In case you miss the Jeff Koterba criticism that used to be so regular on this site, The Bad Cartoonist has taken up the cross. Koterba sent Bad Cartoonist virtually the same cease-and-desist letter he sent me (though much more polite; he didn’t accuse BC of being creepy and obsessed).

But BC articulates the irony quite well.

I am very surprised that cartoonists are not more aware of copyright law. Heck, we rip off copyrights all the time but, heaven forbid, someone posts a sub-par cartoon and makes some comments concerning one’s ability to draw or execute a decent joke and they want to call out the cavalry. This might be news to some of you but parody isn’t ours alone.

I think we’re all just a little sensitive. Sure, it’s ok to rip people to shreds day-in and day-out from behind our comfortable drawing desks. But as soon as someone else does it to us, we have to get our pantaloons in a bunch.

Koterba definitely isn’t the only one to get defensive. Justin Bilicki, one of my very favorite cartoonists out there, recently put up a cartoon response to BC. As evidenced by the comments, I disagree with the point of the cartoon but still think it’s fantastic.

The comments on BadCartoonist.com are the most entertaining source of reaction (as one would probably expect). It’s there that you can find choice exchanges like this:

ANONYMOUS COMMENTER: At least Jeff Stahler has the balls to sign his commentary and not hide behind anonymity.

NICK ANDERSON: Hey Einstein, Why the hell would you post an anonymous comment criticizing anonymity? Are you irony-impaired?

From the Lincoln Journal Star’s Thursday letters to the editor:

I am a proud American. I fought for my country in World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt was like a father to me.

I have always stood at attention with my right hand over my heart when I faced our Stars and Stripes. We all should feel that anyone who doesn’t show love and respect for our flag is not a true American.

If we are true Americans, we will vote for those who were born to mothers and fathers who were both Americans.

How can true Americans back a person whose father is a Muslim and who has a Muslim name, Barack Obama? How many Americans have lost loved ones killed by Muslims?

Donald W. Hunt, Lincoln

Man, am I late on this ride.

Apparently there’s a new blog, Bad Cartoonist, that rips many of today’s professional cartoonists to shreds, and it’s (obviously) causing all kinds of outrage.

From yesterday’s entry:

Today is your lucky day. I am going to teach you the secrets that have kept political cartoonists in their high and loft positions for decades while you, with infinitely more wisdom and political insight, are doomed to life your life without the prestige, wealth and hot trophy wives that we cartoonists have.

Lesson one: The scrambled egg.

Not a creative person? Can’t think up any new ideas? Don’t worry that never held Jeff Koterba back! Here’s how you too can make a cartoon out of nothing.

In spite of that Jeff Koterba dig, I assure you, Loyal Reader — I am not The Bad Cartoonist.

Alan Gardner at the Daily Cartoonist has an interview with the anonymous author, and the comments on the post feature appearances by some well-known editorial cartoonists. Some admire the blog … others like Jeff Darcy threaten lawsuits.

I’ve never been anonymous in my criticisms of other cartoonists, but nobody really knows who I am, so to be fair to my irrelevance, “Neal Obermeyer” is pretty much “anonymous” to a vast majority of everyone on earth. Reading those comments, I can understand why he or she stayed anonymous – victims of criticism are desperate for anything to use as an ad hominem dismissal of their critics. One would think editorial cartoonists would be more aware of that.

Check out both the blog and discussion for some good fun. As Mike Lester said, “Criticism of Critics? Mad and brilliant.”

Pam Platt of the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal wrote a column this weekend about editorial cartoonists’ approaches to drawing minority candidates.

If you’re an editorial cartoonist, are there any special guidelines or sensitivities when it comes to drawing Clinton and Obama? How do you use exaggeration and caricature with these candidates, who are shattering gender and race ceilings, without falling in to sexist or racist traps?

Platt noted that the Courier-Journal pulled a Pat Oliphant cartoon the editors deemed “racially insensitive to Obama.” Platt felt the same cartoon depicted Clinton as “mannish-looking and big-bottomed.”

So Platt contacted ten nationally-syndicated cartoonists, with specific attention toward gathering a diverse bunch – or as diverse a bunch of editorial cartoonists as possible, and asked them a series of questions. Here are a few of the responses:

Lisa Benson, a California-based syndicated cartoonist: “For me, it’s not the race or gender as much as the candidate’s history and policies (baggage) that influence how I will draw that person. And, yes, Hillary comes with a good amount of baggage, mostly around the thighs.”

Nick Anderson: “A little girl once asked me why I made George Bush look like a monkey. I said, ‘I didn’t make him look like a monkey, God made him look like a monkey.’ I can say that, with tongue in cheek, and I can draw him that way, because we don’t have a pernicious, racist history of depicting rich, powerful white guys as monkeys. If we did, well, I’d have to reconsider.”

Read the rest here in column form, and here in full Q&A form with more info about each cartoonist.

Elsewhere in Kentucky, State Rep. Jim Gooch is trying to get revenge on some cartoonists and editorial writers.

According to Editor & Publisher, Gooch is pushing legislation that would categorize editorial writers and cartoonists as lobbyists, which would prohibit them from entering the House and Senate while lawmakers are in session. It’s all apparently retaliation for some cartoons mocking him last year.

1. The media called California for Clinton after about 15% of the vote was counted. She had a percentage in the mid-50s while Obama was high-20s / low-30s.

2. As the percentage of total vote climbed from around 25% to 30%, I watched as Obama went from being down 54% to 32% to being down 53% to 37%. Most of this six-point gain happened within five percent of the total vote being counted.

3. I then watched the votes come in from 31% of the total vote to 51% of the total vote.

31% reporting | Clinton: 870,310 (53%) | Obama: 602,147 (37%)
32% reporting | Clinton: 912,326 (+42,016) (53%) | Obama: 626,344 (+24,147) (37%)
33% reporting | Clinton: 922,380 (+10,054) (53%) | Obama: 635,890 (+9,546) (37%)
34% reporting | Clinton: 962,217 (+39,837) (53%) | Obama: 664,023 (+28,133) (37%)
35% reporting | Clinton: 966,939 (+4,722) (53%) | Obama: 668,502 (+4,479) (37%)
38% reporting | Clinton: 1,001,136 (+34,197) (53%) | Obama: 697,311 (+28,809) (37%)
39% reporting | Clinton: 1,010,155 (+9,019) (53%) | Obama: 706,854 (+9,543)
41% reporting | Clinton: 1,060,326 (+50,171) (54%) | Obama: 741,983 (+35,129) (37%)
42% reporting | Clinton: 1,085,438 (+25,112) (53%) | Obama: 768,274 (+26,291) (38%)
43% reporting | Clinton: 1,109,151 (+23,713) (53%) | Obama: 788,257 (+19,983) (38%)
44% reporting | Clinton: 1,111,190 (+2,039) (53%) | Obama: 790,333 (+2,076) (38%)
45% reporting | Clinton: 1,124,957 (+13,767) (53%) | Obama: 804,489 (+14,156) (38%)
46% reporting | Clinton: 1,154,701 (+29,744) (53%) | Obama: 839,686 (+35,157) (39%)
47% reporting | Clinton: 1,159,529 (+4,828) (53%) | Obama: 846,023 (+6,337) (39%)
48% reporting | Clinton: 1,206,138 (+46,609) (53%) | Obama: 880,099 (+34,076) (39%)
49% reporting | Clinton: 1,211,869 (+5,731) (53%) | Obama: 886,319 (+6,220) (39%)
50% reporting | Clinton: 1,224,077 (+12,208) (53%) | Obama: 899,623 (+13,304) (39%)
51% reporting | Clinton: 1,239,311 (+15,234) (53%) | Obama: 911,622 (+11,999) (39%)

The difference in percentage closed, but not nearly as profoundly. Clinton’s lead at 51% was 53% to 39%.

4. This matches up closely with the gender-based exit polling, which showed Clinton with 52.8% and Obama with 40.8%.

I was pretty shocked by how Obama had pulled ahead in California polls, yet by midnight he was down by almost 20% in the actual vote count. Pundits are claiming it’s all the Hispanics and Asians going for Clinton; apparently everyone* forgot to talk to them over the past few weeks while conducting their polls.

So anyway, I decided to take a look at how the most recent polls compared to the vote count (as of 12:15am – 12:30am on Wednesday morning). I compiled current vote totals compared with RCP poll averages for states with RCP polls or at least a major poll conducted recently. Vote totals are from CNN.com and poll figures are from RealClearPolitics.com.

Significant differences, particularly reversals, are bolded.

Alabama RCP: Clinton 46, Obama 45
Alabama vote: Obama 56, Clinton 42

Arizona RCP: Clinton 42, Obama 36
Arizona vote: Clinton 51, Obama 41

California RCP: Obama 44, Clinton 43
California vote: Clinton 54, Obama 33

Colorado Denver Post poll: Obama 34, Clinton 32, Edwards 17
Colorado vote: Obama 67, Clinton 32

Connecticut RCP: Clinton 42, Obama 38
Connecticut vote: Obama 51, Clinton 47

Georgia RCP: Obama 50, Clinton 32
Georgia vote: Obama 66, Clinton 32

Illinois RCP: Obama 58, Clinton 25
Illinois vote: Obama 65, Clinton 33

Mass RCP: Clinton 48, Obama 41
Mass vote: Clinton 56, Obama 41

Minnesota public radio poll from January: Clinton 40, Obama 33, Edwards 12
Minnesota vote: Obama 67, Clinton 32

Missouri RCP: Clinton 48, Obama 42
Missouri vote: Obama 49, Clinton 48

New Jersey RCP: Clinton 48, Obama 41
New Jersey vote: Clinton 54, Obama 44

New York RCP: Clinton 54, Obama 36
New York vote: Clinton 57, Obama 40

Oklahoma Survey USA: Clinton 54, Obama 27
Oklahoma vote: Clinton 55, Obama 31

Tennessee RCP: Clinton 47, Obama 34
Tennessee vote: Clinton 54, Obama 41

Three of the four reversals went to Obama; the fourth went to Clinton (obviously). And that one exception was the super-important California.

*The lone notable exception being SurveyUSA, who had her up by 10 points, though that was more than negated by Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby, which had Obama up by 13.

“I won’t let anyone Swift Boat this country’s future.”

Those were Hillary Clinton’s words tonight.

Claims like those are precisely what people are talking about when they say Democrats are no better than Republicans, because it takes either ignorance or partisan blinders to not see right through that.

Charades like that are what make people go to someone like Ralph Nader while Democrats accuse those defectors of handing victory to the Republicans.

When Democrats criticize “Swift boating” yet tolerate campaign behavior like Hillary Clinton’s, the Republicans and their Karl Roves have already won. When Democrats will crown a candidate that knowingly exploits racism in her attempts to defeat a black candidate, what does it mean to vote Democrat?

People always assume I’m a Democrat. Disgusting displays like this are precisely why I’m not. Each party has its good people who genuinely want good things for the country, and each party has its power hungry that will do and rationalize whatever it takes to win.

Say you’re going to win, say you’re better for the job, fine. But come on, don’t pretend you’re somehow above the pettiness when your supporters say your ability to play dirty like Republicans is one of your strengths.

“I won’t let anyone Swift Boat this country’s future.”

Whatever.