Categorical Aperitif

Help me out here. Mikhaela Reid (who knows a thing or two about Mitt Romney's being-rewritten-as-we-speak history) has up a neat little post where she asks for input about a pair of Romney-related cartoons—sort of a first version, second version thing. The post itself is enlightening—oh, please let there be pictures of chiseled Mitt pressing the flesh in gay bars—but I'm more interested in the question she asks about the two cartoons. I honestly think that the second one is superior to the first, but most of her commenters take the opposite view. I think that the first version, while good, is a little too obvious—I think the ending is kind of flat, and I think it pretty much just hits the reader over the head with the Mitt-is-a-history-rewriting-hypocrite message, which was already made nicely earlier in the cartoon. The second, though, takes the ending in a more interesting, more adventurous direction that adds a nice layer of extra thoughtfulness and complexity—and makes the whole thing more comically effective. Or so it seems to me, anyway. The handful of you who read this blog have well-developed senses of humor; I'm curious what y'all think. Am I just way off in weird field for finding the second one clearly superior to the first? Check 'em out if you have a few moments.

And check out this one and this one and this one too, while you're at it. Ooomph!

Labels: editorial cartoons

// posted by nash @ 8:27 AM