Run that by me one more time…
It’s your basic two-panel political cartoon; a simple comparison designed to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. On one side you have a world-weary Joe Paterno who “knew about a sexual predator” and is thus labeled by society as a “scumbag”. On the other side, you see a grinning, pants-less Bill Clinton with a certain beret-wearing woman on his lap and a winking donkey giving the A-OK sign in the background. The arrow pointing to Clinton says “sexual predator”, but the public label remains “statesman”.
In this horrible cartoon by Glenn McCoy, what exactly is the point the artist is trying to make? That anti-Paterno sentiment is a convenient political position and not a reasonable moral judgement? Or is Mr. McCoy seriously trying to equate an inappropriate sexual relationship with another consenting adult to the sexual assault of children? Implicitly comparing the sexual misbehavior of former President Clinton with a White House intern to Jerry Sandusky’s rape and sexual assault of numerous children over a number of years is unconscionable. Sexual harassment in the workplace or leveraging a position of power to coerce a sexual relationship is wrong, no question. But to imply that behavior is in the same league as sexually assaulting children is grossly irresponsible satire at best, and at worst, deplorably dismissive of the harm real sexual predators inflict.
I’m familiar with Mr. McCoy’s work. I lean liberal and he leans conservative. I generally don’t agree with his point of view, but that does not mean I don’t appreciate his satire when it is clever or interesting, which often it is. However, this particular cartoon adds no value, but rather further contributes to the sinking standards of public discourse. The cartoon appears to compare Paterno to Clinton to show the unbalanced way we have judged the non-criminal actions of these two men. But the true “sexual predator” comparison is not about Paterno, but between Clinton and the horrific criminal actions of Jerry Sandusky.
Take away the comparison to Clinton. Take away the image of Joe Paterno. What would you call someone who knew about a man sexually preying on children and did nothing? I’d call him a scumbag.
And in response... 
Yeah, I’m gonna comment on this one. While I agree that the cartoon is dumb, but I think you misinterpreted the message. McCoy isn’t conflating Sandusky’s acts to Clinton’s, he’s commenting on the public scorn being heaped on Paterno (who apparently covered up child rape, but did not engage in immoral sexual acts himself) with the adulation that Clinton continues to receive in his post-presidency- much to McCoy’s chagrin. Even still, the comparison of a failure to protect children from abuse to adulturous activities uncovers McCoy’s real position is that either 1. Extra-marital sexual activity should be criminalized or 2. Allowing child rape to go unchecked does not qualify someone as a scumbag. I suspect the bottom line is that this whole thing is a tantrum over the fact that most of the world has moved on from the 90’s while McCoy sees some reason to foment Clinton-Hate as if he is running for office again. If McCoy wants to go back to the late 90’s can he pick me up the new Spin Doctor’s album at Sam Goody? That band rocks.
I agree with Matt. Nothing to add here 🙂