The Hot Blog

After Obama's cowardly vote to give our war criminal in charge more power to spy, he's a little bit of both these illustrations.

And to all those bullying Obamaites like that hypocrite Wells, who shoved him down or throats OR ELSE...well, love it.

That's pretty funny, considering the "Hollywood" version is the bogus version of the character, the PR version of the character, whereas the "Karl Rove" version is the real deal.

Of course, a number of people have interpreted Hancock as an apologia of sorts for Bush, not Obama -- he saves the day but makes a mess doing so, he spurns Greenpeace and the French, etc., etc.

Obama's not a drunk, as Bush is.

Plus, didn't Rove say he saw Obama as the cynical guy at the country club with the beautiful date and a Martini in his hand who makes smart-assed remarks about everybody else?

Not to be confused with the guy with the non-alcoholic beer in his hand who makes up stupid nicknames for everybody else. Or that Obama wouldn't be accepted into a lot of country clubs. Or...ah, never mind. Cute cartoon.

I think Rove's more like the gangstas listening to rave music...

Kinda odd given that some crix are seeing Hancock as very right wing ideologically speaking. From a post 9/11 perspective, the notion that soft, squishy Los Angelenos have to accept that even though Hancock is an "asshole", he is what they need to ultimately protect them at night from the boogie men they do not want to face.

I cannot in a million years see Obama with the big ole' Eagle on his back that Hancock has in the film.

I agree with Chattaway above that the scenes about the French and Greenpeace and the generally un-PC tone of the film play into this.

Is there something Rove has specifically and uniquely said that warrants being singled out for this cartoon? I don't visit liberal blogs (except this one), and thought that Rove is now just a freelance talking head.

And Chattaway makes a good point about the "real" verses the "groomed" Hancock, which makes the message of this cartoon (in its execution, not its intent) a little blurry.

Yes, the opening bits of Hancock may represent a post- 9/11 view of America, from both sides of the ocean. But, as the film progresses, Hancock makes efforts to be nicer, more polite, and to cause less collateral damage. And, in the end, come what may, Hancock is happier and, arguably, a better hero to the citizens of LA. You could just as easily read Hancock as a parable for the bullying USA learning that it can save the day without being an irresponsible, grumpy butt head about it. America can still save that day and win friends in the process. Hancock wants to do good and secretly wants a little respect for it, and through the film he learns how to get said respect without compromising the good works he does.

Yes Scott, I do not disagree but that would still make the film "right wing" in an ideological sense. At the end, Hancock still has to fight the villains...he doesn't make excuses for them and say that it's the fault of the citizens of Los Angeles that the criminals are running loose.

Similarly, the citizens do not ultimately cheer the villains and want Hancock to lose.

I am not trying to be cute, but from an ideological perspective, Hancock plays very right wing in that sense. Even moreso, with this and The Kingdom under his belt, I would be surprised if Peter Berg was for Obama. I could be wrong...but his work does not seem to come from the same well spring of other Hollywood filmmakers. If he is...then kudos to him for not being cliche in how he directs.

And that Eagle that Hancock has as a logo seems more hawk than dove.

Good post. Here's the underlying point: Rove and his allies see Obama as a threat to their politics, and are trying to make him into a threat to the country as a whole. But to the country as a whole -- that is, white America -- Barack is a star. No scarier than Will Smith, and almost as good looking.

Nicol, I can go into more detail if you want, but for now I'll just say that your last post demonstrates a really skewed perspective that seems to come more from skewed media stereotypes about what non-Conservatives think than from anything in real life.

I'm a huge liberal, and I would LOVE it if our military would organize a bigger military presence in Afghanistan to find and neutralize Osama Bin Laden, for example.

A true liberal would NOT be calling for more, more war. Why else is the Liberal Media falling for a Photoshopped missile test?

Nicol, Chucky is the exception, not the rule.

Being liberal doesn't necessarily make you anti-war. A liberal took us to war against the Nazis and Japan. Another liberal took us to war in Vietnam. (And not just any liberals, but the liberals who created the social programs that drive many conservatives up the wall even to this day.)

It's not even a strictly liberal view to oppose misguided and pointless wars, as many conservatives are opposed to the Iraq War as well.

Yes, there are those that say there should never be war at any cost, just as there are people who believe there should be war at the drop of a hat. Those are the extreme sides of the debate. But a great many liberals (this one included) are in favor of conflict when it's warranted, as long as it's intelligently carried out. Neither of which apply to our current situation in Iraq.

Like David Cross said: "Even Nader would have bombed Afghanistan."

Wow. Trenchant.

That actually seems unlikely to me, but then a President Nader is also so far outside the realm of sanity that it boggles the mind anyway.

The problem is that the liberal position gets identified with nitwits who stand up at awards shows and declare, "War is never the answer." Of course, sometimes war is the answer.

We should be thankful that we will never be in a situation where we have to await President Nader's decision to bomb or, almost certainly, not bomb someone. The same with a President Dr. Paul. Those would be among the few circumstances in which Democrats would rather have McCain in the White House, and Republicans Obama.

Which celebrities have said "war is never the answer" at award shows?

Well the places we should think about helping with troops would be hellholes like Darfur -- but there's no oil there, right? Or is there? Our liberations tend to be corporately selective.

bravo, christian, i bow down to the righteousness of that comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: