I just saw Sarah Palin in the Saturday Night Live opener.
Palin's skit revolved around the indistinguishability of her and Tina Fey's impression of her. The highpoint was a bit in which Alec Baldwin - Fey's co-star on 30 Rock - mistakes Palin for Fey.
And Palin was excellent. And that's the problem.
Sarah Palin was able to play herself so well on SNL - so well and indistinguishable from Tina Fey - because Sarah Palin is, essentially, a comedienne, a joke.
I mean this, seriously. Palin knows how deliver lines and postures and poses. Whether she is intentionally funny, or just is that way, doesn't matter. Her candidacy and her performance is a joke - on all of America.
Do we really want a person with her shtick - a person whose whole program really has no more depth than Tina Fey's shtick - as our Vice President?
Tina Fey deserves our applause, because her routine as Sarah Palin is a performance by someone who is not running for such high office.
And Sarah Palin deserves what? Unfortunately, not our laughter, but our grave concern.
(Palin also was game for pretty funny Weekend Live skit, later on the show.)
27 comments:
Barack Obama was pretty funny at the Alfred E. Smith Benefit.
According to your logic, we should not vote for him either.
Biden, now he's not funny. Why isn't he running for president?
You obviously didn't get - or didn't want to get - my logic: Obama wasn't funny being indistinguishable from a comedian impersonating him...
Get it now?
She was not impersonating Tiny Fey, I believe it was just a humorous light-hearted and skit, and the Alec Baldwin part was reference to Fey and Palin's resemblence in appearence. Calling the governor a joke is a little harsh. I understand if one feels she is unqualified or disagrees with her completely, but 'joke' is an insult Olbermann would use.
I'm sorry, Frank, but a VP candidate who can't name a newspaper or magazine she reads, and can't cite a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade, is indeed a joke - and a bad joke, and cause of concern for America, at that.
Ultimately, John McCain is really more to blame for this than Sarah Palin, since he chose her.
I'm sorry you feel that way Paul, but I have high respect for most prominant elected officials, regardless if I agree with them or not. Those little things are throw-away lines to me, just like Biden's gaffes or some of Obama's past associations, everyone screws up.
Wow, Republicans are dense (cough CPTWilly, cough)..
By your logic, Mccain is unfit to be president too because he's pretty damn funny as well. In fact, I liked him so much more in 2000 and before when he was transparent, and so open to reporters and gaffes.
Now Mccain has sold himself out by saying ANYTHING to win. Because he can't let the n**ger, terrorist win.
But that's straying from the point.. Palin is a joke of a joke.. of a joke. Literally. She emboddies everything that is wrong with this country. I was hoping someone on the cast of SNL would forgo the script and just say to her face that she lied about the trooper-gate, the bridge to nowhere, and that her pipeline idea isn't going anywhere.
Maverick my big fat hairy ass.
It sure would be nice if Palin were a joke. She's turned into something a lot worse than that. She's turned into a purveyer of hate.
As for her SNL performance, I'm not impressed. Why is it that people seem to be surprised if she doesn't slip on a banana peel or something equally ridiculous? I don't think she did any better than most celebs, and probably not as well as many - and she has a fair amount of experience as a performer.
Measure it this way: after watching Palin's skits tonight, does one get the feeling that she should be on the show as much as possible? Should she become one of those people who guests so much that they are basically cast members? I don't think so. I think the basic joke had to do with how well Fey does her - that it's perhaps better than Palin does herself. That's funny, but it's done now.
Palin has a schtick. It's not even a very good schtick. I think it's a measure of the way McCain's campaign has foundered that Palin's not-so-great schtick has become the driving force of his campaign.
And what's with this 'boo hoo, it's mean to call Palin a joke" stuff?! Ok, well what is she then? Is she a uniter? Not hardly, right? Is she someone with ideas? Not unless you're into theocracy and drill, drill, drill, right? Is she the voice of experience?
As for the reference to Olbermann, that was praise, right? And as regards being funny, there's different kinds of funny. Obama is actually witty. Palin is a walking caricature. Tina Fey has created a much more compelling Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin has.
I have to admit, I'm being a bit unfair to Palin. She's not without wit by any means. She did have the wit to do Sarah Palin doing Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin tonight. I don't think her comedic talent rises to the encore level, but there is some there.
Agreed, Steve and workshop ... Good time to say - welcome to Infinite Regress...
Greetings!
Like most politicians, Palin is charismatic and likeable, particularly in person.
But, her supporters have trouble distinguishing betweeen likeability and qualification for office. There can be absolutely no question that she is badly unqualified. Being a VP or the president involves far more than being able to deliver a rousing speech. There are still millions of people planning to vote for her and McCain, which is an indication that too many Americans are afflicted by a basic and dangerous inability to think clearly.
And spare me with the "she has more executive experience than the other three candidates combined" bullcrap. By that logic Bush junior should be great. Quite the contrary.
Go back and look closely at the Alex Baldwin segment. That wasn't Baldwin, that was McCain in a dark wig.
Psych!
But seriously, the problem with our mediated election is that many voters cannot distinguish between candidates as performers and candidates as political leaders. While it may be nearly impossible for a candidate to win an election without performance skills, recent elections at both the national and local level have shown that it is possible for a candidate without leadership or policy skills to succeed.
Starting with Reagan, through "W" and on to Palin, the Republicans have operated under the assumption that an accomplished performer is the key to election success, with policy and political agenda guided by the back room boys. The scary thing is that had this campaign been conducted in a less catastrophic environment, the Palin tactic might have worked.
Frank, Workshop is not spewing hate. No one in these comments has been doing that. Shouting fire when a blaze is burning that could take down your house is not spewing hate - it's calling attention to a dangerous problem, which is what Sarah Palin would be as Vice President.
If anything has been spewed, it is contempt for America that Republicans spewed by nominating Palin for VP. You seem like a reasonable person. Can you truthfully say you think Palin has the experience to be VP? Wouldn't have felt better if Romney or any of the other people in the GOP short list has been chosen as VP candidate?
Absolutely, I think Gov. Romney would have helped Senator McCain greatly especially on the economy. Gov. Romney is fluent on the economy, something most Republican are not. Senator Lieberman would have also been even more of a maverick choice, and one that would have been supported by me. Unfortunatly, Sen. McCain fell into the trap of playing to the crazy conservatives. The campaign should have realized they would have voted him regardless. I hold the campaign responsible though, as you said, Paul. The campaign has been dismal, top to bottom. However, Gov. Palin is a good governor and I respect that. But there are ways to criticize and ways to not, and worship attacked me just because I was offering a different perspective. But, yes ultimately this will be regarded as a mistake.
Paul: Since 2000 we have seen a gradual decline in the standards for qualifications for the White House. George W. was the original Joke as President in 2000. And then with the help of the American electorate W. reprised the Joke role again in 2004. Sarah Palin represents the slippery slope of the Presidency from the Mount Olympus of Excellence to the Mole Hill of Mediocrity. We no longer aspire to elect great candidates to lead us but we convince ourselves (with the help of political con men (Karl Rove your table for two at the Dirty Tricks and Political Chicanery Bistro is ready) and the majority of the mainstream media, MSM) that we need an Average Joe to lead us (I can't wait for 2012 when the GOP runs the popular ticket of Joe, the Plumber and Joe Six-pack). We have passed on some Great Ones (imagine Al Gore as President -- where would this country be today? In way better shape -- all across the board; or McCain, version 2000 -- the real deal) for the Mediocre One (George W.). And now we have another under-qualified imposter potentially riding shotgun on the Presidency. We have seen this movie before .... it does not end well for us. For a reminder, just check your recent quarterly 401K statement.
Robert K. Blechman said: "The scary thing is that had this campaign been conducted in a less catastrophic environment, the Palin tactic might have worked." I agree Absolutely. Very scary indeed -- think about it. If the economic meltdown had come post-Nov 4th, McCain would be a very scary tangible possibility. I don't agree with the majority opinion that the economic troubles doomed the McCain campaign. Both candidates were in a position to benefit depending on how they handled the situation. Unfortunately McCain gave the standard GOP pavlovian response to bad news -- paint a happy face on the problem and reassure Americans that we are the greatest nation regardless of the cold reality that is plain for all to see. McCain uttered those words that will haunt him the rest of his days: the fundamentals of the economy are strong. How ironic - McCain's "putting lipstick on a pig" boomeranged big time. Who would have thunk it?
The Roves have been perpetrating candidate fraud on the American people for the last eight years. I can't fault them for trying again to prop up a political rube as a legitimate candidate. As long as we keep buying this crap, Rove & Co. will continue to dish out a crappy product.
So how did we get here? What came first, Mediocre candidates or Mediocre electorate? Any thoughts?
/jimy_max
The new Sarah Palin For President in 2012 website is now online, with related news, headlines & links at http://www.palin4pres2012.com/
Glad to see that, anon - Palin will be easy to beat in 2012...
Paul: after reading the tea leaves this morning, I can clearly see the Nov. 5th newspaper headlines:
* McCain-Palin Get Avalanched
* Palin returns to Alaska to go Quayle hunting
* GOP takes aim on a 2012 "Joe" Ticket: Joe, the Plumber & Joe Six-pack
and now back to our regularly scheduled programming,
/jimy_max
"Good lord, the only person spewing hate is you workshop"
Just out of curiosity, Frank, what exactly did Workship say that you would characterize as spewing hate?
Arnold - I'm reminded of Harry Truman's famous line - "I speak truth about the Republicans, but to them it seems like hell."
It was you who encouraged me to keep posting Paul. I figured you want to hear some other perspectives. Don't throw me into a Republican stereotype because I think you know by now I am different. You yourself called me reasonable.
I do think you're reasonable, Frank - but that doesn't mean I think you were right to say that Workshop was "spewing hate" - as I replied to you in an above comment, I think Workshop was not spewing hate at all, but speaking the truth.
I see now that you have removed your "spewing hate" accusation at Workshop. Although I was disappointed you said that in the first place, by now removing your own comment you've made it a little difficult for new readers to follow the conversation.
If you agree that your original statement that Workshop was "spewing hate" in his criticism of Palin was not warranted, the better way of indicating that would be not to remove your comment, but say in a subsequent comment that your original comment was wrong.
Ok well maybe "spewing hate" was harsh, but I was aggravated at a sarcastic, comment directed at me. Lets move on...
Works for me. Consider this issue so moved.
Hey Paul- What are the customs for State of the Union addreses on transition years? Does the outgoing President and incoming President give one? The incoming President usually lays out what he wants to do in the Inauguration Speech, correct? What is quid pro quo here?
Good question. If memory serves, I think not - I recall that last year people were saying that would be Bush's last State of the Union address. And Wikipedia says "a State of the Union address is generally not given in years in which a new president is inaugurated".
Post a Comment