oh, the humanity.

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | March 31, 2008 10:23 AM

Actually, I agree with ECB that this is a bit tasteless from Horsey. Not sure I'll take it beyond that, but I think ECB was right to point this one out.

Posted by Timothy | March 31, 2008 10:23 AM

Well, if the artist's intent was to show previous "battles" faced, including scandals, then Bill's affairs would qualify, I guess. The drawn breasts are retarded, of course.

This whole thing just shows the problems with trying to backfill a lie with some kind of equivalent truth: "Well, what I said didn't happen, but it *totally* still matters in light of this other fact" doesn't usually cut it.

Posted by torrentprime | March 31, 2008 10:24 AM

When I first saw it I thought of Dukakis in the tank. HA HA HA!!!!

Posted by Andrew | March 31, 2008 10:26 AM

There is no sexism in our country at all.

If Obama doesn't talk about it then it doesn't exist.

All hail Obama!!

On a less anti-Obama note, when will Clinton deliver a speech about sexism (while ignoring the existence of LGBTs) like Obama did?

It couldn't hurt...and it might give back some of her credibility (especially if she ignores filthy homosexuals).

Posted by patrick | March 31, 2008 10:27 AM

leave it to a fag to take a post about hillary and boobies and make it about the gays. do lesbians do this too, or is it just us?

Posted by brandon | March 31, 2008 10:32 AM

More importantly than some cartoon boobs, I have a problem with characterizing all the women Bill cheated with as "bimbos."

I don't recall (and don't care to Google) how he met Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones, but Monica at least was a White House Aid, implying she was not stupid, and I feel that since the whole thing she's done her best to have a good sense of humor and make the most of her situation. Perhaps giving her her own "medal" apart from the "bimbos" was supposed to represent the difference between her and the rest, but I honestly doubt they were all insignificant idiots. A badge that said "infidelity" or some such could have conveyed the same idea without putting down any "other woman" he's dallied with.

And no, I'm not donning my outrage cap: just making some observations.

Posted by Aislinn | March 31, 2008 10:38 AM

tasteless?? he's an editorial cartoonist, and HRC -the subject of his cartoon- has told everyone over and over again that her ability to weather the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (which included the Blue Dress Impeachment, Several Bimbo Eruptions, Whitewater) makes her a tougher leader and immunizes her against harmful hits from the VRWC.

I think Horsey was being restrained. He could've pinned more medals on her for White House Travel Office Snafu and Vincent Foster Suicide Stonewalling.

Would it be just as "tasteless" if the cartoon theme was The Emperor Has No Clothes?

Posted by jackseattle | March 31, 2008 10:40 AM

I guess that is supposed to be the medal she gets for withstanding Bill's Bimbo problems. No much "Huh?" about it.

As for the boobies, pretty typical of Horsey.

Posted by elrider | March 31, 2008 10:40 AM

It does look like Horsey is saying that Clinton fought battles with bimbos, not that she is in fact one. Though the very use of the term is problematic.

Posted by Giffy | March 31, 2008 10:40 AM

I agree with 10 - Monica was not a bimbo, that's why there is a separate Blue Dress Medal. Not every indiscretion lead to impeachment.

Posted by jackseattle | March 31, 2008 10:42 AM

Don't you understand, she's like a politician...and she exaggerated something! OMFG no way! Like, that never, ever happens. Ever. Men politians never exaggerate ANYTHING *cough cough* Obama, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Guiliani, Kerry *hack hack*.

They have to crucify her because she is like the the only person to do it.

And look, if the media doesn't report about it happening any other time, then it probably didn't happen!

Posted by Original Monique | March 31, 2008 10:42 AM

@3 - uh, there's a difference: while the PI is a mainstream, (ostensibly) family-friendly paper, the Stranger has never so much as pretended to be "appropriate" in that way.

Posted by Hernandez | March 31, 2008 10:46 AM

An appeal to common practice mated with strawmen is logical fallacy on steroids - you may want to avoid that route, 15.

Posted by seattle98104 | March 31, 2008 10:51 AM

I guess I can see how it somehow means she's survived all the bimbos, but those boobies are fucked up.

Posted by madamecrow | March 31, 2008 10:51 AM

True, but I guess when your bread and butter comes from selling ads to hookers and trannies you should probably not claim to be the moral authority on class.

Posted by Jeff | March 31, 2008 10:51 AM

OM, Hillary didn't exaggerate her small experience with negotiating an end to a war to make it seem larger than it was. She fabricated experience negotiating an end to a war from whole cloth. And then beat Obama over the head with it. In reality, Hillary's experience in brokering peace deals is exactly as small as Obama's, and she should harangued for this lie until she comes clean on that point.

Posted by elenchos | March 31, 2008 10:51 AM

the other women? Using bimbo is unfortunate.

Posted by How About | March 31, 2008 10:52 AM

Despite being an Obama supporter, I've been fairly okay with Senator Clinton staying in the fight until I saw this story, in the NY Times this morning, about her cordial meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife:

I mean, here's the architect of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy she decried in the 1990s, in the flesh, the guy who more or less manufactured and then kept alive the Whitewater 'scandal', Bimbo eruptions and Vince Foster murder accusations, and she's fine with meeting with the guy to seek his Pennsylvania newspaper clout? Was all the impeachment stuff in the 90s just a big political game to the Clintons, just a big joke on the rest of us? I'm getting more furious the more I think about the implications of this.

Posted by Peter F | March 31, 2008 10:56 AM

It's great! If she is going to take credit for all of her "experience" then let's make sure to talk about ALL OF HER EXPERIENCE, including living with and enabling her class act of a husband. Why is it that no one ever gives her shit for staying with that dickhead? I'd respect her more if she had left him years ago. Staying with him shows that she is week.

Posted by Suz | March 31, 2008 10:57 AM

I think that HRC is the one who coined the phrase "B*mbo Eruptions" during the first Clinton campaign. At least I believe she was quoted using that phrase in Time or Newsweek. I think it's OK for women to throw that term around

Posted by jackseattle | March 31, 2008 10:59 AM

Short version: Hillary's been making provably false statements since day one. Barnett's obvious bias towards Hillary means that her candidate's mistruths are overlooked when it comes to issues of prurience.


...not "Hillary has lied repreatedly throughout her campaign about the situations she has been in in order to exaggerate her qualifications for a job she is eminently unqualified for."

I see what you did there, Ceiling Cat.

Posted by Zebulon | March 31, 2008 11:01 AM

I'm guessing the "bimbos" are Paula and Gennifer. Though why that wouldn't include Monica, I don't know.

Posted by K | March 31, 2008 11:01 AM

and why should any of us heathen stranger readers give a shit about cartoon boobies in the pi?

This was the best you could do to stump for you candidate of failure?

Posted by seattle98104 | March 31, 2008 11:03 AM

Er, what better to caricature the past and what better way to caricature "bimbos"? Pretty simple and obvious = editorial cartooning 101.

Posted by umvue | March 31, 2008 11:03 AM

Peter, stop being a dumbshit. The article isn't about her sucking up to him, it's about how favorable his opinions about her have now become.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 31, 2008 11:05 AM

not all the non-lewinsky women were affairs either. i believe the legal term is "victims."

Posted by brandon | March 31, 2008 11:05 AM

Yep, that's why I read Slog, to get alerted to lapses in puritanism at other local papers. Oh, wait, I'm supposed to be outraged at cartoon breasts? How much outrage, exactly? ECB pretty much only has one setting, but can someone with a more nuanced sense for moral approbation give me some guidance?

Posted by also | March 31, 2008 11:10 AM

Fifty Two Eighty @ 29, did you read the article? She thought it would be a fun lark to reach out to him, just like she did with Rupert Murdoch early in the campaign.

Posted by Peter F | March 31, 2008 11:18 AM

I'm sort of indifferent about the Bimbos thing, though I agree with Aislinn that "infidelities" might have been a better way to put it (and, the boobs thing is sort of weird).

But, it drives me crazy when people (like #23) say "why hasn't she left him, he's an asshole and a philanderer, etc., etc." We don't have any idea what their private relationship is like. Spouses stay with each other all the time when there have been infidelities, and try to work it out. So, I think judging her as weak by saying she should have left him is ridiculous.

Savage talks about open relationships and the unrealistic nature of lifelong fidelity all the time in his column (points which I completely agree with). Not everyone has that philosophy, of course, but we have no idea what the dynamics of the Clintons' relationship are like.

Posted by Julie | March 31, 2008 11:18 AM

There is a double standard.

Obama invokes Reagan, he's a broad minded hero.

Clinton visits a huge Pittsburgh paper, it's all a plot. What a dirty deliberate trick!

Obama lies about the candidate questionnaire (see Politico today), how much money he got from Rezko, about that there was no understanding with Rezko to buy the lawn for his house, that he never heard anything bad from Wright while sitting in the pew ("obviously bullshitting" as per Josh Feit), that (coincidence!!) he WOULD HAVE resigned from the Church except that JUST AS he was running for president, Wright retired !

Meanwhile the list of defalcations against HRC includes false attacks like Whitewater or the impeachment "scandal" -- in the first there was nothing wrong done in the second, what exactly did she do wrong????
Nice to see Horsey and some Obamatons (def: the un-thinking hare krishna-like Obama supporters; there are others of course).

The point is they are both fibbers and exaggerators as all politicians are. This belief that HRC is deceptive is mainly a right wing advertising campaign carried out over 25 years. Nice to see Democrats buying into it!! The belief that Obama is magically different is a myth.

He's a pol.

Look, he won his first primary by throwing everyone else off the ballot. So the only choice was him!! Like in Russia.
Just like he's trying to exclude FL and MI -- this isn't exactly saintly "Mr. Voting Rights" conduct, it's hard hitting political insider infighting. Sharp elbows. "He'll do anything to win" [wringing hands, furrowed brow].

The media could easily show a picture of him with all these lies and fibs and stretches and also this pattern of denying voting rights.....the only reason they don't is they are on a different narrative with him right now.

It's just not accurate.

The GOP?
Will not hold back. Will not buy into the he's a saint among dirty pols meme.

There's plenty to work with. If you are not in denial that is.

Posted by unPC | March 31, 2008 11:22 AM

@10: Thank you for posting. If anyone was a "bimbo" here, it was Bill Clinton.

Clinton was the President of the United States. Monica Lewinsky was a 21-year-old college student. Who had the power here? (This is a rhetorical question, people.)

Horsey's medal drawing did not convey what he wanted it to convey, and therefore is a failure. If he could have drawn a medal that said simply "Sex Scandal" or even "Bill and Monica Scandal".

And boob drawing? Stupid. Boobs were not the problem here. The President's behavior was. If Horsey was really trying to convey Hillary's battle here, he would have drawn a penis on that medal instead. Bill thinking with "little Bill" instead of his brain was the problem.

Posted by me | March 31, 2008 11:26 AM

I'm sorry, I was more distracted by the front page article in today's Wall Street Journal about how superdelegates are deserting Sen Clinton, entitled "New Backing For Obama As Party Seeks Unity".

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 31, 2008 11:26 AM

"....and that's why Hillary should get the nomination." should be added to the end of every ECB post.

Posted by Banna | March 31, 2008 11:29 AM

@34, I should know better than to feed a troll, but I never said her meeting with the paper in PA was "a plot". What I am saying is that her cozying up to this guy that put her family, the Democratic Party and the country through what he did in the 90s boggles my mind. Maybe I should marvel at her graciousness for letting such gigantic bygones be bygones, but what it says to me is that all of this stuff, all the slander and lawsuits and impeachment battles, the back and forth mudslinging vicious "politics of personal destruction" that spawned the right wing media machine, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc, et cetera means nothing to her, apparently.

Obviously, your opinion may vary, but I feel like a fool now, for wasting a single sentence of breath trying to defend her husband from the attacks that apparently meant nothing to him in the 90s, for ever feeling enraged at all by something Rush Limbaugh was blathering on about on the radio in 1992. It's all just a big three ring circus, a put-on, like the WWE to her.

No wonder they don't seem to think anything about making snide racist comments through functionaries, no wonder her husband can praise Karl Rove's genius now and go on Limbaugh's show to josh around.

Posted by Peter F | March 31, 2008 11:35 AM

I actually agree with ECB on this one. People need to call the PI and get this address tut suite.

Womens breasts have no class. They are ugly and gross.

I hope that ECB is the first in line to have those classless and tasteless titties removed. Now THAT would be the act of a REAL feminist.

Well, that, and grow a penis.

Posted by ecce homo | March 31, 2008 11:37 AM

I may agree with Horsey politically, but he's the Jim Davis of politican cartoonists. There are far better right-wing cartoonists, which is saying a lot.

Conrad would be twisting in his grave. (And I'm not even big fan of Conrad.)

You guys at the Stranger should publish the City Market posters as political cartoons. I'm not joking!

Posted by mackro mackro | March 31, 2008 11:43 AM

Stupid drawing. Bill's an ASS man!

Posted by DOUG. | March 31, 2008 11:43 AM

ur, that is Conrad would be twisting in his grave if he were dead, which he's not. (my bad.)

Posted by mackro mackro | March 31, 2008 11:44 AM

unPc - it's too late. Obama has done a fantastic job of getting delegate count and contolling the narative for the last two months with the exception of 2 days of Wright.

Will his SNUFF approach work to eliminate Hillary as it has in previous campaigns he's run? Probably not. Will the Repubos be able to use it against him? No

They will concentrate on Wright and Rezko. They will call for an investigation of the house deal. They will do a targeted "love America" campaign.

The question is will this general turn into a Bobby Rush vote where Obama gets 31% or his first state race where he got 100% in the primary by knocking all the others off the ballot. My guess is that it will more like the former.

I will not vote for the Republican no matter what - but the Obama supporters that think they are getting some you before me politician will be sorely disappoined.

Posted by McG | March 31, 2008 11:52 AM

I haven't heard anything about HRC's policy or qualifications for so long - all her supporters ever do is quote something anti-Hillary and say, sarcastically, "Classy." Or "Nice." Don't they have anything to say, other than vague, sarcastic comments on comments about their candidate?

Posted by Sister Y | March 31, 2008 11:56 AM

Still waiting for Erica's post about Hilary's taxes.

We're waiting Erica ...

Posted by Jeff | March 31, 2008 12:31 PM

@44 - nope.

Posted by some dude | March 31, 2008 12:33 PM

But see, Hillary's been fully vetted, so none of this stuff can be coming up again. Right?

Posted by seattle mike | March 31, 2008 12:37 PM

@44. This post was not about policy, so... not sure why you're looking for a policy discussion here.

Posted by mscanard | March 31, 2008 1:00 PM

@45 - So you get to see Hillary's taxes and

1) you will say I told you so, or
2) you will say she's hiding something, or
3) you will say she's lying, or
4) either way, you will still hate her.

So. What. Is. The. Point? 25 words or fewer.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | March 31, 2008 1:25 PM

#48 - nobody here is looking for a policy discussion, re-read the response that pissed you off. This is a post to laugh at HRC supporters, provided by ECB. Thanks for playing, joke's on you!

Posted by wbrproductions | March 31, 2008 1:28 PM


Hillary. Ain't. Vetted.

Posted by elenchos | March 31, 2008 1:48 PM

UnPC, I'm still wondering if you're going to disavow your co-blogger Larry Johnson's recent string of racist rants against Obama, or are you going to continue to promote white supremecists and liars everywhere?

Posted by still wondering | March 31, 2008 2:11 PM

@48, I was talking about the original post, and posts like it. She's basically saying, look at the cartoon - classy! instead of saying anything substantive. Not that there's no place for media analysis - else what would you do with a comp lit degree, amirite - but this hardly qualifies as analysis, and we rarely see anything BUT this kind of stuff from the HRC camp. Instead of trotting out awesome speeches HRC makes about the economy or race or anything (she made some, right?), they're just like, here's a comment from somebody - classy! sexist! etc. Like HRC should win because the media is sexist.

Posted by Sister Y | March 31, 2008 3:00 PM

It's a sexist cartoon. Plain and simple. And a lot of the anti-Clintonists are sexist too. No mystery there.

Posted by Duh | March 31, 2008 4:33 PM

You had to get the microscope out there to see this one. You guys are litterally searching for things to be offended by. Get a freaking life. And yes ECB, before you condemn Horsey and the PI, take a look at your own paper's content. Ah hypocrisy, it's not just for Republicans anymore

Posted by tco | March 31, 2008 5:05 PM

The cartoon is awful and creepy. Can I still vote for Obama? He didn't draw it.

Posted by Phoebe | March 31, 2008 5:14 PM

Does anyone seriously believe that if Bill Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants as President, he'll keep it in his pants as First Gentleman?

UnPC, maybe you can put your white hood back on for a moment and talk about black people being more prone to raping people.

Posted by still wondering | April 1, 2008 1:34 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).