I defy you to tell the difference between her character and the Governor of Alaska, who has been busy lowering expectations all week. The main difference, of course, is that Fey is still in front of TV cameras, while Palin can no longer be found. Anywhere.
And the most brilliant stroke: Palin herself provided much of the material. She writes her own comedy and all Fey has to do is perform it the way Palin does. Fey isn't doing a caricature (like Dana Carvey's George HW Bush), but is giving a performance of uncanny accuracy (closer to, say, Helen Mirren in "The Queen").
Yes, Jim, Tina is brilliant; too bad she didn't bring up the "oil molecules". But isn't it sooooooo easy? Thursday is D-Day for the right; I hope Biden removes the kid gloves in the VP debate (I can see it now, the right will whine how Biden "bullied" the poor hockey-mom).
I agree that she's brilliant, and I sincerely hope that Tina Fey continues these satires on a weekly basis until the election. I like getting some of my political news, as it were, from Saturday Night Live.
Why is is that Sarah Palin gets all the negative coverage here? Not that I care, as I won't be voting for either of the major party candidates, but I am just curious. While she called herself a pit-bull with lipstick, to me she is just Obama with lipstick. Meaning, I feel like dish soap is running for high office.
What makes it a brilliant strategic move, IMO, is that her and Obama are two sides of the same coin. They are both Pepsi candidates. They are both pop stars. Palin was the only reasonable counter-strategy to a candidate like Obama. It was amazing to me that Ebert could call her the 'American Idol Candidate' and not level the very same accusation at Obama. It highlights how much bi-partisan bickering can subvert the REAL issues.
One thing is for sure, the selection of her as V.P. ensured that I would not vote for John McCain, as I don't think I could live with the guilt if she became President. She has a Canadian accent, for Pete's sake! Screw it, I'm voting for Ron Paul.
Amazing, once again. Probably the best part of it all was that Fey's "joke" answer to the Alaska/Russia insanity was, substantively, no different from Palin's "real" answer (and better articulated). Truly, we have gone through the looking glass.
By the way, I think I've actually figured out the only conceivable way to explain that Alaska/Russia insanity and have it make any sense: Sarah Palin is a warlock. She is a warlock, and has cast an area-of-effect spell on herself so that she need only be within a 700-mile radius of a foreign country, and she will absorb knowledge of it.
Also, give it minus 2 armor.
Ryan: You've heard Palin speak. You've heard Obama speak. What was your question?
JJ, I hope Biden doesn't remove the gloves but maybe checks her subtly into the boards, because what you call whining by the right is likely to amount to votes for the right if he seems like a bully. It's unfair but that's how I think it is. And he had better avoid a patronizing tone, too, which would be even worse. He tends to talk too much which he needs to curtail not just for his own image but to make sure that she has to do a lot of talking. He should mostly take care of himself (fellow gaffer that he can be) and let her hang herself in the net.
Kris Pigna:
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! Perhaps the VP debate then should be a best two out of three Alliance vs. Horde match in Warsong Gulch or Arathi Basin? I won't say which candidate should be which faction.
Ryan--
The comparison of Palin to Obama is idiotic. Regardless of their "experience", Palin thus far has shown absolutely no command of the issues, or even an interest in them. When questioned, she babbles talking points and nonsense. Did you see Obama debate McCain? Whichever candidate you thought won, it was obvious these were both serious people with serious views on serious issues. Obama is informed and articulate, and Palin is neither.
Dane - my comment stems from the fact that to me Palin has hung herself in the net non-stop since selection, and yet so many still seem to be in denial (case in point Ryan above - comparing Palin to Obama??). In general I agree that subtlety is usually the prudent course, but in this instance take no chances. There should be no apologists after Thursday, except for the diehard right living in fantasyland.
I enjoyed the sketch, but I'm inclined to agree with JJ that it's a bit too easy. You hit the nail on the head, Jim, when you say that Fey's performance is less caricature than actual embodiment. But therein lies the problem: this sketch is less a satire of Palin's interview than a reenactment of it. When the source material is already so absurd--as so much of American politics is today--does satire become obsolete?
To whatever extent Obama has let his celebrity status go to his head, that's aside the point from the (I believe) major issue at hand: that Palin, a candidate so inept as to make Bush II look almost articulate by comparison (can someone please Photoshop monkeyboy staring in awe at a monolith?), is a step away from taking this country down the drain faster than the Titanic. That she's the type who believes in a fiery doomsday end of the world doesn't make it any better.
As for Ron Paul, I must quote Kang and Kodos: "Go ahead, throw your vote away!" Seriously, why even take the time? Allowing third parties to run in this country is cruel pandering at best; if you're serious, destroy the establishment and replace the rot that lives in the core. I'll join you, torch in hand.
MBurns: Too easy? I thought so, too, at first. But the joke was on me when Palin wasn't laughed out of the GOP convention. Millions, apparently, didn't recognize the laughable when it was standing right in front of them. Only in the last week or so have Republicans begun to get the joke -- and they don't like that Palin/McCain has made them the butt of it. Like you, I had assumed that reality was outrunning satire (see "When comedy happens"). Instead, the "audience" was failing to notice the satire that was already in the reality. Which, I confess, I find even funnier (in a pathetic kinda way) than if they'd seen through The Empress's New Clothes from the start. If you put a laugh track behind Palin's actual speeches and interviews (back when she was still allowed to do them), you would have sworn you were watching sketch comedy.
"It's funny that a comment like that was...kinda made to...eh...car...eh...I don't know....ya know..."
"Mocked?"
"Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word."
The horrific thing is my parents didn't even blink when watching that part of the interview. "Trade missions. Yeah. Yeah. Trade missions."
RE: Third-Party Candidates.
While I will not be voting third-party this election, I don't see it as throwing a vote away (despite the funny Kang and Kodos bit).
If a third-party candidate receives 5 percent of the popular vote, the party receives federally distributed public funding in the next election.
I don't see that as a wasted vote.
1) It's funny that Palin makes the jokes herself. Oh, did I say "funny"? I meant "scary". I get those confused all the time.
2) Speaking of things that are either funny or scary: Did anyone see the witch-hunter blessing her? Why was Obama's reverend featured on every tv station for weeks on end and the only place I've seen this crazy(er) guy was on Oberman? Not even The Daily Show!
3) I agree with Erik on third-party candidates. If they get enough votes, it kind-of validates them as a legit party . . . and we need more than 2 parties in my opinion. I don't know who you run across, but I know a lot of people who don't like McCain, but can't vote for a black guy. (I said I know them, not that I like them.) Or for whatever reason don't like either candidate. Maybe having a third-party that is actually a contender in an election is what this country really needs to get things to change and to get people to actually think.
Jim:
My question is, what's the difference between six of one and half a dozen of the other? And, do you really think Obama is less superficial than Palin? I mean, the admittedly insane selection of Palin was in reaction to Obama's pop status. What's the only reasonable counter to something so insane as that?
She definitely gives McCain a better chance than he had, but it's all over for the Republicans for the next few years.
Stephen: The comparison of Palin to Obama is idiotic.
How so? And don't cite pety bi-Partisan points when that are simply diversionary tactics to undermine the REAL issues at hand. When has Obama taken a stance on an issue that wasn't totally incidental? We know nothing about these people. They're both pop stars, they're both all image and no substance, they're both hideously inexperienced. I don't agree with either of them on any core issue surrounding American plotics. They ARE the Pepsi Candidates.
You know who else Obama reminds me of? George W. Bush. No, not the ninny in the White House. The enthusiastic, exuberant, wildly determined 'reform' candidate of 2000. They both capatalized on the fact that America is (or was) hungry for change...that some kind of overhaul of the Washington establishment was absolutely necessary to the Country's continued success in the world. Their argument was basically this: Let someone who has no idea what the hell they're doing into the White House, because we're outsiders! We're not 'them', we're 'you'!
We're gonna fall for the same old song and dance all over again when what the country needs is a MASSIVE change. Obama is not the change candidate. Obama is the establishment, just like McCain, but McCain's been playing that game much longer. Do you think the people with the money, the people who in effect run the country, care which candidate wins? No, so long as the continued objectives of globalism and imperialism are carried out. Isolantionism is the only foreign policy that makes even a lick of sense, but we will never revert back to that because it's not in corporate interests. It's not even a consideration. The world is a business, Mr. Beale.
Did you see Obama debate McCain? Whichever candidate you thought won, it was obvious these were both serious people with serious views on serious issues.
They were equally terrible, in my opinion, which definitely gives Obama the edge. Neither of them answered Lehrer's questions. They both spoke in five second, easy to digest, easy to retain soundbytes. They peddled easy answeres, pandered to their respective bases, and got diddly jack accomplished IMO. I've never seen 'issues' discussed less in my entire life.
Example: Obama calls McCain out on "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" (a serious question and one that deserved a rebuttal) and McCain replies with a senseless diatribe about an Iraq war veteran's mother who gave him a bracelet with the boy's name on it. And Obama's reply is...."Well, gee John, I have a bracelet too!"
They both spread blatant mistruths and distortions about each other. They both interrupted each other. They were both rude. And it didn't tell me anything about them that wasn't already known.
Yeah, that was serious stuff!
And as for the person who said that voting for Ron Paul, or any third party, is a wasted vote. I'd rather 'waste' my vote than continue to vote for an establishment that screws the country on literally an hourly basis. If we refuse to take part in it, these corporate shills can't ruin our country anymore.
ERIC: It's true that if third party candidates get 5 percent of the popular vote they receive public funding. Just as it's also true that if they get 51% of the vote they win the election (most of the time).
The problem is it's unusually hard if not impossible for them to break that 5% barrier either. Even Nader in 2000 only managed a paltry 3%.
Yeah, JJ, I know what you mean. Except the denial is not about Palin's lack of qualifications but about the importance of a VP with a clue. Voting for the PTA or the poobah of the Moose lodge or Vice-President of the USA, it's all the same. What's her stance on abortion, gay marriage, and guns? If she answers correctly, she can be second most important person in the world. If not, she can't be assistant manager of the Kwik-e-Mart. If I say that 80 million Americans have exactly the same credentials am I bashing her (I am a liberal, after all) or joining the mantra: "She's one of us! She's one of us! She's one of us!..."?
"The person"? Geeze, man, I'm in the room. :)
Don't get me wrong -- there have been times when I wanted to vote third party, or at least felt that I'd sleep better doing so. But it speaks to the monstrosity of the system that the best one can hope for is for a third party to rack up enough marginalized voters to earn a little more money to spend the next time around ultimately going nowhere. Fact is, voting for anyone and thinking it makes a difference is the equivalent of eating crumbs and being thankful. You understand this, and more people need to in order for it to take effect. In this way, not voting may actually be the strongest choice. Deny all terms and definitions. Expose the fraud.
Ryan Kelly--
If you don't know what Obama's stands on issues have been after his 14 years in public office, you're simply not paying attention. You're just making things up at this point.
And while debate sin general aren't fantastic places for in-depth policy discussion, if you'd actually watched the debate (and it seems more likely to me, based on the gap between reality and your comprehension of it) you'd know that this was far from a five-second-soundbyte debate, and has actually left the media with little in the way of exciting" clips to run. Both candidates clearly demonstrated an understanding of the foreign policy issues facing the country, while Palin, in her lone discussion of the matter, seemed to believe that Vladimir Putin was sending planes into Alaska.
The comparison between Obama and Palin is ludicrous because Obama has been making detailed policy proposals both in speeches, on his website, and by writing laws for four years, while Palin has yet to construct a single one.
"Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983, then worked for a year at the Business International Corporation and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group...Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors. Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles. During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago."
"In 1982, Palin enrolled at Hawaii Pacific University but left after her first semester. From there she transferred to North Idaho College, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she then transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters. During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant beauty contest, then finished third (second runner-up) in the Miss Alaska pageant, at which she won a college scholarship and the 'Miss Congeniality' award. She then left the University of Idaho and attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.
In 1988, she worked as a sports reporter for KTUU-TV in Anchorage, Alaska, and for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman as a sports reporter. She also helped in her husband’s commercial fishing family business"
Dr. Robert:
Whoops! Sorry, my friend, I didn't realize it was you that I was responding to! Admittedly, I should have recognized your writing style a mile away, so the fault is on this end.
Anyway, I would argue the only way to waste a vote is by voting for one of the major parties. As, unless you live in a swing state, it's fairly obvious which candidate is going to win which state (for instance, Obama will carry my state of New Jersey without even trying). Not voting certainly isn't the answer, either. Rather, vote for the people who have a vision for America that you agree with, something besides the empty rhetoric and sanctimonious grandstanding that defines the two parties leading the country, even if only to make your voice heard; that you absolutely refuse to take part in a system so corrupt and shiftless. The democratic process isn't shiftless, the people we vote for to run it simply rape and pillage it. Vote for Ron Paul. Vote Green. Vote libertarian. Vote for me, or yourself. Hell, vote for freaking Mickey Mouse. If you don't vote, you just get swept under the rug.
S'okay, I only thought you were being your usual, scabrous self. :) I'm still more of an anti-system person (gee, ya think?), and would rather the whole thing crumble than try to fix it's deeply rooted problems.
I haven't watched SNL in ages, but the talent in this sketch overcame my hatred of SNL and Tina Fey. That was done well. Whatshername does so much with simple blinking!
The difference, to me, was easy to spot: I'm fairly sure I'm not in love with Sarah Palin.