Comics I Don’t Understand – This site is now being updated daily at Please change your bookmark if necessary, and notify any web site with a link to the old address.

November 20, 2007

Hillary B



When Tom Toles wrote this, was he suggesting Hillary is indeed a devious b—-, or that the media is obsessed with making her out to be one?


  1. When you uploaded this cartoon, did you really want to know what Toles meant, or were you illustrating that if the point of a political cartoon isn’t clear, it’s less than worthless?

    Comment by S.P. Charles — November 20, 2007 @ 1:21 am

  2. Ok this is just plain not funny. This is character assassination pure and simple because they can’t confront her on the issues. How dare you.

    Comment by Vote for Hillary Online — November 20, 2007 @ 1:33 am

  3. How dare me? Did I miss something here?

    Comment by Cidu Bill — November 20, 2007 @ 1:50 am

  4. No, this is not character assasination, this is a editorial cartoon. Happens all the time. People pay good money to see these things.

    That said, going back to the original question, being what is the cartoon trying to say: Bill, I think you missed a 3rd possibility. This is (one of maybe 500) editorial cartoons about Hilary planting questions. The point being that she is no in a “girl who cried wolf” situation: caught (trying to) manipulate the press once, in the future, we will always ask ourselves “was that question planted”? Even if the question is a tough one. Leads to all sorts of mildly amusing paradoxes. Instead of the Liar’s Paradox (“This sentence is a lie”) we now have Hillary’s Paradox (“Is this question a plant?”).

    Of course, Bush got caught planting a questioner – and a rather scandalous one at that – a long time ago, and this really didn’t hurt his credibility; but that was probably because his credibility was already so low, it just couldn’t get any lower. Lowering his credibility wasn’t really news…

    Comment by Ron Obvious — November 20, 2007 @ 2:34 am

  5. Toles is pretty liberal…I think this is a pro-Hillary cartoon, which suggests that she can’t win with the press…that somehow it’s her fault when somebody calls her names. This is confirmed by the mini-punchline, with suggests that whatever she answers, the press will label it “troubling.”

    Comment by Hunt — November 20, 2007 @ 9:06 am

  6. This cartoon is based on an incident at a John McCain event. A member of the audience asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?”, to which McCain responded, “That’s an excellent question!”

    Did this not get any coverage in the US? I’m up in Canada, I heard about it through various blogs.

    This cartoon’s about how the media constantly spins things against the Dems; instead of taking McCain to task over the question and his response, they ask Clinton a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type question about it.

    Comment by James — November 20, 2007 @ 9:13 am

  7. Yes, this is a pro-Hillary cartoon—she is being asked the equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your spouse?”

    Bill, what you’re missing is that “Vote for Hillary Online” is actually a satirical anti-Hillary website, that always “defends” Hillary in the most inane way possible.

    Comment by Autumnal Harvest — November 20, 2007 @ 9:23 am

  8. Isn’t politics funny, Autumn? Unless you really study that site, or somebody tells you ahead of time, you really wouldn’t know it IS satirical — because inanity by itself isn’t conclusive.

    Comment by Cidu Bill — November 20, 2007 @ 5:09 pm

  9. I really like the look on Hillary’s face. It doesn’t particularly look like her, but it really captures a great “Oh you can’t be serious” look.

    Comment by Cedar — November 20, 2007 @ 5:35 pm

  10. One of my favorite blogs, Jon Swift, is a satirical site that pretends to be a crazy right-wing commentator. I find his writing very funny, but just as funny are the number of angry comments he gets from people who don’t realize that it’s satire, despite the fact that he calls himself “Jon Swift,” and writes posts like Is Abstinence-Only Sex Education too Explicit?, or I am Paris Hilton. In the latter one he bemoans the fact that even a rich persom might have to go to prison: “First they came for Paris Hilton and I did not speak up because I was not Paris Hilton.” Much more obvious than the “Vote for Hillary Online” website, and yet some people still don’t get it.

    On the other hand, his piece, The Torture Race, in which he says that we need to emulate the successful strategies of the Nazis to win the war on terror is, as we discussed last week, being overtaken by reality (ala Lantos and Dershowitz).

    Comment by Autumnal Harvest — November 20, 2007 @ 8:05 pm

  11. Bill, the comment above doesn’t appear in the “Recent Comments” box. (Not that I’m so egotistical that I care—just thought I’d let you know there’s a glitch.)

    Comment by Autumnal Harvest — November 20, 2007 @ 9:19 pm

  12. If I may handle this one…

    The recent comments only shows the most recent 15 comments – all the comments on the list appeared after yours was posted.

    Comment by Robverb — November 20, 2007 @ 9:30 pm

  13. No, I’m referring to my second comment, not my first. There are only four comments (including this one) on this blog after my comment #12.

    Comment by Autumnal Harvest — November 20, 2007 @ 9:46 pm

  14. Character assasination? Truth is a legitimate defense against a slander charge.

    Comment by Robert Warden — November 20, 2007 @ 9:49 pm

  15. Let’s try it another way. Hover your mouse over the time of your comment. At the bottom of the page you’ll notice the url for that comment, which ends in the comment number (your last comment, number 14 on this thread, is #4484 for this site. Now hover over the author names in the recent comment box. You’ll see that comment is in the list. Now hover over the comment you’re referring to (I assume you’re talking about #9 above) and compare that number to the oldest comment in the list. You’ll see that (as of this moment) at least 22 comments were added to the site since then.

    Does that make sense or am I missing your meaning?

    Comment by Rob — November 20, 2007 @ 10:26 pm

  16. Autumn Harvest is just burdened with a rather limited version of “this blog”.
    AH, this page is but a single entry in “this blog”.
    “Recent Comments” are of a more global scope. “this blog” includes every strip, commercial, and law entry ever made and all the comments posted to them. There could be new comments being made on entries in the archives.

    There, that ought to do it. 🙂

    Comment by Kevin Andresen — November 20, 2007 @ 10:53 pm

  17. OK, this conversation is really weird. I’m wondering if we’re all seeing at the same comments and comment boxes. Kevin, I know what a blog is, and how it differs from a thread. Rob, I’m referring to my second comment on this particular post, which is comment #12, labelled comment-4480, which starts out “One of my favorite blogs. . .” It was posted at 8:05 P.M., and at 8:10 P.M., I could see it in the comments here, but not in the Comments RSS, or the Recent Comments box on the side of the blog. There were not 15 intervening posts in those 5 minutes. It came after Cedar’s post in this thread, which is still in the Recent Comments box. The comments in the Recent Comments box go 4478, 4479, 4481, 4482, etc. . .—4480 should be between 4479 and 4481.

    Is this one of those social science experiments where everyone pretends to see something different than the subject, to see if it drives them insane?

    Comment by Autumnal Harvest — November 21, 2007 @ 12:25 am

  18. Autumn, there are two alternatives: Either we are indeed all trying to Gaslight you, or your comment contained more than two links and therefore automatically got shunted over to the “moderator must approve” section.

    I suspect the latter (since I just saw it there and greenlighted it)

    Comment by Cidu Bill — November 21, 2007 @ 12:30 am

  19. Yes! I’m not insane. (Well, at least about this.)

    OK, not to drag this out, but now I don’t understand why I could see my to-be-moderated comment while we’ve been having this discussion. After I made the moderation-requiring post, I came home, so I’ve been at a different computer for this whole conversation. Does WordPress somehow recognize my saved name, and decide to show me my in-moderation post, even though I’m at a different IP address?

    Comment by Autumnal Harvest — November 21, 2007 @ 12:46 am

  20. Well maybe, since you’re recognized by your sign-in name (same as, say, when you access your Gmail or Hotmail account). It’s the only explanation I can think of.

    The moderation protocol does make a lot of sense though, since 19 times out of 20 a message with more than two links is spam.

    The only problem is, I’m not automatically notified if a message is awaiting approval; so if you ever fail to see one of your messages online, please e-mail me (though of course I would notice it eventually).

    Comment by Cidu Bill — November 21, 2007 @ 1:03 am

  21. AH,
    Well, I tried to hedge at the end of my comment to allow for some other explanation (not sure if I left enough wiggle room though). I’m glad the mystery is solved.

    Bill, I realize my WordPress advice to you has been hit or miss, but try going to “Options” and “Discussion” and checking “E-Mail me whenever: A comment is held for moderation.” If it works as intended, you won’t be e-mailed about regular posts or posts that are OBVIOUS spam, only about ones that are slightly suspect.

    Comment by Rob — November 21, 2007 @ 7:56 am

  22. Maybe she should just get herself a pin that says “yes, I am and proud of it” so she can at the very least give them something else to think of. She’s kind of between a rock and a hard place. Either these men are so afraid of women that everything she says is gender based or they are scared of it being thought that they support her. Once one woman makes it, it probably won’t be an issue.

    Comment by loopyloo350 — November 21, 2007 @ 8:40 am

  23. Nicely done, Rob.
    I’m moving up my no comments rule from midnight to 6pm. This way, I’ll be sure to sleep on it. I was aching from what seems a broken promise and my mind seems to play tricks on me then. (i.e. maybe I’m an idiot.)

    I have felt very confident however, that this CIDU is about the press, not Hillary at all.

    Comment by Kevin Andresen — November 21, 2007 @ 8:50 am

  24. Well, Kevin, I don’t know if sleeping on it would have helped. If I’m going to talk about comments that no one can see but me, I’m going to get some confusing responses. This is why I don’t talk about the invisible leprechauns that tell me to burn things. But I’ve said too much already. . .

    I’m still surprised that I could see the comment on my home computer, since it’s not like I sign in with a password—as far as WordPress knows, there could just happen to be two people at different computers who happen to have typed in the same name.

    Comment by Autumnal Harvest — November 21, 2007 @ 1:04 pm

  25. Who cares how they came to fall into the manhole. The fall itself is enough to stop and laugh, and thereby fail to step on the banana peel.

    But I must admit to googling “LVIII.”

    Comment by Will Repair — November 24, 2007 @ 12:41 pm

  26. High-five for the semi-obscure banana peel reference, Will.

    Comment by Cidu Bill — November 24, 2007 @ 12:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: