« Colin Powell for Obama's VP | hamiltonian's Blog | Michelle vs. the Bubble Boy »

Obama's Supposed Lack of a Sense of Humor


In reaction to the New Yorker cover contoversy, Maureen Dowd has a typically insipid, meandering, self-congratulatory piece today about Obama's supposed lack of a sense of humor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16dowd.html?hp


She quotes from comedians, such as Kimmel, complaining of a "weird reverse racism" going on because of their audiences' reluctance to laugh at Obama.  Apart from the fact that Maureen Dowd is the least-qualified person I know to explain what we should find funny,  
this analysis, offered by the likes of Kimmel and Leno, seems wildly off-base and speaks volumes about how insulated so-called "entertainers" are from the real world.

First, the article ignores the generational shift going on in this election, which I think explains a lot of the supposed "reluctance" to laugh at Obama.  Among those Generation Xers who have just started families, and younger voters in their 20s and those in college, who make up a large percentage of the late-night viewing audience, there is a pervasive sense that Obama "gets it" and gets us in a way that no other presidential candidate has before.  To cite just one frivolous example, his ability to "brush his shoulders off" in the middle of stump speech establishes a connection with younger voters.  Such coded allusions to pop culture, which younger people make all the time in everyday conversation, speak volumes about the kind of person Obama is and where he's coming from.  We know this guy -- he's one of our friends.  And he seems a heck of a lot cooler and in-touch than someone like Maureen Dowd or Jay Leno, who represent the old guard and old media.

Second, and more importantly, Obama has dedicated himself to public service at a time of national crisis, when America is on the brink of falling well behind the rest of the world in terms of economic development and quality of life.  These are not funny times.  There's nothing funny about our economy, the mindless and costly war in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the potential for Iran and Israel to get into a war, global warming, growing religious terrorism and extremism, the abuses of human rights being perpetrated by our own government and by others, the problems with our food quality and supply, etc., etc.  I'm not saying that Obama will solve these problems, but at least he represents a break with the past, and embodies the potential for a new generation of Americans to lead us in a new direction.  It's almost as if these comedians are complaining that Obama is not funny because he's not as shallow, irrelevant and useless as them.      

That's not to deny the real potential for a goofy excess of rigtheousness among Obama supporters.  But after 8 years of being ruled by someone who seems to take everything as a joke, including sending young Americans to die in Iraq for no reason (remember W's hilarious "where are those WMDs?" skit for the National Press Club???), I think it's refreshing to have someone running for office who takes our problems, and his responsibility, seriously.   We can laugh at him later, once he's in office.


13 Comments

| Leave a comment

I wonder what would happen if we got a chance to vote on a candidate like Franklin Delano Roosevelt again. Would Maureen Dowd lament that FDR is just totally humorless and uncool because its just not funny to make fun of the disabled?

Not humorless. A girly man.

You will see how much of a girly man Obama is when he goes mano a mano against McCain.

On second thought, that is an unfair thing to say, since there are 26 years separating the two. It is an unfair fight, but nobody forced McCain to run.

I think MoDo, trying to be the "super hip 'it' girl" is trying too hard and failing.

Watch Obama's campaign stops and he is quite funny, often making jokes about himself -- and getting the best laugh out of himself, sometimes making himself so hard he has trouble getting the joke out. He is also very sardonic and delivers his best lines deadpan.

What? You want slapstick? Vote for Jerry Lewis.

Hey Laaaaaaaa----deeeeeeeee!

user-pic

Obama has a very good sense of humor (remember the joke about how winning Iowas was "just like he thought it would be in Kindergarden"?). But there seems to be no downside to maintaining a serious posture during most campaign events--it is respectful, dignified, and most of all it avoids potential horrible gaffes such as the many McCain has made.

You win the Funniest Title Award.

Too bad these are not funny times or we'd send you your check.

A companion piece of "Obama has no sense of humor" idiocy was all over cable news tonight, too. Just recently Chris Matthews was just about rolling on the floor laughing at Obama's "Dr. Phil" line (which I actually didn't think was that funny). Many also lauded Obama's self-deprecating humor when he joked about his ears on fitting on Rushmore. Today there was no record of that humor remaining. Apparently these folks can't even remember what they said last week or last month if it doesn't fit the narrative of the day. Today, McCain's backhanded praise of Obama at the NAACP apparently was dubbed the height of comedy.

I don't give a damn about whether Obama can crack a joke. I just want him to do a competent, honest job as President.

Regarding Obama and humor: I'll look forward to the jokes Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert make about Obama during his two terms in office.

Since when has anyone ever looked to The New Yorker for humor? Has anyone around here had any experience with their cartoons? Usually they're just incredibly fucking stupid. At best they're recognizable as attempts at humor. But they're not funny.

And MoDo--she's getting too goddamn old for that smirking, high-school-cool snark. She's just a mean old lady, and she's pathetic because she has no idea how increasingly ridiculous she looks.

There was some difficulty getting Obama on their show once he realized the Daily Show wasn't part of the Daley Machine.

You're a humor specialist at The New Yorker, aren't you?

The New Yorker does not do humor. What it does is reach for wittiness, not out-and-out funny. Their standard for wit is of course their cartoons, and the whole point of their cartoons is to make you smile, at best titter. A New Yorker cartoon you can actually laugh it is a rarity, and editorially they would consider it a vulgar response.

Their fiction is of another order. The point of any story in the New Yorker is to say as much as possible with as little as possible actually happening in the way of plot or event. It is all character delineation, nothing going on.

Conclusion: It is not that the New Yorker is elite. Elite is fine if you can carry it off. No, the New Yorker is effete.

I enjoy a lot of the fiction published in The New Yorker. But their...er...humor?--a waste of space.

This is such a non-issue. I read through Ryan Lizza's loooong piece in the New Yorker (yeah, the cover is stupid, but the article, while not ideal, isn't bad). I can only paraphrase at the moment, but there's an exchange from the IL legislative floor, in which another pol (one who doesn't like Obaama, find him uppity) asks, "Obama: is that Irish?" BHO responds with 'It will be when I run countywide." Then the guy goes on to give him a hard time, and Obama chimes in to say, on the record, "I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention." I laughed out loud. He has an EXCELLENT if wicked sense of humor.

Leave a comment

hamiltonian

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address