Posted by beltway girl on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 2:19:12 PM
HILLARY: So, I have this dream, and it's always the same.
DOCTOR: What is it? The hat?
HILLARY: Yes, the hat. I've turned into a hat.
DOCTOR: And this is in the field of cattle.
HILLARY: Yes.
DOCTOR: We've discussed this before. This is a reference to your Texas campaign, and how you alluded to the fact that Obama was all hat and no cattle. Meaning, no substance. But in reality, you yourself fear you're all style and no substance. Do you understand?
HILLARY: Mmhmm.
DOCTOR: Now back to Texas and that 3 a.m. ad.
HILLARY: Mmhmm.
DOCTOR: Where did the idea for that ad come from?
HILLARY: I don't recall.
DOCTOR: You don't recall?
HILLARY: No.
DOCTOR: Think hard.
HILLARY: I don't know.
DOCTOR: Okay, but you approved the ad.
HILLARY: Well, yes. Listen, you've already disclosed to me that you're an Obama contributor, and--
DOCTOR: Hillary, don't you think this ad makes you to appear to be something of a hawk? And I mean, when you appeal to your base, you're always trying to look dovish. Why did you run this ad?
HILLARY: Because of the state I was in.
DOCTOR: But Hillary, John McCain's the hawk. You're supposed to be the victimized dove. Are you planning on running this ad in Pennsylvania?
HILLARY: No.
DOCTOR: Why not?
HILLARY: Because of the state I'm in.
DOCTOR: Look, Hillary. The ad isn't in keeping with your statements about wanting to take your vote back on Iraq. You showed that when the phone rings, you don't know how to answer, or what to say. Obama, on the other hand--
HILLARY: It's hard. You know? It's hard--
DOCTOR: Mrs. Clinton, stop crying. Now, Obama--
HILLARY (screaming): Look, you, what state am I in? Texas is a conservative state! I need to look like a hawk! I have to look like a strong woman! Pennsylvania is a whole different bag of cats! Now, damnit, what state am I in?
DOCTOR: Dissociative state, altered state, it's hard to tell--
HILLARY: How many delegates do they have?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Dream Is Always the Same, Part II
Posted by beltway girl on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:47:49 PM
HILLARY: It's the hat again.
DOCTOR: Okay. Tell me about that.
HILLARY: This time, I turn into the hat, and all the cattle start complaining about being taken in boxcars to a brokered convention. And then, they all start screaming, "Yes, We, Can! Yes, We, Can!"
DOCTOR: Yes, well, we've already discussed the fact that you have deep-rooted anxiety where Obama's charisma, brilliant rhetoric, and ability to connect with the voters are concerned. It's giving you repressed feelings of guilt.
HILLARY: Mmhmm. Well, one of the cattle that was screaming had a cigar in his mouth, and I think it was Rush Limbaugh.
DOCTOR: Yes. Well, this confirms my theory that much of your guilt since the Ohio and Texas primaries stems from subconscious fears that Limbaugh has made you into a pawn by encouraging crossover voters from his own party to vote for you, thus sabotaging Obama's legimtimate chance for victory in the general election. Not to mention the damage done to the party by making the voters watch you viciously attack Senator Obama right through to Pennsylvania and perhaps beyond.
HILLARY: Mmhmm. Well, then the Limbaugh cattle pulls out a cell phone. And all of a sudden, I'm in the White House, and it's--
DOCTOR: 3 a.m.?
HILLARY: Right! So I figure it's Limbaugh calling to torture me, and I don't answer it. But..
DOCTOR: Yes?
HILLARY: Well, it turned out to be a catastrophic crisis in the Middle East, and Obama ended up taking the call. So I got impeached and Obama became president.
DOCTOR: Interesting.
HILLARY: I'm afraid to close my eyes now. I keep hearing the cattle, "Yes, We, Can! Yes, We, Can!"
DOCTOR: Mrs. Clinton, when you were in Ohio, did you eat your way across the state again?
HILLARY: Yes I did.
DOCTOR: Did you by any chance have... a steak?
HILLARY: Yes I did.
DOCTOR: Did you enjoy the steak?
HILLARY: Yes I did.
DOCTOR: Did you leave a tip this time, Mrs. Clinton?
HILLARY, Why, no, I must have forgot-- Oh, oh, I think I see what you're sa--
DOCTOR: Yes, You, Can! Yes, You, Can overcome all of this repressed guilt, Mrs. Clinton. Yes, You, Can!
HILLARY: It's the hat again.
DOCTOR: Okay. Tell me about that.
HILLARY: This time, I turn into the hat, and all the cattle start complaining about being taken in boxcars to a brokered convention. And then, they all start screaming, "Yes, We, Can! Yes, We, Can!"
DOCTOR: Yes, well, we've already discussed the fact that you have deep-rooted anxiety where Obama's charisma, brilliant rhetoric, and ability to connect with the voters are concerned. It's giving you repressed feelings of guilt.
HILLARY: Mmhmm. Well, one of the cattle that was screaming had a cigar in his mouth, and I think it was Rush Limbaugh.
DOCTOR: Yes. Well, this confirms my theory that much of your guilt since the Ohio and Texas primaries stems from subconscious fears that Limbaugh has made you into a pawn by encouraging crossover voters from his own party to vote for you, thus sabotaging Obama's legimtimate chance for victory in the general election. Not to mention the damage done to the party by making the voters watch you viciously attack Senator Obama right through to Pennsylvania and perhaps beyond.
HILLARY: Mmhmm. Well, then the Limbaugh cattle pulls out a cell phone. And all of a sudden, I'm in the White House, and it's--
DOCTOR: 3 a.m.?
HILLARY: Right! So I figure it's Limbaugh calling to torture me, and I don't answer it. But..
DOCTOR: Yes?
HILLARY: Well, it turned out to be a catastrophic crisis in the Middle East, and Obama ended up taking the call. So I got impeached and Obama became president.
DOCTOR: Interesting.
HILLARY: I'm afraid to close my eyes now. I keep hearing the cattle, "Yes, We, Can! Yes, We, Can!"
DOCTOR: Mrs. Clinton, when you were in Ohio, did you eat your way across the state again?
HILLARY: Yes I did.
DOCTOR: Did you by any chance have... a steak?
HILLARY: Yes I did.
DOCTOR: Did you enjoy the steak?
HILLARY: Yes I did.
DOCTOR: Did you leave a tip this time, Mrs. Clinton?
HILLARY, Why, no, I must have forgot-- Oh, oh, I think I see what you're sa--
DOCTOR: Yes, You, Can! Yes, You, Can overcome all of this repressed guilt, Mrs. Clinton. Yes, You, Can!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Mike Huckabee Moves On
Many social conservatives will miss Mike Huckabee, and with good reason. Maybe they won't miss everything, but most will miss some one or two or more of the items he brought to the table.
Personally, I won't miss the loaves and fishes.
The loaves and fishes. Wasn't this after Iowa? Here was Mike Huckabee, surprise surge candidate with a breathtaking win, and with a real chance. On the map out of nowhere, and potentially on his way to the presidency. If he would just state his positions and play by the rules.
Now, I am not talking about playing the rules of the media, with its liberal bias, lack of class or balance ("pimped-out" Chelsea), or more deft wackery ("General Betrayus").
I am talking about the rules that many in the electorate have regarding religion. Not everyone in America is Christian, and they should not have to elect a First Preacher. And those who are Christian don't want a bully pulpit-- of this kind-- being operated out of the White House.
Does this mean these people are not good Christians? No, it does not. They simply recognize a need for sensitivity in this area. They are secure enough, in their own convictions, where they don't want, or particularly like, the idea of waving their cross on a flag.
Moreover, there is another aspect to religion in the political arena which George Will has pointed out, which is that you don't want to inject powerful biblical imagery into a political contest because... Well, it looks silly. As Will aptly stated in a column not all that long ago, we often see God at work in the world. But saying it's at work in the Republican scramble for delegates may be taking it too far. The average voter sees nothing venerable in today's politics.
So Huckabee broke the rules, not only of the media-- which many viewers love seeing broken-- but also of many in the mainstream electorate.
Had he not broken them with the loaves and fishes, he might well have been the nominee. And social conservatives deserve to be more than a little miffed with Huckabee's injection of religion into the race, not so much because it was an Elmer Gantry move (I don't believe it was, in this case), but because it removed his capaign from serious contention for the nomination. Social conservatives are forced to walk a fine line with their morality and most have undoubtedly witnessed the media pummelling of their views. Their stands are labelled as zealotry and fanaticism, even though this is not the case. These social conservatives don't want to see an otherwise formidable candidate play right into their hands.
Huckabee did this. And it was a mistake.
He raises interesting questions with his discussion of running away from his faith, and how the media may be requiring candidates to do just that. This is a good point. While it's true that Americans currently see nothing venerable in their politics, it may be something of a problem that they don't.
But in terms of senstivity towards voters of all faiths, it is important that candidates assure voters that they're not going to favor certain religions, or force facets of any particular faith on a sweeping and diverse body; at the same time, though, we don't want practical or effective atheism to become a prerequisite of office.
So the question becomes, can you exercise morality free of religious convictions?
Ask just about any atheist if they are moral, and you will find the answer to that fairly quickly. Morality and religion have a relationship, to be sure; but the relationship is not exclusive. Morality and religion are not synonymous. We are right not to ask candidates not to inject their religion into politics; we are insane to ask them not to inject morality.
Huckabee made the mistake of injecting relgion. But it shouldn't have inspired the type of frothing anger (at worst) and mocking nastiness (at best) that he received in return from the media.
The thing about Mike Huckabee was, he was real. He was a real, three-dimensional figure, something the political world despises, and which the media despises even more (if that's possible). He was not Elmer Gantry. Not unless you also think talking about frying a squirrel in a college dorm was also a calculated maneuver to stoke religious fervor into a successful White House bid.
He was just a nice, down-to-earth guy, unaccustomed to the nasty tactics of the "scrutinizing" national media.
Maybe Mike Huckabee will vanish now, and maybe it would be the best thing for Mike Huckabee if he did. He'd probably have a happier and more contented life. But social conservatives might count themselves very lucky to have him back, provided he makes it clear his loaves and fishes won't be on the desk of the Oval Office.
You'll excuse me for saying so, but there have been far more offensive things associated with that desk in recent years.
Personally, I won't miss the loaves and fishes.
The loaves and fishes. Wasn't this after Iowa? Here was Mike Huckabee, surprise surge candidate with a breathtaking win, and with a real chance. On the map out of nowhere, and potentially on his way to the presidency. If he would just state his positions and play by the rules.
Now, I am not talking about playing the rules of the media, with its liberal bias, lack of class or balance ("pimped-out" Chelsea), or more deft wackery ("General Betrayus").
I am talking about the rules that many in the electorate have regarding religion. Not everyone in America is Christian, and they should not have to elect a First Preacher. And those who are Christian don't want a bully pulpit-- of this kind-- being operated out of the White House.
Does this mean these people are not good Christians? No, it does not. They simply recognize a need for sensitivity in this area. They are secure enough, in their own convictions, where they don't want, or particularly like, the idea of waving their cross on a flag.
Moreover, there is another aspect to religion in the political arena which George Will has pointed out, which is that you don't want to inject powerful biblical imagery into a political contest because... Well, it looks silly. As Will aptly stated in a column not all that long ago, we often see God at work in the world. But saying it's at work in the Republican scramble for delegates may be taking it too far. The average voter sees nothing venerable in today's politics.
So Huckabee broke the rules, not only of the media-- which many viewers love seeing broken-- but also of many in the mainstream electorate.
Had he not broken them with the loaves and fishes, he might well have been the nominee. And social conservatives deserve to be more than a little miffed with Huckabee's injection of religion into the race, not so much because it was an Elmer Gantry move (I don't believe it was, in this case), but because it removed his capaign from serious contention for the nomination. Social conservatives are forced to walk a fine line with their morality and most have undoubtedly witnessed the media pummelling of their views. Their stands are labelled as zealotry and fanaticism, even though this is not the case. These social conservatives don't want to see an otherwise formidable candidate play right into their hands.
Huckabee did this. And it was a mistake.
He raises interesting questions with his discussion of running away from his faith, and how the media may be requiring candidates to do just that. This is a good point. While it's true that Americans currently see nothing venerable in their politics, it may be something of a problem that they don't.
But in terms of senstivity towards voters of all faiths, it is important that candidates assure voters that they're not going to favor certain religions, or force facets of any particular faith on a sweeping and diverse body; at the same time, though, we don't want practical or effective atheism to become a prerequisite of office.
So the question becomes, can you exercise morality free of religious convictions?
Ask just about any atheist if they are moral, and you will find the answer to that fairly quickly. Morality and religion have a relationship, to be sure; but the relationship is not exclusive. Morality and religion are not synonymous. We are right not to ask candidates not to inject their religion into politics; we are insane to ask them not to inject morality.
Huckabee made the mistake of injecting relgion. But it shouldn't have inspired the type of frothing anger (at worst) and mocking nastiness (at best) that he received in return from the media.
The thing about Mike Huckabee was, he was real. He was a real, three-dimensional figure, something the political world despises, and which the media despises even more (if that's possible). He was not Elmer Gantry. Not unless you also think talking about frying a squirrel in a college dorm was also a calculated maneuver to stoke religious fervor into a successful White House bid.
He was just a nice, down-to-earth guy, unaccustomed to the nasty tactics of the "scrutinizing" national media.
Maybe Mike Huckabee will vanish now, and maybe it would be the best thing for Mike Huckabee if he did. He'd probably have a happier and more contented life. But social conservatives might count themselves very lucky to have him back, provided he makes it clear his loaves and fishes won't be on the desk of the Oval Office.
You'll excuse me for saying so, but there have been far more offensive things associated with that desk in recent years.
Is It Still Curtains?
Yes.
Until there's one gasp left, until there's one breath, until there's one twitch of life, until there's a line across the screen with that shrill, steady beep, it will not be over for many in the Clinton camp. Arguably, even when there is, it won't be over.
A victory in Ohio. How much does this mean in terms of the plug pulling?
It depends on the margin of victory. It also depends on Texas, and the outcome as a whole in terms of net delegates.
The only real chance Clinton would have in this, when you look at the situation as a big picture, is a demand for a do-over in Florida and Michigan. First off, you couldn't be too sure this would go Clinton's way. Second, these races didn't count for a reason. These states were being punished for moving their races up on the calendar.
Is it still going to be a punishment when they decide an entire race? And aren't the Clintons concerned about that fact?
Maybe. They're concerned it's going to make it harder to get the do-over.
This is over. It's over. It's been over for awhile. The skies are open. The choirs sang. The light's been shining for awhile. Have the Democrats finally picked a winner?
Yes. And it's not Hillary, nor would it ultimately be, even if she still carried the nomination. And it's for that reason alone that I believe she won't. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have gloated over the fact that a vote for Hillary would end up as a vote for McCain in the general election.
The eerie thing for Republicans is that Democrats could argue a vote for McCain would actually be a vote for the Democrats, but that's another story.
In the end, she is not going to be able to pull this off. Her nomination will be a McCain victory on a gilded silver platter, and too many Republicans are gleefully pointing this out.
It is just too late in the game. The illusion of choice may not be completely dispelled yet, and for some, it never will be. But when the voters wake up tomorrow and look at the aftermath, it may well be on its way.
Until there's one gasp left, until there's one breath, until there's one twitch of life, until there's a line across the screen with that shrill, steady beep, it will not be over for many in the Clinton camp. Arguably, even when there is, it won't be over.
A victory in Ohio. How much does this mean in terms of the plug pulling?
It depends on the margin of victory. It also depends on Texas, and the outcome as a whole in terms of net delegates.
The only real chance Clinton would have in this, when you look at the situation as a big picture, is a demand for a do-over in Florida and Michigan. First off, you couldn't be too sure this would go Clinton's way. Second, these races didn't count for a reason. These states were being punished for moving their races up on the calendar.
Is it still going to be a punishment when they decide an entire race? And aren't the Clintons concerned about that fact?
Maybe. They're concerned it's going to make it harder to get the do-over.
This is over. It's over. It's been over for awhile. The skies are open. The choirs sang. The light's been shining for awhile. Have the Democrats finally picked a winner?
Yes. And it's not Hillary, nor would it ultimately be, even if she still carried the nomination. And it's for that reason alone that I believe she won't. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have gloated over the fact that a vote for Hillary would end up as a vote for McCain in the general election.
The eerie thing for Republicans is that Democrats could argue a vote for McCain would actually be a vote for the Democrats, but that's another story.
In the end, she is not going to be able to pull this off. Her nomination will be a McCain victory on a gilded silver platter, and too many Republicans are gleefully pointing this out.
It is just too late in the game. The illusion of choice may not be completely dispelled yet, and for some, it never will be. But when the voters wake up tomorrow and look at the aftermath, it may well be on its way.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Looks Like Curtains for the Bill and Hillary Show
Right now, there should be someone out there printing up an "I Survived the Clinton Machine" tee shirt in Obama's size.
Yesterday, one of our cable news networks continually provided the averages for the Ohio polls, and the end result was a slim Clinton lead and the illusion of suspense. I stand by these words today, even though certain polls-- including Rasmussen, I believe-- have shown a less precarious Clinton edge. Mrs. Clinton is losing her grip on Ohio just as she has in Texas.
This illusion of suspense is curiously similar to the illusion of choice that exists in both campaigns.
It really and truly does appear that the plug will be pulled on Clinton campaign life support. The Bill and Hillary Show (christened by National Review) will go on, but it will no longer be the main event. For some of us who actually watch trends in the polls-- rather than glomming figures together to keep viewers in a state of suspended disbelief-- this is no surprise.
There is no longer any real choice in the Democratic race. But the Democrats are no strangers to creating choice where no reasonable choice exists, and our pimped-out media are no strangers to perpetuating myths.
On the Republican ticket, we're seeing the same thing except more so. Mike Huckabee wants to hang in there. He is not going to win, but he can further carve out a power position for himself in the party. This same dynamic will soon kick into play with the Clintons, but in the opposite direction.
Very large numbers of voters in both parties are on the road to nowhere right now. The Republican portion of this curious bloc knows it; the Democrats are still in denial.
The difference is not trivial. Republicans, on a whole slate of issues, are better able to come to terms with reality than the Democrats. When Republicans throw their votes away, they recognize it. They have backed a loser, but they have their own reasons for doing so.
Hillary voters, on the other hand, don't see their votes as being wasted. Not until tomorrow, when the plug is actually pulled, will they open their eyes and realize there was no real choice after all. The candidate of inevitability will have been proven to be... evitable.
The Campaign of Denial can arguably take some comfort in the fact that it will now belong to a party with a cadidate who is actually favored to win the White House. A candidate who will actually have an inauguration. One that might emerge as the clear favorite.
But I doubt it. The same people who right now cannot free themselves from either the illusion of suspense or of choice will find precisely this scenario completely unacceptable at worst, and highly uncomfortable at best. This segment of the Democratic Party sees loss as something honorable and decent, and something actually to be striven for. They have found their girl, and it will be hard to let go. They may have to. Oh, they could still vote Republican in a last-ditch effort to lose, but this could backfire, and McCain might actually win.
Obama is right. Hillary has painted his supporters as a bunch of dreamy and delusional fools who can't accept reality. A bunch of Uncle Billys, if you will, with the strings around the fingers telling them what day, and which way, to vote. In the end, the exact opposite will be true. And tomorrow, when those skies open up, and the celestial choirs sing, and the light shines down, the Democratic party might actually have emerged with a winner.
Yesterday, one of our cable news networks continually provided the averages for the Ohio polls, and the end result was a slim Clinton lead and the illusion of suspense. I stand by these words today, even though certain polls-- including Rasmussen, I believe-- have shown a less precarious Clinton edge. Mrs. Clinton is losing her grip on Ohio just as she has in Texas.
This illusion of suspense is curiously similar to the illusion of choice that exists in both campaigns.
It really and truly does appear that the plug will be pulled on Clinton campaign life support. The Bill and Hillary Show (christened by National Review) will go on, but it will no longer be the main event. For some of us who actually watch trends in the polls-- rather than glomming figures together to keep viewers in a state of suspended disbelief-- this is no surprise.
There is no longer any real choice in the Democratic race. But the Democrats are no strangers to creating choice where no reasonable choice exists, and our pimped-out media are no strangers to perpetuating myths.
On the Republican ticket, we're seeing the same thing except more so. Mike Huckabee wants to hang in there. He is not going to win, but he can further carve out a power position for himself in the party. This same dynamic will soon kick into play with the Clintons, but in the opposite direction.
Very large numbers of voters in both parties are on the road to nowhere right now. The Republican portion of this curious bloc knows it; the Democrats are still in denial.
The difference is not trivial. Republicans, on a whole slate of issues, are better able to come to terms with reality than the Democrats. When Republicans throw their votes away, they recognize it. They have backed a loser, but they have their own reasons for doing so.
Hillary voters, on the other hand, don't see their votes as being wasted. Not until tomorrow, when the plug is actually pulled, will they open their eyes and realize there was no real choice after all. The candidate of inevitability will have been proven to be... evitable.
The Campaign of Denial can arguably take some comfort in the fact that it will now belong to a party with a cadidate who is actually favored to win the White House. A candidate who will actually have an inauguration. One that might emerge as the clear favorite.
But I doubt it. The same people who right now cannot free themselves from either the illusion of suspense or of choice will find precisely this scenario completely unacceptable at worst, and highly uncomfortable at best. This segment of the Democratic Party sees loss as something honorable and decent, and something actually to be striven for. They have found their girl, and it will be hard to let go. They may have to. Oh, they could still vote Republican in a last-ditch effort to lose, but this could backfire, and McCain might actually win.
Obama is right. Hillary has painted his supporters as a bunch of dreamy and delusional fools who can't accept reality. A bunch of Uncle Billys, if you will, with the strings around the fingers telling them what day, and which way, to vote. In the end, the exact opposite will be true. And tomorrow, when those skies open up, and the celestial choirs sing, and the light shines down, the Democratic party might actually have emerged with a winner.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Saturday Night Live Isn't Funny Anymore
The seventies have been over for a long time. The Bees are gone. The Coneheads are gone. Point/Counterpoint is gone. Falling Chevy Chase is gone. The Wild & Crazy Guys are gone, and so's Mr. Bill. (Into the White House, and who the new punching bags were is anyone's guess.)
What is left is a little bit of sharp political satire and not much else. And we've all got to wonder about even that when Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton provide some of the funniest moments for the new Not Ready for Primetime Players.
The creative genius that put Saturday Night Live on the cutting edge is long gone. Remember the Bees? And Todd and Lisa? These were funny. They were creative and original. They required a spark of imagination that people would call a gift because they came out of nowhere. And the people who came up with these ideas would never talk about thinking outside the box because no one who uses that phrase is really outside. They weren't making fun of any one person or thing in particular. Oh, perhaps the awkwardness of youth with Todd and Lisa, and even Wayne's World. But these are more universal themes which are shared, and which all people of a society can relate to. Belushi and Akroyd didn't need to craft jokes out of watching a political debate. They didn't need to rely almost exclusively on a specfic media event that they could watch and figure out who, what, and how to mock. A lot of their best humor did not make fun of any one specific someone or something.
And that, in a nutshell, says a lot not just about this one program, but about what has happened to our entire culture. The show seems to be reflecting a cynicism and meanness that has caught hold of the national psyche, and which has drained the real life genius and fun out of not just SNL scripts, but the population as a whole.
When Saturday Night Live was first airing, and still funny, the Cold War was still being fought and a whole host of social issues thrown up by the Sexual Revolution had yet to be codified into the society's social framework.
Several decades later, there is no Evil Empire to attack, so many Americans seem to have resorted to demonizing each other. No doubt this always went on, but you'd have to really wonder if it is not now at an all-time high. And the bits and pieces of embraced traditional values that were in place before the sixties are now antiquities. You can catch glimpses of them in decades-old films and television shows at midnight screenings that modern audiences probably text message their way through over beer and pizza. I do not know if this generation will be like mine; my generation, and the one before it, laughed at the past. And they laughed hard.
Saturday Night Live isn't funny anymore. And neither is a lot of what is happening around us. It is one thing to laugh at the past. But when the laughter fuels the destruction of what was nurturing in society-- and what made the average person feel safe and secure, and maybe even happy-- the laughter stops.
So goes Saturday Night Live and its nation.
What is left is a little bit of sharp political satire and not much else. And we've all got to wonder about even that when Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton provide some of the funniest moments for the new Not Ready for Primetime Players.
The creative genius that put Saturday Night Live on the cutting edge is long gone. Remember the Bees? And Todd and Lisa? These were funny. They were creative and original. They required a spark of imagination that people would call a gift because they came out of nowhere. And the people who came up with these ideas would never talk about thinking outside the box because no one who uses that phrase is really outside. They weren't making fun of any one person or thing in particular. Oh, perhaps the awkwardness of youth with Todd and Lisa, and even Wayne's World. But these are more universal themes which are shared, and which all people of a society can relate to. Belushi and Akroyd didn't need to craft jokes out of watching a political debate. They didn't need to rely almost exclusively on a specfic media event that they could watch and figure out who, what, and how to mock. A lot of their best humor did not make fun of any one specific someone or something.
And that, in a nutshell, says a lot not just about this one program, but about what has happened to our entire culture. The show seems to be reflecting a cynicism and meanness that has caught hold of the national psyche, and which has drained the real life genius and fun out of not just SNL scripts, but the population as a whole.
When Saturday Night Live was first airing, and still funny, the Cold War was still being fought and a whole host of social issues thrown up by the Sexual Revolution had yet to be codified into the society's social framework.
Several decades later, there is no Evil Empire to attack, so many Americans seem to have resorted to demonizing each other. No doubt this always went on, but you'd have to really wonder if it is not now at an all-time high. And the bits and pieces of embraced traditional values that were in place before the sixties are now antiquities. You can catch glimpses of them in decades-old films and television shows at midnight screenings that modern audiences probably text message their way through over beer and pizza. I do not know if this generation will be like mine; my generation, and the one before it, laughed at the past. And they laughed hard.
Saturday Night Live isn't funny anymore. And neither is a lot of what is happening around us. It is one thing to laugh at the past. But when the laughter fuels the destruction of what was nurturing in society-- and what made the average person feel safe and secure, and maybe even happy-- the laughter stops.
So goes Saturday Night Live and its nation.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Storm Front: Heading into Texas and Ohio
Hillary's campaign could have been-- and very nearly was-- destroyed at New Hampshire. As Fred Barnes pointed out not all that long ago, a cadidate that had won both Iowa and New Hampshire would traditionally be that party's nominee.
But she got her comeback and said she wanted to give America the same kind of comeback New Hampshire had given her.
So what happened?
The New Hampshire victory was not necessarily a nod of approval toward what National Review has so aptly referred to as the Bill and Hillary Show. Rather, it was a recoiling by voters from going abruptly from one candidate of inevitability to another. Indeed, a New Hampshire loss would have been an early end for Hillary, and a coronation for Obama.
For a generation that has come to see issues of inalienability now as matters of "choice," a nomination without that choice would have seemed downright un-American. In truth, the New Hampshire victory did not really raise Mrs. Clinton from the dead. It only put her campaign on a sort of political life support. Once Iowa began the process of dethroning Hillary with a shocking third-place finish, the future of the Clintonian monarchy was in serious jeopardy. On top of this, the New Hampshire polls all inexplicably pointed toward an Obama crowning in New Hampshire. The numbers fed into the downward spiral of the candidate of inevitability on television screens, in newspaper headlines, and ultimately in the minds of voters.
After Iowa, Hillary was well on her way to meeting the fate of the New England Patriots before the Patriots themselves were undone. And New Hamsphire really didn't change anything.
The same factors that have brought us into the Texas-Ohio storm front were in place from the very beginning. The iconic figure of change with the nuts-and-bolts community organizer experience. Yes, he did have the experience of a community organizer. But he also had a brilliant mind and the oratorical skills of a JFK. He was young. He was charismatic. He was African-American and thus able to refute the inevitability of the history-making First Woman President. He had a health care plan similar to hers and ideas for tuition relief. He had also been against Iraq from the beginning.
A campaign more in touch with reality than the Clintons' would have recognized the threat. But a sort of bubble of overconfidence put the Clinton campaign floating in a fog where the only thing to fear was fear itself.
Not in this case.
So as we head into the storm front, we might recognize that some storms have already done the damage and died down. Survivors have emerged as well as the fallen. At this point, the wiser parties have recognized the real storm to come and have taken shelter in their strongholds, bracing for the coming Obamacain.
- beltway girl
But she got her comeback and said she wanted to give America the same kind of comeback New Hampshire had given her.
So what happened?
The New Hampshire victory was not necessarily a nod of approval toward what National Review has so aptly referred to as the Bill and Hillary Show. Rather, it was a recoiling by voters from going abruptly from one candidate of inevitability to another. Indeed, a New Hampshire loss would have been an early end for Hillary, and a coronation for Obama.
For a generation that has come to see issues of inalienability now as matters of "choice," a nomination without that choice would have seemed downright un-American. In truth, the New Hampshire victory did not really raise Mrs. Clinton from the dead. It only put her campaign on a sort of political life support. Once Iowa began the process of dethroning Hillary with a shocking third-place finish, the future of the Clintonian monarchy was in serious jeopardy. On top of this, the New Hampshire polls all inexplicably pointed toward an Obama crowning in New Hampshire. The numbers fed into the downward spiral of the candidate of inevitability on television screens, in newspaper headlines, and ultimately in the minds of voters.
After Iowa, Hillary was well on her way to meeting the fate of the New England Patriots before the Patriots themselves were undone. And New Hamsphire really didn't change anything.
The same factors that have brought us into the Texas-Ohio storm front were in place from the very beginning. The iconic figure of change with the nuts-and-bolts community organizer experience. Yes, he did have the experience of a community organizer. But he also had a brilliant mind and the oratorical skills of a JFK. He was young. He was charismatic. He was African-American and thus able to refute the inevitability of the history-making First Woman President. He had a health care plan similar to hers and ideas for tuition relief. He had also been against Iraq from the beginning.
A campaign more in touch with reality than the Clintons' would have recognized the threat. But a sort of bubble of overconfidence put the Clinton campaign floating in a fog where the only thing to fear was fear itself.
Not in this case.
So as we head into the storm front, we might recognize that some storms have already done the damage and died down. Survivors have emerged as well as the fallen. At this point, the wiser parties have recognized the real storm to come and have taken shelter in their strongholds, bracing for the coming Obamacain.
- beltway girl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
