Tuesday, May 13, 2008

SNL's Shameless Skit...


Where is the outrage?

On May 10 Saturday Night Live aired a skit depicting a faux- Hillary Clinton that was mildly funny until they labeled Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, as racists. That is offense in the extreme and patently false. Sure, there are some who happen to be racist or misogynistic in both coalitions, but this is not due to the campaigns themselves and to suggest otherwise is divisive and irresponsible.

Of course, one doesn't look to SNL for responsible behavior, but one would expect the news media and pundits to snap up this thoroughly baseless, hate filled, slur against, not only Hillary Clinton, but white America and the Democratic Party.  The fact that this skit has only received marginal play, and only for comic effect, indicates once again the medias love affair with Barack Obama.  

Imagine if SNL aired a skit during the Rev. Wright hub-bub, with a faux-Obama speaking to the camera and saying, "I don't support Rev. Wright's words or actions" wink- wink "nor, do I believe in any of the Reverend's racist rhetoric" wink-wink "Furthermore, black Americans love this country, as do I"  wink - wink. 

If they were to air such a skit SNL would have been skewered by every major liberal media outlet in the country, as well as all over the blogosphere.  And, rightfully so!  Where is the condemnation in defense of Hillary and her coalition?

I understand Clinton generates passionate opinions, both positive and negative, but this type of television is disgraceful and offends a huge voting block by calling them racists, and the utter lack of outrage from the news media is indicative of their own bias in this primary campaign.   

-CDT

5 comments:

Hans said...

Sure, SNL's skit portraying HRC's supporters is a little over the edge, but if there was not an air of truth to it, with respect to the leader and the representatives of the leader, then the media would be all over it.

I'm sorry but I never saw any HRC representatives coming out and categorically stopping the entire Rev. Wright fiasco, but to the contrary they were out fanning the fire keeping it in the news media for 2 full weeks. That is the media's "love affair" with Obama you speak of? I fail to see the preferential treatment they sent his way with the endless loop of 20 second sound bites of a man's 30+ years of service to his maker and his followers.

What I do see is HRC's campaign continually moving the goal posts, a saying once only reserved for Bush and his pathetic cases for endless war, to justify her "commitment" to her followers by staying in the campaign, while no matter how any one spins it, she has lost. Her remaining in the campaign, embracing of Rovian tactics of thrashing her competition by any means possible, is exactly the point made well by the SNL skit.

If you read about my first day canvassing you will see that sadly there is an air to truth about it. HRC and here campaign spokespeople have brought this upon themselves.

Terry Mc"spin-alot" has had the front seat to every major weekend news show for weeks on end, where he has been given absolute cart blanche to speak his piece and spin all the numbers in HRC's favor and no one presses him on the inherent fallacies of his position.

This is far from media coddling their favorite "black son," and more giving HRC endless opportunity to make choices in the best interest of all in the party, yet she continues to grovel in the mud and play dirty, just as have all those Republicans she says she wants to fight and defeat.

As a once Hillary supporter and always a Bill supporter, their choices & tactics alone has brought their own downfall. The self combustion of a candidate, that for wish they hope for Obama, in order to give them the ticket, is exactly what they are doing, regardless of media bias or complete fairness. HRC has done this to herself and no one is to blame for it other than her.

Curtis D. Thomson said...

“Sure, SNL's skit portraying HRC's supporters is a little over the edge, but if there was not an air of truth to it, with respect to the leader and the representatives of the leader, then the media would be all over it.”

It was more than “a little over the edge.” It was embarrassing and hateful. The “air” of truth is not an excuse. There is an “air” of racism in Obama’s overwhelming black coalition and an “air” of “sexism” in Clinton’s overwhelming female coalition.

If SNL were to have their faux-Obama thank black America for voting based on color and not issues, SNL would have been slaughtered for being racists themselves.

The double standard is a problem. It is not progressive. It is not attractive. And, it does a disservice to all Americans. My comments are not political, it is social commentary; there won’t be true forward movement on the matters of race until this type of behavior ceases to derail real change. I believe Senator Obama would agree with this.

”I'm sorry but I never saw any HRC representatives coming out and categorically stopping the entire Rev. Wright fiasco, but to the contrary they were out fanning the fire keeping it in the news media for 2 full weeks.”

That isn’t relevant to the SNL debate. And, as an aside, the “well, they didn’t do it either” position is the weakest form of argument, and can’t be taken seriously, as it doesn’t address the actual issue.

But, since you bring it up, the Rev. Wright fiasco:

Rev. Wright was Senator Obama’s reverend. They have/had a 20 years relationship and Rev. Wright has given some disturbing sermons to the congregation, of which Obama is a member. It is fair for people to wonder if Obama shares these opinions and wonder why he would continue to attend this church. Senator Obama has also said it is a “legitimate political issue.”

SNL is a group of comedians, with no personal ties to Hillary Clinton. They saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot, twist a comment, “hard working, white Americans,” to call Senator Clinton and her coalition racists, and took it.




That is the media's "love affair" with Obama you speak of? I fail to see the preferential treatment they sent his way with the endless loop of 20 second sound bites of a man's 30+ years of service to his maker and his followers.”

The Rev. Wright story had to be covered. It was a legitimate issue and one that could have, and still could, cause Senator Obama real problems. The handling of the issue is where the “love affair” is evident, with the liberal media being quite happy to provide Obama all of the wiggle room necessary.

I’m not saying, on this issue, he didn’t take a hit, he did, but he could have been hammered with it – not only his participation and association with Rev. Wright, but his “politics as usual” response that he “wasn’t there on those days” when Wright was giving disturbing sermons and (paraphrasing) “I [Obama] never heard about any inflammatory statements.” That is politics as usual, a typical politicians response – something that the guy stumping on being “change” and “not politics as usual” shouldn’t be doing. But, he is a politician.

Chris Matthews acknowledged this not too long ago, that he was a bit disheartened to realize Obama is another “pol.” That revelation to Matthews was not one to me – anyone running for President is a typical politicians. This doesn’t mean he won’t be a fine President, and as I’ve said, he will have my support, but the liberal media, while having no choice but to comment on this issue, did do so in a most caring, apologists manner.

The “20 second sound bites of a man’s 30+ years of service to his maker and his followers” is, again, not relevant to this issue. He made them, period. The issue isn’t whether or not Rev. Wright did good works in his community and for his parishioners (I’m sure he has and will continue to do so) during his tenure as senior pastor of the church. The issue is the comments themselves and that the man who made them was Senator Obama’s pastor and friend.

All of that said; I believe Barrack when he says he doesn’t share the Reverend’s disturbing comments. Just as I don’t believe Hillary or the whole of her coalition is racist.


“What I do see is HRC's campaign continually moving the goal posts, a saying once only reserved for Bush and his pathetic cases for endless war, to justify her "commitment" to her followers by staying in the campaign, while no matter how any one spins it, she has lost. Her remaining in the campaign, embracing of Rovian tactics of thrashing her competition by any means possible, is exactly the point made well by the SNL skit.”

This is a toothless argument. As MSNBC’s Chuck Todd recently commented on, regarding the numbers, when all is said and done, there will be a 1% difference in voting numbers between the winner and loser. This is a competitive race and given the rules of the DNC, she can still win. Period. If enough of the unannounced Super Delegates go to her, she will win, because Obama cannot win without the Super Delegates either.

Why is it so difficult for the Obama supporters to admit that his is a close contest? And, why should Clinton drop out when the Super Delegates may give her the nomination? The issue shouldn’t be “why is Hillary still in the race,” but rather, “why won’t the Super Delegates declare their support now?” I don’t think they will go to her, but until they do, until they settle this, she has every right to stay in it, and a chance to win it.

The “Rovian” tactics argument is silly and is so ridiculous it undermines any legitimate position. The true believers’ offer it up, but it isn’t supported by the primary race. This has been a civil, far from rough, primary campaign.

” If you read about my first day canvassing you will see that sadly there is an air to truth about it. HRC and here campaign spokespeople have brought this upon themselves.”

That is a sad commentary, and I’m not saying the race isn’t an issue. What I’m saying is to call all of Hillary’s supporters “racist,” as SNL did, is an outrageous lie. And, for the life of me, I can’t believe you, or anyone, would actually try to defend that statement or the good sense of it.

There is no question there are racists folks, in Hillary’s camp, who are voting based on skin color. I haven’t denied this, but to lump all white Hillary supporters as “racist” is foul. Additionally, it isn’t fair to infer that race is only a factor in Senator Clinton’s coalition. It is clearly a component of Senator Obama’s coalition, just as gender plays a role.

“Terry Mc"spin-alot" has had the front seat to every major weekend news show for weeks on end, where he has been given absolute cart blanche to speak his piece and spin all the numbers in HRC's favor and no one presses him on the inherent fallacies of his position.”

This has no relevance and is a poor formulation – Obama’s Chair is represented, as is McCain’s, and as Clinton’s fighting on, not dropping out, and all of the other tag lines attributed to her (nice ad not so nice) staying in the race is of interest… “Why is she still running?” Of course, Clinton’s National Chair, Terry Mc Auliffe, is on air representing Hillary Clinton and champion his candidate.

” This is far from media coddling their favorite "black son," and more giving HRC endless opportunity to make choices in the best interest of all in the party, yet she continues to grovel in the mud and play dirty, just as have all those Republicans she says she wants to fight and defeat.”

That is your opinion, but one which I don’t share. As I’ve stated, the needless and unwarranted attacks on Hillary Clinton are more harmful to the Party than her remaining in the primary.

As a once Hillary supporter and always a Bill supporter, their choices & tactics alone has brought their own downfall. The self combustion of a candidate, that for wish they hope for Obama, in order to give them the ticket, is exactly what they are doing, regardless of media bias or complete fairness. HRC has done this to herself and no one is to blame for it other than her.

That is an interesting position to take, as it suggest she has lost the nomination rather than Obama winning it. Again, I disagree with you when you speak to their “choices & tactics,” but disagreement, even strenuous disagreement, is permitted. I believe Obama has benefited from external factors, for sure, but he is a strong candidate and I do believe he will win the nomination and beat John McCain. And, he will have my support.

-CDT

Hans said...

I'll only comment on a few of these or it'd be an endless point-counterpoint debate of perceptions.

Had you mentioned anyone other than Mathews making a observation of a person's "worth," I could have accepted it, but Chris Mathews as a judge on character?! He has an deep seated infatuation with the rough & tumbly "mans' man" and their is no denying this fact. I can barely stomach an hour watching Matthews' swoon over some high falutting Senator and it's the equivalent of watching one term Congressional Republican wonderboy Joe Scarborough come across as unbiased. Jon Stewart summed up Chris Matthews & Terry McSpin-Alot, racism & Hillary supporters all too well in last night's West Virginia Duche Off

I'm not exactly certain why you are using Chuck Todd as a point to defend HRC's ability to win & the closeness of the race, as Chuck has stated it is almost statically impossible for HRC to get the nomination and he has been saying this for over 3 weeks now.

As far as equal coverage of campaign chairs on the news media, you couldn't be further from the truth. If not on the Sunday morning TV, then on all the days after the votes, who gets front and center stage? Terry McSpin-Alot. After Indiana/NC primaries, McSpin got the first 15 minutes of every show he appeared on, whereas Wolfson or any of large number of random Obama representatives, were slotted 2nd or 3rd for only 5 minutes. Watch the shows reruns and you will see this is correct. So again the bias is where exactly?

Honestly, the Clinton's have always had trust issues, whether they were media/right-wing manufactured & fanned, or through their always political calculating manner of actions. I can allow trivial actions that have zero impact on my life, but I cannot turn a blind eye when their decisions effect millions of people. HRC's decision to back the war, was nothing other than political jockeying to look strong on defense for future ambitions. This was a gross mis-calculation on her part, yet to this day she has yet to apologize for her vote.

I'll let my man with the facts, based on facts, who thrives off of stats & facts, to sum it up for me best. Keith Olbermann on HRC's Changing Metrics

ps we can go back and forth, but really not worth it as we are probably pretty similar. However, this division is being made deeper and deeper every day by HRC and her refusal to acknowledge another candidate is better than her at this time and at this place. That is the cold hard facts and it would be best for the party and the nation if she showed some humility and accepted it.

Hans said...

aye, the 2nd link moved "again" and can't be found on the MSNBC site? But here it is Olbermann on Hillary's Ever Changing Metrics on another blog.

Curtis D. Thomson said...

Hans, you are a True Believer, my man.

You are missing the particular points, just like your man Olbermann - I'm not debating the metrics, nor is your buddy McAuliffe. Obama is in the lead across the board. The point is, however, until Obama or Clinton reach the magic number, there is no nominee, and neither Obama or Clinton can achieve the magic number without Super Delegates. That is the metric.

Chuck Todd - again, you miss the point. The point isn't the metrics, but his assertion the contest is close, which is why she is still here. AND, the Super Delegates may select her. To ignore this possibility, which Chuck Todd acknowledges could happen - not likely, but he knows it is the Super Delegates that will decide this. Everyone knows this, but choose to ignore it.

The DNC wanted this power and know it will come into play. As I've said, I believe they will go for Obama, but until enough do to reach the magic number... the beat goes on.

I would have chosen someone else if I knew your feelings about Matthews, however, your opinion of him isn't relevant to the general point I was making. The point is the shine is off Obama, which I prefer. When people are dreaming it means they are a sleep. Obama doesn't need to be idealized to a worthy candidate or President.

Well... I think you're right - we are both for Democrats and when Obama gets nod from the Super Delegates, I will be on Team Obama... for the rest, we will agree to disagree.

-CDT