But remember, whatever he is, he’s Obama’s cousin, so in insulting a republican we’re insulting the democrats, so …. win-win.

Disagree.

Professional reviewers of many other media, from novels to movies, seem to feel free to include political commentary when reviewing works that have political resonance.

Be truthful – how offended would you have gotten if someone had made negative personal comments about Obama (unrelated or tangental to the review) when reviewing Obama’s recent appearance in comics? Or, if someone made snide comments derogatory to the real Roman Catholic Church, in the process of reviewing “Battle Pope”?

I would not have given a shit. Just like with Brad’s comments.

After all, wasn’t it Todd McFarlane’s snarky use of and comments in Spawn, about a hockey player he disliked, that eventually got him in hot water?

No, no it wasn’t.

You did a special series on Political cartoonists past and present, in recent months. Try looking at the comic being reviewed through THAT lens, without looking at the “educator” angle.

To choose one cartoonist that I featured (at more or less random, as he was the first one to pop to my head), Doug Marlette CONSTANTLY (and I mean CONSTANTLY) did EXACTLY what Brad did in his review, throw in snarky asides about political figures while discussing other stuff critically. CONSTANTLY.

So, yeah, I think you are wrong.

But I won’t thank you for it.

The review would have been fine without the “exaggeration” lines, even if the replacements were other jokes at Cheney’s expense concerning his appearance in the comic. Hell, even my Republican friends had fun joking about the Cheney hunting accident for almost a month after it occurred.

Brad’s snarky comments were about equating the MAN with the cariacture, not the parody itself. Is it off-limits? Maybe not, especially given the target audience of the comic. It is, however, VERY bad form, if you want to give the reviews a more professional look.

Be truthful – how offended would you have gotten if someone had made negative personal comments about Obama (unrelated or tangental to the review) when reviewing Obama’s recent appearance in comics? Or, if someone made snide comments derogatory to the real Roman Catholic Church, in the process of reviewing “Battle Pope”?

You let standards slip for one situation where you may somewhat agree (or just find it funny), it opens the floodgates for all other situations – especially ones you may not want yourself associated with.

After all, wasn’t it Todd McFarlane’s snarky use of and comments in Spawn, about a hockey player he disliked, that eventually got him in hot water? You really don’t want to blur the lines too much. If you want a comic to be educational, like the creator did, you don’t want it to go so far into parody that it will get dismissed off-hand. Frankly, the whole synopsis of the book read like it was meant as a political piece being passed off as an educational one, not truly an educational comic.

You did a special series on Political cartoonists past and present, in recent months. Try looking at the comic being reviewed through THAT lens, without looking at the “educator” angle.