Daily Kos

SNL's Clinton-shilling matters

Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM PDT

Three weeks ago, Saturday Night Live catapulted back into the national consciousness after months of strike-related re-run doldrums. The key to its temporary relevance, of course, was its blatant shilling for Hillary Clinton.

Join me below the fold, won't you?

Its first sketch back from re-runs was a parody of the Texas debate, in which the panelists fawned like schoolgirls and admitted they were in the tank for Obama. And then there was Tina Fey's oft-quoted endorsement during Weekend Update. In case there was any doubt about the show's agenda, the cold-open two weeks ago featured another debate sketch, with mostly the same material, and featured an appearance by Hillary herself...three days before mini-Super Tuesday. (In fairness to SNL, she's long had an open invitation to be on the show and had declined before. It's smart politics on her part to finally accept so close to those do-or-die primaries.)

This past Saturday's cold-open was the last straw. Not content to take jabs at the media or bolster Hillary's virtues, they just flat-out declared Obama to be a total idiot. If you didn't see it, it was 5 minutes straight of President Obama calling Hillary at 3 a.m. to beg for help on how to do his job. (You can view the clip here.)

There have been several diaries on the subject, such as this one and this one. A common refrain in the comments is that SNL doesn't matter because it's not funny or doesn't have the same viewership it used to.

Yet while a lot of people were turning up their noses at SNL, Clinton's meme formed right under them. It's now become widely accepted that the media increased its scrutiny on Obama as a result of SNL.

Here's David Brauer of MinnPost.com:

This weekend, "Saturday Night Live" had its third post-strike show, and for the third consecutive week poked Barack Obama and propped up a Hillary Clinton campaign meme.
...
The usual political japery? Perhaps — except some news organizations credit SNL for shaming the media into tougher coverage of Obama.
...
Over the next seven days [after the Feb. 23 debate sketch], the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) calculated that Obama was a dominant or significant factor in 69 percent of news stories — a campaign-season high — many of them negative. The epitome: the New York Times' Feb. 29 headline: "Are the media giving Obama a free ride?"

And just for kicks, here's a right-winger's repetition of the meme (from NewsBusters), along with some shockingly succinct analysis:

However, there's no denying that since "SNL" has returned to the airwaves, press members have indeed pointed to these skits as having turned the tide on campaign coverage. In fact, there's no doubt that in the past couple of weeks, the media have been scrutinizing the junior senator from Illinois in a manner not seen throughout 2007 and the early part of this year.

And the key point is this:

In fact, one could make the case that since it is presented as a parody, and the viewer's defenses are indeed down as a result of being in "entertain me" mode, the message is actually more powerful than if "SNL" was playing it straight.

In other words, criticism made in the guide of "humor" tends to have more staying power. Political satire distills complicated issues in a way the average person can understand talk about with friends or co-workers. Hey, it's not mean ol' Pat Buchanan complaining about Obama, it's SNL, your trusted source of hip political satire for 30+ years!

Anyone who dismisses SNL's impact so glibly is either deluding themselves or doesn't understand SNL's impact on pop culture. It doesn't matter if only 5 or 6 million people watch SNL when it's broadcast. Its messages reach far more than that by seeping into the popular and political discourse.

Sure, only 6 million people watched the Feb. 23 show. But millions more were exposed to the "media anti-Clinton bias" meme by its subsequent discussion on shows like Hardball, and most explicitly, her freaking citation of it during the Ohio debate!. And untold millions more have been affected by SNL if indeed the media altered its behavior to "prove" their fairness to SNL. (And gosh, it's not like you can't sway the media by accusing them of bias; the republicans have only managed to neuter and completely re-make the MSM this way.)

Bottom line: dismiss SNL's impact at your own peril. Even an injured animal can still strike. Or deliver Texas for you.

Tags: Saturday Night Live, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 77 comments

  •  Who was saying that it didn't matter? n/t (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    decisivemoment, byteb

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:15:39 AM PDT

    •  Read some of the comments (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      decisivemoment, byteb

      in the various SNL-tagged diaries. I cited two of them. There's a pervading attitude that SNL is irrelevant because it's not funny and fewer people watch it. I'm not saying everyone or even a majority agree with that, but there is a fair amount of it in the comments.

      Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How are both things not true? (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, SNL isn't actually "relevant" and it isn't funny and fewer people watch it.  Of course, the cable news networks are even less "relevant" - being neither funny or informative and being watched by even fewer people.  That being said, of course the cable news networks will follow the lead of the slightly more relevant than themselves.  And of course SNL was going to have that effect.

        The question is does this mean that there has been a significant change in how people perceive the press' attitude towards Obama?

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:30:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think the press is empty-headed enough to be (2+ / 0-)

          swayed by a comedy sketch giving them digs for their supposed adoration of obama.

          The press want to be part of the "Kool Kids" too.

          You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

          by byteb on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:36:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think they are desperate enough.... (3+ / 0-)

            ...it doesn't matter if they are or aren't stupid.  They have hours to fill, and this is a perfect non-story which they can cover to death.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:41:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's true (0+ / 0-)

              There's 7 weeks to fill until Pennsylvania, so expect to see SNL pop up again and again.

              I have a feeling it has affected voters. Not many, but some. It gives undecided voters the idea that Clinton "wasn't getting a fair shot," appealing to their sympathy and sense of fairness, and more importantly, it implies that Obama is a fake, media-created candidate.

              Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

              by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the thing: (0+ / 0-)

                Sure, SNL is watched by six million people.  But the forums which picked up the SNL skit, they are far less popular.  Which is why they take their cues from SNL in the first place.

                Which is why I suspect this isn't really a major issue.  The truth, I suspect, is that most voters are aware of neither the SNL sketch or the media coverage of it.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  at the least, (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  byteb

                  you'd agree that a whole lot of people watched the Texas debate in which she cited the SNL skit? If memory serves, it was the highest-rated program in MSNBC's history. And of course, news shows throughout the country reported on and discussed the debate, and probably that particular moment.

                  The point is that it's viral. An SNL sketch watched by 6 million ends up on cable shows watched by 6 million more, and is repeated in a debate watched by 10 million, and discussed thereafter on news shows watched by 30 million, all while being downloaded and youtubed by 20 million, etc., etc., etc.

                  Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

                  by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and why always go after Obama? (1+ / 0-)

                    three weeks in a row..not one thing about McCain..a couple of gentle swipes at Hillary but it's all about Obama The Idiot.

                    You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

                    by byteb on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:20:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  great point (0+ / 0-)

                      I actually overlooked the fact that they haven't done one single McCain-related sketch. They've been spending so much time trying to sway our primary that they haven't even bothered with the republicans. Lovely.

                      Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

                      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with you. (3+ / 0-)

    It's not the original broadcast that make a difference, it is the YouTube and pundit spin later.

    Shame on SNL.

    •  Clinton Has Taken Control Of Spin Cycle (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      byteb

      The SNL meme is that Obama is a Lamb among wolves.

      Team Obama does not seem to be responding effectively. They need to expose what the DC establishment is doing. Obama should go after Clinton's ethical shortcomings.

      Well I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari... Tehachapi to Tonopah--Lowell George/Little Feat

      by frandor55 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're probably right but I voted.... (1+ / 0-)

        ...for Hillary gladly and think she'd be a knock out President. But she never claimed to be above politics. Her schtik is being the master politician with a process/results orientation. I expect her to win at all costs as I expect a President to defend the Constitution and perform Constitutional accountabilities at all costs.

        Obama is tied to his claim to moral supremacy which is not a very successful track for a human but such as it is it's his. Saying that Hillary will do anything to win, for instance, evokes a, "But of course" from me...It's a competition that voters expect a politician to win, not a priest.

        She may not break the law but beyond that, one person's ethical lapse (for a politician) is the opponent's edgy advantage.

        I'm a liberal progressive so maybe I'm not clued in since it's all about Independents and crossover Republicans these days and how they think but just sayin...
         

        HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

        by kck on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  shame on SNL (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jay Elias, kck

      for what? what are they supposed to do, sing yes we can?

    •  Shame on them... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Magenta, debedb, kck

      ...for what exactly?

      Is SNL supposed to be honest?  No.  Non-partisan?  No.  Informative and factual?  No.  What exactly did they do wrong?

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:48:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A little less obvious in their shilling for one (0+ / 0-)

        candidate and their portrayal of the other candidate as a stupid dolt.

        You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

        by byteb on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Barack Obama won Texas. (4+ / 0-)

    That is all.

  •  SNL is a joke (6+ / 0-)

    Besides not being that funny anymore, they wait to bring out their heavy guns to use against OBAMA??  They give George W. Bush a free pass for 7 years-- a bumbling but likeable goofball was as nasty as it got for them, with a lot of bad imitations following Will Ferrell's.  But WHOA, mess with Hillary and Tina Fey gives a heartfelt 'commentary' about the importance of bitchiness.  

    Eckhart Tolle rules. GO OBAMA!

    by ramsfan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM PDT

  •  Not to mention, SNL's negative portrayal of (1+ / 0-)

    a AA man.
    I be there's no AA writers on SNL

    You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

    by byteb on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:23:43 AM PDT

  •  SNL: Our Ratings Nearly Equal 2 Years Ago (1+ / 0-)

    SNL is a ship of the damned sent forth into the backwater seas of comedy, with virtually no viewers.  I'm really not concerned if HRC 08 wants to take communications pointers from them.

  •  Everything matters.... (2+ / 0-)

    ...even if something doesn't matter if it can be used it will matter.

    Senator Clinton deserves home town support...I love the SNL treatment.

    Always know though that SNL, like The Daily Show and Colbert, will go for the laughs before the Party. Their loyalties are to their product - the shows.

    And the humor only works if the truth can be detected somehow...

    HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

    by kck on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM PDT

  •  Remember when jokes used to funny? (1+ / 0-)

    I guess this joke is on us.

    "If we believe that all humans are human, than how are we going to prove it? It can only be proven through our actions." Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire

    by djs on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:25 AM PDT

  •  this week was a PARODY (7+ / 0-)

    jeez, i'm an Obama supporter, too, but the open this week was a PARODY! yes, it made Obama look stupid, it was supposed to be an ad for CLINTON!
    so the parody was not calling Obama stupid, it was saying that Clinton's ads are stupid and ridiculously unfair.
    it was a brilliant insult of Clinton's ridiculous ad. (i think it was offered directly in response to those who thouhgt they were in the tank for Clinton.)

    and even if all SNL skits were anti-Obama, that's their right. it is comedy. comedians can have opinions, too. for years Norm McDonald led the SNL anchor desk with his right-wing views. i didn't agree with them, but it's comedy, not news.

    i support Obama. i do not support censorship.

    we should work to defeat any candidate who steals the Democratic nomination.

    by catchaz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM PDT

    •  okay, again... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      kck, anonymit

      that's why it's insidious. Yes, you know it's supposed to be an "unfair Clinton ad." But other than the few seconds of "disclaimer" at the beginning and end, it's 4 minutes of uninterrupted Obama idiocy. It's a "buyer's remorse" ad: Clinton wants you to know that if you vote for Obama, this is what you get.

      Just because you're told a person is being intentionally made to look like a fool doesn't mean they don't look like a fool. And considering it plays on Clinton's biggest attack on Obama--that he's unready to be CIC--how exactly is it parody? How does it parody Clinton? It shows she has a propensity to overstate her criticism on Obama? Wow...cutting stuff.

      And last, please don't get into the censorship stuff. Re-read my diary and tell me where I suggest censorship. Hell, the point of this diary isn't even criticizing SNL, it's criticizing anyone who thinks SNL's political coverage is irrelevant. Please tell me you at least read the diary before involving censorship.

      Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no way! (0+ / 0-)

        that skit was laughing AT Clinton, not WITH her, by saying that she would make such an an unfair and ridiculous ad. (they're right, she would.)

        i'm sorry, this is just ridiculous. Hillary Clinton has run a shameful campaign, that skit was a brilliant parody of what a nasty hideous campaign she's run.

        i share your frustration with the Clintons, and the unbeleivable willingness of Democrats to support such a hideous candidate who's run a racist campaign. but you are flat wrong here. SNL was laughing AT Clinton.
        we are suffering from PTSS here. we're so tired of Clinton's unfair attacks that we're now attacking SNL for attacking Clinton.

        and again, IF they did nothing but bash Obama, that's their right as citizens and comedians. BUT THEY DIDN"T!

        i do agree that comedy matters. it can change minds. but the answer is to fight back, not censor.

        this makes us seem like pro-censorship whiners. it hurts the Obama campaign much worse than any parody could do.

        we should work to defeat any candidate who steals the Democratic nomination.

        by catchaz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  well (0+ / 0-)

        But other than the few seconds of "disclaimer" at the beginning and end, it's 4 minutes of uninterrupted Obama idiocy.

        4 minutes better than 4 years.

        Walked right into that one, didn't you?

    •  Irony is dangerous--lots of people don't seem (2+ / 0-)

      to have the gene that lets them get it.

      I've always blamed this for the demise of Police Squad and the consequent republicanization of the country.

      Ah, but does the Buddha have cat nature?
      --dallasdave ca. 2008

      by dallasdave on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:25:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  well (1+ / 0-)

    I dont know...SNL may be relevant only to those people who think it still has something meaningful to say anymore...and they are very few..during its glory days (when Adam Sandler, Farley, and that guy whats his name...the one who played Deuce Biglow?.were around..) it may have had a message but people in my age group, 30's something professional..we fail to find it funny anymore..just pointless jibber jabber among comedians who think they are REAL funny..most yuppies I know, the ones who are very politically motivated tune to Daily Show for satire..myself I tune to Family Guy...Stewie and Brian are my heroes...and Mayor West too!

    SNL probably didnt have any role to play whatsoever in helping Hillary win OH and TX...Hillary won those states because she complained the media was unfair to her (I dont agree that they were..just read Clark Hoyts latest column in NYT)...obviously that got people's attention, especially women. It didnt help that after that complaining the NAFTA story broke out and Obama was caught aloof...

    I am an Obama supporter, but I think Obama's being caught aloof on that issue just seemed to validate Hillary's point ...

    "eeyeah Hi..eeyeah..Id like you to go ahead and support Obama" Bill Lumbergh-Office Space

    by girlyman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM PDT

  •  er what? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    kck, catchaz

    Not content to take jabs at the media or bolster Hillary's virtues, they just flat-out declared Obama to be a total idiot. If you didn't see it, it was 5 minutes straight of President Obama calling Hillary at 3 a.m. to beg for help on how to do his job.

    Actually, in the sketch, that was Hillary's ad.

    (waa waa they made fun of Obama waa waa)

    •  "er what"? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not sure how you're reading that boxquoted paragraph, but I'm quite aware it was a Hillary ad.

      Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  uh huh (0+ / 0-)

        so in what way did they declare obama to be a total idiot (not that there's anything wrong with that)

        •  now i'm lost... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          debedb

          I'm assuming you saw the sketch, in which Obama cries, cusses and bumbles like a fool.

          Do you mean that because it's a fake Hillary ad, it's not really SNL stating it? That it's merely "fake Hillary" saying it, and thus it's a parody? Yeah, I get all that. But "fake Hillary" is merely a stand-in for SNL's own views (or at least Jim Downey's, and no one seems capable of getting any other view across).

          Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

          by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:42:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think the diarist is right (0+ / 0-)

          By framing the skit as Hillary's ad, SNL got maximum license to put Obama down since their Hill is the extreme-bitch who will squash the young, hollow Obama. It is insidious, on all sides, and purposeful.

          HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

          by kck on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok I guess I can't quite muster the outrage (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            kck

            he's a presidential candidate. as far as I am concerned, snl has the license to put any politician down.

            •  Oh, I think it's legit and very funny (2+ / 0-)

              Only of there is a kernel of recognition (i.e., truth) does a skit work. But is is, or can be, damaging.

              IMO, the only effective counter strategy to sarcasm and satire, when it is political and good, is to embrace it and laugh thereby rise above it. Everyone should be able to laugh at themselves.

              HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

              by kck on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the fact that this can be damaging (0+ / 0-)

                speaks volumes more about the level of political discourse than about SNL's leanings. What I mean is, remember Jon Stewart kicking Tucker's ass on Crossfire? That was exactly his point and he was right.

  •  Heaven forbid (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    debedb

    Heaven forbid Clinton get any positive news coverage at all.  You obamatons are monsters.

  •  If Obama appeared on SNL (1+ / 0-)

    He'd make Hillary look positively stiff by comparison.

    Oh wait, she already does.

    We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

    by CA Libertarian on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM PDT

  •  Clearly SNL is pro-Hillary, but (2+ / 0-)

    There's not much we can do about it.  Even though I agree with you that SNL skits can have an impact on a campaign and on the media's coverage of a campaign (actually, it's not the skits themselves that have an impact but the subsequent media coverage of the skits that has the impact), but since it's done under the guise of "comedy" and "entertainment," that gives them a big shield to do whatever the hell they want. And if you whine about their coverage then you just look like, well, whiners.  So while I agree that SNL has packed it in for Hillary, we can't worry about things that we can't change.

  •  They're replaying part of the SNL skit (1+ / 0-)

    on MSNBC this morning.  Surprise, surprise.

  •  Is this a bad thing? (2+ / 0-)

    In fact, there's no doubt that in the past couple of weeks, the media have been scrutinizing the junior senator from Illinois in a manner not seen throughout 2007 and the early part of this year.

    Is this a bad thing?

    •  Well, no...not when written like that. (0+ / 0-)

      Scrutiny is good. He needs to be ready for that. However, keep in mind that the quoted material is from a right-winger's perspective.

      What's NOT good is if that "scrutiny" is really just digging for something--anything--to show Hillary that they can be tough on Obama, too. How exactly would one properly scrutinize whether Obama could step in and be Commander in Chief? It just seems to re-enforce Hillary's talking points. And really, if she's the one making the claims that she's "ready," SHE should be the one scrutinized.

      Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  CC to Tina Fey; Black is the new Black (2+ / 0-)

    We are not 'owed' anything.  We have to work hard and be ready for opportunity.  That is a Midwestern value, and probably other places too.

    Being a student of history I firmly believe that we are at a critical crossroads.  Right now, really.  Now is an opportunity to shape our nation and our world.

    The best suited to lead us in the right direction is Barack Obama.  

    Simply winning is not enough, it is hollow if only for the sake of winning.

    HRC just wants to win, at the expense of everything we believe in.  That's the Karl Rove way.  That's not my way.

    This is what we will continue to face.  So Please remember fudoshin.  Immovable Heart.  In the face of anything, and it will get thick from the HRC camp before we're done, do not let your heart waiver.  That is what they're attacking.  I will continue to stand for my candidate at this time in history.

    Keep Going.

  •  Saturday Night Live Is Soo 40 Years Ago (1+ / 0-)

    Why does anyone watch it?  Sentimentality?

    It's a show for folks like Gramps McCain.

  •  All of this crap matters (1+ / 0-)

    The Clinton/Republican/Media smear jobs that are escalating against Obama really do matter. SNL, Enquirer, Globe, AP, MTP and etc. I am getting a little frustrated with the lack of effective offense and defense from the Obama camp.

    Tom Dashle on MTP was a weak surrogate. Clintons are losing. It reminds me of Florida 2000.

    There is a cesspool lies, smear and spin swirling around this campaign and Obama needs to grab the headlines and take command of his narrative.

    Flag pin, pledge and bible smear
    Muslim hoax email smear
    Tabloid terrorist smear
    Tabloid gay smear
    Russert Farrakhan smear
    Rezko smear
    NAFTA smear
    SNL free ads
    Not ready for Commander in chief frame
    Not winning Texas frame
    Not winning states that matter frame
    Not winning Democratic states frame
    Monster faux outrage frame

    All of this is crap, but it must be counter acted with some offensive action by the Obama camp. I feel like the Swiftboat veterans are attacking and Kerry is staying above the fray.

    Come on people!

    It is only going to get worse in the general and we won't get there without getting more pointed and on message.

  •  Boycott (0+ / 0-)

    I'm kind of in favor of Obama, mainly becuase of the expansion of the Democratic voter base and his commitment to a legitimate field operation. That having been said, NOBODY in "the media" has been "in the tank" for any candidate (except, of course, Fox,) as much as SNL. My guess is that they're all actually just sniffing Tina Fey's chair, hoping for guest spots on her show.

    Well, as much as I enjoy 30 Rock, I will simply boycott it and SNL from here on out. I would do the same if they had been so gross in their campaigning for Obama or Edwards (who I originally supported.)

    I hope The FEC investigates NBC; I think this might this violate campaign finance law.

Permalink | 77 comments