Compared to his two most recent predecessors, Barack Obama is a difficult man to mock. But on Thursday night at the Republican National Convention, Clint Eastwood tried to do what Saturday Night Live has found to be incredibly difficult: Mine laughs at Obama’s expense. And Eastwood’s ridiculing tone undercut Mitt Romney’s effort to appear more sad than angry at Obama’s “failure.”
The joke, it turned out, was on Eastwood: He looked foolish, and his trademark whisper sounded feeble. Eastwood’s ability to keep working at a high level in his 80s has been celebrated. Now his only hope is that people will give him a pass because of his age.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
Eastwood debated an empty chair and lost. It didn't make anyone's day.
Clint Eastwood was the unvarnished face of Mitt Romney's constituency. After all they fell all over themselves to get the actor on the stage. Since they built it, they own it.
So Peter says you can't mock Obama the way that you could mock W or Clinton. Because he's our first black president. I didn't know that there was affirmative action in political discourse. And of course Republican strategists are more concerned about Obama's symbolic importance than about his record. Because he's our first black president, and his record is awful. Even Obama isn't planning to say that he's done a good job, such an assertion would be met with derision.
I think you should read the article again ..... he didn't say you can't mock him because he's our first Black president. It's because of who he is ..... he is not an empty chair and more importantly I cannot imagine that this President would tell anyone, let alone an aging actor/director/former mayor to "shut up". I cannot imagine this President ever telling his opponent to, how did Eastwood phrase it, do something to himself (implying we all know what). This President, irrespective of what you think of him, is too cool and composed to tell someone off like that, although I wish he would call out the lies both Romney and Ryan and their minions spouted this week.
Careyann, I think you're forgetting that Obama is a veteran of Chicago politics where telling someone to go f yourself is seen as a horrible thing. Are you forgetting his first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, likely the most foul-mouthed chief of staff ever? If he were so everse to this type of language you wouldn't have a right hand man who spoke like that. Obama doesn't mind having a couple beers, smoking cigarettes, and snorting coke (back in the day) so let's not try to turn him into a choir boy.
This comment has been removed.
Eastwood's "speech" is the talk of the airwaves and gives the progressive networks a gift. It was rambling, nearly senile, profane and rude to the office of the presidency. It was a despicable use of language INTRODUCING Romney to the public in primetime yet. So they do not like the president BUT for Eastwood to use the simulated "F" word bomb in his "act" talking to an empty chair is emblematic of the low, vulgar nature of discourse in our political scene. Many so called "conservatives" in the hall clapped naturally but many did not. I think they knew Democrats would use this to blast Romney. It is why my writing is often sharp because I believe now fire must be fought with fire. It is the only modality of conversation conservatives seem to understand. They are imprecise, impolitic and impolite to say the least.
I thought the conservatives were opposed to the profanity and loose language the late Sixties ushered in. Guess not when it is an African American president they are addressing! Eastwood was rambling, his facts were wrong, he appeared disjointed and disheveled. I bet it did not make Romney's day but he surely made mine!
But Obama is an empty chair (suit, head, whatever you want to call it). His record lack of accomplishments says it all. Come on Peter, you just don't like Clint's message and then you throw the age card ... tsk tsk.
Totally disagree with you. I'm an independent and enjoyed the speech. It's refreshing to see something done with humor and not some political hack droning on. He pointed out the promises Obama made and has not fulfilled. In recalling the night Obama was elected he brought us back to a time where there was so much hope for change. After four years not much has happened and, as Clint pointed out, having 23 million unemployed Americans is something to cry about. I don't think it was fair to take him to task on Iraq and Afghanistan when it was the previous administration, led by most likely the worst president ever, that got us into these unwinnable wars. It's a lot harder to get out of something than to start it. Other than that I thought he made valid points in a humorous fashion. The speech hardly backfired.
As an independant and former Democrat, I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Eastwood. A little humor doesn't hurt anyone. Anyway in this case an empty chair equals an empty suit. I left the Democratic party two years ago because of this inept President. I regret to say that I voted for him in '2008. With the economy in the tank, and a listless President with no solutions, you can be assured that I won't make that mistake again. I am not thrilled with Romney but with over 15 million people out of work, there is NO way, he gets my vote again.
Obama has saved the US economy, slowed the growth of government, brought health insurance to millions, doubled the amount of clean energy used in this country, and all this while the Tea Party Republicans set up barriers in Congress. He's done an amazing job! Romney/Ryan want to take us back to the Bush policies that sent the economy down the drain! And Obama won't try to turn back the clock on women's rights! OK, so we want the economy to do even, better, but the Romney/Ryan policies will actually do _more harm_! Voting for Romney is just... well... it makes about as much sense as talking to an empty chair.
Add actors to the "no kid or animal acts" list.
Voting for Romney/Ryan makes about as much sense as talking to an empty chair.
Several points: 1) Clint's little screenplay might have worked much better in film; there need to be quiet and relaxation in the background; like when he talks to himself that the woman walking is interested if she turns and looks back, or even when he bemoans that with sex interrupted by a phone call he now has to put all his clothes right back on; the context was not quiet, relaxed and contemplative, 2) He is now starting to look more feeble than touch and wise; he should have had a new suit tailered that didn't have gaps at the neck, 3) But basically the Repubs scheme is to make up negative stuff (ie, lie) about Obama, and make up positive stuff (sound bites, glib sounding principles, tie-ins to family and heart) that are off on a tangent; for instance, I don't get "excited" no matter who the VP nominee is because he is mostly ceremonial -- everyone knows that; also, the wife of the President is a wife and not much involved in the government.
I think if the Repubs wanted to win they would have been honest about what Obama has accomplished in spite of the very bad environment he inherited (he's done a GREAT job in my judgement), and they would offer, perhaps, more effectiveness in getting certain things done, and more "great ideas"; to say that they can handle the deficits better after they vote against tax increases is simply not credible.
Beware, the electorate if often stupid and often uninformed, but the internet is slowing wising people up. And that will continue and accelerated as the new ways of viewing things are incorporated into life and become "culture".
You can't hem and haw and paw the ground to get the right wing simple-minded on board and then change the "act" to go after the independents...
By the way, I think Obama is doing an excellent job and we are very lucky to have him in there (and apparently shouldering the burdens of the job quite well).