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 This!! 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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SNL a Hatchet Job Tonight? | 208 comments (208 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.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]

    I saw it (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:14:19 PM EST
    It was a hatchet job. It was inexcusible in my opinion. In it, she basically said that she would do anything to win--but by saying that she played the gender card and Obama's supporters are sexist, and that all of her supporters being portrayed as racists were basically part of the plan. I cringed when I saw it. Even my conservative Mother, who I'm spending Mama's Day with, said that she felt that it was over the line.

    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 / 5) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 3) (#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.

    Well, I didn't turn the channel. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:25:40 AM EST
    I just decided in mid-sketch, when Poehlert / Clinton said "All my supporters are racist", that I was simply too tired to listen to this bull$#!t anymore, and turned off the TV.

    [ Parent ]
    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.

    - Andrys


    [ 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 / 8) (#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.

     

    - Andrys


    [ 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...

    - Andrys


    [ 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 / 5) (#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.

    - Andrys


    [ 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.

    - Andrys


    [ 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.

    - Andrys


    [ 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 (1.36 / 11) (#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

    No (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:18:35 PM EST
    This was very much over the line. SNL has indeed criticized Obama before, somewhat unfairly at times as well. At times, they have taken good comedic shots at both. Portraying someone as a blatant racist and sexist is over the line, tho'.

    [ Parent ]
    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.

    - Andrys


    [ 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.

    - Andrys


    [ 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 ]

    <