Letters to the Editor
-
Alex ,
you do only partial justice to your war room story. The other part is what the viewers actually see in the skits. Tina Fey said to vote for Clinton in the show's fake editorial section.
-
@Picko
Hyperbole. Yeah, something Obama supporters know well.
-
Michaels 'wordplay'.
As a previously devoted SNL fan -I think I'm qualified to say Michaels is full of sh** to try and hide the fact that the whole Clinton/SNL episode wasn't well planned out in advance.
Sorry Lorne..we're not Fox viewers.
But even if we did take your word that you've not turned the show into a continual Clinton campaign ad, then you're obviously on an anti-Obama campaign. And that's worse.
But worse than that, you've aided Hillary with a real voter and media coup equivalent to Bush's "Mission Accomplished" event -by helping her get a huge amount of free fake sympathy and press and campaign donations:
ACT I -(2) SNL scenes depicts a poor abused Hillary- with deliberate use of the inflammatory word 'bitch', versus a very pampered Obama.
ACT II - Clinton runs to the nearest microphones -holds press conferences and heads and off on the campaign trail repeatedly citing and specifically pointing to SNL's unfair and derogatory treatment to generate donations and inflame the voters and; to mention the SNL 'performance' in a nationally televised debate -boosting SNL's and Clintons ratings and; offering the perfect opening to take another cheap and unfair shot at Obama and; use the staged poor Hillary SNL act to get enormous amounts of free national airtime and publicity -when her campaign was too short on cash to buy advertising themselves..
FINALE! -in spite of the 'abuse' appear again suddenly on SNL, in a victorious smiling triumph over all the evils of being a poor hard working woman.
As Bush did, she claimed a false victory - none of it was real. None of it really happened as depicted.
Where you and Hillary come from Mr. Michaels, your friends might say ”BRAVO”!
But where I come from -it's called "BULLSH**"!
-
And what about Oprah??!!!!!
I suppose it is perfectly okay for influential celebrities with televisions shows, such as Oprah, to be openly in support of Obama. But, it is a SIN for any show to do anything that may seem supportive of Hillary Clinton! Hypocrites!
This is just like Bush all over again. Except one is accused of being racist rather than unpatriotic for daring to criticize the Lord, Our God, Obama?!
-
@ damnthatxanadu
Hi, yeah, I'm aware of the definition of fascism. I'm also familiar with the term irony. Your first post was a little ironic, no? I think you clarified the irony in your reply.
Look, I enjoy the debate here, because, to me, we're pretty much on the same team. Our convictions aren't always aligned, and sometimes we get a little excited - even zealous - in our arguments, and that's cool too. I do believe, however, that accusing either of these Democratic candidates of fascism, especially after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney is a little over the top.
I do dig the passion though, so don't let me slow your roll.
-
xrandadu, yeah
(2) SNL gave Hillary Clinton a prominent appearance, with advance publicity, just three days before a major election. Though not an endorsement, the appearance occurred directly after a sketch that portrayed Obama in a much more unflattering way than it portrayed Clinton.
That's something that bothered me from the minute it happened. I understand that being primaries, the equal-time rule does not apply (as far as I can tell). But I would have thought a program that has been killed by it's own overt political-correctness over the years would have at least attempted to be a little more balanced in this case.
I would be just as bothered had they given the time to Obama and not HRC. I understand Obama has appeared on SNL in the past, but the timing of this, right before a crucial primary, seemed interesting. I also don't think the Oprah argument flies: Oprah has had both Obama and HRC on her show numerous times, and if memory serves, she did not have Obama on the show when she offered her endorsement - she offered the endorsement while appearing on Larry King Live.
-
damnthatxanadu
Are you TRYING to be self-refuting?
-
@zlm1791
zlm1791: "I suppose it is perfectly okay for influential celebrities with televisions shows, such as Oprah, to be openly in support of Obama. But, it is a SIN for any show to do anything that may seem supportive of Hillary Clinton! Hypocrites!"
Oprah openly endorsed Obama. She didn't make any bones about it, she just said, "I like this guy, I think he'd be great for the country, and I'm throwing my support behind him." I don't recall Oprah ever turning around and saying that she was against Hillary Clinton.
SNL, on the other hand, de-facto endorsed Clinton while knocking Obama as a buffoon, giving her a very solid media boost with her appearance, and timing all of it for maximum effect just before a big election.
zlm1791: "This is just like Bush all over again. Except one is accused of being racist rather than unpatriotic for daring to criticize the Lord, Our God, Obama?!"
I haven't seen anybody accuse SNL of being racist in here. Feel free to point out a message or quote where somebody called SNL racist. (The closest thing I can think of is to call the Obama actor's makeup "blackface")
-
McGoober
Hillary not only authorized Bush to make war on Iraqis, she's okey-dokey with war on Iranians. Doesn't anyone else remember the repetitive SNL skits about UN weapons inspectors being overly deferential to Iraqis and not giving offense in a futile search for WMD? SNL treated Iraqi WMD as incontestable fact and I suppose they want Iranians to get the same treatment. Their anti-Obama opener imagined Iran had the nukes, not Israel.
-
The new talking point out of the Clinton campaign
seems to be that anyone who criticizes Hillary Clinton is accusing her of being a racist.
It's actually a clever tactic. Here's how it works:
Step One: Engage in tactics that are argubly race-baiting, but make sure to leave room for plausible deniability.
Step Two: Wait for your opponent to call you on it.
Step Three: Claim that it is YOUR OPPONENT who is injecting race into the campaign and then claim that it is HE who is being "racially divisive."
Step Four: Claim that your opponent's criticism of your arguably race-baiting tactics is your opponent's blanket response to ALL attacks made on him. Like so: "Whenever you try to criticize, he automatically calls you a racist."
Step Five: Repeat ad nauseum.