A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words

Political cartoons have long been staples in American politics.  Before television, internet cartoons, and very controversial New Yorker covers, editorial cartoonists rawly exposed political happenings and projected their interpretations into the minds of their viewers.  William Tweed, a corrupt political machine politician in 19th century New York City, once commented: 

I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.

Here’s a look at some of this week’s political cartoons and what they’re thinking.  It is important to note where and what papers these cartoons are published in, as they provide important insight into the messages and the minds effecting local voters.

John Traver, of the Albuquerque Journal in New Mexico has one take on Obama and his perceived ego:

John Darkow, of the Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri has quite a different take of McCain, Obama and an Iraqi withdrawal:

Mike Lester, of the Rome News-Tribune in Rome, Georgia has an interesting take on Obama and the Media:

\

Nate Beeler, of The Washington Examiner, in D.C. also looks at the media and Obama:

Scott Stantis, of the Birmingham News in Alabama takes a critical look at Obama’s move to the center: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

AUDIO: Round Table Discussion With 08 Blogger Network Members…

Following an organizational discussion, some 08 Blogger Network members participated in a round table discussion about the state of the presidential election. Some of the topics discussed were Obama’s FISA vote, McCain’s issues with his base and the political consequences, noteworthy takeaways and much more. Since this discussion took place after an organizational meeting, introductions are not included on the recording. The participating bloggers were iPol, potus2008election, me (2008central.net) and Divided We Stand, United We Fall.

It was a very interesting conversation, take a listen…

If you are interested in joining the 08 Bloggers Network, please email 08bloggers

Sphere: Related Content

Sullivan Begins To Turn On Obama

Andrew Sullivan thinks outloud about the “hubris of Obama:”

A few things have unsettled me these past couple of weeks about the Obama campaign. It is not the small adjustments to previously-held positions - FISA, the Second Amendment, Iraq. It’s a sense that Obama’s ample self-regard is lapsing into hubris. The signs of this are pretty trivial on the surface, but they are troubling nonetheless.

I can undestand calling Obama’s recent statements on the 2nd Amendment and Iraq “small adjustments.”  But it’s a big understatement to call Obama’s switch on FISA a “small adjustment;” it wasn’t a small adjustment, it was a significant departure from a previously held position.  I understand the political reasons for doing so.  But, let’s call it what it is.  The discussion shouldn’t be about whether it was a major departure from a previously held position.  Rather, the debate should be whether or not the political gains are worth the cost.

Sullivan goes on to criticize Obama for the Obama seal (which the campaign dropped fast), moving his convention speech outside and for allowing his daughters to be interviewed.  He concludes:

Any one of these misjudgments would be a trivial lapse - and we all make mistakes. It’s the combination that concerns me - and the possibility that this campaign is becoming far too cocky for its own good.

I point this out for a few reasons:

• First, we have been saying for some time that Obama runs the risk of alienating supporters with some of his campaign tactics (see our most receent podcast for a thorough discussion).
• Second, if a die-hard supporter like Sullivan is already becomming irritated with Obama, I wonder how widespread that sentiment is amongst Obama supporters.  I don’t think that this sentiment is widespread, bu I do think (as I have been saying for a few weeks) that it has the potential to, unless some adjustments are made.
• Third, it’s yet another reason to support the conention that Andrew Sullivan is completely overrated.  He is too often either dead wrong or overstates a case so much that he has to constantly reverse himself down the road.  Although, it usually takes Sullivan a bit longer than a few weeks to realize how wrong he was.  I guess now that Hillary’s out the race, Sullivan’s blind support for Obama just doesn’t give him the same thrill anymore.

Sphere: Related Content

Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr Hits Obama On FISA

Ever since Barack Obama annnounced that he would be supporting FISA legislation that includes immunity for telecom companies, he has stirred up some anger from supporters.  Currently, the largest supporter group on his website is one that is urging him to change his mind on FISA.  Now, Libertarian Candidate former Congressman Bob Barr is criticizing Obama for his changed position on FISA.  In a press release Barr says:

“The two major parties like to say that a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote,” notes Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr. “But it should be obvious to all that only the Libertarian Party provides an alternative in November.  After all, Sen. Barack Obama has reaffirmed his refusal to live up to his promise to oppose the Bush administration, which violated the law by conducting warrantless surveillance of Americans’ telephone calls.”

[snip]

“Unfortunately, the Democrats also were more enablers of government abuse than defenders of American liberty,” he adds.  Sen. Barack Obama claimed to be different, offering real change.  “But when the Democratic congressional leadership decided to concede to almost all of the administration’s demands in rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Sen. Obama went along with the crowd.”

[snip]

“If Sen. Obama can so easily abandon a commitment on so fundamental an issue, is there any issue on which he will take a stand,” asks Barr?

Certainly it’s smart strategy for the Libertarian in the race to take advantage of this opportunity and try and wrestle some supporters away from Obama.  Although, I’m not convinced that this will be all that effective.  However important this issue may be, I just don’t think many Democrats consider it to be significant enough to warrant risking a loss for Obama by supporting Barr.  Afterall, even the founder, Mike Stark, of the aforementioned group on Obama’s website is not prepared to threaten Obama with a loss of support, regardless of how upet he may be.  Stark has said:

“Of course I’m going to vote for him in November.  (But) we’re keeping score, and there’s going to be a time when he needs us. … We have long memories.”

It is worth noting that Barr will have an opportunity to publicize his criticism of Obama on two national Sunday talk shows tomorrow.  He’ll be on ABC’s This Week and CNN’s Newsroom Primetime Edition.

Sphere: Related Content