Monday, September 15, 2008

"It's Just God Hugging Us Closer"

One of the first things I thought when I saw Sarah Palin was, "Wow, she REALLY looks like Tina Fey!" I wasn't the only one. Everyone's been making that comparison. Thankfully, this past Saturday, Tina Fey indulged us all by doing a pitch-perfect caricature of Palin to open this season's SNL, and it was genius.

You can watch the clip here.

It was a brilliant way to show what The Daily Show has been playing up for the past week: that the appointment of Sarah Palin to John McCain's running mate and the accusations of "Sexism!!" coming from the Republican camp is just highlighting one of the major cornerstones of that party: their love of the double standard. They mock Hillary Clinton for being a woman, but glare and wag their fingers with a dour, "For SHAME!" if anyone levies the same comments at Palin. Karl Rove, as Jon Stewart pointed out, blasted Obama's running mate because he was formerly the mayor of the "small town" of Richmond, Virginia (pop. 200,000) and says that anyone who has that in their background is just showing irresponsibility and a complete lack of credentials for the job, yet when Palin was appointed (mayor of huge town, pop. 9,000) he said she was perfect for the job.

With hypocrisy being of utmost importance within that party, Palin is the candidate for them. I particularly love how she touts her "choice" to have her baby even when she knew he had Down's, or her daughter's "choice" to go through with her own teen pregnancy, while vowing to remove that choice from any other women should she win.

But enough about Palin: Please tell me you saw Jon Stewart's comparisons between Foghorn Leghorn and Senator Fred Thompson, and Droopy Dog and Sen. Joe Lieberman. I was doubled over laughing. It was BRILLIANT. (I'd post the clip, but it's been taken down everywhere.)

UPDATE: I've got the clip! (Thanks, Memphish, for the US clip!) If you're in the U.S., you can watch it here, and in Canada, here. Watch the entire thing; the lead-up to the cartoon character bit is just as funny.

22 comments:

memphish said...

You mean this clip?. The cartoon characters show up just past the 3 minute mark.

Teebore said...

I can't even think about the blatant double standard within the Republican party, let alone talk about it, without flying into a rage, so I won't, but I will say that SNL sketch was damned hilarious.

allison-lee said...

The clip can also been seen at www.nbc.com

I believe this is the direct link: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/

Chris in NF said...

Honestly, I think the Obama campaign is best handled right now by Jon Stewart & co. The hypocrisy, mendacity and revisionism on display from the McCain campaign and its surrogates is mind-blowing. There's really nothing else for it but to juxtapose the old McCain with McCain 2.0 and just say "Seriously? Seriously."

Kristin said...

Um, I don't remember the Republican Party mocking Hilary for being a woman. I hate having to remind everyone, but there are a lot of conservative, Republican women in America and they aren't religious nuts who stay at home to raise a brood of 12.

What I thought to be fun was the ever increasing rage on "Hilary's" face as Sarah Palin stepped into the role she so desperately wanted. Now that was classic!

I think there was a good balance of humor from both sides, which is what I like in political humor. Spread it around evenly, and I will laugh at both sides.

My favorite line: "I can see Russia from my house." Hilarious! :-)

Nikki Stafford said...

Kristin: Check out The Daily Show. I remember a LOT of comments from Republican sources and Fox News talking about Hillary being a woman at the time, and they're all backtracking now. The Daily Show will jog your memory. :)

I actually took Poehler's Hillary (who I should have mentioned, was just as brilliant, if not more so, than Tina Fey's Sarah) to be played pretty straight. She's not enraged that Sarah Palin got the role she wanted... she's enraged that someone so incompetent is going to go to the White House and she won't. When she says the line, "I didn't want a woman to be president, *I* wanted to be president, and I just happen to be a woman," she means it. Palin's all like, "Woohoo! Look at me trailblazing a path for women everywhere!" while plotting to take away their rights and set feminism back 50 years if she makes it there.

I agree, the Russia line was priceless!

Nikki Stafford said...

Correction: I didn't mean someone so incompetent WAS going to go to the White House, but that someone so incompetent COULD go to the White House while Hillary's out of the running. We can only pray that never happens. :)

Nikki Stafford said...

Teebore: I agree.

You know, what really sticks out in that clip is the moment when they make a "joke," and you hear the audience go, "Ha... uh... oh god." in their laughter. It's when Tina Fey says that she's only one heartbeat away from being President of the United States.

Palin being chosen as McCain's running mate is funny only for a moment. But when you realize that should anything happen to McCain, this completely inexperienced right-wing radical could become the most powerful person in the world, it becomes terrifying.

Kristin said...

I don't remember anyone saying that Hilary wasn't competent because she was female...maybe they didn't like her as a person.(i.e. her very strident way of talking) or her tendency to wear the same type of pantsuit over and over.

But I personally don't remember someone saying anything about her judgment being suspect b/c she was female. Only b/c she was democrat! LOL.

As for The Daily Show, not exactly an unbiased source for 'news.' It's a political comedy show.

Anyway, I'm a little unclear how a woman who is the most popular governor in the U.S. right now is setting women back 50 years? Please explain that to me. She's a working mom of 5. That sounds very modern and enlightened to me.

Just b/c she doesn't agree with your views, doesn't make her stupid. She's not. She's just conservative. Many women are like her...smart, educated, have families, etc....and are Republican. Trust me, I don't want to return to 1950 either.

Teebore said...

I don't want to step on Nikki's toes here, but up in her post she cited one very specific example of the hypocrisy at play here, and how Palin will work to set women back 50 years: she/the Republican Party is using her courageous "choice" to raise a child w/downs syndrome, as well as her daughters courageous "choice" to carry her baby despite being unmarried as political clout, despite the fact that one of the very foundations of the Republican Party platform involves taking that same "choice" they're celebrating away from all women.

So apparently, you can be Republican and Pro Choice so long as its politically advantageous for you. Seems kind of hypocritical to me...

If Sarah Palin had her way, then neither she nor her daughter would have ever been able to make that choice, because the choice would have been made by the government for them already.

MC said...

Here is the funniest thing about this... a female member of the McCain campaign staff (the former head of HP Carla F-something) has gone on the record and said that the SNL Palin skit was sexist.

You read me right.

Nikki Stafford said...

Kristin: There was a lot of mocking of her because she was a female. Comments about how helpful she'd be with her hot flashes, etc. Pundits referred to her as a shrew, or a banshee, or a harpy, things you'd never call a man. When any Democratic pundit has said anything about Sarah Palin being a female, the Republicans are all over them. "What?! Obama made a comment about lipstick on a pig? He MUST be referring to Sarah Palin! And how DARE you say she's attractive, you SEXIST!!"

How is she setting back feminism 50 years? By wanting to remove the rights of a woman to make a choice over her own body. Even in cases of rape or incest. She says her daughter Bristol "chose" to have her baby, and that she "chose" to have Trig even after he was confirmed to have Down's Syndrome. But in her world, there is no choice, so I have no idea why she's throwing the word around as if she or Bristol ever would have aborted their babies. If Sarah Palin had been in power 5 years ago, they wouldn't have had that choice, so it's almost like they're dangling the word in our face just before they snatch it out of our vocabulary.

Yes Palin is touting the fact she's a working mother of 5. As Gloria Steinem said, by going back to work 3 days after she gave birth she showed women they really CAN do it all, just like women were once expected to... and now will be expected to again. Maybe next on her agenda: Shorter maternity leaves. You women must learn to breastfeed, go sleepless nights, and heal that body, all while churning out reports and standing on your feet working for someone else all day! She calls herself a working mother, but can most women hire the army of nannies she no doubt has to take care of her kids? No.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying Palin is a bad mother because she went back to work -- you can't say she neglected her kids while the male candidates in this campaign have even younger ones and are back at work. But Palin is the one who's brought her "working mother" skills to the forefront.

She believes in Creationism and that every person has the right to bear arms (oh wait, that sets the human race back 50 years, not feminism. My apologies).

Just b/c she doesn't agree with your views, doesn't make her stupid. She's not.

I agree... could you point out where I called her stupid?

Nikki Stafford said...

Teebore: oops, I posted mine before I saw yours. Well put.

MC: LOL!!!

Teebore said...

No worries, Nikki, you said it better. Besides, it's your blog :)

The Chapati Kid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Chapati Kid said...

Nikki: When she says the line, "I didn't want a woman to be president, *I* wanted to be president, and I just happen to be a woman," she means it.

To further elaborate, what Poehler as Hillary is trying to say is that Hillary's was not attempting to be a feminist race, it was attempting to be a "post-feminist" race: that is, the sex of a person has no bearing on their capabilities as a politician, or the president, it's his or her views and experience and vision that matters. Poehler is attempting to make the statement that Hillary wasn't running for Dem nomineee because she wanted to be the first woman President. She wanted to be the President. Period.

Obama and Hillary are very much cut from the same cloth in that respect. He's running a "post-racial" campaign. He has never mentioned the colour of his skin or used it as a ground to differentiate himself, the way Palin uses her sex to differentiate herself to the American populace. Obama's mandate is, simply, to vote for him because he is capable, experienced in the Senate, and has a vision for a unified and great country. McCain, on the other hand, is now playing second fiddle to Palin. He has been totally overshadowed by her, and for what? She's not the one who has to prove herself, McCain is. People tend to forget that this is a race between Obama and McCain, not Obama and Palin.

Pit Palin against Biden the way Hillary stood up to Obama. Hillary didn't run her campaign on the platform of being a woman leader. She ran it on the platform of being a leader. Apart from the fact that Palin is a female leader (with zilch experience apart from being Mayor of a town of 9,000 people, zero foreign policy experience, and not enough knowledge of her own party's stances on foreign policy issues to even be able to do a TV interview), what else does she have to show? Biden is veteran of politics, with a firm head on his shoulders, an unshakeable ethical code (also the reason Obama chose him and not Hillary, who waffled many times as a politician), and years of drafting and pushing through bills that protected the safety of women and children in this country. (Go to CNN under Politics and see the comparative analysis of Palin and Biden.) This should NOT be about Palin being a woman. It should be about Palin being fit for the Vice Presidency. And can you honestly believe that someone who needs to be coached for every TV interview and public appearance, and can't answer honestly and knowledgeably under pressure, can help lead a nation? She's just another George Bush Jr.

I think McCain is a good man. I have nothing but respect and awe for his experience, his service, and his work. But again, and Obama says this repeatedly, ultimately, we have to choose the people who will bring change to the nation, not give us more of the same. McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns. His wife is a millionaire. When he says he represents the interests of the people, we have to wonder whether he even knows what these interests are. Obama isn't flawless. He does lack foreign policy experience. But rather than rashly and recklessly pick a running mate to swing a vote (everyone wanted him to pick Hillary), he picked someone whose ethics were in line with his, whose vision was the same as his, and most importantly, whose foreign policy experience was greater than his, and would help fill his own gap in knowledge of that field. That's called being a responsible leader.

And for that person who wrote in Nikki's last post about Obama's speech, that voting for someone named Barack Obama is like voting for someone named Charles Manson Hitler, all I have to say is that Barack means Blessing, not Serial Killer or Genocidal Anti-Semite. And to be so superficial as to pick a leader for one's nation because one thinks that a person's name equals the sum of everything that they stand for is just a little bit idiotic, to put it euphemistically. If there are many who think like that, it probably explains the state of your once great nation. I think some people forget that there's a difference between voting for your next President, and voting for the winner of American Idol.

Forgive this lengthy post.

Jonathan said...

If you watch the Daily Show clip on the Comedy Network (the Canadian clip), the one right after it deals with the way Republicans reacted to Hilary versus Palin.

And Kristin, I recognize that the Daily Show is a political comedy, but sometimes, the clips speak for themselves.

Kristin said...

I still don't see how b/c they chose Palin it was some sort of backhanded statement about women. But if Hilary chooses to run, it's not. It's the SAME thing. A PERSON with experience and the background that will add to the ticket was chosen to run with McCain. PERIOD.

This statement is just misguided:

"with zilch experience apart from being Mayor of a town of 9,000 people, zero foreign policy experience, and not enough knowledge of her own party's stances on foreign policy issues to even be able to do a TV interview)"

ZILCH experience? She went from Mayor to a very important position within the oil industry to governor!? As for the interview, SHE had the facts straight, Charlie Gibson did not. That was extremely clear in several news articles. Asking for a clarification of what Charlie meant by "Bush Doctrine" (which can mean 4 dif. things) was only showing Charlie's ignorance, not hers.

Clinton, need I remind you, also had no foreign policy experience, yet he became president. We can go back over the course of many elections to find similar candidates.

Obama chose Biden for *his* foreign policy experience, because he himself has done....but then again, Obama's running for the presidency and is not a running mate.

These are just weird arguments to me. And don't even get me started on those who believe she banned books! Jeez.

Nikki Stafford said...

Kristin: No, she didn't ban books... because her efforts to have them banned were quashed.

You don't honestly think being the mayor of a small town before being promoted to governor of such a small state is tantamount to having enough experience to run the most powerful nation in the world, do you?? I love how you point out Obama's lack of experience in ONE area while suggesting Palin is fully experienced, despite having ZERO experience in just about any area.

That part of the SNL skit where she said she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was was not actually made up.

A PERSON with experience and the background that will add to the ticket was chosen to run with McCain. PERIOD.

A person with experience in WHAT? Background in WHAT? You constantly come on here and make me back up my words, so now I'm asking you to explain these. What does she have so much experience and background in?

The Chapati Kid said...

Wow, Kristin! Under what rock did you crawl out from?

In her FIRST ever public speech, the first thing Sarah Palin did was make an appeal to Hillary's supporters by referring to the 18 million cracks in the ceiling -- a term that Michelle Obama coined. If that wasn't a blatant and ridiculous attempt to swing the vote of Clinton's supporters, I don't know what was. Clinton and Palin are NOTHING alike in their politics, so tell me, Kristin, what made Palin think that Hillary's supporters would vote for her? Because they're women?

I rest my case on that argument.

Next:

Sarah Palin HERSELF spoke about being a mother and an aunt in the first 5 minutes of her acceptance speech. She positioned herself as a woman against "the old boys".
I laughed so hard when I read your post that I'm still wiping my eyes. Are you serious? Are you that gullible and ignorant about the politics of your own country? What is your news source? Or do you just choose to read only the news sources that align with what you believe? Do you honestly think that the ENTIRE WORLD's news reporting on Palin's inexperience as a leader are lying about her record?

She accepted funding for a pork barrel spending project and then reneged on it, but she only spins to the public about rejecting it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143893857134389.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,284198.story

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/mccain-criticized-wasilla-earmarks-in-2001/

SHE says she heralded an oil pipeline through Alaska, but then it turns out:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-lies-of-s-6.html

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002951095

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/713/

(And all these are American media sources. Wait until you read the BBC or the Guardian online.)

Do you really think that the mayor of a town that didn't even have a police department when she became mayor is experienced enough to lead a country?

Palin LIES in her speeches that Obama is going to raise taxes, when media analysts all over the world have examined Obama's tax policies (laid out on his website for all the public to see) and they all agree that Obama will REDUCE taxes for 4 out of 5 people in America.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html

She holds up her baby like Simba in the Lion King and talks about what a great mother she is, but in the meantime, she believes that woman shouldn't have the choice to be in control of their own bodies. (Tell me, when you decide that a woman's choices over her reproductive rights are no longer hers, what makes you different from a Taliban leader who thinks that a woman's choices over her reproductive rights are no longer hers?)

Palin hasn't actually banned any books. Yet. But it is a documented fact that she has enquired about the procedure for banning books in state libraries.

Obama, for whatever he is, has not conducted a campaign that indulges in mud-slinging and name-calling. He has never made a single disrespectful statement about McCain or Palin's characters. He HAS complained about the unethical nature of their campaigning. But see, the difference is that he doesn't need to stoop low to get his votes. Not like this:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1841131,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

Next: Palin isn't running for the Presidency, but if she were ever to become President in the event of something happeneing to McCain, please tell me who would be there to give her advice except the puppeteers who are putting words in her mouth right now? Charlie Gibson DID have the facts straight. Go read the news. A total ingenue has every right to go around spouting cheerleader cries about cleaning up America and doing things the American way. But if she's so politically naive as to not even know what her own party President's line is, that's just pathetic.

Clinton didn't have foreign policy experience. Neither did Carter. Neither did lots of other U.S. presidents. But the issue at stake here is how to responsibly choose a VP who will be able to step in and deal with foreign policy issues and domestic issues with equanimity, intelligence, and foresight.

Kristin, wake up and smell the BS. Do you just think that if you believe what you want to believe, it'll all be true? Show me some facts to support your claims. Palin's not auditioning for the role of coach for the Mighty Ducks sequel, you know.

Nikki Stafford said...

Whew! Chapatikid, that was some post. Wow.

Kristin: You've said that I called Palin stupid, and I asked you to show me where I did that and you didn't respond. You've asked me to outline exactly what I don't like about Palin. In the past you've asked me to elaborate on why I don't like Bush or what my problem is with the Iraqi war, and I responded to both of them.

So now I'm asking you to elaborate on what it is you like about Palin. You've said we're being unfair for attacking her, but I'd love to see what it is you like about her. You can't just call her brilliant and not back it up with why she's brilliant. What do you like about her, specifically?

Anyone who regularly reads this blog knows I'm not a Republican. I'm not anything, despite someone suggesting I'm a Democrat. I do my research, I listen to what the parties have to say, and I make my decision. People who are either Republicans or right-wing often come onto my blog (after all, 95% of the time it's about television, and there are no party lines when it comes to that) and whenever I make even an aside on Bush I get heaped upon, mostly by people posting as "anonymous" who want me to explain EXACTLY what I don't like about McCain, Bush, or Palin. But when I turn it around, those same people slink away to await my next blog on the topic, where they can jump all over me again.

I like that you don't post anonymously, and you keep coming back, but unless you can back up what you're saying, it's just goading. It's pretty typical of the Republican party, I'm afraid: They expect Obama to have all the facts and figures and research and proof to back up every single statement, yet when Palin shrugs her shoulders and giggles, "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, heehee!" the same people slam the questioner, suggesting he was trying to hoodwink her. When is Palin going to have to go to the same lengths to prove herself as Obama does?

So I ask again: What is it about Palin that you like? After all, if you could actually back up your statements with some facts the way Chapati Kid just did, you just might win some people over.

Nikki Stafford said...

A friend of mine just sent me this, and it pretty much sums up my feelings about the hypocrisy of all of this. It's brilliant.

September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.


And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.

http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege