SNL Returns: Clintons, Dodd And Christopher Walken's Tongue

In the tank? No doubt that's what some will be muttering after tonight's opening sketch on "Saturday Night Live" wherein Bill and Hillary Clinton are featured talking about their tax returns — and mocking the media for making a big deal about their $109 million income, most of which was very public between their two bestselling books and his speaking fees. "Once again, through dogged research and tireless investigation, the press has done its job," said Amy Poehler as Hillary with her trademark smug smile. "We made it hard for them to find out that we were rich by hiding in our house in Westchester." They then drove the point home: "I tell you, when it was announced that I was paid $15 million to write my book, I prayed that no one in the press would read the papers that day," said Darrell Hammond as Bill. "And they didn't!"

Hmm. Seems that SNL, back on the air after a two-week hiatus, isn't too concerned about all those complaints about how the show was in the tank for Clinton when it wondered if the media was in the tank for Obama. Neither, it should be said, did the audience: When Poehler's Clinton said that she would step aside "in the best interest of the party," there were cheers and applause at the punchline: "Psych. That's never gonna happen." In the tank or just another night of Zeitgeisty political comedy? Watch and decide for yourself below:

Host Christopher Walken was as hilariously weird as usual (is that a demented stare or fixation on the cue cards?) and the musical guest was the band Panic at the Disco, which he seemed to like introducing. Former democratic presidential nominee Chris Dodd made a cameo appearance with his old friend, SNL producer Lorne Michaels — the two met met in Czechoslovakia almost two decades ago, along with Paul Simon, as part of an American delegation to supervise the first free Czech elections. From there it's apparently just a hop, skip and a jump to appearing on late-night TV in 3-D glasses.

We'll have more clips tomorrow but in until then, please enjoy these screengrabs of Dodd and Michaels, plus Walken as a creepy co-worker (think "Pranksters," but with hugs) about to stick his giant purple tongue into Jason Sudeikis' ear.

Update: Lots of video today, reflecting an unusually strong show (call it the "Walken bounce") — also added is "Meet the Family" where everyone gets to walk the Walk(en); Weekend Update's take on a recent HuffPo favorite, the Pregnant Man; and another crazy Kristen Wiig character who is very excited about a surprise party. Plus, the return of "Laser Cats," that SNL Digital Short cult favorite (at least in Andy Samberg and Bill Hader's minds). That's where you get to see Dodd in 3-D glasses.

Related:
Paul Simon Stumps, Sings For Chris Dodd [ETP]
SNL's Campaign Trail: Fauxbama, Huckabee, And Tina Fey Endorsing Clinton [ETP]

Comments

[maribelle1963]

04:09 PM on 04/08/2008

Oops.

"Seems that SNL, back on the air after a two-week hiatus, ISN'T TOO CONCERNED about all those complaints about how the show was in the tank for Clinton when it wondered if the media was in the tank for Obama. Neither, it should be said, DID THE AUDIENCE:"

Consider yourself ticketed by the Grammar Police.

(PS how do you use bold and italics on this site?)

[JakobFabian01]

11:35 AM on 04/09/2008

SNL … isn't; therefore neither WAS the audience. Your point is well taken, "Maribelle1963," and I must say your eyes are sharp!

I'm a grammar stickler myself, and a fan of Lynne Truss ("Eats, Shoots and Leaves"), so I'll add this:

Instead of "if the media was in the tank for Obama,"

we should write: "if the media WERE in the tank for Obama."

Admittedly, in light of the monolithic quality of today's media, perhaps the grammar police should let this offense off with a warning.

Sadly, I do not know how to write in italics in these postings. I assume that capitalization is the only way to express emphasis here. This is why I have presented the title of Truss's book in quotation marks, which would otherwise be appropriate only for an article inside a book, not for a book's title.

[TheHunt]

01:26 PM on 04/08/2008

so now SNL joins the rank of fox news and primetime cnn. it is said how the media has let us down time and time again with their overwhelming bias for mccain / anyone but barack obama. not that fox news, that junk babblefest on tv, is any news, but hey....

well i'm not watching SNL anymore. unfortunately if they win, i will be forced to vote for hillbag, but then i will go to canada to wait out her miserable reign.

[bilmardre]

11:13 AM on 04/08/2008

I don't watch snl anymore. Just thought you might want to know.

[LawOfAttraction]

02:38 AM on 04/09/2008

Stopped watching it years ago. But after the recent repulsively based towards the sleaziest candidate of the 3, I actively avoid the show at all costs.

[Ono4Hoopono]

07:00 AM on 04/08/2008

So has the world "truth decayed*" to the point that Eat The Press has now turned a wink and a nod to honest media criticism, and become a promotional arm of mega-media in support of Hillary? This feels like a trust boundary has been crossed, like a pre-emptive strike against anyone who would criticize SNL in the opening lines, combined with a cheeky wishful-thinking kind of "See, SNL is still funny...like here, and here, and here...and look...lots of video...lots of video everywhere...not just on eat the press...I swear...must be a good show...people are chatting it up...like everywhere....really!" I always thought of Eat The Press as a send-up of media ridiculousness, not the very ridiculousness itself!

Come on, Rachel....Jeez...You're wasting your talent again on spin and disinformation. Please do some real media criticism. You're better than this. I'm telling ya...You and Tucker Carlson, a couple of terribly bright minds to waste. Imagine that talent getting some truthout about what's really going on here. Lorne Michael's brand is getting trashed, and I don't think he's doing it, unless he's cashing it in for a position in the administration. This just doesn't add up.

* "truth decay," chyron under Hillary during discussion of her latest truthiness Monday night on "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann.

[Denni]

04:58 PM on 04/07/2008

ROTF, SNL, not exactly the last bastion of intellectual rigor (or honesty). It's not that the Clintons are RICH, it's what they did for the money. Case in point? B. Clinton as an advisor to InfoUSA, currently being investigated for scamming older people.

No surprise, the only funny clip was the Walken clip.

[LeanLeftAmerica]

03:25 PM on 04/07/2008

This does make Obama look a little silly... had he done his homework (read a few news papers), he too might have known that the Clintons are rich. His cry for the Clinton's is so far the only true ly polically motivated move on his part (to his credit).

[tomcj]

12:52 PM on 04/07/2008

Please see Vincealy's post (4/7 @9:15 a.m.) and especially Truthguy's important distinction.

Satire cannot work when it is in service to the powerful. Fox News failed with its attempt. John Stewart defended Hillary's right to stay in the race by saying, "Yes, we cannot allow Democracy, can we."

SNL, which I will watch even if they run "Vote for Hillary!" messages in skits, makes a huge mistake by asserting the Clinton's "know how to make money" and that they can pass that skill on to the poor.

The Clinton's make their money from books about their public service (sic) and from doing favors for wealthy, powerful people.

The wealthy and powerful need people like The Clinton's and Obama and McCain: they do not need the middle class and they despise the losers on the bottom.

Steve Martin did an SNL bit on how to get rich: "First get a million dollars," he said.

Thomas Edsell has written about Bill Clinton's "ability to make money." He wrote:

"One big line item is missing from the press summary however: the $15 million paid to Bill Clinton between 2003 and 2007 by Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund."

The story is NOT the press being mean to mom and pop Clinton and their lemonaid stand; the story is favors and power.

[starrianna]

12:39 PM on 04/07/2008

I was disappointed with SNL. I was expecting something with Christopher Walken to be hilarious, but the writing was really lame.

Wanting to chase after another guy so that he can choke him to death in the parking lot and make love to his corpse for the rest of his entire life?

If I was a writer, I'd be embarassed making someone like Christopher Walken say crap that wasn't worthy of him.

[mostest]

11:57 AM on 04/07/2008

Very funny. You know why it works and is funny because it is based in TRUTH! Why is the media acting like they never knew the Clintons had/has the ability to make big bucks! LOL! And the thing with Bill "doing what he does best" i.e. "talking with people" is hilarious. You Obamabots need to get a sense of humor. I am supporting Hillary but the Bill Clinton jabs are funny because they are wait for it...TRUE.
LMAO!

[alamantra]

11:09 AM on 04/08/2008

I don't know of too many people who have ever acted as if they were under the impression that the Clintons don't have money and power ...and prestige. Part of the reason that Hillary's campaign has gone into debt is that they've been traveling about as royalty. After all, they thought she was the 'inevitable' candidate and that she was entitled to our nation's highest office. The tax returns aren't about how much money the Clintons make. Legitimate questions have been raised concerning Bill Clinton using his political influence to broker deals for buisnessmen who were willing to grease his palm. As Canadian mining and oil mogul Frank Guistra said of Bill Clinton, "He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can." The looming Peter Paul case in California happend because Peter Paul, a convicted criminal, sought Bill Clinton as a rainmaker for his enterprises. I think that we should be entitled to know the facts before we give the Clintons their THIRD stay in the office.
Besides, showing their tax returns helps to stave off the calls that the Clinton Library/Foundation release its list of donors that we already know include the Saudi Royal family.
This is simply about transparency and keeping these people honest.
See:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00059.htm
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/22998,opinion,obama-should-follow-the-clintons-money
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080403/cm_usatoday/clintonfoundationdonorsremainshroudedinsecrecy

[hopefulforever]

12:58 AM on 04/09/2008

Whitewater = NOTHING to inculpate
Peter Paul = NOTHING
Millions of OUR money to investigate.

OBAMA = Rezko......dealing well into a period when Rezko was being investigated
OBAMA = Wright.......deep, intimate 20 year association with this nationalist, separatist racist pastor who hates Jews, Europeans, whites.
Just give OBAMA time to biuld on this nice curriculum which clearly weak on bold and gutsy accomplishments (not one single policy which shows guts and "change") but rich on scandal (more to come and uncovered) despite its brevity.

[nuglet304]

10:48 AM on 04/07/2008

best snl in a long time -- christopher walken's the greatest!

[northeast73]

09:26 AM on 04/07/2008

SNL has done a good job at pointing out how LAME the media is, that is for sure.

On Friday, in a DESPARATE attempt to find SOMETHING negative to report, MSNBC's David Shuster claimed the Clintons had made money from some company in Dubai, but that HRC was then a hypocrit for opposing the Dubai Port Deal. Are you kidding? One has NOTHING to do wiht the other, but leave it to MSBNC (and especially shuster) to twist it to be negative.

The clintons paid a LOT of tax, and gave 10 million to charity.

[vincealy]

09:15 AM on 04/07/2008

SNL little more than a extended ad for the Clintons. Bitting satire can be funny political shilling a SNL trademark falls flat.

[truthyguy]

09:43 AM on 04/07/2008

My impression also. Apparently SNL believes that there is no connection between the non-book money the Clintons made, millions at a pop, and selling influence and future favors. It is all the media's fault for being so stupid as to not accept the Clinton accumulation of $109 million in a short time as just the result of two people who "know how to make money." Congressman Duke Cunningham knew how to make money too - but he got caught.

[northeast73]

09:48 AM on 04/07/2008

get a life

[tomcj]

12:38 PM on 04/07/2008

bravo! Truthguy.

SNL thinks The Clinton's are some poor honest couple persecuted by the media. In fact, they have trafficked on their political connections since they arrived on the scene. So do most, if not all, our so-called "Leaders". That doesn't make it right.

[lysistrata]

10:21 AM on 04/07/2008

Satire explains the facts in a nutshell, funny, short and to the point. Just great..

[xcrunner77]

08:14 AM on 04/07/2008

They should play that trailer "The following is a message from the Clinton campaign" before every show, since every political sketch is a Clinton commercial. I guess it will be a long 8 years for President Obama on SNL. It doesn't bother me, because I don't watch anymore.

[LollieDotCom]

12:24 PM on 04/08/2008

AMEN, xcrunner77!

[PhillyQuaker]

05:15 AM on 04/07/2008

Walken - still gorgeous!

[maxmcgloin]

03:45 AM on 04/07/2008

Wonder what there veiwers demographics look like? Guess they don't need the type of viewers that go for Obama .. well more likely they don't get them.

[whizkid]

03:51 AM on 04/07/2008

max
SNL has enjoyed robust viewer ratings throughout the hissy fit.