I was sort of surprised that Amy Pohler would perform this sketch after "Bitch is the new Black". When Tracey Morgan said about Tina Fey: "Bitch may be the new black, but Black is the new president, bitch." Amy sort of squirmed as though she was insulted. Maybe she's cooler than that, though.
Posted by: brett | May 12, 2008 7:47:29 AM
The choice is indeed obvious.
Posted by: rudy | May 12, 2008 7:56:42 AM
The viciousness of Hillary put-downs is deeply troubling.
The Obama victory is diminished by the nastiness of all this sort of thing.
And American discourse is diminished as well.
Posted by: K | May 12, 2008 8:59:20 AM
Hillary brought it on herself. I used to admire her (and Bill) and was one of their most passionate supporters and strongest defenders, and think Bill's presidency the best of the last three decades. But this campaign has shown them to be absolutely Rovian in their campaign tactics. Sure, Obama had to fight in order to stay in the race, but he never retreated to the racist, homophobic, Dixiecrat tactics that the Clintons did.
If anyone diminished American discourse, it was Sen. Clinton, her husband, and the goons in her campaign.
In a quest for laughs, SNL has no boundries. It's uncomfortable (and unfunny) to watch the same comedian who welcomed HRC onto the show, later put her down so blatantly.
Posted by: johnny | May 12, 2008 9:13:48 AM
It is a sketch comedy show. They have went after Obama, McCain, and Clinton. Everyone is fair game in the world of SNL. If it's funny, then it's funny. This is not a statement on Senator Clinton or her supporters.
Posted by: Thom | May 12, 2008 9:14:35 AM
This is how SNL has consistently played Clinton ever since Amy began playing her. the skit with Tina was out of the blue and the first time they portrayed Hillz as a victim instead of crass manipulator.
Posted by: Lito | May 12, 2008 9:21:43 AM
I disagree, Wayne. I voted for Hillary in the NY primary and regret it. She and her husband have stooped to surprising depths in their ineffective efforts to undermine Barack Obama. The racial codes used are so obvious, you'd have to be stupid or—like the Clintons—not racist but ready to use racism in order for her to win. Check out Bill in WV lately, talking about how Hillary understands "people LIKE you." Oh, yeah, that's supposed to mean working-class people, not whites only. She had that sketch coming.
Also, I read that when Tina Fey did the very funny "bitch is the new black" sketch, it was supposed to end the way Tracey Morgan's ended, with a correcting "but black is the new president, bitch," but they opted for a more positive ending. So that to me implies Tina and SNL were never fully on the HRC empty-talk express.
I'm so disappointed to be upset with the Clintons.
One thing I'm excited about—if Obama's the nominee, as he is presumptively now, he is going to win the presidency, and he will do it without FL, a state that needs to be put in its place.
SNL being a comedic enterprise that tries to skewer everybody without exception? YES
This should have been expected. SNL has never played favorites for long. Though Like I said, it is overly harsh in trying to play for cheap laughs.
That all said...
McCain delivered unity of the dem party and a landslide win on a silver plater with his recent NO exceptions to allow abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
The so called maverick has sold his soul and in the process left no female Hillary supporter and friends of females room to vote for him. 73% of all americans (including repubs and most especialy indies) want exceptions for at least rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Thanks McCain for delivering eventual dem unity to us on a silver platter.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 12, 2008 10:00:29 AM
I completely agree with you, Matthew. She did have this sketch coming. I think the suggestion that this is particularly "vicious" is naive. Politicians are open to satire based on their positions, words and actions and based on all three of these, this is a spot on portrayal of Senator Clinton.
Posted by: Christopher | May 12, 2008 10:04:37 AM
K, the skit wasn't funny, even though some of the things said were true. But how is this any more offensive than some of the Obama sketches that they've done. He's been depicted as an idiot and uneducated, mainly because Fred Armisen doesn't know how to play him in a believable manner, and not because Obama has shown himself to be either of those things.
Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's accomplishments are not dependent or lessened by the actions of people who aren't affiliated with either candidate. It's idiotic that people would use things like this, or what people write on message boards to attack either candidate.
I think those of you who are offended have some pretty thin skin. SNL has always included sharp political satire. So what? Hil earned this anyway, her campaign has been waged from the gutter.
Posted by: clarknt67 | May 12, 2008 10:51:07 AM
rovian; evil, but not so pretty, not so much hair (on his head), and hasn't seen his penis in 20 years.
Posted by: kansastock | May 12, 2008 11:02:24 AM
I strong disagree with you. I think what the Clintons did was rightly protray Obama with all his flaws and deficiencies. If you think about it, it was prescient that they raised it in February, and Obama had the Wright-Gate fallout in March.
Look - lots of Americans in small towns and red states are, pardon me for saying this, racist. As a visible minority, I had experienced it in America. I think what Clintons are saying is that given this, it would be a mistake for Dems to vote him in primary.
The question is - do you want to protray Dems as diversity driven party, or do you want to win the presidency?
Posted by: Landis | May 12, 2008 11:09:39 AM
While being black is often a liability—as it no doubt will be in a national election in America in 2008—it is neither a flaw nor a deficiency.
Given the massive advantages the Democrats have in the race for the White House this year (economy in the shitter with a Republican incumbent, that incumbent having the lowest approval ratings ever measured, a strong majority of Americans desiring an end to American military involvement in Iraq, a Republican nominee who is in favor of virtually all of Bush's unpopular and unsuccessful policies, etc.), I don't know that we'll ever see a better opportunity to elect a qualified black man president.
It's time for people to choose either to side with the racists or stand against them.
Do Senator Obama's progressive policies and positions align better with your own than McCain's? If so, then what are you willing to do to help him get elected?
Let's not use the racism of others to excuse our own cowardice.
Posted by: 24play | May 12, 2008 11:52:53 AM
I cannot understand why anyone in the GLBT community honestly thinks Clinton is a supporter of gay rights. As a New Yorker, she has done nothing especially different in pioneering to give us more freedoms. Queer leaders from Melissa Ethridge to David Mixner (who was a part of the Clinton team) all make the same complaints, she makes empty promises. Showing up at Pride parades and photo ops with us and the rainbow flag does not mean she's going to lift a damn finger to help any of us. At least with Obama, he's not pandering to be our best friend and with him there is a deep and significant personal context in his life that helps him to understand our issues of discrimination that he would champion. Thank you to SNL for showing the truth about Hillary Clinton, she will say and do anything to win.
Posted by: Lil Tuffy | May 12, 2008 11:55:06 AM
Yes, Hillary supporters in red states are racist, considering that we're also poor and uneducated.
Posted by: BILLF | May 12, 2008 11:56:44 AM
24Play: I am referring to his association to Wright, his policy-lite campaign, his liberal track record as liabilities. He is not the best candidate. I think Obama could have make it work, but he needed to not drop the bomb on so many items.
Lil: I dont think that either candidate will actively "support" gay rights once in office. What you can expect is that they will put a supreme that is not right of center like Alito, Thomas, or Scalia. I mean, seriously, do you think the first thing Obama would do is to support full marriage. This is America with lots of "value" voters. Don't be naive.
Posted by: Landis | May 12, 2008 12:09:21 PM
It no longer matters if you think Obama's the best possible candidate. He is the presumptive nominee, heading into an election in which the Democrats hold every advantage. And the difference between Obama's positions and his opponent's could not be more stark.
You can either work to get him elected or, by continuing to badmouth him, work to get John McCain elected.
Posted by: 24play | May 12, 2008 12:20:41 PM
did you all see the Reverand Manning clip?
Posted by: toferdavid | May 12, 2008 12:48:18 PM
Actually, it DOES matter whether or not you think he's the best possible candidate.
If you think (as I do) that HRC is the better candidate, and BHO isnt, why then is it expected that HRC supporters should vote for BHO simply because he's the "presumptive nominee"?
Isn't that the same partisan singlemindedness that keeps Republicans voting for Bush?
You vote for President based on qualifications - not based on party.
Haven't we learned anything over the last 8 years?
Posted by: Aeres | May 12, 2008 12:49:10 PM
What I meant was that Obama's history would likely scare off voters. I think Obama could play very well in large and diverse states like NY and Cali in a general election, but once he is vetted by Republicans, he will get hammered. You know as well as I do that Republicans play dirty in a fight.
If anything, Obama should have waited until the nation is accustomed to him. Once he puts his name in the hat and loses, he will be damaged property because he has built up so much expectation for him.
Posted by: Landis | May 12, 2008 12:52:53 PM
Your sisters, daughters, neices, female friends will thank you profusely for forcing them to use coat hangers by voting for mccain.
He said this weekend he will not oppose at all the repub platform of NO exceptions even for rape, incest, or life of of the mother as far as abortion goes. He has stated what kind of judges he will appoint.
The next president will get to appoint at least 2 judges to the supreme court making roe v wade unconstitutional if mccain appoints those judges.
For the sake of the lives of the females you know and unborn females, you have no choice. It is Obama or death by coat hangers for them.
If you do not consider that a huge issue then were you ever a dem to begin with?
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 12, 2008 12:58:41 PM
"Actually, it DOES matter whether or not you think he's the best possible candidate.
If you think (as I do) that HRC is the better candidate, and BHO isnt, why then is it expected that HRC supporters should vote for BHO simply because he's the "presumptive nominee"? "
First off, 'the best possible candidate' is like the 'best possible boyfriend'-it's a mirage, it does not exist. They all have weaknesses.
And you should vote for Obama because...
...some people don't want to be in Iraq for 100 more years, or don't want abortion banned, or don't want what little gay rights there are rolled back, or don't want the Constitution gutted further, or want decent handling of the economy, or...must I go on?
But if you want all that, then take your toys, go home in a huff and vote for McCain out of selfishness and spite.
Seriously, it's *over*. She lost. She had an incredible chance to win the whole thing and she and her team *blew* it-like books will be written about how badly she botched this. And she threw everything at him and basically vetted him for the Repubs-and he still won. If she had anything more on him, she would have thrown it at him too.