Today on Blogcritics
Home » Satire: Crying for Comic Relief

Satire: Crying for Comic Relief

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

No matter what the political interpretation, in comparison to a Greek play “Britney” is more likely a tragedy, “Hillary” more likely a comedy.

Britney is a world-class performing athlete whose arrogance regarding her demonstrable and extraordinary dancing and singing abilities, her culture-altering beauty and her unparalleled physical appeal has laid her low. Her will is Promethean, even if her judgment is not. And the consequences of her pride, melded with her stubbornness, will continue to spiral her into inevitable destruction.

Driven by apparent divine insanity, what ancient Greeks called ATE, she has destroyed, to the limits of her Herculean strength, her children and her family and herself. If Britney were to die no one would be surprised and very few would laugh. Oedipus in a leather thong — or not. Though she has cried, Britney has never publicly cried the helpless tears of pathos. And that is likely because she knows exactly what will happen if she ever does. She will be mocked beyond her wildest self-destructive fears.

Were Britney to cry publicly the tears of “Oh my I try so hard to be good,” then certainly we would laugh at her. Then the inevitability of her horrible end would become comic rather than tragic. When the buffoon is hit by a rubber chicken we laugh. But Britney’s public tears have been tears of fury in league with action. She may be mad but she is no buffoon. “Kill those ***** reporters!” The pretentious tears of a petty tyrant are most always a bit comedic when followed by just desserts. But the tears of the great, even the great in perverse action, facing inevitable doom are more likely horrifying. Character and arrogance, followed by external retribution is tragedy.

Now Hillary, on the other hand, if she loses the primary to Obama, after her now second well-mannered and entirely appropriate tear, that, I’m afraid, will simply be funny. All of her detractors will gloat over the irony. See? There they go again — a family tradition, the continuation of the ambiguity of “is.” (“President Clinton, is it true you had sexual relations in the Oval office with Miss Lewinsky?” “Well, investigator Starr, it all depends on the meaning of 'is.' After all what is sex?”)

Is a welling eye the same as crying? Did she cry or not? Once again, it all depends on the meaning of “is.” Though the sin repeats, the House of Clinton is certainly not the house of Atreus. The self-convinced slipping loose of a strategic tear of self-pity mixed with the arrogant expectation of deserved political victory, delivered to an audience of her Birkenstock baby boomer peers cheering her on — that is comedy in the making.

Yes, Hill, we can cry on cue, too. Yes, Hill, you are one of us. Oh how authentic in your inauthenticity, oh how refreshing, how exhilarating that you will cry for us, for US. Oh, we LOVE you for crying for us! But if Hillary’s strategic tear is followed by the reality of an Obama victory the rest of the world will roar at the comedy of it. Hillary’s ocular moment will then become grand vaudevillian buffoonery. Overtly crying for personal gain is unambiguously comic relief: Charlie Chaplin ringing buckets of self pitying tears from his hat. No Hillary, you don’t deserve to win, you just think you do. Of course, if she does win, well then the second tear was unalloyed brilliance.

In the words of another William, “So much depends on a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside white chickens.” So much depends on the meaning of “is.”

Powered by

About carmine

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    That anyone is so attuned to what’s happening with Briteny Spears is beyond my understanding. But, then, I’m one of those old guys who doesn’t have a clue.

    Now, again we see HC villified for showing emotion, emotion that is presumed a charade.

    As I’ve noted a couple of times elsewhere, Romney has teared up at least twice over the past few days or weeks with virtually no mention of it in the media or here at BC. I guess it’s just assumed that Mitt is crying over the twenty five or so million dollars of his own money that has gone down the drain for his campaign. Crying over lost money, I guess, is acceptable. Crying for votes is not.

    Hillary doesn’t “deserve” to win? Hmmm. She deserves it if she gets out there and gets the goddamn votes. If you believe that she is winning over voters with her emotional displays, then you don’t have any respect whatsoever for the people of this country. Give them some fucking credit, for crap sakes.

    Hillary has put together far more detailed and substantive positions as regards the current issues than has Obama. She goes to some length in her appearances to detail the hows and whys of her programs. Obama’s nuts and bolts details of how he intends to implement his programs is less specific than Clinton’s.Generally, his stump speeches are long on hyperbole and emotional appeal, but short on specifics. Still, on the whole, they are not that far apart as regards most of the important issues.

    I don’t see either of them with a particular advantage at this juncture. But, neither do I see Hillary gaining any advantage with her “outbursts.” Should she make it to the Oval Office, all of you Hillary haters will just have to suck it up. Sort of what I’ve been doing for the past 7 plus years.

    B-tone

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Yawwwnnnnn