home

SNL a Hatchet Job Tonight?

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:08:07 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I just got an email extremely upset about the Amy Poehler sketch on Saturday Night Live tonight. It's not on here for another half hour. Anyone see it?

If SNL isn't on yet in your neck of the woods, here's Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson's ad for Hillary that is airing in Oregon.

Comments now closed.

< Rich Drives A Square Peg Into a Round Hole | Happy Mother's Day to All >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SNL a Hatchet Job Tonight? | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:11:11 PM EST
    Hillary was portrayed as celebrating racism and an "anything goes" strategy - including announcing that she will play the gender and race cards if she is the nominee.  And then stating that Obama would not do that, but she will.  The whole point was to have her adopt all of the slurs against her as actually her own.

    It was not funny, it was labored and actually quite predictable.

    I got the impression... (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    that this was supposed to be a parody of Clinton's image itself --- that it was written to show how absurd the media portrayal of Clinton has been, but Poehler couldn't pull it off.

    I hope that SNL does get a lot of crap for this -- and comes back next week with an "Obama demanded equal time" response, in which "Obama" points to how he's an even bigger "sore loser" than Clinton, his supporters are even more racist than Clinton's, etc.... and that makes him far more electable.

    Parent

    Exactly - it was supposed to be so over the top (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    that anyone watching would know it was utterly ridiculous.

    But it wasn't just that the actress couldn't pull it off; it was not written quite well enough to be cutting edge satire. A few phrases hinted at that, but none were done quite deftly enough.

    It was meat tenderizer satire, and just flattened out.

    I didn't stick around to watch the weekly news summary.

    I did figure it was a twofer: an attempt at biting satire (does it take Tina Fey to succeed that way?) and a sop to the Obama camp.

    Parent

    If it was to be satire of the MCM's coverage of (none / 0) (#245)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST
    Hillary, perhaps it should have used the talking head instead of the Hillary character.

    I remember a snide Hillary-character lecturing the other Dem candidates that she was inevitable on as SNL skit last fall. It was very uncomfortable to watch, even tho' I was a total Edwards' supporter at the time.  It was using the language of the MCMers, no of Hillary or her campaign.  It would come across to any non-political junkie as simply her attitude.  Yikes.

    She was depicted as a cold, calculating female negative connotation.

    Parent

    Agreed -it was a parody (none / 0) (#241)
    by ding7777 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:07:04 AM EST
    Take, for example, the race card, which he has been reluctant to play. As in, 'anyone who doesn't vote for me, is a racist.'


    Parent
    Is that called satire? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't know about this episode (none / 0) (#23)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:33 PM EST
    because I refuse to watch TV anymore...

    Parent
    The Obama supporters' (none / 0) (#254)
    by jpete on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    attacks, and those of the media, have been so  over the top that it just isn't possible to satirize them.

    Parent
    It was nice (none / 0) (#265)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    for NBC-GeneralElectric-RepublicanCorporate ExecutivesWhoWantNoCorporateTaxes

    to order such a skit wasn't it?

    Parent

    How disgusting and I shall not watch it!! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:44 PM EST
    To provide the Clintons as racists is unbelieveable to me after all he did for the AA community before they knew Obama existed....

    And what if it was Powell... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by citizen53 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    or Rice, or JC Watt running against Clinton in the fall?  

    Of course they would not get 90%, but just how many blacks would vote on identity alone.

    And how many whites would as well?

    For all the progress we have made, we have not traveled very far.

    Parent

    Race is topic #1 in WV (none / 0) (#122)
    by halstoon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:48:51 AM EST
    according to the LA Times, Obama's race seems to be his greatest stumbling block, and that's according to WV party leaders.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#128)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:53:27 AM EST
    That is a perfect example of just how wrong the press has been writing about this contest.

    It's just terrible.

    How can you fall for this stuff?

    Parent

    C'mon (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:55:12 AM EST
    How else are they gonna handle this?

    They can't say "Obama is ready."


    Parent

    Obama will provide solutions for issues (none / 0) (#218)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:36:00 AM EST
    during the general election.
    He won't give solutions now to reduce gas prices - but will in the fall.
    lol
    http://tinyurl.com/5p6dh6

    Parent
    How can you ignore it? (none / 0) (#140)
    by halstoon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:04:25 AM EST
    It's not the press.

    "My worry is there's just too many people in this country who aren't ready to elect a black president," said Charles L. Silliman, a retired Air Force officer who is Hardy County's Democratic Party co-chairman. "There's a lot to like about him. But I'm just afraid that too many people will vote against him based on their fears and prejudice."

    That's not the reporter talking, it's the Dem co-chairman.

    Parent

    One person's opinion (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:13:46 AM EST
    does not make all people who vote for Hillary racists, but to understand that you have to accept the fact that people actually vote for
    Hillary not against Obama. However, given that it seems from blogs like kos that a lot of Obama supporters are voting against Hillary, I can see how it might be easy to get confused.

    Parent
    Hell (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:22:40 AM EST
    some people vote against Obama who aren't racists.

    How is it that people who support Obama can't see that? And on top of that, how is it that these hysterical complaints about Clinton and her supporters on these lines does not help Obama?

    It boggles the mind.


    Parent

    When TL won't even let a comment (none / 0) (#178)
    by halstoon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:47:22 AM EST
    that points out the fact that racists do indeed live in WV and those voting in the Dem race vote for Hillary, you know you have a problem.

    TL can continue to stick its head in the sand while accusing Kos and Huffpo of doing so, but it's clear who the party leadership is going with.

    People who refuse to admit that racism exists and is playing a part in this race really don't deserve to be taken seriously, which is why Clinton supporters like TL are becoming irrelevant while those who call it as it is are seeing success in party politics.

    Parent

    there are racists living in (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:57:59 AM EST
    pretty much every state of the US. Sexists too...

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:56:57 AM EST
    What I don't understand is the ready-to- buy argument that a State where HRC is doing very well over Obama is automatically painted with the racist brush.  

    Of course some people will not vote for an AA just as some people will not vote for a woman.  And, in a couple of polls I saw, more people were willing to vote for an AA than a woman, not by much but there was a difference.  

    But, to suggest that unbounded racism is the overwhelming reason Clinton has done so well and will do well in WV is a falacy and an insult to those of us who have not only supported her but cast our votes for her in the primary.

    I voted for her three times.  Twice for Senator and once in the primary.  And, once again if she is the nominee.  

    I voted for her because of who she is and what she has accomplished.  I voted for her because she is the best qualified candidate I have seen in years.  I voted for her because our country is in deep trouble and she's the only one who has what it takes to fix some of the mess we're in now.  And, we don't even know the half of what is truly broken.  It's not a job for a person who is not qualified in the best of times let alone in this terrible period in our history.  

    I didn't vote against Obama but for Clinton.

    Parent

    I Feel Like Alice In Wonderland (none / 0) (#258)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:47:27 AM EST
    when I see the Clintons labeled as "racists".

    I anyone does not deserve that, it's Bill and Hillary.

    The GE is not going to be pretty if Obama is the nominee.  You can already see the start of it with Obama's comment about McCain "losing his bearings."

    Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying that?

    Parent

    It's simple... (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:01:24 AM EST
    Hillary has lost more votes because she's female than Barack Obama has because he's black.  Barack Obama makes a long speech about race and praise is heaped upon him, but if Hillary even alludes to sexism in the campaign, "OMFG THE B**CH MUST BE ON HER PERIOD!" is the response.

    Do some people not vote for Obama because he's black?  No doubt.  Do some people not vote for Hillary because she's a woman?  No doubt.  It goes both ways.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:16:12 AM EST
    that the press and other people refuse to discuss the other arguments that Democrats have with Obama. The constant harping on a very small minority of the Democratic party's bigotry does not help.

    Why is it that the rest of the Democrats who voted for Hillary are voting for Hillary?

    That discussion gets avoided because of the constant complaints of racism. Certainly there should be a discussion of racism in the Democratic party and the country in general. But that's not the main reason Democrats are voting for Hillary.

    It gets even worse when Obama supporters are reticent to discuss sexism and class.

    Claiming that 1)Race is the #1 topic. and 2) a small number of people (granted, possibly enough to swing the race, isn't an especially helpful or consistent argument.

    Parent

    I forgot (none / 0) (#190)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:18:49 AM EST
    that is, unless you believe that the majority of Democrats voting for Clinton in some states are voting for her because they are racists.

    If you believe that is the case, than just say it. Otherwise, discuss the other issues.

    Parent

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:11:22 AM EST
    but Hillary Clinton supporters are 49% of the Democratic Party and, as such, are not "irrelevant".  I know that is hard for you to digest, but I am quite sure that we have valid reasons for voting for Clinton other than voting for Obama because we are racist.

    This argument is ridiculous and insulting and unfortunately typical of exactly the blogs you speak of.  

    That said, there are racist people everywhere of course; black, white, asian, latino and all.  However, I really don't think that anyone here on TL has denied that ever.  It's just not what this argument is about, plain and simple.  And for you to imply that the racists vote for Clinton is quite unseemly, to put it mildly.  It goes both ways if you've noticed or do we need to pull out the data?  

    I am a white man with a black boyfriend living in California, so while I truly disagree with your assumption, I am probably not nearly as offended as the people in WV, white or black.

    Parent

    49%? (none / 0) (#229)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:32:32 AM EST
    I'm thinking we are a greater share of the party considering all the Independents and Republicans who are included in the voting totals.


    Parent
    so, by your logic (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by The Realist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:28:02 AM EST
    every stae that Hillary has won is because she got the racist vote? Here that California, New york, and Indiana. You are all racist.

    Parent
    if Kos and Obama supporters keep calling (5.00 / 9) (#225)
    by kempis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:24 AM EST
    anyone who doesn't support Obama a racist, they're going to race-bait their candidate into the nastiest backlash imaginable. This is not a threat; it's a reality.

    If the Democratic party, as you say, approves of this tactic, then the Democratic party will shrink to the size of a specialty-boutique party.

    Basic fact: you cannot get your candidate elected by spitting on half the Democratic party, alienating them profoundly by calling them racists.

    What non-working-class white don't get is that Obama seems too "weak" to attract working class folks. He's too airy, too diaphanous, too ruminative and tentative. If Colin Powell were running, he'd sweep PA, OH, and WV--and probably win some Southern states as well.

    Obama's problem is not his skin color, it's his "affect" and his utter cluelessness about working-class whites. Unfortunately, it's a cluelessness shared by the DNC.

    You and other Obama supporters seem to have no clue about how profoundly insulting and alienating your "the Clintons (and their supporters) are racists!" crap has been. You'll find out November.

    Parent

    Not only that but.... (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    ...if you keep caling people racists, they will stop caring if you call them racists. So that's not exactly a useful strategy.

    Parent
    the flaw in your argument... (5.00 / 4) (#243)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:12:23 AM EST
    While I've no doubt that there are racists in West Virginia, the simple fact is that the GOP has scooped up the "white racist" demographic thanks to its decades long "southern strategy".

    But there is a 'racial' dynamic going on here.  Obama has gone from being the beneficiary of "identity" politics (where he is able to attract 70-80% of black support simply by being black) to exploiting "identity" politics (and getting 90+% of the black vote as a result.)

    And white voters in West Virginia (and everywhere else) are noticing this, and are reacting to it -- and when combined with Obama's derisive attitude toward the "white working class", what you are seeing is a very significant backlash against Obama.  Its not because he's "black", its because the only reason he won in NC, and came close in IN, is because of 'race-pimping' by his AA supporters and surrogates.

    And this really has to be blamed on Obama himself.   He, and he alone, is responsible for allowing his campaign to portray the Clintons as racists in South Carolina -- and for turning the questions that arose from his relationship with Wright from being about his own judgement and ideas to being about "race in America."

    Parent

    Best Post On This Thread n/t (none / 0) (#262)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST


    Parent
    excuse me, but TL allows oposing opinions (none / 0) (#194)
    by thereyougo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:27:38 AM EST
    even if they don't agree with Hillary supporters.

    You saying that this site allows racist comments says more about you not knowing the difference between the two.

    Most of us feel DKos and Huffington post allows rabid Obama fans trash a nice lady like Hillary Clinton spewing hate filled rants and outright lies about her. One comment said she was evil. WTF? and  people spread that "she's got high negatives' yet she's been met with cheers on the campaign trail and 13+million people who voted for her don't have that opinion of her. Its just the snotty bloggers at Huffpo and Kos accentuate her negatives.

    That was funny when Kos said Obama didn't throw DK under the bus, when he did, by going to faux noise. They just reek of silliness and immaturity there and Huffpo lacks moderation denying her site some dignity,and causing it to lose some of us who used to think both those places were good examples of the great good that comes from the internet.
    But I digress.

    Parent

    There are racists (none / 0) (#223)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:37 AM EST
    of some kind or another in every single corner of the world.

    I grew up in the Southwest. There weren't many AAs, so my intro to racism was directed at Mexican-Americans. I remember a lot of racial slurs in that regard, which I never understood. I do remember my first real boy friend in 7th grade, tho. His name was Miguel Mendoza. He was so-ooo cute! But I digress...

    I went to HS and college in WV and there were racial tensions. My own father was outright despicable about AAs and I let him know it. It has always pained me what a racist he was.

    Then I moved to Memphis, where race is a topic everyday, in a matter of fact kind of way. The paper says Obama is having trouble with whites and cleaning up the AAs and everyone pretty much goes "What else is new?". It's the way of the world, we get it.

    BTW- my neighborhood is highly integrated racially and economically and we get along just fine.

    Parent

    How about some evidence to back up (none / 0) (#234)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:43:32 AM EST
    your claim that RL is "irrelevant?"  Last time I checked, this was one of the top liberal blogs and had grown by leaps and bounds.


    Parent
    Also - many non-AAs are turned off (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:54:54 AM EST
    by Obama's race-baiting and bogus charges of racism against the Clintons. This has been very divisive and selfish of Obama, but very effective. And more proof his "unity" mantra is just words.
    Whites who've spent most of their boomer lives fighting against racism are repulsed by Obama and his followers smearing the Clintons - manufacturing racist charges against them to propel Obama to the nomination.
    Obama gives non-AAs reasons to fear him.
    Who is next on Obama's list?

    Parent
    Some people don't vote (3.66 / 3) (#180)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:55:24 AM EST
    against one candidate.

    Instead, they vote for another candidate.

    There are lots of different reasons that people vote for one candidate or another. These attempts to make  sweeping arguments based on speculation are problematic at best.

    When I voted in my primary, I wasn't voting against any one candidate. Rather I voted for the person who I thought could do the job.

    Didn't you?

    Parent

    Not at all sure why... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:00:25 AM EST
    this post got rated 1. But okay...

    Parent
    West Virginia Poll (none / 0) (#250)
    by sar75 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    I haven't seen the poll, but if race is the biggest issue, and Hillary wins by 30-40 points there, does that mean that many of her supporters are voting against Obama because he's black, thus making them racists?  It's increasingly hard not to draw that conclusion...

     I do think that there's a huge difference between Whites voting AGAINST an African American candidate because he's Black than an African American voting FOR him because he is.

    Parent

    as well as the fact that most men and women (none / 0) (#252)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    ... don't want women bosses.

      It's said pretty openly.  They've both faced some pretty heavy biases.

    Parent

    Very strange (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by nell on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:44 PM EST
    In general, I think comedy shows can make fun of any politician, but tonight was just over the top, mean spirited, not funny, and nonsensical. I emailed Lorne Michaels to let him know what I thought. I made it clear that I have no problem poking fun at any politician, even ones I admire deeply, but tonight was just different, mean spirited, and factually inaccurate.

    Let him know what you think:

    lorne@lornemichaels.com

    you read my mind (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:59 PM EST
    thanks for the email address

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:33:26 PM EST
    Just emailed.

    Parent
    SNL's Amos'n'Andy sketch about Obama airs when? (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:05 PM EST
    Ask Lorne about that, because the Hillary portrayal was the equivalent.

    Poehler's usually a better comedian to stoop to that, but it was as egregious as a sketch featuring Obama using a string of black stereotypes as have been applied / attributed to HRC not remotely based on her public statements and actions -- merely on the conjured fantasies of the misogynistic people who hate her. (eg, she's an ambitious do-anything b!tch just for showing up.)

    Parent

    I just sent another email with your (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Cate on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:16:45 AM EST
    "SNL's Amos'n'Andy sketch about Obama airs when?"

    Thanks! XOXO

    Parent

    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Cate on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:15:02 AM EST
    I just sent an email!!!!!!!

    Parent
    NBC (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by WillieB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:23 PM EST
    GE the owner of NBC and MSNBC must have sent the memo out that this is the time to put something like this out to slow HRC's momentum Going into WV.

    Do you expect any less from NBC and its subsidiaries?

    Re: Despising NBC (none / 0) (#264)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    I buy it.  How many times have we seen the fickle media change its coverage to favor one candidate or another?

    There is NO objectivity in trad media coverage.  It's ruled by their own agenda and that agenda is to create news, not report it.

    Parent

    I couldn't watch... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MikeB08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:31 PM EST
    I can't think of another time that I wasn't able to laugh along with SNL's political sketches. But after Poehler (as Sen. Clinton) said "all my supporters are racist" and that they "won't vote for an African American no matter what", I turned the channel.

    Hmmm, (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM EST
    insulting Hillary
    insulting her supporters.

    Gee, that almost sounds like Donna Brazille wrote the sketch.

    They mock her at their peril (none / 0) (#228)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:27:01 AM EST
    Apparently, SNL is unaware of how Hillary supporters feel about these issues. Rubbing salt in these wounds is not smart. Wonder if they will see a huge drop in ratings next week.

    The clip is available online, but there's some horrifying pop-up covering half the screen that has no X CLOSE button and seems to have no end. I've emailed NBC's technical problems group.

    I thought the Plame/Wilson ad was great. They have more credibility for me than all these reps I've never heard of before.


    Parent

    I hate to say that (none / 0) (#251)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    I found parts of it very funny!  Yes, it was mocking her toughness and the "I'm a fighter" reminders and what was clearly a gaffe in how she pointed to the exit-polling stats.

      But it was so over the top, and her delivery and timing were priceless!, that I did laugh.

      Here's the the NBC videoclip of it.

      However, on HuffPost I see that almost every single viewer is taking it ultra-seriously, mostly Obama supporters, and loving it, saying they captured her well.

      I noticed the audience got uncomfortable with it at points, but the loudest laughter (and applause) came with the smiling delivery of "Second, my supporters are racist!"

      While they apparently intended to joke that Obama would never play the race card, I think most people believe that idea, especially Obama's supporters of course, who decry the excellent analysis of how that race card was played.

    Parent

    MSM (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:50 AM EST
    Folks face it.  Hillary supporters are not the MSM demographic.  The networks, Cable news, newspapers, magazines have an opening.  All of a sudden, the sought after demographic is interested in politics.  What and why are they interested in?  Obama.  It's not about journalism or anything that matters.  It's about "the key demographic" for the commodity that is :News, and the Media in general.  

    We are marginalized by our demographic that is desired by the corporate media.  

    Democracy is now declared dead.  Corporatism wins.  

    Yep (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:15:22 AM EST
    They sold us Iraq
    They sold us Bush
    They're selling us Obama.

    I never bought into any of them.

    Parent

    Corporatism is killing democracy !! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:47 AM EST
    Obama will win simply because he is the perfect package for corporatism.  They know with him as president they will get a long run of the key demographic, darn that BTD, he is right.  

    Parent
    I really don't know about that (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:27:24 AM EST
    The election will bring in the Demographic, but in the end the corporatists are Republican and want Republicans.

    They'll turn on Obama.  However, they've certainly sold him to us for the nomination.

    Parent

    Nope... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:33:45 AM EST
    that is the mistake we made.  They don't care what the viewers, readers, listeners etc are, as long as they are consumers.  They know that the politicians will be bought.  They are equal opportunity politician buyers.  You see, Hillary and Edwards were scaring them, cause they really were not willing to play.  

    If you have a chance read the book Consumed, an ex Clinton adviser.  Benjamin Barber.  

    We are doomed.  

    Parent

    At minimum (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:36:36 AM EST
    I will riot with my vote and my pocketbook, and make sure as many as possible do the same.

    Parent
    Frankly, (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:45:20 AM EST
    they don't care about our pocketbook.  That is why working class people don't matter, they took all their money, they are flat busted.  Nothing to sell to them.  They want those Creative Class folks, who are subsidized by their parents.  

    I think tonight I got it and it's worse than I ever thought it was.  Axelrod threw all the advertising money and the media had a multiple orgasm.  It's much worse than we imagine.  

    Parent

    right (none / 0) (#246)
    by Lisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:05 AM EST
    The "creative class" (AKA the white elite who ran unknown inexperienced Obama because of his race) call the working class "Bubbas" - they care about no one else, including minorities, women, seniors - all they care about is gaining power for themselves.

    So West Virginians (who are smart) see through the "creative class" bull and call them on that.  For some reason, they object to being called bubbas and thrown under the bus.  So they vote for the candidate that has long supported them as well as minorities, women, and seniors - Hillary Clinton.  They vote for the real deal.

    And the CHILDREN of the creative class play the race card in response.  UNFORGIVABLE.

    That's just going to make the resolve stronger to reject them.  Nobody tells West Virginians what to do - and they don't buy it when someone pees on their leg and tells them it's raining.

    I come from mountaineer stock, and I know this for a FACT.

    Parent

    Corporations "shunning" McCain (none / 0) (#210)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:22:00 AM EST
    With regard to corporations favoring Republicans, that's true in general, but there's a new twist.  See "Bush Donors Shunning McCain for Democratic Candidates"

      Of special interest:

    . . .
    Employees from the securities, construction, pharmaceutical and energy industries, who accounted for about a tenth of Bush's money in 2004, are turned off by his record and giving more to his Democratic rivals, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
     . . .
    Obama and Clinton each raised close to $11 million from the four industries through the end of March, compared with $6 million for McCain. In 2004, Bush raised three times more money from those sources than Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee that year.
     . . .
    Pharmaceutical industry employees and PACs contributed $516,839 to Bush in 2004, compared with $280,688 for Kerry, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. This time around, they gave $339,729 to Obama, $262,870 to Clinton and only $74,850 to McCain through March.

    And of no little interest to me,


    During a Jan. 5 debate in New Hampshire, McCain criticized the drug companies for high prices charged to the government's Medicare and Medicaid programs and said he backed importing cheaper drugs from Canada, a position also held by his Democratic opponents.

    "How could pharmaceutical companies be able to cover up the cost to the point where nobody knows? Why shouldn't we be able to re-import drugs from Canada?" McCain asked.

    One of his opponents, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, interjected, telling McCain not to paint drug companies as "big bad guys."

    "Well, they are," McCain responded.

     . . . [ Also ]
    Employees working in the securities and investment industry contributed $9.2 million to Bush's 2004 campaign, almost twice Kerry's $4.8 million. This time, Obama's $7.5 million and Clinton's $7 million from the industry are almost double the $3.8 million that McCain has brought in through March, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

     

    Parent

    You are so right (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by mabelle55 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:39:13 AM EST
    And I've been thinking: Obama has been the media darling throughout this primary season (except for ABC's debate). I wonder - just based on how much of a pass McCain has been given for so many years) how much Obama will be savaged by the media in the GE. I could be wrong, but his media treatment to date smells like the big setup before the fall...

    Parent
    "Media Darling" (none / 0) (#266)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    Obama has been the media darling since his keynote speech in 2004.  He's ridden those pretty words to where he is today, with nothing in between to show.

    God help us if he gets the White House and we need something more than pretty words.

    Parent

    I wonder why suddenly (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:49:37 AM EST
    after age 54 or so, advertisers don't want your money anymore?  The Democrats don't want our votes, the networks don't want us to watch, the advertisers don't want our money.  They are throwing away a lot of income and votes from a huge portion of the population.


    Parent
    They feel we're less susceptible to ads (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    Older Americans tend to be a bit more conservative about buying everything suggested to them...

    Parent
    thanks steellaaa (none / 0) (#239)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    What a great observation, as well as the other follow-up comments. It never occurred to me how this ($$$-demographics) might be the reason for the MSNBC slant....but it sure rings true.

    Parent
    My understanding... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:06 AM EST
    is that it's connected to fandom.

    The other day I saw a car with an Obama sticker. Cool an Obama supporter. Parked next to it was a Hillary bumper sticker. Cool...a Hillary supporter.

    Later that day I saw a car with 7 Obama bumper stickers covering the back of the car.

    There is support. And then there is Fandom.

    This illustrates my understanding of the difference between support and Fandom (and I love fandom for some stuff ::g::)

    I don't like the names...

    Gosh You Know (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:40:25 AM EST
    I really do wonder how many Obama supporters are out there and see this SNL skit (satire or not) and say to themselves, in a fit of clarity:  "Damn it!!! Stop.  YOU ARE CRUSHING MY CANDIDATE'S CHANCES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!!!"

    1?

    2?

    5?

    No more than 7 surely.

    Troll rated by a new user for Describing the skit (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:50:40 AM EST
    ... Stellaaa, how many more do I need for that badge of honor?

    Ha Ha (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by shoephone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:05:34 AM EST
    I got distracted by something on the radio and totally missed the SNL sketch. Probably for the best. It's not good for this middle-aged, white, working-class woman to get upset late at night. Don't want to wake up all bitter and clingy, you know.

    How Refreshing! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by mabelle55 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:28:40 AM EST
    To know that there are intelligent, articulate middle-aged women like us out in the ethernet. I just joined TalkLeft (though I've been getting the blog for awhile). Can't even go over to Salon much anymore, except to read Greenwald's columns and some of the arts/lit review and Broadsheet.

    Thanks for your words. They cheered me up tonight!

    Parent

    Salon? I really enjoy Joan Walsh (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:34:29 AM EST
    She is SO earnest, so honest, and so willing to give a break to any side of the issue.  I read her whenever possible.  That someone as nice as that is in charge of so much amazes me.

    Parent
    TalkLeft's folks too (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:38:17 AM EST
    Upon reading what I wrote I want to add that Jeralyn and BTD are amazing in the same way, but especially in doing so much work to keep the interaction at such a high level here.  It's my first forum stop of the day and the last one of the night.

     And I know how much work it is for people already over-busy.

    Parent

    can I ask? (none / 0) (#185)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:08:31 AM EST
    What's up with the downrate?

    Just curious...

    Parent

    kredwyn (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by shoephone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:17:03 AM EST
    That's really strange! I don't remember downrating you at all. My apologies.

    Parent
    no worries... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:18:18 AM EST
    was just curious.

    Parent
    snowphone - that downrating (none / 0) (#216)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:32:44 AM EST
    I had noticed it and kept a note because it made no sense to me.  Maybe a keyboard entry just moved the rating thing around (I know I have to watch that, as I use the keyboard to PgDn and PgUp and it affects the rating buttons if I've just rated someone.  You can see (and edit) it here if you like.

    Parent
    I'm less concerned about (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:16:09 AM EST
    whether SNL "meant" to be negative toward Hillary. The more pertinent issue is that there is an overt double standard. They would not do the same kind of skit about Obama. That puts Hillary at a disadvantage whether or not SNL intends it to. The playing field is not level and Hillary is dancing backwards in heels.

    You mean (none / 0) (#191)
    by shoephone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:21:52 AM EST
    like this?

    Parent
    Possible (none / 0) (#240)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:01:54 AM EST
    Hillary gets the blame for EVERYTHING. If the RNC runs a negative ad, she gets blamed. If she says Obama has no idea for giving the consumer a break on gas prices, she is called out for negative campaigning. If Obama says she's pandering to the voters and lying, she is labeled a panderer and a liar. If the media says white working class men more strongly support Hillary, she is called a racist. If those are the points SNL was trying to make, they missed the mark and need to apologize. If they were simply trying to add to the bias, we need to change the channel.

    Parent
    Great article (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by chopper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:28:20 AM EST

    http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

    I missed SNL, I was reading this article about Rove engineering this election to get rid of Hillary first, then destroy Obama and win.  It's long, but enlightening.

    Amazing (5.00 / 0) (#256)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    how testy the Hillary supporters are. Did you feel this way after every Dubya parody? It is comedy sketch show which consistently pokes fun at the rich and powerful as well they SHOULD. Although I did not think it was funny, i haven't thought it funny in 20 years but that is an age thing. What I do find funny is people saying "i am donating to her campaign", only in america can a person worth 100 million receive "donations". Now that would be a funny sketch.

    lol (1.44 / 9) (#6)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:07 PM EST
    its all good when they get on Obama and cheer lead for Hillary...

    but it crosses the line when they have the audacity  to criticize her... only Talk Left can you find this dynamic... its why I continue to come here...lol

    Raheem (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
    27 comments from you today, way over limit. You're done till Monday. Thanks.

    Parent
    How can we tell? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Eleanor A on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:29:44 AM EST
    I'm trying REALLY hard to keep it to 10 a day (have been here under 30 days)...is there any way to tell how many days I have till 30, and how many comments I have left today?  (It's 12:30 AM where I am, so hopefully some of mine pre-midnight from this session counted against yesterday's quota...)

    Any info appreciated.  Thanks for the moderation, Jeralyn and BTD...it does help not to have to wade through tons of off-topic chatter.   (Just donated $25 thru Paypal...you'ns are the best!)

    Parent

    Click on your name (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:33:34 AM EST
    located directly under your comment title.

    You'll see your info screen where you can click on comments.

    Parent

    read on (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:24 PM EST
    like i said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    besides, look for me at DKos when HRC gets the nom and all of those "58 state livin'" supporters crash and burn.

    THAT will be my LOL turn.

    Parent

    Me too. hehehe (none / 0) (#247)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    I even have my diary title all picked out. But I am sure that Kos and his little horde of Obamamites will have all sorts of explanations why they were so rabid, rude and ridiculous in their promotion of an empty suit for President. I doubt any of them will apologize for their demonization of Hillary Clinton. What I am interested in seeing is what Obama will do after he doesn't get to be President, whether he gets beaten by Hillary or McCain.  

    Parent
    Actually, you can find people like us (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:57:15 AM EST
    all over the internet, Raheem.  In case you haven't noticed, at least half of Democrats have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  Shocking, I know, but true.  I don't think any of use would cheer if Barack Obama were subjected to racist smears analogous to the misogynistic ones that have been directed against Hillary during this campaign.  

    Parent
    TR'ed (none / 0) (#144)
    by otherlisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:05:44 AM EST
    for egregious lol-ing.

    Parent
    Oh my (1.00 / 0) (#154)
    by shoephone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:16:40 AM EST
    Joe Wilson cut those beautiful wavy locks right off.

    Maybe his new crewcut fits his mood.

    About to watch SNL here, though I'm not looking forward to it...

    Well, it's not becoming ... (none / 0) (#213)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:23:22 AM EST
    They both look so dour and lifeless in that ad, as if they're needing to read the script, though I know he's written some good, strong endorsements of HRC.

    Parent
    To be fair (none / 0) (#214)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:24:38 AM EST
    it did occur to me that maybe his hair was like that due to a procedure he needed, but that was just a thought.  If done for cosmetic reasons, it really escapes me why he'd do dthat.

    Parent
    I share the mood, (none / 0) (#231)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:35:40 AM EST
    but I refuse to get a crewcut. :)

    Parent
    comments closed (1.00 / 0) (#267)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST


    horrible from beginning to end (none / 0) (#2)
    by katiebird on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:12:44 PM EST
    She had Hillary claiming ownership of every Hillary-Hating tag.  I wanted to change the channel but, mister likes to know what we're up against.  I'm still sick about it.

    I still can't understand what the point was other than pure hate.  I kept waiting for a sense of irony.  But no.  

    It just wasn't funny.  

    Well if it wasn't funny maybe it won't (none / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
    get much play elsewhere, we can hope. Is there any good news out there tonight for our girl?

    Parent
    Cuts Both Ways (none / 0) (#8)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST
    The media lulls both sides into some kind of complacency about how they will be treated.

    The media giveth, and then f***s you over.  I'm not going to get upset about the SNL skit.  We loved it when they called out the media and their kid glove treatment of BHO.

    Besides, I think it would be GREAT if Hillary went carnival sh1t crazy on BHO.  Make them all believers that she WILL and CAN go nuclear.

    Happy Sat Night!

    False comparison: Obama wasn't smacked (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:38:28 AM EST
    ... during the skit (purportedly) criticizing the media. He's always positively portrayed.

    Would SNL show him using crack and wearing a pimp outfit -- as racist a vision of him as the misogynistic ones of HRC are -- while the media was fawning over him?

    Or would someone at the show rein that in for fear of the backlash?

    Misogyny is acceptable at all levels of NBC.

    Parent

    But wasn't that accurate? (none / 0) (#18)
    by citizen53 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    And wasn't that really a statement about the media?

    That is the difference I see.

    Parent

    I wonder (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    if there'll be a "rally around Clinton" effect from this garbage like there was during "impeachment".

    I do think the Clintons are somewhat immune to the media because it's pretty common knowledge that the media HATES them.

    The Clintons (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:33:42 PM EST
    are well aware of the media biased against them.  Sure they will point it out but it's something they can handle.  That's the amazing thing about them:  they are truly great statespeople because they are focused on the BIGGER picture and learned to tune out the chattering classes.

    When it gets like this, it's kinda like the kid we all went to high school with and tried so hard to get attn...even if it was negative.  My rhetort even back then was, "okay, you have my attn, now what do you want to do with it?"

    Same goes for SNL.

    Parent

    I actually (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jane in CA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:49:26 PM EST
    didn't know that the media hated the Clintons until this primary race. Did I just not notice it before, or did the MSM ratchet up the bile level for Hillary?

    Parent
    Thanks everyone (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:03 AM EST
    for the clarification.  From 1992 until 2000, I was raising a child alone, working fulltime, and attending college at my local University (I got both my bach and masters during that time).  I can honestly say that I NEVER watched TV, and my local newspaper, which I did read daily, was quite sympathetic toward Bill Clinton. I do recall thinking the media was much more hostile toward Hillary than I perceived it to be towards Bill, even then.

    Parent
    No need to apologise! (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:42:58 AM EST
    Believe me, you didn't miss much back then! It was absolutely insane and utterly embarrassing. Just as it is now.

    Parent
    I was in school for most of it too... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:51:12 AM EST
    and wouldn't have been watching if it weren't part of a discourse analysis class.

    One thing I discovered is that the Daily Howler is generally a spot on place for media analysis.

    Parent

    Jane (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:05:28 AM EST
    I worked full time and went to school full time from 97 to 2000.  The only thing I watched was Buffy and Angel that I recorded and catch up on it on the weeekends.

    When I graduated I sent Bill and Hillary Clinton an invitation to my college graduation.  Of course they didn't make it but I rec'd a FABULOUS response from President and Mrs. Clinton.

    I cherish it, albeit a form letter/card, but at least the envelope was handwritten.  

    Good job on your education and juggling your busy home life.

    Parent

    The media has been after Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:20:13 AM EST

    since before Bill was even elected President.

    This TIME mag cover is from September 14, 1992.

    Parent

    let's not forget (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:25:35 AM EST
    that our left blogs abetted it.

    Parent
    Every day. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:41:11 AM EST
    Sanity on the web.  

    Parent
    I read it every day (none / 0) (#212)
    by stillife on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:07:14 AM EST
    or at least 5 days a week, since he doesn't blog on the weekends.  It's how I spend my lunch hour. Bob Somerby is a hero to me.

    Parent
    I never miss (none / 0) (#227)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:26:09 AM EST
    my daily dose of somberby. If I had heroes, he would definitely be near the top of the list.

    Parent
    Likewise re Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:46:28 AM EST
    His site: http://www.dailyhowler.com

    Just what I was going to mention to Jane in CA.

    The Best!

    Parent

    wow, thanks JaneinCA... (3.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Rainsong on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:04:09 AM EST
    Did I just not notice it before, or did the MSM ratchet up the bile level for Hillary?

    Wow, I am stunned. I was living/working in Europe at the time of the impeachment for about 18 months, with some side trips to Asia. I heard 24/7 about it, fro soemthing like 18 months solid.
    The whole *(^&%^ planet did. You should have seen it on Chinese and Japanese TV.

    Bigger than the Moon Landing. If I thought about it, I could probably repeat the Clinton hate history, from the early 90s through to 2000, in about 5 different languages. Monica's Blue Dress is more famous than the Eagle Has Landed, and subject of global snickering, not at the Clintons, but at Americans in general.

    Coming from Maine, I found it easy to pretend I was Canadian during those years.

    But Thank you Jane in CA, I finally meet one of my own, who just didn't see it that way :) You've made my week!

    Parent

    Not to sound rude but (none / 0) (#52)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:03:28 AM EST
    where were you during the 90s? It was non-stop Clinton hate from 1991/92 when Bill was running in the primary until 2000 when he left. The vitriol and misinformation and non-stop b.s. during the Monicagate thing was unbelievable. All they could do was talk about the blue dress, the stains on the blue dress, where the cigar was, what kind of coded messages Bill was sending Monica with which tie he wore, etc and then would analyze what it meant anytime he or HRC sneezed. All we heard was the shame he'd brought down upon this country because of "that act" blah blah blah.

    At the time, the only voices of sanity that I remember were a) Geraldo Rivera and b) Keith Olbermann (who got so angry about the blue dress story that he just flipped out on the air one day. I saw it and was so impressed that someone could see how unbelievably inconsequential the situation was). Those were the days. Of course, MoveOn was created to "move on and get passed" the situation in Bill's favour. Crazy, huh?

    Parent

    janarchy, wasn't Olbermann a (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:22:48 AM EST
    sportscaster in the 1990s? I don't recall him being a regular news guy during that time. Still, great if he was POed about the press coverage of Monica-gate.

    Parent
    He had a show (none / 0) (#107)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:38:31 AM EST
    on MSNBC in the evenings called The Big Show which was kind of a precursor to Countdown.

    From Wikipedia

    In 1997, Olbermann left ESPN to host his own primetime show on MSNBC, The Big Show with Keith Olbermann. The news-variety program covered three or four topics in a one-hour broadcast.

    When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, the show morphed into White House in Crisis. Olbermann became frustrated as his show was consumed by the Lewinsky story. In 1998, he stated that his work at MSNBC would "make me ashamed, make me depressed, make me cry."

    He wound up leaving over it.

    Parent

    And then remember (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:07:14 AM EST
    recently when Hillary's White House schedule was released, all they could talk about was "where she was when Bill was doing Monica".

    The media was so horrendous to them that people don't pay much attention to them on the subject anymore.  If they were, I don't think Hillary would be where she is today.

    Parent

    which is a saving grace. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:16:21 AM EST
    I just remember when it was wall-to-wall Clinton coverage on tv. One of my fears is that should Hillary somehow get into the WH, it'll all start again (as compared to now while it's only about 2/3rds of the time). It's a running joke in my house that Tweety's reaction to them is Pavlovian. Say the name "Clinton" and he starts foaming at the mouth and ranting.

    Parent
    janarchy, I hear ya, but... (none / 0) (#163)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:37 AM EST
    These are the choices: 1) Nominate a candidate (Obama) who will be mercilessly attacked by the MSM and lose the GE; 2) Nominate a candidate (Hillary) who has already survived 16 years of MSM savagery and will survive another 8 years of the same after she's elected. Remember the MSM and Ken Starr made a national punching bag out of Bill Clinton and the man was impeached for fibbing about a BJ. Still, he left office with the highest approval rating in polling history. That's how the Clintons roll.

    Parent
    So true (none / 0) (#201)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:46:31 AM EST
    Exactly why I love both of the Clinton's!!

    Parent
    Have no fear, Fox (none / 0) (#203)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:01:34 AM EST
    I am all for #2. It just sickens me that this would just be the low volume version of the MSM should we get Hillary as President. Personally, I assume she'll be too busy actually doing things to worry about their b.s. thought.

    I am expecting #1 to take place come the summer should Obama get the nomination. The MSM is his friend now in order to knock Hillary out. I would be shocked and stunned if things didn't change rapidly since McCain is still the one they really want. Of course, Faux News is already on the case and whetting their knives...

    Parent

    hey, are you the same seymour glass from (none / 0) (#100)
    by kangeroo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:01 AM EST
    over at mydd?

    Parent
    It is crazy (none / 0) (#200)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:39:33 AM EST
    That so many people don't realize that the media never liked the Clinton's and, honestly,  that the Democrats never really liked them either.  People were too busying noticing how much the Republicans hated them to take notice.  Meanwhile, they ran the change, anti-washington agenda (sound familiar?) and figured out how to actually win and, even more astoundingly, earn the respect of the people in the process.

    And you know what?  The thing that is even more depressing is this:  If Al Gore had actually truly realized the power the Clinton's wielded he might've taken advantage and allowed them to campaign for him.  And instead of wondering why under a thousand votes in FL and some conniving Republicans were able to take away the nomination, he would've been in the White House and the world might very well be quite different than the one we see today.

    Parent

    And you know who we can blame for that? (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:03:40 AM EST
    And you know what?  The thing that is even more depressing is this:  If Al Gore had actually truly realized the power the Clinton's wielded he might've taken advantage and allowed them to campaign for him.  And instead of wondering why under a thousand votes in FL and some conniving Republicans were able to take away the nomination, he would've been in the White House and the world might very well be quite different than the one we see today.

    His campaign manager. The one, the only Donna Brazile.

    Parent

    Could it have been (none / 0) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:33 PM EST
    that SNL was actually making snide fun of the idea that all Hillary's supporters are racists? I mean they did have Amy as HRC say that Obama was the one saying he would work his heart out if she was the nominee and we all know he has not said that.

    I hope (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:43 PM EST
    that is what it is but if so it was a little TOO subtle.

    Parent
    Americanincanada... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by miriam on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:06:54 AM EST
    That's the way I took it. No one in their right mind could really believe all Hillary supporters are racists (except possibly Michelle Obama, but then I've just excluded her, haven't I?).  My take was that SNL was perhaps-too-subtlely  pointing out how ridiculous the slurs against Hllary are...or maybe I'm just in a daze caused by this ABSOLUTELY ABSURD CAMPAIGN season's rhetoric.  

    Parent
    I was seeing that also (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:23:45 AM EST
    that were taking the Obama Fan Hysteria and having her deliver it. I thought some of it was funny from that angle, but was also not sure how it may be coming across or if I was just giving the benefit of doubt.

    It was almost like either side could take it as they wanted, but maybe the line was too fuzzy given our regular MSM behavior.

    Parent

    I noticed the audience (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by oldpro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:24:34 AM EST
    laughed less and less as the sketch went on...they didn't seem sure of how to react...

    Parent
    Haven't Seen It Yet, But If It Is That Offensive (none / 0) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:04 PM EST
    you can at least email them to let them know they crossed a line.

    Theyll either... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Thanin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    ignore it, or bring it up later as a joke, exasperating the situation.

    Parent
    I never supported Clinton... (none / 0) (#22)
    by citizen53 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:07 PM EST
    though I may have leaned her way.

    In any event, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame should have been used more as surrogates than I think they were.

    Wilson IS an American hero.  But too many times I saw partisans treat him like an enemy.

    Joe Wilson (none / 0) (#226)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:57 AM EST
    When Wilson essayed on Huffington Post, the comments made by Obama supporters there were really despicable...calling him a traitor etc etc.....

    The treatment of Wilson was one of the many reason that propelled me off that site. Thank goodness that Lent is long over, and I no longer need to go there for self-flaggelation purposes.

    Parent

    I think they were trying to skewer (none / 0) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:17 PM EST
    the media coverage against Hillary. I don't know if it worked but that's what I think. they were not going after Hillary but the media and in some respects, Obama.

    They are counting on their audience to know it was satire and to know what the truth of the coverage really is. JMHO

    I thought it was (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:46:06 PM EST
    more sarcasm than a hatchet job. Especially when she said Obama would never play the race card. That to me was a slap at Obama. It was poorly done though, not enough humor and not obvious enough that it was satire (if it was.)

    Parent
    That's what I thought too. (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Iphie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:16:07 AM EST
    But it was clear that the live audience didn't catch it either -- the crowd was completely unresponsive to the one bit she did about Obama playing the race card and calling every person who votes for Clinton a racist. It looked as though she was expecting a laugh for it -- she paused, and then plowed right back into the stuff about Hillary. All the Clinton stuff got big crowd reaction.

    I will say though, that the introduction spoke of her as the "future President of the United States." Whatever their intention was, it seems to have been poorly realized given the confused response it's gotten.

    Parent

    Would an SNL skit criticizing Imus by showing .. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:21:21 AM EST
    ... a women's basketball team of egregious stereotypes be written off as merely a satirical poke at him for making his "nappy headed hoes" comment?

    I highly doubt it.

    Let's face it, misogyny is acceptable all the way up the media chain -- particularly at NBC -- where comments about HRC "pimping" her daughter Chelsea are actually defended without a bat's squeak of wondering how that same comment would play were it made about Obama's family on the campaign trail

    Parent

    I love this ad (none / 0) (#29)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:15 PM EST
    I hope it gets lots of airplay.

    It always angered me how they were treated.

    SNL has been savaging Hillary for years (none / 0) (#33)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    Hatchet job on Hillary is nothing new on SNL. They have been doing it for ever, with the exception of the 2 relatively flattering sketches they did this season.

    I was shocked to see everybody up in arms and whining about the pro-Hillary slant at SNL. I asked myself where all those people have been. Hillary has always, always been portrayed in a very unflattering manner on SNL. Always.

    She has always been portrayed as this robot, fake, vicious and vile witch, even before Amy Poehler started portraying her.

    I knew that these people will turn more vicious because of all the complaining and bullying they received from 2, just 2 pro-Hillary sketches.

    But don't forget (none / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
    "Black is the new president" -- Tracy Morgan.

    Parent
    Full quote . . . (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:20 AM EST
    "Black is the new president, B*tch." -- Tracy Morgan.


    Parent
    An alternative to SNL (none / 0) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:55 PM EST
    Instead of seeking the video in question out, put on a really good movie.  It's Sat night, and I am here at home watching VHS tapes:  Just finished St. Elmo's Fire (LOVE that movie) and just started First Wives Club.

    I am looking forward to the good people of West Virginia going to the polls this Tuesday.

    A funnier video than SNL (none / 0) (#141)
    by Chimster on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:04:53 AM EST
    It's pretty well-done, very dry and very effective. Check it out here.

    Parent
    If you want to post stuff to SNL... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Thanin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:48:57 PM EST
    heres a link Specifically for this skit on the NBC offical website:

    http://boards.nbc.com/nbc/index.php?showtopic=792637&st=0#entry3222247

    Though I think there are only 2 posts at the moment, but it just opened regarding this topic.

    It was just stupid (none / 0) (#39)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:49:10 PM EST
    And I watched a few sketches and then turned it off before the weekend headlines. Figured it would be more of the same.

    It was weird... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    Well, it definitely was a marked change from the earlier editorial standpoint of SNL. I was shocked. It was anti-Clinton propaganda the whole way through, you'll be surprised -- no matter how much you hear about it beforehand -- how little consideration there was for the actual situation.

    BTW: I'm 100% for Obama and found the earlier anti-Obama debate sketches really unfunny as "humor," and though I think maybe this was "funnier" on some abstract level, this was not any more based in fact than the earlier ones. Less so.

    It was a weird and unexpected development.

    Uh, what? (none / 0) (#48)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:58:32 PM EST
    You speak in circles, disqualifying your statements.  If you  liked it, say so.  Jeez.

    Parent
    Sorry for the lack of binary thought... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Addison on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:44 AM EST
    ...but I don't think that way.

    Parent
    It happens to people sometimes (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:24:51 AM EST
    Especially when they're tripping over their own sense of right and wrong.


    Parent
    I find no humor (none / 0) (#116)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:44:32 AM EST
    in this kind of cheap smear dressed up as comedy.

    Parent
    non-binary reactions (none / 0) (#205)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:20:56 AM EST
    I remember when SNL did a skit on what they felt would be Hillary's fantasy about Obama as a president needing her to do the slightest thing.  Though they prefaced this "Hillary" saying, "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this unfair and deceptive message," the resulting skit was, as usual, over the top -- but I could see that even if the concept was of a wish-fulfilling dream (which WAS funny if you were aware of that), it would be upsetting to Obama fans because they wouldn't want him to be portrayed that way, since people just popping in to see it without the preface (or not paying attention), would not realize what they were seeing was just an "unfair and deceptive" exaggeration of SNL's take on Hillary's wishes.  And of course, the old thing about comedy and stereotypes.

      It actually made fun of Hillary! but so subtly done that it really upset Obama supporters.  It was so extreme that I did find it hilarious.

      SOUNDS as if they either were more subtle this time or that Lorne Michaels (who is openly an Obama supporter) was as upset as some others by the real-life Hillary's quoting the AP story's series of exit-poll stats -- and then reshown constantly without that context of it being a response to a direct question about why she felt she still had strength with voters after the prior Tuesday.

      I thought that in HRC's zest to portray working class people as "hardworking" (a description she added) Americans, white Americans (the latter being part of the series), it all came off wrong.

      First, she was about 40 points ahead in the Rasmussen polls in WVa at the time and did not need to say anything to get votes nor, certainly, any flap.  So that whole thing was unfortunate, but it's also clear to me that she should be more careful because of people just waiting for a reason to get her out Now.  The reaction was a mixture of opportunistic vitriol along with some sincere alarm.


    Parent

    SNL hasn't been the same since (none / 0) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:00 PM EST
    Jim Belushi.

    I did... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:41:07 AM EST
    brain short there...was thinking "Cheeseburger"

    Parent
    Cheeseburger? (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:43:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Pepsi... (none / 0) (#197)
    by oldpro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:35:14 AM EST


    Parent
    yeah i saw it. (none / 0) (#45)
    by cy street on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    as parody goes it was a late comer and did not go far enough.  by omitting the fact that nothing in this race has changed since wisconsin, i was left feeling so what.

    so snl finally caught up.

    big deal.

    Actually I think there was a lot of snark (none / 0) (#47)
    by Rhouse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:58:11 PM EST
    near the end especially when she talks about the "Race Card" and how reluctant Obama has been to play it. (" As in anyone who doesn't vote for me is a racist...").  My wife and I viewed the whole thing as a Hillary speech if it was written by the DKos or WKJM, it hit and exaggerated every negative they could.  Was it great, no, but it wasn't the spawn of the devil.  

    Chris Rock (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:21 PM EST
    already answered Tina Fey's speech.

    In fact, Rock started the whole "Glenn Close" meme.

    LINK

    Are you referring to... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Thanin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:03:59 AM EST
    Tracy Morgans weekend update commentary supporting Obama?  Or did Chris Rock do something similar?

    Parent
    Oh sorry (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:03 AM EST
    Tracy Morgan did the sexist tirade on SNL in answer to Tina Fey's.

    Chris Rock started the Fatal Attraction meme.
    Link

    Both are past SNL guys so I confused the two.  (And note, if they had both been white women with dark hair I'd have confused them too.  I occasionally get confused like that.)

    Parent

    But don't forget (none / 0) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    "Black is the new president"  -- Chris Rock

    (who as I said above, started the Glenn Close meme.)

    They've already done the revenge skit after Tina Fey. This latest business is just garbage.

    Uhhh... (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Thanin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:20 AM EST
    this kind of looks bad since it was Tracy Morgan not Chris Rock who said this...

    Parent
    Thanin, why does this kind of look[s] bad? (none / 0) (#84)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:24:44 AM EST


    Parent
    She explained it... (3.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Thanin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:27:37 AM EST
    so it doesnt matter.  And I dont want to get into a whole race debate here, so if you dont know why that might look bad, then I cant help you.

    Parent
    I corrected myself (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:25:10 AM EST
    upthread

    Tracy Morgan did the sexist tirade.
    Chris Rock made the Fatal Attraction/Glenn Close comment.

    They were separate incidents.

    I got the two confused.  I apologize.

    Parent

    TeresaInSnow, you make great comments! (none / 0) (#95)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:32:14 AM EST
    You don't need to apologize because you mixed up the Chris Rock and Tracey Morgan skits. Likewise, no apology would be expected if you had mixed up two skits by Amy Poehler and Tina Fey. Dig it?

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:30 AM EST


    Parent
    The SNL skit was an over-the-top, (none / 0) (#55)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:04:48 AM EST
    amped up version of all the key anti-Hillary MSM talking points, with an emphasis on racism. It was hard to tell whether they were agreeing or doing a botched job of critiquing the CDS phenomenon.

    Still, there's no way they would have put on Fred Armisen (as Obama) and had him parody every negative thing that could be said of Obama. i.e. "Yeah, Reverend Wright, that's the good stuff I can't get enough of. GD America, yes GD America! And Bill, Ayres that is, set it off man, weatherman style." etc. That wouldn't happen would it.

    It was odd that Weekend Update didn't touch on any political topics.

    I didn't see it, but did they (none / 0) (#208)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:53:32 AM EST
    preface it with anything?

      Here's a transcript and videoclip of the skit that drew Obama-supporter ire, and even when the transcript clearly showed it was a take-off on Hillary's "unfair and deceptive" ad and claims of her experience vs Obama's, there was an uproar over it by Obama supporters.

      See the comments on that page despite the transcript below the video.

    Parent

    Comedy is hard... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:57 AM EST
    I've been stuck in the great swampy middle of my novel...and it's first person with a character who is supposed to be snarky.

    Only problem? I haven't been feeling very snarky of late.

    ::sigh::

    The difference: Obama's never portrayed like that (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:27:43 AM EST
    SNL's criticisms about the media here involve slagging -- oh I'm sorry, reclaiming every egregious, conjured insult about --- HRC.

    SNL's criticisms about the media relating to Obama directly show the media being what they are/do but Obama is always portrayed positively.

    Maybe when SNL uses that same HILLarious formula and portrays Obama using egregiously racist frames to criticize "the media", we can do an honest comparison.

    See the diff?

    The reality is too scary (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:31:22 AM EST
    Can you imagine any SNL actor (black or white) portraying Obama and delivering a speech to a roomful of black people and saying things like "bamboozled" and "okiedoke."?


    Parent
    Edgar08, analogies are a great thing. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:43:39 AM EST
    Whenever I see Hillary being negatively portrayed, seriously and/or in jest, I imagine how the script would read if Obama was being placed in the same position. I tried it in my post upstream. Subtext: some "isms" are more taboo than others.

    Parent
    Some -isms are also (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:59:19 AM EST
    more recognized than others, apparently.

    Obama is being lulled into a false sense of security by this double standard in the press, and experience has shown that they WILL turn on you even just for the sake of an 'exciting' narrative.  Unless you're  John McCain.

    Parent

    I do that too (none / 0) (#124)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:49:23 AM EST
    And then even post a comment about what it would be like if someone treated Obama the same way, and my comments get deleted.

    Kudos to this blog for not allowing people to treat Obama same way the rest of the world treats Clinton, I guess.

    But I'm beginning to wonder if anyone is gonna realize anything until they get a swift kick in their rhetorical pants.

    Obama's   ... AHEM.... selling Unity.


    Parent

    Here's a link to a Hillary/Obama analogy: (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:13:44 AM EST
    See this: The Reclusive Leftist has a post where the writer puts the shoe on the other foot. S/he presents Obama analogies to some loony stuff like the Hillary nut-cracker, and other more main-stream, everyday instances of CDS. It really makes the point about the prevalence of the double standard.

    Parent
    Bamboozled (none / 0) (#221)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:13:57 AM EST
    is a real word with a definite meaning (like Obama is misleading his fans) in my neck of the woods.  I've probably said okey-dokie too at least once.  Am I black or just poor white trash?

    Parent
    yeah that would be pretty stupid (none / 0) (#123)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:48:59 AM EST
    Now - of course MANY obama supporters are going to say LOOK _ THEY AGREE WITH ME....but...thats tres stupid -
    I think you just found the problem...and in like fashion, to  the anti-Clinton bloggers like John Cole, Chris Matthews is starting to "make sense."  Sad, sad, sad.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:00:38 AM EST
    Can you please just delete this whole sub-thread.

    done and (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:56 AM EST
    seymour glass is over his posting limit. When and if he comes back he needs to watch his language, be civil, stop the name-calling and the race-baiting.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:41:04 AM EST
    stop the race baiting comments please. You know better than to do that here.

    Parent
    I turned off the TV after the first sketch (none / 0) (#135)
    by alright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:03:00 AM EST
    I wrote to them, saying its not remotely funny, but aburd to claim that saying "obama's support among working class poor is weakening" constitutes as racism.

    TL the canary in the mine (none / 0) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:12:49 AM EST
    People here go out and get the best news, best polls and now they are my filter for the tv.  Thanks to time zones.  thanks to TL.  

    Parent
    I love the (none / 0) (#161)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:23:31 AM EST
    new Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame ad. Unfortunately, though, here in Oregon BO's ads are running 4 per hour, sometimes even more. And on every station imaginable. I can't seem to watch a show the past few weeks without his ads being run non-stop. It's always the same one, too. I'm so sick of them that I have to mute the TV when he comes on. Hillary's ads I'm only seeing occassionally. I'm sure he is outspending her many times over, as usual. It didn't help him in Pennsylvania or Ohio, so we'll see. I don't really get a sense of how the vote is going to go. It may be close.
    Gas Tax (none / 0) (#172)
    by Robert Oak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:39:29 AM EST
    The Joe Wilson/Plame is great but they need an ad to set the record straight on the gas tax holiday.

    She has had a long term alt. energy independence plan for ever and this is just a short term reprieve.  He is plain lying and smearing her on those ads and they love the area of taxes because most people don't understand it well enough to know it's bunk.

    Parent

    Hillary needs to say it (none / 0) (#215)
    by andrys on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:27:43 AM EST
    He couldn't misrepresent her as he loves to do, constantly, if she would just BE CLEAR herself. She certainly has the camera and mic attention !

      She needs to say, during the times she is advocating the summer relief, that it is IN ADDITION to her long-term plan and then say a bit about that.

      She can define it herself.  That would help.


    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#230)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:34:40 AM EST
    she did do that, did she not? She can't control the sound bites MSM chooses to air.

    Parent
    I deleted Halstoon's comment (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:24:12 AM EST
    one more like that and he's banned.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#165)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:41 AM EST
    I was just getting started.

    :-)

    Thanks for stopping that before I said something I might regret.

    Parent

    Thanin's in timeout as well (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:42:37 AM EST


    Parent
    Time Out (none / 0) (#232)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:38:38 AM EST
    I'm amused by picturing the virtual corner where you have sent these posters.

    Dillema: Do the Internets Tubes have corners?

    Parent

    I don't think Amy liked it... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Regency on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:30:30 AM EST
    I know Amy Poehler is an HRC supporter and I don't think she necessarily enjoyed that skit. When someone doesn't enjoy something, it shows. We know she can play HRC, but tonight she wasn't on her game.

    Anyway, I thought it was intended to be satire because it was all so absurd, and so counterintuitive. There was no way it could be serious. Everything they claimed HRC was doing, Obama's been doing. That's who I knew it was a sham.  And that's how I knew I wasn't gonna watch the rest of the show.

    lawsuit! (none / 0) (#170)
    by Robert Oak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:37:23 AM EST
    I just watched it and that was so biased, so bad I think either the Clinton campaign or a class action slander/libel lawsuit is in order.

    I mean that was beyond a hatchet job and of course before the next few primaries.

    I thought I was rather straightforward. (1.00 / 1) (#176)
    by halstoon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:42:53 AM EST
    I said exactly what I intended you to read.

    Parent
    Halstoon , Leave Now (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:45:13 AM EST
    you have overstayed your welcome and my patience.

    Parent
    Frankly (none / 0) (#173)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:39:55 AM EST
    I'm afraid to watch this SNL sketch, they haven't been very good for quite a long time. In fact, I tend to think that show has been overrated.

    But the odd response to this makes me nervous.

    Maybe the nervousness means it's good?

    SNL (none / 0) (#193)
    by mabelle55 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:24:34 AM EST
    Yeah, it was pretty much a hatchet job. We'll see if they do an Obama "parody" next week...

    I was hoping that the anti-Hillary hatred would drop off some as the campaigns moved into the final rounds. Guess I was wrong - maybe just hoping Obama supporters would be a little more gracious.

    It is just hard for me to wrap my mind around the level of hatred directed at the Clintons. Makes me wonder if Hillary will have a future in the Senate (if she doesn't get the nomination or VP spot), both of which seem increasingly out of reach at the moment, despite polls and GE polls right now that show her running stronger than McCain in states the Dems need to win.

    I will NEVER vote Obama (none / 0) (#222)
    by hwebb54 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:17:12 AM EST
    This Saturday Night Live sketch is not even close to be funny. It was just mean and vicious. It's in keeping with the way the New York media is treating her. The Obama campaign has pushed these stories of racism through there media allies (Matthews and Olbenmann mainly) and no one is willing to call them out on there stupidity. This is pushed all the wrong buttons in me and there is NO WAY I'll be voting Obama in the fall. McCain is my guy now. I'm thinking he is going to go back to the centrist views that he held before he had to try and get the Conservative vote. Honestly, do any of you think Obama is qualified to be the President of the United States and all that comes with it???? I don't. Vote McCain but vote Democrats in the Congressional races.

    McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    I too will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. I feel a vote for him would validate all that his campaign and his surrogates, his supporters and the media has been responsible. I cannot reconcile that with my own particular principals.

    But vote for McCain? Not gonna happen. Ever!

    If Obama is the nominee I will write in Hillary, vote for a couple of down ticket Dems I support and the one Green Candidate I support wholeheartedly. I have been a Democrat for over 40 years and have voted  a straight Democratic ticket nearly all that time. (One vote for a terrific Green Party candidate we had running against our Republican-Lite Senator Kohl)

    I will vote because I always vote as a civic duty. Now that I am an Independent instead of a Democrat I don't feel obligated to vote for every knucklehead with a "D" after his/her name. It's very liberating. But I would never, vote for McCain. That too would be against my principals.

    Parent

    Obama backers and racism (none / 0) (#244)
    by Lisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:20:33 AM EST
    Kennedy/Kerry/Dean & Co. ran Obama solely on his race - if instead, they had run a white inexperienced unknown candidate, we wouldn't even be here talking, Hillary would have long ago wrapped up the nomination.

    So here is the question... How do you overcome the Clinton Political Machine and install your own elitist candidate and take political control of your party? Last fall, Clinton was the quintessential Democratic front-runner. She garnished popular support from nearly every segment of the Democratic Coalition: Low Income and Middle Income Democrats, Democratic Senior Citizens with high voting consistency and turnout, Unionized Democrats, the African-American Community and Hispanic Community.

    The Answer... You create your own candidate from a blank slate and opportunistically disenfranchise large segments of the Clinton voter coalition.

    The far-left elite of the Democratic Party had found the ideal candidate: A well spoken, inexperienced junior senator from Illinois... a powerful speaker, African-American, and had never crossed party lines or the Democrat Elitist Agenda on any major issue. The wealthy and elite now had their candidate.

    ...The elite-left understood that with their proportional delegation system, that if Obama could piecemeal together enough delegates through the caucus states, and states with a large African-American turnout, then his home state of Illinois would give him enough delegates to prevent Clinton from overcoming his narrow lead. The Elite-Left focused on imbalanced delagatory policies that existed within Clinton Strongholds...

    http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-american-disenfranchisement.html

    ps.  this lifetime Democrat is voting for McCain.  They misogyny was bad enough, but the charges of racism, beyond the pale...

    oh yes (1.00 / 0) (#255)
    by lilburro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    you have SO MUCH credibility hillarys**.  I'm sure you'll be banned.

    I saw the SNL skit and thought it was okay.  I mean, you've gotta be crazy to think that all of Clinton's supporters are racist.  It's as they say, "Mathematically impossible."  

    Painting Clinton supporters as generally racist does no one any favors, least of all social science.  Give me hard data and a good argument if you want to say voting is based on racism.  Would you like to be called a racist so easily?  I doubt it.  

    Having volunteered in SC, I did meet a few Clinton supporters that would not vote for Obama based on his race.  It infuriated me.  Their racism was deeply held.  But that certainly isn't true of all Clinton supporters.  Even marginalizing the racists in the Clinton camp doesn't do anyone any good.  What do you think will happen to them if Clinton loses?  I believe that people can be made to vote beyond their prejudices if they see greater goals (economic issues, or healthcare, or the war, etc.)  The racists in the Clinton camp are obviously on board with the goals of Clinton - there has to be an effort to keep them on board for the largely similar goals of Obama.

    Parent

    how good is hillary (5.00 / 0) (#259)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    when she cannot beat a freshman senator when she was all but ordained last fall? I think the Hillary camp needs to look at her campaign's inability to beat what her camp calls "an inferior" candidate. If she cannot beat a freshman senator, how is she going to beat the prom king?

    Parent
    Come back with a new sn. (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by lilburro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    Actually don't come back.  Why would I even care about your take on social problems, which is thus far both an OFB talking point parody and completely discredited by your screename?

    Parent
    your name is "Hillary's Cock" - nice (1.00 / 0) (#257)
    by Lisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    Enough with the false naivte - with a screen name you chose like "Hillary's cock", I'm not buying it.

    And the false indignation about racism - while you accuse people you don't even know nor care to understand of racism to promote the election of a man you don't know, either.

    What I am buying is that you know nothing about politics - what goes on in every county in every state of the union, every day.

    And you are doing Obama no favors - it may seem to a limited worldview that calling people racist is helping him, but to me, it's a cry of desperation.

    Kennedy, Dean, etc. see what is going to happen in November, all because of their miscalculations.  Heed their cry, and go down with them.

    I'm an American first.  I'm not going to elect someone unqualified to the highest office in the land.  I'll leave that for you to attempt, by choosing sexist screen names and falsely accusing people of things on a blog.

     

    Parent

    SNL a Hatchet Job Tonight? | 205 comments (205 topical)