Barbara Branden Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I turned on television to see what was happening in Iowa just as the almost-nearly-not-quite-but-likely results of the Democratic caucuses were being announced: Obama 1; Edwards 2; Hillary 3. Yawn. But the speeches by the three candidates that followed the announcement were not a yawn.Edwards, in the fine tradition of all snake-oil salesmen, told us that hundreds of thousands of American veterans of former wars will be sleeping under bridges tonight (sic); that twenty-five million Americans will go to bed hungry (sic); that thirty-seven million Americans are livimg in abject poverty (sic) (he didn't mention that the vast majority of Americans with incomes below the American poverty line have color television sets); and that he would end "the corporate greed that has a stranglehold on America (sic)." I hadn''t realized, however, that he has a great sense of humor. He ended by saying that "we" -- "all of us in this hall" -- have the obligation to win for our children a better life than we have. (A better life than $3,000 suits and $400 haircuts?) Obama said... well, I don't know what he said. I'm sure his talk was everything a victory speech should be -- that is, it was full of ringing phrases worthy of a JFK, of exciting promises of a great future for America., of thrilling guarantees of changes that would bring to all the great enduring promise of America. And from the enthusiastic reaction of the Iowans who had come to hear him, it certainly seemed to be everything a victory speech should be. As for what those ringing phrases specifically mean, what that glorious future is to be, and what he understands the great promise to consist of, I understand exactly as much as I understood before he spoke....But it was Hillary who delivered the unmatchable one-liner of the evening. She began her speech by announcing joyously, "This is a great night for Democrats!" She came in third! -- is that what she meant?All this would be hilarious, if only I could expect that when the Republican vote is in, the Republican candidates will do significanty better. Oh, well...Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It is interesting that Obama is trying to sound like JFK 48 years ago. Good for him; it won't hold up.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara Branden Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Brant, are you sure your memory isn't failing you? It just might hold up.Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Boy am I disappointed. I thought this was to about Moe, Larry and Curley. Instead it about the Dems. Bummer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It is interesting that Obama is trying to sound like JFK 48 years ago. Good for him; it won't hold up.--BrantI don't think the Democrats have a candidate. They have an obvious opportunity, but I don't think the US can elect a black man or Clinton II or Edwards the trial lawyer cum used car salesman. It feels like a 50.1/49.9 squeaker for Huckabee or McPain. Hooverville here we come. Pretty sad.W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laure Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I was interested in how well the Iowa results predict the parties' ultimate nominees. Found *THIS* on Wikipedia. Looks like they frequently pick the nominee. How depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) Brant, are you sure your memory isn't failing you? It just might hold up.Ah, my wishful thinking, Barbara. --Brant Edited January 6, 2008 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Barbara, the stunning part of Iowa was the turnout. Dems normally turnout 130,000. Yesterday, it was 237,000 which is significant. Moreover, the half white candidate won in a state with a black population of 2%. The reps also had an increased turnout, but only by about 15,000. There normal is about 90,000. Iowa has a little over 2 million eligible voters. Once again, .11 of the total electorate chooses who is "viable". Additionally, in one of the most left wing swing states populism exploded yesterday. Finally, both of the Iowa winners are excellent communicators. O'Bama is an orator and Huckabe is an excellent speaker. Add to that the compressed schedule and energy in campaigns is contagious. This small caucus for the dems and a private vote by the reps is representative of anti-Washington, possibly anti-government sounded loud and clear. Ron Paul's ten percent was gained mainly in the independents.By the way, is anyone aware that the reps in Wyoming is holding their caucus is Saturday, Jan. 5th? Clinton's black vote is now up for grabs for O'Bama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) Boy am I disappointed. I thought this was to about Moe, Larry and Curley. Instead it about the Dems. Bummer!I feel the same way. I was looking forward to this. Would Barbara trash the Stooges? (I would defend them! I would challenge her to "Pick two, Chucklehead.") Would she find them pro-life? How about the argument between Nature and Nurture when the one psychologist attempted to train the boys to be gentlemen? They were always great against the Nazis! "Heil Hitler!" said Vernon Dent dressed as Goering. The boys saluted and mumbled "Hang Hitler." And when they hit him with the globe: "You Ratsies wanted the world. Well, here it is!" <bonk> (bird tweeting). How about when they were plumbers. "Where are those plumbers?" I think they were in the closet discussing politics. "Politics!??" Yes, I heard one say that he wanted a new deal... (Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) In the early 1990s, I often wore a flat top. I was working at a robotics firm and one of the other trainers was taking apart one of the motion arms and he needed some help and he said, "Hey Porcupine! Step over here and hold this a minute..." I felt flattered. At least Larry never got the saw across his head like Curley did.Every guy knows: finding a woman who understands The Stooges is harder than finding one who knows football. You find one who knows when to laugh on cue, marry her before she gets away! But alas, this seems to be about three other Stooges.... Darn it all... Moe = Senator Clinton, the mean one who hits, slaps and pokes the others, but who is the most capable and efficacious Curly = Senator Obama, the one who is always in the fray, up for anything, willing to get involved, but always with the mousetrap on his tongue and getting poked in the eye for his trouble.Larry = Senator Edwards, the one in the middle who has the least bad outcomes, knows enough to see things falling apart before they do, but helpless to deal with it because of Moe and Curly. Edited January 5, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 ~ So, let's go to the Republican side and see how The Marx Bros are doing (or, has it narrowed down to Abbott and Costello yet?)LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) ~ So, let's go to the Republican side and see how The Marx Bros are doing (or, has it narrowed down to Abbott and Costello yet?)Well, I guess the ball is in your court to make either of those analogies fit. Lou Costello was the helpless schmuck, harmless and innocent, but lacking insight, either external or internal. Bud Abbott abused him shamelessly. Bud Abbott dehumanized Lou Costello in a way that Moe never did with Curly (Shemp, Curly Joe, CJ-2) and Larry. Moe never denied their humanity. Bud never acknowledged Lou's.As for the Marx Brothers, it's funny but Chico actually had the same voice as Groucho. In that sense, they played themselves whereas Harpo and Zeppo played roles. Also, Harpo and Zeppo had their own dynamic, sometimes in parallel but usually in contrast with whatever Groucho was doing. Chico's actions often had little to do with the plot. I believe it is in Night at the Opera, where the boys come together to help Chico, but he just walks on and off camera, ultimately solving his own problem while the do nothing useful. While Groucho is something of a folk icon for his "wit" (i.e. the wit of the writers), his character was actually mean spirited and cynical with constant cuts and put-downs under his breath, never taking control of any situation. Harpo and Zeppo engaged the action, but Groucho did not. After a few movies (incomplete at that) I stopped trying to "get" it and decided "it" wasn't there to be gotten.So, for the GOP, Mayor SAIC Giuliani would be Groucho. Sen. John McCain would be Chico, speaking with the same voice as Groucho while off on his own. Governor Romney and Governor Huckabee are Harpo and Zeppo (Harpo the "polygamist" being the one to chase the girls, I suppose) and Zeppo being the one with all the lines. (This man is injured! Call for a surgeon! "Stoygeon? Stoygen he's a bigga fish. Waddayou wanna wit dat?")Bob Hope and Bing Crosby are also anti-life. Hope is a wisecracker and that is tolerable enough. Also, the boys do know right from wrong and work to rescue the pretty dame. However, Crosby's meanness is easy to spot even on screen once you learn that he slapped his colored maid for not following orders. When you watch the "Road to" movies from that angle, Bing Crosby is not just an affable crooner. I'll nominate Ron Paul for Bob Hope... but who for Bing Crosby?... Edited January 6, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 MEM:~ I was merely being generic in my refs, not inherently analogic. I imagine that if I search, I can argue some aspects (different from your focusings) of the Bros and A&C fitting some, somewhere. I see little point; as I said, I was merely being generic here. -- Your analysis re the nature of the comedy used by the Marx Bros (and A&C, and Bing&Bob) is interesting, but, I'm sure we can agree that even re the likes of Woody Allen, many do not find the same things...'funny'...about them. This is akin to what Rand pointed out about how 2 people can evaluate the same painting quite differently.~ I never saw A&C the way you see them. Yes Abbott 'took for granted' Lou, but, maliciousness was never, e-v-e-r what I saw in him. Moe was more 'slap happy' than Abbott ever thought of being, to my mind, but in both cases the slapping seemed little more than a 'wake up-pay attention, here' call.~ Never really thought about Bing&Bob (much less, unlike the others, the relevence of their private lives to the portrayed characters.)LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) ADDENDUM:~ Re Bob&Bing: going by your lights, I'd shift them over to the Democrats. Bing=Hillary. -- Ba-da-Bob, Ba-da-Bing LLAPJ:D Edited January 7, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now