Will "Mean Girl" Palin herself appear on SNL?

Well Jim, you're free to believe whatever you want, but I frankly don't think a "mean girl" (or a dumb girl) would agree to appear on SNL in the capacity you described. IMHO a "mean girl" would by definition have been offended, and said so loudly, about the way she's been portrayed on the show thus far.

Plus, as it appears it was missed the first time, I'll say it here again: in the relatively recent past, John McCain has appeared at least twice on SNL, one of which IIRC was as host ("bomb bomb Iran"...). There's also a prominent mag cover from '06 or '07 featuring Fey tying McCain's tie-- no, she wasn't strangling him, both were smiling, and it was a photo, not a caricature. I've also read that Fey's gotten to know McCain somewhat, and (gasp!) yes, likes him personally.

So it sure looks to me that there's no great warning message to America to these pieces you've relish so much, Jim, except the obvious one, which is that Palin is as most late night political targets: new, convenient, meaty (which many conservatives admit) and yes, funny. Gee, I can't think of anyone else who ever met those incredible classic comedy and parody standards... except for Jimmy Carter, Monica Lewinsky, Gerald Ford, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, James Watt, Ross Perot, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Ken Starr, GHW Bush... ;-)

I really hope they don't. I know it would garner them huge ratings but I mean come on! They really want to give a boost to this underqualified soon to be hockey grandmother who thinks that global warming isn't manmade, dinosaurs walked the earth with man, and that if gay people just prayed a little harder God will remove this terrible sin he cursed them with?

At least when they had on Hillary Clinton, Amy Poehler agreed with her politics.

Besides Tina Fey has said repeatedly that she wants to stop playing this lady on November 5th.

qdpsteve: Yes, Palin deserves to be taken just as seriously as Rob Lowe, who also made fun of himself on SNL. Meanwhile, the idea that somebody could be taken seriously as a presidential candidate after joking (as you mentioned) about "bomb-bomb-bomb"-ing Iran -- and then trying to neutralize it by joking about the joke -- is incredible to me. Reminds me of GW Bush pretending to look for WMD in the White House when he'd just put the lives of thousands of American troops on the line... and been proven wrong. Heh-heh.

But Tina Fey's personal opinion of John McCain -- or anyone else -- has nothing to do with anything.

Well Jim, I guess we just have a fundamental difference of opinion then. You apparently think a candidate's ability to laugh at him/herself doesn't necessarily reflect anything about their character, and I do. Fine.

As long as we're on the subject, what did you think of other prominent pols' SNL appearances? Do you think pols should avoid the show in general? Remember W's and Gore's joint SNL bit in 2000? Obama did one, so did Huckabee and the aforementioned Bush Senior. (Not looking for a "gotcha" hypocrisy moment, just was wondering.)

My hope is that she comes on the show after losing the election (please God), as the subject of something involving water balloons. Or cowbells. Anything to present her as the sideshow parody she is.

qdpsteve: Nice try, but don't put words in my mouth. McCain and Palin aren't interested in laughing at themselves, just in trying to spin the PR their way. That's to be expected. SNL has given plenty of public figures opportunities to neutralize bad publicity (though how McCain may have helped himself I don't know). Read the Zwecker item I quoted:

As the comedian's impressions of the GOP vice presidential candidate draw laughs from Republicans and Democrats alike, a top honcho from the John McCain campaign tells me there's a debate going on about how to respond.

Hillary Clinton seized the day (or the Saturday night) -- and SNL's sketches were extremely sympathetic to her to begin with. But now that the Fairness Doctrine has been deregulated out of existence, nobody's entitled to "equal time" so the question is moot. I don't care who goes on SNL, just that the material is smart and funny. (And, to be honest, Fey's Palin is one of the few SNL bits I've watched since Janet Reno left Washington.) I thought Al Gore did the classiest (and funniest) thing, though, by going on after the election, and after he'd decided not to run again. If he'd been as good in the campaign as he was on the show, I think his popular vote majority would have been a landslide.

I also think it does matter whether or not Tina Fey likes Sarah Palin or not. Though I wouldn't accuse her of being mean-spirited towards Palin look at the difference between Joe Piscopo's Sinatra and Phil Hartman's. One is clearly a tribute while Hartman's was frankly a little "mean-spirited."

Palin was correct in her assertion that she had somehow provided the creatively-bankrupt SNL writing staff with yuks (and therefore - continuing income) at her expense. Now the SNL staff have until a few weeks after the election (if McCain should place second) to rip into Palin and McCain (and to a much, much lesser extent, Biden and Obama) and laugh - at a steady sprint - all the way to the last few banks that haven't gone belly-up in the wake of this New Era of Depression. They might even get to keep their high-priced, bedbug and cockroach-infested New York apartments. We were so worried.

I've decided to rip into Tina Fey and the writing staff of SNL because it seems - at least based on everybody I've talked to - that nobody dares to corner, cross, or disagree with what they ironically call "comedy". I see it as more of the same: unrepentant hate, a failure to dissect, culturally, at least, the wide swath of - and I can't believe I'm saying this - liberal fascism. I consider myself a model of liberal politics, but I do have a young daughter (and a conscience) and I believe the concept of "change" cannot be thrust upon an unsuspecting public without devastating consequences - namely the birth of lies disguised as political discourse. The truth is nobody (not the pundits nor the voters) know what either of these candidates will do come January of next year. Nobody.

Fey's smug, mocking, preening, posturing "interpretation" (I use quotes because it seems Fey's physical characteristics are the only accuracy in her sketches) undercuts the message. The message being "don't vote for this girl because she's - oh, I don't know - stupid"? The truth is Palin (and her family) are a lot closer to us than we would probably like to imagine. They make a middle-class wage. They pay quite a bit in taxes. They pay too much for their home. They have black sheep in the family they'd rather not talk about. They frighten liberals because they practice what they preach (in this case - a staunch pro-life rhetoric). Are Liberals truly clueless when it comes to her appeal? She lives a life most women would normally envy. She has a devoted husband and family, a successful career, and is loved by the majority of her constituency.

Conversely, the SNL staff, Jon Stewart (big fan), and Bill Maher (bigger fan) don't live your life. They don't know you. They can't identify with you, and they will refuse to ceast and desist spoon-feeding you portions of anatagonism and an implied separatism that they can afford to live with.

Liberals are faced with a staggering contradiction; how to take this working wife and mother down without appearing biased or sexist, and they can't pull it off. Instead they mock her superficialities, and ignore her policies, or McCain's logic in selecting her as his running mate. I don't intend to vote for McCain, but I like to think I've considered my options and analyzed each candidate without the blaring Greek-Chorus of semantics and sardonic humor to guide me.

I am not sure about SNL, but before her fiftenn minutes are up, I'd really like Sarah Palin to film a cameo for 30 Rock. Hopefully in a bear costume.

With lipstick, natch.

Yeah, David Lawler, Sarah Palin is just like some of the neighbors I grew up around in North Dakota. In fact, she feels very familiar to me because of that, like I know her. Guess what? I don't want those people anywhere near the White House! The "I could have a beer with them," anti-intellectual voters are a plague on America right now. I don't want my deer hunting, Coors Light guzzling neighbor in the White House. I want someone better than that.

I know the standard norm is to associate the working class with "conservative" and "liberal" with those who are better off, but such is far from always the case -- especially in a time when government policy makes the poor poorer and pushes the middle class into poverty like never before. Economy of time makes it difficult/impossible for far too many to educate themselves properly about our government and leaders (hence why people "run" for office with this pathetic ****ing sideshow of half-assed debates and 30-second sound byte ads), a fact capitalized by some more than others, but there's been so much government action the equivalent of raw sewage out in the open this past decade that many are starting to see the light of day -- that light not being pro-liberal so much as it is pro-doubt or pro-questioning. Palin may have some common person appeal (more likely moreso in middle America than in the NE suburbia of PA and NJ that I know so well), but there's plenty about her that should set off a whole set of red lights in the common sense sector of every conscious human brain in existence (grammar, grammar, grammar, flirting with the audience, grammar; as a hetero male feminist, she enrages me with her reductive attempts at selling out). And that's not even taking into account my feelings on religion/evolution/climate change, or the fact that Palin saw to it that rape victims in Wasilla had to pay for their own post-trauma forensics test while she governed as mayor. That's not partisan -- it's goddamn evil. Quote me on it.

David Lawler, the thing that surprises me most about some comments in defence of Palin is this ridiculous "she's more like us" crap. So what? Do you really want to elect the most average of the candidates for the vice-presidency of the most powerful military force in the planet? I'd prefer to elect the smartest and most capable.

If it actually matters how close the candidates are to the experiences of normal, average people (whatever that is, and I personally think it's a moot point), do you think McCain can relate better than Obama?

Can John McCain identify with you? The man who got into Annapolis simply because his dad and granddad went there (yay! meritocracy), who has more houses than he can remember, who thinks someone who makes 4 million dollars a year doesn't even qualify as rich, is in touch with the reality of the average, hard-working American? Can he relate? To the people worried about their futures right now in the midst of crisis, can he relate?

Can Sara Palin identify with you? Maybe, if you're a WASP. But can she identify with you if you're gay, Muslim, black, Buddhist, or otherwise not like her in every way?

McCain and Palin believe the battle against fundamentalist Islam is the "transcendental fight of our times". Do you think their problem is with "fundamentalist" or "Islam"? Palin is someone who thinks scientific theories that contradict her religious beliefs should be banned from schools. That's fundamentalism right there. If their problem was fundamentalism, they wouldn't need to look past their own religion to find it. That they identify the cause of terrorism aimed at the US as being religion (i.e. Islam) is in itself scary. It's like they ignore every factor that contributes to breed terrorism, and focus on the one they like.

One of Obama's supporters is a former domestic terrorist? As anyone asked what Palin thinks about the people who bombed abortion clinics? Who killed people? Does the murder of Dr. David Gunn bother them?

So, what would happen if the two of them actually appeared together? My theory: Matter and anti-matter will collide and end the universe.

I've got my fingers crossed!

Uh, the Palins make about a quarter-mil a year. They are not middle class. Her references to hockey moms and Joe Sixpack are condescending.

Palin bears NO identification with me or the middle class. She is worth over 2 million dollars, is receiving free health care, has a spouse who was part of an organization in Alaska that wants to secede from the United States (which she has spoken on behalf of in public) and was a beauty queen.

>They make a middle-class wage

no they don't.

I also just have to disagree with David's assertion that Fey's interpretation is supposed to represent Palin as "stupid." That's totally off the mark. Fey's characterization of Palin is that she is very politically savvy, but knows next to nothing about the issues. I think this is pretty accurate. Palin is actually very intelligent and talented as a public speaker and attack dog, and I don't think Fey's impersonation "undercuts" this.

Also, is "smug, mocking, preening, posturing" something that you DON'T attribute to Palin?

"I *guess* being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except that there are *actual* responsibilities"...

David: I think you're justified in ripping SNL on this one---apparently, the show's at its best these days when its writers sit on their hands and simply let someone else write their material for them (note, as Jim has pointed out, how some of Fey's skits draw verbatim from Palin's interview and debate appearances).

I hope, however, that when you say, "The truth is nobody (not the pundits nor the voters) know what either of these candidates will do come January of next year. Nobody," you're making a deliberate rhetorical overstatement. To say that there is, in fact, absolutely zero correlation between (a) what a candidate says and what he or she professes or appears to believe and (b) what a candidate will do once in office, is to say that the concrete policy-change results of any election are entirely randomized. Why vote at all, in such a case? Why waste any energy in a political process that is, in effect, a lottery?

To vote without cynicism, we must assume two things: one, that, in general, a candidate’s stated policies and stated or implied beliefs will have at least some significant correlation to that candidate's behavior in office; and, two, that when this correlation breaks down (the result of impossible promises, political doublespeak, deliberate lies, etc.), we as voters will be canny enough, in most cases, to recognize it in advance.

(I should note, though, that I'm with you on your suspicion of political rhetoric from both sides of the aisle ("I believe the concept of 'change' cannot be thrust upon an unsuspecting public without devastating consequences - namely the birth of lies disguised as political discourse"): ideally, we should be just as suspicious of both "The original mavericks!" and "Yes we can!" as we are of corporate claptrap like "Coke is it!")

As for liberals’ response to Palin herself, I would characterize it less as “mock[ing] her superficialities” and more as mocking her superficiality: her stubborn incuriosity toward the world frightens me, as it suggests a deliberate disregard or else a hapless blindness toward nuance and complexity. I also disagree with your suggestion that the liberal response to Palin ignores her policies—SNL, Stewart, and Colbert may not talk about Palin’s track record specifically or the Republican platform in general, but to say that the Daily Show is an accurate and complete representation of liberal thought is to create a straw man, a deliberate misrepresentation.

(And does Sarah Palin “live a life most women would normally envy”? I’m not so sure. Yes, she is successful in her career and has a loving family, but most women I know do not seem to envy her. To say that many women have similar hopes—successful career, loving family—is one thing; to say that they envy Ms. Palin’s her life (including, then, the policies and beliefs that have led to her successful career, which most women I know find abhorrent and socially backward) is an altogether different statement.)

Finally (at last!), if I may make my attempt at addressing the “staggering contradiction” faced by liberals like myself: I dislike Palin first for the most generic reasons—because I also dislike the many aspects of the Republican platform she endorses. Secondly, I dislike her for that “stubborn incuriosity” I mentioned above. And finally, I dislike her because in some ways her popularity seems to suggest that she is somehow a legitimate candidate simply because she “seems likeable” or “is just like you and me” (I paraphrase my friends and family back in North Carolina). To me, this is evidence of a frightening attitude: that mediocrity is not only acceptable but somehow desirable, and that to excel or to be exceptional in some regard is both freakish and threatening (note how "elite" has become a dirty word). This is nothing more than self-satisfied laziness, ugly to behold and, I'd contend, morally repugnant---without the drive to improve ourselves, to change and grow as individuals and as a culture, what's to prevent our lives from devolving into bovine complacency?

If this response to Sarah Palin makes me appear to be “biased or sexist,” so be it.

(As for whether Jim's mentioning Tina Fey's skits too often---hey, it's his blog. Plus, they're pretty funny.)

Jim, real quick: just wanted to say, I sincerely wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Nevertheless, apologies for any misunderstandings.

And although I obviously disagree with you on a lot, kudos to you for running a movie blog where everybody, regardless of their politics or depth of cinema knowledge, can have a voice. Not every film crit site I've visited recently allows for that.

I think it would be akward if she came on since Tina has pretty clearly stated she doesn't agree with any of Palin's politics. I guess if she came on after loosing it would make her look like "a good sport" but coming on during the campaign seems like it would hurt the credibility of both Fey and Palin as Fey would look like she's changing her politics for ratings and Palin would appear to be pandering.

According to the newly-published joint tax return for the family, wages (salaries, tips) on line 7 totalled out to $155,556.00 - where I live (admittedly New York), that's scraping the bottom of the barrel of middle-class, not even upper middle class. Granted they might be able to make that money stretch in quaint Alaska, but given how costs have gone up all across the board, well ... you see where I'm going with this.

Jeff: You don't see Fey's impersonation as just a bit insulting? "I'd like to use my lifeline.". The flute? The talent competition portion of the debate? Bill Maher calls her a "bimbo" every chance he gets. Jon Stewart treats her like an errant, unruly child. The Girl Queen.

Greg: I don't believe that any candidate believes half the rhetoric they spout and spew during the campaigning process. I think they all cater to their constituencies. Palin's "exorcism" video may turn off the liberals, but I guarantee she's pretty much won the religious nut vote.

JE: According to the Census Bureau's figures, in 2007 the median US household income was $50,233. (For those who've forgotten what "median" is, it means 50 percent earn more and 50 percent earn less.). In 2003, 5 percent of households had annual income above $154,120; and 20 percent had annual income above $86,867. Links to government docs, charts, figures here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

And, for those who are interested in Hockey Mom/Joe Sixpack net worths, see "Estimates Show Sarah Palin's Assets Top $1 M":

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846372,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846372,00.html

I forgot to address the rape-kit atrocity.

The truth is it's a State Law. That is, forcing rape victims to purchase their own kits is not Palin's design. A handful of States adopted this practice, including Obama's own Illinois. Rape kits have a nasty habit of not paying for themselves.

Another fun fact: Victims are not charged. Insurance companies are charged. The majority of rape victims receive emergency health insurance in the form of Medicare regardless of whether or not they have their own insurance.

This is why it is important to peruse the facts for yourself, and not let the media influence very important decisions like these.

JE: OK, we're getting way off topic here, but I have addressed this previously and provided links to the actual legislation and local newspaper reports from 2000. There was no AK state law mandating that victims or insurance companies be charged for rape kits. The Alaska legislature passed a law to prevent victims from being billed directly or indirectly -- including from their insurance companies. You're right that in Illinois it is allowed.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/09/the_comedy_stylings_of_palin_m.html#comment-508945

Here's the explanation of the purpose of the bill from its sponsor, taken from AK state committee minutes:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/09/the_comedy_stylings_of_palin_m.html#comment-509519

MR. SAM SHEPARD, staff to Representative Croft, sponsor of HB
270, explained that CSSS HB 270(HES) would assure that adult
victims of sexual assault are not charged for their forensic
evidentiary exams. Currently, when victims of sexual assault are
taken to a hospital by the police, they are given an examination
for the purpose of the prosecution of a crime. In some
instances, the victim's private health insurance has been charged
for the cost of that exam. HB 270 would ensure that victims do
not receive a bill in the mail for the exam after coming to terms
with their victimization. The Alaska State Troopers have
testified in other committees that they budget for these exams
and consider paying for them to be good police practice. As an
analogy, when a person's home is burglarized and the police dust
for fingerprints, the homeowner is not billed for that evidence.

You can read a fully-sourced USA Today story here, outlining what has been established and what still needs to be clarified:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

I think that Sarah Palin is getting a lot of the attention in this campaign because her entire candidacy is, I think, absurd. It's not that Obama, Biden, and McCain are flawless, and certainly they've all screwed up to different degrees. But Palin's entire candidacy seems to be based on the idea that "common sense" representing "orginary Americans" (as if there is such a thing as an "ordinary" American, in a country as diverse as the US) should win out over any knowledge of the facts. She memorizes talking points and recites them. The other three actually talk, even if sometimes they spew a bit of nonsense themselves. It may seem out of line to bring up things like Sarah Palin's Miss Alaska beauty pageant, and normally I would agree, but the fact is Palin seems to be running for president as if she were running on a beauty pageant, with feminine winks at the audience.

There was a segment in "The Daily Show" where Jason Jones went and interviewed people from "Main Street, Wasilla." I'm sure that it was edited to make the point the show was trying to make, and isn't the whole story--but it did show various people saying stupid, bigoted, and offensive things. Well, a lot of "ordinary Americans" are bigoted and ignorant, just like a lot of Americans that are not "ordinary" (the rich, "Washington insiders", etc.) are. It should be the goal of a leader to help raise the people up and fight ignorance, not to celebrate ignorance and the people's worst vices simply in order to ingratiate themselves to them.

The fact is, neither GW Bush nor Sarah Palin (nor McCain, really) is an "ordinary Joe". Bush was the son of a President who went to Yale and did relatively poorly, and should not be celebrated for being "a regular guy" simply because he has poor grammar. Same with Sarah Palin, who, as other posters have pointed out, is not working class. I think that it's terrific for leaders to come from humble beginnings, and would love to see someone who is truly middle (or low) class run for president, if he or she demonstrated that they had command of the issues, and the intelligence and integrity to deal with them. Sarah Palin is not, I suspect, an idiot, but is certainly not campaigning on her knowledge of the issues, and the fact that she comes from a small town is completely irrelevant.

And let's be clear, here: a person who is rich and powerful is not any intrinsically better than an "ordinary person," of the middle class, either. I think that the attacks against Obama for being "elitist" are not justified, but it's true that a genuine elitism, believing that someone in the elite has the proper qualifications simply because he is in some class defined as being elite, is as irrational as this uber-populism that seems to say that being unexceptional is a qualification.

And I think that Tina Fey's Palin is brilliant, in part because I don't think it's nasty. I think Fey seems sympathetic to Palin. Fey's Palin is actually genuinely likable; she really believes she deserves to be on that stage, and that ignoring the questions is a genuinely good strategy. I think Fey's Palin gives insight into the real Palin, who I don't think is a monster, and whose intentions I suspect are good, even though I would want her nowhere near the presidency.

Thanks for the clarification on the laws, Jim - the point still remains. $155,000 gross is not a butt-load of money. There is no rolling break-even in April with any amount over $70,000 (the taxes get bigger in the numbers, but they (like me) get credits for children. They may be well off, but they're hardly rich (or rolling in it), and it goes without saying "assets" is a slippery little word which can include an overpriced house and a couple of cars. If that is the case, my Mother and my in-laws are also wealthy and loaded with assets. They are not. They send us coupons through the mail.

There needs to be clarification and some sort of "oversight" in media practice - that would be a nice first step.

I'll admit I'm a slow learner as I've been putting this together over a year-and-a-half of intently following this campaign. I was half-interested in Kerry/Bush '04, but now the gloves are off - for purposes of satire.

Your typical Joe Six-Pack conservative, hard-working Middle American resents what they perceive as sarcastic insults, ill-will, even begrudging their personal feelings coming from the left about how they (and all of us) should feel about a particular candidate. Remember, these are the people who voted for Bush ... twice!

Your typical atheist, God-and-Country-Hating Liberal resents what they percieve as a generation of religious nuts and doctor-killers making decisions that don't reflect the current reality. Remember, these are the people who deliberately voted for Dukakis and Kerry simply to keep the Bush clan out of the White House - and they lost! They mock the conservatives, and the conservatives don't take kindly to being mocked.

This may be the first occasion where both candidates are on actual equal ground - with so much hypocrisy on both sides, we're looking down at both candidates. True, they'll eventually say anything to get elected, but it's nice to see them squirm their way through debates.

In summation, we can't afford to ignore either side any longer. Too much is at stake. It's gotten so bad we can't even tolerate religious beliefs. We've been shuffled up and confused, misdirected and ultimately abused by the notion that what we personally believe (life and death) somehow matters to the rest of the voting public (and they've got their own beliefs). I don't think voting is an ultimately futile process, but I do think it's naive to think the American People make much of a difference.

The paradox: elections are too important to be left up to stupid American voters to decide because, in the end, stupid American voters choose stupid American politicians.

I'm a stupid American voter, and I have no problem admitting that. So I'll vote for Obama to keep McCain out. These are the choices we have.

There is truth in the phenomenon that is mentioned by the Daily Dish reader. My wife also reports having nightmares about Sarah Palin.

David- I didn't read everything you wrote here, so I'm just responding to a couple things. 155,000 is RICH in Alaska. Especially if it's just one half of the family income. In New York, not so much, but salaries are adjusted for this. I think her family net worth is 1.5 mil. She's rich. Not RICH as in McCain rich, but pretty rich.

As for the Fey thing, remember we're not talking about Stewart or Maher. I personally think they've both made some pretty sexist remarks. I really dislike generalizations of the left using BILL MAHER as an example. Jesus...
But as for Fey, no. It's pretty typical of SNL satire. And Palin WAS a beauty queen, so the talent portion part was simply good satire. No more mean spirited than they've been with any other candidate. And Palin is every bit as mean spirited in her own presentation, so it definately doesn't undercut their "message" if they even have one.

Jim,

One of your previous posts has gotten me hooked on watching The Prisoner, so for that, I thank you. On that note, I am surprised that you haven't referenced the election episode in comparison to the current political climate. I have personally considered making a shirt saying "John McCain for No. 2", but I have resisted, mainly because it would be misconstrued for a show of support more frequently than it would be understood. In fact, i doubt it would ever be understood.

Adieu

Chris: I was all geared up to write about that election on "The Prisoner" and then I never got around to it. Maybe because it's even more cynical than many already are about the political process. The election is held, the winner is declared, and in the next episode... nothing is any different.