"Saturday Night Live's" Message From Hillary Clinton: "I Have No Ethical Standards" (VIDEO)

Last night's all new "Saturday Night Live" was hosted by actor Shia Labeouf. The show opened with Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton giving a message to America.

Poehler's Clinton says how the race is "hopelessly deadlocked" and she gives reasons why she will make the better president. Reason one? "I am a sore loser... I will probably refuse to campaign for him." Second: "My supporters are racist." It goes from there.

Scroll to watch:

Comments

[jackiekahane]

Here's how SNL works. On Monday, the performers and writers sit on the floor and pitch sketches to Lorne AND THE HOST. The host, who is given GREAT leeway, and Lorne make the deicsions, basically based on what makes the room laugh. What is approved is then written for a table read. Whatever gets the biggest laughs makes it to rehearsals. During rehearsals whatever gets the biggest laughs makes it to dress. After dress, they pick the funniest spots and cut for time. There is NO political agenda here excepts the usual backstabbling, showbiz politics. LORNE MICHAELS is a businessman forst, idealogue second.

"They just didn't come to see Elvis, you know." JK

[johnlee]

I think there was a political agenda at SNL. After their early obviously pro Hilary slant and putting a white man in blackface to play Obama they are now trying to pretend to be balanced. I don't even know why this stale unfunny show is still on ther air anyway.

[jackiekahane]

Johnlee, I know you don't know me from Adam. But Lorne Michaels is ONLY interested in his empire. Peace.

[CanadianFriend]

Brilliant! What guts!! This 2-headed Sesame Street put down is equally great:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qCbPgsRhL7w

[Rmchairphilo]

This all makes me sad. Hilly's supporters are blaming the media for her defeat. They absolutely REFUSE to be realistic enough to understand that Obama is winning due to the will of the people. It's beyond their comprehension. CNN and ABC have been blatant in their bias toward Obama, but in their blind eyes, the media is to blame. Supposedly rational, intelligent people are all pointing fingers and burying their heads in the sand. And what really makes me want to puke is that they are swearing their allegiance to McCain - simple, turncoat, go-where-the-wind-blows-war-mongering McCain, out of spite! That is the ultimate betrayal of our country, and all because their candidate isn't winning!

[hinnis]

First, Hillary hasn't quite lost yet. Second, we are not blaming only media bias for Obama's successes thus far. There are many other factors, including the flawed caucus system; Obama's strong support and donations from special interests; Obama's incessant throwing of the race card in an effort to destroy the legacy of the Clinton Administration; the reluctance of anyone to criticize Obama for fear of the race card; and the naivete of his followers who will believe everything he says, without question -- just to name a few.

[Texvol]

What if, all things considered, some of us - a lot of us - just consider him to be a stronger candidate? Can you acknowledge that as a possibility, hinnis? By the way, I notice you haven't responded to my question below of what, exactly, you think Obama would do as president that makes you consider him dangerous. I'm willing to listen to what you have to say, but if you can't answer that question there seems little point.

[informed voter]

I understand totally that you are 100% behind your candidate no matter what, which you have every right to do. I will not encourage bad feelings, I just want to say two things. First, let's be honest in supporting our candidates, okay? I can do that. Second, is it really necessary to build her up by tearing him down?

I'm no supporter of hers, but I can answer that last one-it's no. She has her good points just like he does. They both, at the end of the day, stand for the same things. That being said, could you (or anyone else) give me a rational reason to not support him in the event that he gets the nom?

As much as I do not care for her, in my gut I believe that McCain would be a lot worse. The policies he supports are completely at odds with working Americans and their families. So would I vote for him in the event that my candidate didn't get it? NO. I will stand behind the assertion I just made about him. I would not vote for him to get back at her.

If a switch to McCain is so easy for some Clinton supporters, I have to question why they are supporting her at all.. it's definitely not her platform.

[DavidK08]

I agree with the points below. Also, if the caucus is so bad then start fighting them now, for thenext time. Don't be one of those loosers who only say they are bad because their candidate didn't do well in them. Fight to have them removed. You owe it to yourself because you feel so strongly about them. Also could you cut and post any blogs you have written in last summer, before the caucus states?

HRC lost because of 2 reasons. 1) Obama has the hearts of more than half of dems.
2) She had a terrible plan from the beginning.

[StandingStill]

First, come to reality...Hillary HAS lost...Obama HAS won.

Until you can be truthful about this one very important FACT, the rest of your comments are based in delusions and hate.

Who you need to blame for Hillary's failed presidential bid is Hillary Clinton for her poor campaign. Hillary hired Mark Penn. Hillary didn't plan for the caucus states. Hillary didn't manage her campaigns finances. Hillary didn't plan to compete pass February 5th. Hillary and her husband, started their race baiting tactics in South Carolina which completely backfired. First they tried to diminished Dr. Martin Luther King's accomplishments, then compared Sen. Obama's huge win to the "Black" candidate Jesse Jackson's win of 1982 & 1986, finally Hillary's disgusting comment about having, "hard working Americans, white Americans," voting for her. And I didn't even deem to type Geraldine Ferraro's foolish statements, they aren't worth the key hits.

And I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how the Bosnia lie was Sen. Obama's and the media's fault as well, right?

[ohiodem250]

Your argument about caucuses really doesn't hold water. One of the criticisms of caucuses is that when there is more than two candidates someone's supporters will not cross a support threshold and then must support another candidate, inflating the numbers of one or more candidates. In most of the caucus states only Obama and Clinton were contenders. Another thing people criticize the caucus states for is that they seem to be "exclusive" and are subject to the whim of party activists. [I'm not quite sure when party activism became so faux paus, anyways - probably the result of the always shifting Clinton goalposts; as I seem to remember she was quite the activist herself.] What's interesting about that is that Sen. Obama, who was won the vast majority of caucuses, also leads in the popular vote EVEN COUNTING MI AND FL. I guess the reasons Clinton is really losing is a) she's losing the popular vote and can't make up the deficit b) she's losing in pledged delegates and can't make up the deficit and c) she's now losing in superdelegates - which was her pre-Iowa calling card. So yeah, I guess there are many reasons why Clinton lost.

[littlepuffycloud]

All your Clinton supporters who say you will vote for Grampa McCain instead of Senator Obama show you don't care about the Democratic party or America. You care only about getting a woman in the White House. Stamp your feet and throw a trantrum since your gal is a loser. Don't call yourselves Democrats.

[hinnis]

No, it shows that we care more about our families and our country, then the Democratic Party. We're not crazy about the "new" Democratic Party, anyway. It has become the party which rationalizes racism and justifies disenfranchisement. Not the party we thought.

[Texvol]

Let me ask you a question, hinnis. Why, exactly, do you think Obama is the most "dangerous and divisive candidate in modern history," as you describe him below (and elsewhere, frequently). I've read your recent posts on your profile and I really can't figure it out. You seem to believe that Obama is an adherent of black liberation theology, but even if that were true (and I'm not at all sure that it is) I have no idea what you think that means in terms of how he might govern. Tell us three things that you think Obama would be likely to do as president that causes you to consider him "dangerous."

[Repub4Obama]

Wow! You'll really be surprised if you go over to the Republicans. I know - I just left there because I was finally SICKENED to the point that I would consider another party. I'm lucky Obama came along, or I wouldn't have anybody to vote for. Families? If you want a political party to care about your family, you better have a net worth of over $5 million unless you have an unwanted, unborn child, which they would force you to have instead of abort, leaving you to raise it and become the next generation of working poor. Their support of "families' is marginal. If you're lucky, your kids won't have to leard about genetics or evolution or birth control or STD's, and won't have art, science, math, music, drama, or even recess during primary school. Sounds GREAT!

McCain has changed his opinion on every issue because of political expediency except one: that he'll go ahead and violate campaign law and then his cronies will make sure the FEC stays understaffed so he can't get charged with anything. Good move for a Republican, actually. If you really liked Bush/Cheney, I'm sure you should consider moving red and voting for McCain.

If you did like Bush/Cheney, then I'm sure nobody up here would be sorry to see you leave - and take your opinion with you for that matter.

Or, you're just 'rattling your saber' about not voting for Obama. Another good, solid, Republican strategy. Run for state congress!

[StandingStill]

Hinnis,

Texvol asked you a question and you said you couldn't answer because you had to get back to work, yet you are STILL here spreading fear, hate and seeds of discord. So since you're STILL here, below is Texvol great question...

"That's an odd excuse, hinnis, because according to your profile you have posted 40 messages on 5/13, including several after the time I originally posed this question. The only inference I can draw from your refusal to respond to a simple question is that you have no basis for your slanderous accusations. You are clearly either a crank (at best) or some sort of misguided Republican operative. (For those of you who doubt my conclusion, please go read hinnis' profile.)

If you honestly believe that someone is "dangerous" to the country, you have an obligation to the rest of us to explain why. You've made that statement about Obama on this and several other comment threads (the same comment, by the way, each time). I hope some of the others reading here join me in insisting that you explain why."

What's your answer to Texvol's question?

[hinnis]

Once again, I am flattered by all of the attention. I answer those whom I choose. If I don't answer you, don't be hurt. No offense intended.

[McPander]

I don't pretend to be an expert but it would seem that there has been a leader of the party for the last 16 years. That would be Bill Clinton. He has been behind the scenes controlling the party for the past 8 years.
He is responsible for all the weak leaders. Who was the head of the DNC for the 2004 elections? Gee it was Terry McAuliffe what a coincidence.
Its not very complicated. The weakness in the democratic party over the past 8 years has been due to the Clinton's desire to win the election in 2008 and take them back to the White House.
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for Al Gore as he has for his wife? no
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for John Kerry as he has for his wife? no
The plan has always been to have HRC serve 6 years in the senate then run for the white house. Everybody knows that.
Would that have been possible if Al Gore had been elected? no. Chances are he would have served 8 years and the his vice president would have had the shoe in for the nomination.
Would that had happened if John Kerry had won the white house? no.
There is a man behind the curtain in the Democratic Party and its Bill Clinton. Just look at who was on the campaign for John Kerry. All Clinton plants.
So i thank God for Howard Dean.
Think about it.

[PhDiva]

This is a great point. It really does make sense.

[hinnis]

wayoutleftinsanfrancisco: Wow, if I hadn't ducked, that race card would have hit me square. Give it up. The race card is getting old.

[GayGrandpa]

DITTO THAT!

[shanti108]

PART TWO: (SEE PART ONE BELOW) Lately she's been channeling the Angry Populist, because she mistakenly believes that is the source of Obama's success. Obama's message has a populist element to it, but it isn't an angry populist message. More a transcendant populist message. Like a laser beam, Obama zeroes right in on how the Republican Machine uses fear and anger and ugly emotions to get working class and middle class (anybody not rich, really) Americans to vote against their own economic self -interests. And he just simply says, "We're not gonna play that game anymore."
But Hillary still thinks she can win that game. She doesn't even get that the game is irrelevant. Hillary is very intelligent, but Obama is WISE. Wisdom is transcendant intelligence. Intelligence is clever and competitive and oh so very good at besting you in some petty competitive way. Wisdom ignores those childish adolescent games and sets a course for the highest and best that we can be.
Wisdom is noble intelligence.
Hillary is intelligent.
Obama is wise. Obama is noble. Obama is a class act.
Hillary just isn't.

[shanti108]

Two parts, because the word limits on this site are silly: An Obama supporter, I could care less about voting for the first African American President, or the first woman President or even the first POW President for that matter. If Obama's message were coming out of Hillary Clinton's mouth, I would vote for her without hesitation. If Obama's message were coming out of McCain's mouth, I would vote for him. I used to think of Bill Clinton was a great President, but really, he was just a poll worshiping womanizer, wasn't he? He only appeared great compared to the Presidents around him, ie, compared to Bush, Ford , Carter, Nixon. I was so starved for greatness, I elevated Bill Clinton's mediocre service to greatness. Bill Clinton was a very good President, but he was not a great President.
Obama is going to be a great President. I'm talking Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Mount Rushmore GREAT!! He will be in the Pantheon! He just happens to be African American.
Hillary just doesn't get it.

[hinnis]

No, you used to think that Clinton was a great President until the Obama camp told you otherwise. Obama knew that he could not beat Hillary Clinton unless he first destroyed Bill Clinton's legacy. So, with carefully placed raced cards and lies of all manner, he has attempted to do so. And, this attempt has been largely successful with his supporters and others who have little historical perspective. However, no manner of lies or propaganda will change the facts, and the fact is that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents in the last 50 years, and certainly the most intelligent. His primary sin, is that he happened to get in the way of a ruthless and deceptive man in his bid for power in the White House.

[CyrusBeaucephus]

SORE LOSER ALERT

[StandingStill]

Yet, YOU continue to play it every chance you get! Grow up Hinnis! If that's too hard for you try doing some research on your computer instead of using it to spread FEAR try using it to LEARN. Good luck to you.

OBAMA 08

[pie8ter]

I thought SNL was on Hillary's side. They gave her TV time to whine that press is biased towards Obama and treats him with pillows. I thought Loraine Micheal was basically endorsing Hillary's candidacy. He is now seeing how delusional and unethical this woman is. I bet he changed his mind.

The wording on the presidential seal is hilarious.

"The Seal of the Next president of the United States"

[JohnCP]

If and when Hillary loses this contest, the evidence that media will have been the cause, is so obvious, it's laughable. And, why would media be so strongly agaisnt Hillary, and so strongly supportive of Obama? Why would mainstream media, dominated, owned and controlled by rightwing wealth and power, want so desperately to see Obama win the nomnation?

[hinnis]

Yes, John. The same corporate controlled media that promoted and protected George Bush all those years, is not promoting and protecting Obama. Makes one think . . .

[lotuslike]

yes...PLEASE start thinking! none of what you are putting out here makes any kind of sense.

[Ariesjill]

Jesus....do some homework! You need go no further than gathering the data re who has contributed to which campaign!

[hinnis]

You mention Jesus. Are you talking about the black Jesus who Rev. Wright tells us was killed by "the white man?"

[Roses]

Look up Rupert Murdoch. See that he backs Hillary? See that he owns huge holdings in the media and is arguably a real "king-maker" (or in this case queen-maker). Now tell me who the media is for and who they are against. Yes, with a little reading and googling, it is "so obvious , it's laughable" that the right-wing media back a certain candidate, and here's a clue.....they DON''T back Senator Obama.
Obama '08

[Charmed]

Facts just don't mean anything to certain people. Obama EARNED this nomination...

[dajay]

He hasn't even managed to secure the pledged delegate vote count to secure the nomination.

He has to rely on the superdelegates to GIVE him the nomination.

Nice spin.

[citadelgrrl05]

I completely agree with you charmed .. He earned this nomination through hard-work and determination. He was written off six months ago and even as far as 15 months ago, that is why hillary is in this position, because she under estimated Obama b/c she thought whites would never vote for a black man, at least not in the way that they have. This sketch is too funny. but the sad part of it is it is actually TRUE!!!

What makes me sad is that West Virginis is going to play into her hands and vote for her in droves it makes me sick, and the only reason is b/c she is "white" so sad!!!
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
OBAMA 08

[jeromee4u]

The media spent weeks on Rev. Wright, and ignored the questionable supporters of Hilliary, and McCain. Rupert Murdock supports Hilliary, and controlls much of the media. Hilliary is another republican, 109 million changes your outlook.

[hinnis]

If you think the media spent a lot of time on Rev. Wright a few weeks ago, just wait until the general election if Obama is the nominee. Then, if the media won't do it's job in covering the issue of Rev. Wright and Obama's adherence to black liberation theology, the 527s will do it for them.

[FatJoe]

Sweet baby Moses, we've got to reach out to the right wing to build a coalition to have SNL euthanized. Even the evangelicals have to agree that anything this unfunny deserves a mercy killing.

[Ariesjill]

You have just abrogated history and how, thru the centuries it has moved forward. Read 17th century French satirists, then learn the pivotal role all such sardonic visionaries with heart have played in leading to your being able to post here.

[mairs]

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but that was just downright mean of them. It was like a kick in the teeth, and shockingly unfunny and deliberately humiliating. Just shows they like to kick people when they're down. My opinion of them is zero, zilch.

[pimothy]

I believe that Hillary has the Minimum Highest Ethical Standards.

[hinnis]

Which are still miles higher than Obama's.

[Ariesjill]

Is that from the Robert Frost poem or from Cannabis Weekly?

[hinnis]

The media, the DNC and the Democratic Party elite has tried to shove Obama down our throats for many months now. In spite of this, Hillary is still fighting hard to protect this country against the most deceptive and divisive candidate in modern history. Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and the rest of the party establishment are going to get a big surprise in November, should Obama be the Democratic nominee, when he is soundly defeated by voters crossing over to McCain from their own party. We Democrats who will not sit idly by and let this dangerous wing of the party seize control will fight on, because we love our families and our country more than the Democratic Party, which is now only a shadow of the party of hope and promise it purports to represent.

[Midnite]

Welcome back MinneapolisMike!

[way out left in san francisco]

You think you can hide your racism behind Hillary and some rant against the progressive wing of the Democrat Party - well you can't. Hillary needs to heal the party she has worked so hard to polarize. We can win with Obama. Hillary could become the Democrat Party Leader and push through all the legislation for the issues she says she cares about. The future can be great. Hillary's supporters must make a choice. There is no reason to bash Obama over policy; his policy stands are very close to Hillary. It is time to heal and MOVE ON. We could be issuing in the greatest Democrat Era since Roosevelt. Chose your party over racism. Stop thinking you can hide behind Hillary's pantsuit.

[hinnis]

I tried to answer you, but evidently, defending oneself from the race card is against the rules on this blog.

[hinnis]

Please post any of my comments which you consider to be racist. If you cannot, then please consider your apology to be accepted in advance. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Charmed]

If you support McCain's policies by all means vote for him, he could really need the help with Ron Paul still running around and Barr announcing he is running also. That should split that "hard working white uneducated vote" pretty evenly.

[hinnis]

According to the polls (Pew Poll), at least 28% of Hillary Clinton voters will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. I am among them.

[citadelgrrl05]

YOu are so clueless, do you know how many favors the Clintons owe back!! Too many to count, if they were in the wgite house they would have to pay all thier seedy favors back, guess who is the only person that Obama will owe bak..THE PEOPLE ..THEY ARE THE ONES THAT FUNDED his campaign.THE REPBULICANS want Hillary b/c she is polarizing and they will eat her alive with all her lies and do and say anuthing attitude, IF you htink what they did to KErry waas bad, wait till they get their hands on hillary and her husband's seedy dealing. NObody wants that drama back in the white house so bill can get his do-over.. IT Is TIME TO TURN THE PAGE AND MOVE ON!!!

WAKE UP AMERICA

[way out left in san francisco]

Furthermore just look how Hillary has polarized or party! And the Republicans benefit from her polarizing effect whether she is belittling her fellow Democrat nominee while complementing McCain. What kind of Democrat nominee would she make for the Democrat party? Hillary and Bill Clinton have polarized this oaty by race in their last gasp to hold onto power at any cost. There politics must be retired. We must raise our political system an expect better. Obama 2008 and 2012

Hillary Clinton should evolve and help unify the Democrat party that she vocally and enthusiastically polarized. Hillary is a key to victory for all of us. She can go down in history as one of the great Senators and Party Leaders of all times. Hillary believes she can motivate the Senate to sponsor laws and focus our resources to restore America. Go Hillary! Become the greatest Senator in History. Encourage Hillary to fulfill her potential even though she will never be president. Hillary could become an historical statesman.

[tenilla]

No one has pushed Barack Obama down our throats.

How do you explain the deranged 24/7 cable news coverage of Jeremiah Wright for eight weeks?

How do you explain the fact that Saturday Night Live had three consecutive pro-Hillary opening
skits, the last one 3 days before the Ohio primary? How do you explain the fact that Tina Fey
endorsed Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night live -- Bill Clinton called Fey and thanked her.
How do you explain the fact that a white comedian in black face portrays Obama as
a slow-witted dullard in SNL skits? (Not funny -- Obama is a lot of things, but he is NOT
a slow-witted dullard.)

How do you explain the ABC debate with insipid questions posed by George Stephanopolous
(who owes his career to the Clintons) asking insipid questions like, "Does Jeremiah Wright
love America as much as you do?) and "Why don't 'you wear a flag pin?"

How do you explain the fact that Bittergate, found in some polls to be more harmful to Obama
than Jeremiah Wright, originated right here at Huffington Post with Citizen Journalist Mayhill
Fowler?

How do you explain the fact that while the MSM was slobbering over the Wrigtht story for
virtually two months, they refused to cover Clinton's membership in The Fellowship, a/k/a
The Family, or to ask her to renounce and repudiate her former pastor who was sentenced a month ago for molesting a 7-year old girl?

[MrZebra]

Oh how the comments on here used to collectively slam SNL when Clinton was on. Now the show is the second coming.

[Ariesjill]

Correct. Bite us.

[hinnis]

Another "educated" Obama supporter

[reelcobra]

I found my own point below so interesting I felt like the HuffPo administrators would have wanted me to "front and center" it again up here, so here goes.

IT'S ONE THING TO BE RACIST.

IT'S ANOTHER THING TO "GO WITH" TONS OF ATTRACTIVE BLACK WOMEN LIKE BILL CLINTON, ACCORDING TO ANDREW YOUNG.

So even if Hillary has a fear of black women, it doesn't mean she is racist. She is "afraid" of them.

She's just afraid, kind of like how Obama's racist Grandmother is "afraid" of black men.

But she's not racist.

Now let's move on to the general election, with our experienced, character defining Messiah!

BHO '08!!

[Roses]

I wasn't going to take the bait that you offer with your comment, but I wanted to make an important point. I think that many people often disagree because they are arguing past each other and don't really agree on definition of terms. The word "racist" has two different meanings according to merriam-webster. One is a person who is basically prejudiced and a bigot about race. Most people do not fit this category, though some awful people do. The second, more common "racist" is someone who makes decisions based on someone's race. According to this definition Obama's grandmother made racist decisions and I would bet the vast majority of people in this country also are "racists", black and white and brown. I think that this is what Obama was talking about when he suggested that we all needed to talk about this subject.
Finally, I'd like to suggest that everyone stop flinging the term "racist" around. It doesn't help, unless that is your intention?
Obama '08

[hinnis]

Roses: I couldn't agree with you more. The gratuitous and often use of the "race card" is being used by some to chill free speech, and label all those who disagree with Obama as racists. A strong argument could be made that it is they, and not the one they attack, who is the focused on race and not the issues.

[reelcobra]

I accept your premise. So my question is...

Is it "racist" to claim, without any scientific basis at all, that black kids use the right sides of their brains and white kids use the left?

Second question...

Could you think of anything more "racist" than that?

BHO '08!!

[realtalk]

SNL is simply reflecting what Hillary Clinton and her husband have been up to, the way they have behaved. And people see that the Clintons are going out of their way to try to split the democratic party down colorline.
I think what is most shocking for people to see that instead of promoting racial unity for the sake of the country, and to a lesser degree the democartic party, the Clintons seem to be reveling in the fact that racial bias still exists in this country, and among SOME democrats, and the Clintons have made the conscious decision to try to use those negative feelings to their advantage.
Rather than being appalled that these racial biases still exist, the Clintons seem to be happy they do, happy to exploit them to get what they want, which is the nomination.

[MyAudacity]

I wonder why it's so easy to give Clinton a "pass" on being a racists, yet the same people are foaming at the mouth and consider Obama to be a racist or worse, based on comments his former pastor made, and the church he has attended.

Why is there a double standard?

I think the SNL video clip actually showed who is the true "elitist"

[hinnis]

Please document your assertion that the Clintons are racists. Thank you.