Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
JackSparx
Published Letters: 926 Editor's Choice: 18
"I guess Franklin Roosevelt should never have been President
because his cousin Teddy already was. Give somebody else a chance, will you!"
Well kinda. FDR and TR were fifth cousins. Obama and Dick Cheney are eighth cousins. ;) Heck, Strom Thurmond was some sort of cousin to Al Sharpton! We're all related somehow.
Fifth cousin doesn't seem very close. In fact, ELEANOR and FDR were fifth cousins also (once removed), and they married! Eleanor's maiden name was also Roosevelt.
Eleanor was Teddy's niece! She was much more closely related to TR than FDR was to either of them.
Bill and Hillary, GHWB and GWB, those are close relationships. The Roosevelts not so much.
Clinton is losing the day-after debate.
She needed to project vision, but gave voters a lesson on copyright law.
She tried to project compassion, but just reminded voters of her gravest error.
I'm more curious about the uncritical treatment of Giulliani, given his pro-torture stance. It's difficult to imagine the biting SNL of the 70s/80s would have given an anti-democratic bigot like Rudy a platform to show off his self-referential "humility." Once upon a time, SNL would have gleefully skewered Giuliani's ego without his help.
Compared to the Rudy-worship, the free (and unconvincing) commercial for Clinton was somewhat less revolting. Clinton more or less gets to laugh off her vote for the war with SNL's blessing.
SNL's fawning attitude toward politicians is simply another example of how boomers like Lorne Michaels have abandoned the revelatory joke for self-congratulatory (and apparently profitable) cynicism. The craft has also suffered accordingly. Expert make-up jobs now stand in for revelatory characterization. Aykroyd believably played paranoid Nixon with a mustache(!), black-like-me Armison can't even manage Obama's easy-to-mock sunny cadence. The performers have talent (eg Armison's funny Weekend Update sketch) but seem smothered under by an imposed point of view.
Well, that depends on what your definition of "it is" is.
Obama has the largest slice of the popular primary vote (a near majority). 25% of Clinton's vote is less than 25% of Obama's vote totals, 10% is less than 10%. The article compares 10% of an unstated larger number to 25% of a smaller unstated number, so comparing the percentages are misleading when determining what vote loss actually means for the party. Given the electoral college, you would also need to look at the question state-by-state.
The numbers also ignore new net Democratic voters over new Republicans.
It is easier, and more relevant, to query how Clinton or Obama match McCain head to head among likely voters and compare those percentages. Obama has been polling better nationally against McCain than Clinton versus McCain in recent polls. Again, state-by-state polls would added together would be more relevant, but a national poll would better support Clinton's assertion that she should be the candidate than the Pew research.
As Twain said, lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Maybe the problem isn't drinky girl. Maybe it's girly drinks.
If you can have VItamin Water, why not Vitamin Vodka? Add a little protein powder to that white russian, a little calcium with the Bailey's, more 100% fruit juice with the rum.
Drink your way to a healthier you.
Here's what Clinton is really saying:
Polls show that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than I do. But the Pew survey shows that Obama will win against McCain with only 75% of my voters.
Therefore, I should be the candidate, because it's more important that my voters get to vote for me than that my party wins the election.
Strange pun, it might work a bit better if one of the candidates was from Ohio, was a "Buckeye."
Harry Truman's phrase meant "I take responsibility, I can't pass the buck." Clinton never takes responsibility--not for her war vote or NAFTA. The buck just never stops with her, someone else is always to blame.
Maybe she's gotten the campaign that suits her. Penn and company all blame others for the defeats and problems. The buck never stops with them either. It's the media's fault she's losing, doncha know.
But this week the media, from SNL to the outlets, have given Clinton scads of free advertising and positive coverage. If she can't win this week, particularly in Ohio, you've got to wonder how she can ever win again.
Not that losing would be her fault, mind you.
Jim Downey and Lorne Michaels decision to make their Obama a stupid empty buffoon didn't work comedically, since the portrayal had no resemblance to Obama's actual personality and foibles. The obsessive makeup turned the characterization into blackface, and not even blackface with any level of redeeming wit.
Timing is everything in comedy, and SNL obviously knows enough about the political season to realize the importance of Ohio and Texas. Repeating a joke, repeating a joke on national TV to the same audience, repeating not just a joke, but an entire sketch two weeks in a row in order to help a particular politician who is given free airtime at a crucial juncture? That's not satire, that's a political advertisement.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
