SNL's Brilliant "Sore Loser" Sketch Illuminates Senator Clinton's Shadows

Amy Poehler's performance as Senator Hillary Clinton on SNL gave me a fresh, exhilarating reminder of the power and usefulness of two of my favorite things to make: satire and overexposed photographs.

In their essence, the two have everything in common. Both rev up reality until we're able to make out every detail lurking in the spots our naked eyes perceive only as shadow. Literal shadows in photography. Shadowlands of the soul in satire.

It's the difference between this photo and this photo.

(Yes, I do need a shave. And yes, I did stick a piece of cardboard in my mouth to do a quick, lame job of illustrating a point. Yes, I should have more dignity. No, the fact that I wrote "LIES" on a piece of cardboard and hid it in the shadowy recesses of my mouth does not necessarily mean that I am lying to you right now.)

Poehler gave SNL viewers an overexposed Hillary Clinton. She let us see the shadows. In doing so, she gave us the real Hillary Clinton. Or -- to be more charitable -- she gave us an honest rendering of the part the senator is willing to play to propel her last desperate grab for the nomination. There, on-screen in America's living rooms, Poehler gave calm but full voice to all the whispery insinuations Clinton keeps making in justifying her continued run.

With her smiling, soothing "My supporters are racist" talking point, Poehler translated into plain English the coded message Clinton herself sent in an interview with USA Today last week: "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again ..."

I question the non-Poehler Clinton on two points: 1) Whether any meaningful fraction of Democrats is so closed to Senator Obama that he literally cannot win its trust and its votes by November; 2) Whether "supporters" is the word you use to describe a group of people who have voted for you and would vote for you again but wouldn't trust your endorsement of Obama enough to give him a fresh chance.

Back in TV land, Poehler summed up Clinton's pitch to the superdelegates like this: "Sore loser, racist supporters, no ethical standards. Qualities Senator Obama simply cannot match. That's not an attack on my opponent. It's just the truth. When you consider that, the choice is obvious."

But is this "just the truth"? Some, clearly, won't think so. But I have in my possession at least one shred of anecdotal evidence of a shift in public opinion. On March 29, I posted a satirical President Hillary Clinton speech that could serve as a sequel to the remarks Poehler delivered on SNL. Someone dear to me, someone I respect, someone who'd voted for Senator Clinton read what I'd posted, took offense, and called up to complain that I'd been "vicious."

Sunday, six weeks later, the same person e-mailed me about SNL and wrote, "It was definitely harsh, but she has really left herself open for such satire."

I believe Senator Clinton can win back someone like this to the ranks of her defenders. She can start by disproving the darkest fear voiced in the SNL sketch:

If, on the other hand, Senator Obama is chosen I will probably refuse to campaign for him. Or if I do so, it will be in a resentful, half-hearted way, thus ensuring his defeat so I that I can run again in 2012. You see, unlike my opponent, I'm just not going to lose gracefully. It's not a criticism of Senator Obama. It's just a fact.

Senator Clinton will get the last word on this. Once she officially loses the nomination, she can make the Poehler sketch look ridiculous. Or she can make it look like prophecy.

I wish I could say I'm not worried.

Comments

[becky]

I can't believe you think this is satire about Hillary. SNL is constantly doing satire about the MSM.
In this skit, Hillary is talking about herself in every way the pundits talk about her every day, every night,
in the newspapers, on the blogs. I believe they were having her speak the pundit speak to knock the MSM. How do I know this? Do you really think that SNL or most people in America think that Hillary's supporters are racists, or that she is unethical, or that she is a sore loser. The pundits would have you believe that, but there are very few in this country who really believe that. So go ahead and have your little drunken Ha! Ha's! It really doesn't mean to much.

[PhDiva]

becky: You keep putting up the same comments regarding the SNL skit. You are too drunk on Clinton kool-aid to see that SNL is critiquing Hillary AND the MSM and the voters. This is not either or.

Also, the funny part of the skit is that many people find her supporters racist (especially when they call Obama the n-word, which is kind of a hint), find her unethical (especially when she lies repeatedly) and find her a sore loser (every day and in every way). You can't see this? Gosh, you're almost as out of touch as your candidate.

[LivingStardust]

Prophecy.

I'll stop making fun of Hillary when she goes home. And I don't mean the White House.

[Smartey]

Enough!! Stop making fun of Hillary. I have worked on her campaign in two different states, and the lady deserves our respect, admiration and devotion. And your vote! Her opponent -- a man of color but not a colored man -- has been consistently vile and mean, ignoring her femininity and making crass remarks about her policies. Our gal Hill will stomp that boy in West Virginia and Kentucky, and you'll be sorry when she does. She's going to take every opportunity here to highlight his weaknesses, while continuing to whisper to super delegates that he can't win states with mostly white folks. All we can do is pray they come to their senses. So keep these mean stories and your equally mean reader comments to yourself -- if you know what's good for you.

Hillary '08!!!

[michiganfan]

ROFL!!

Great satire. I almost believed you were sincere.

[MikeMidCity]

As a pragmatic politician Hillary will get on the party band wagon. She and Bill will see the path ahead and take as much of the power that the democratic party will weld next year and want a piece of the pie.

Hillary for Supreme Court Justice? If she is nominated and confirmed next year she could easily have a good twenty five years on the bench. She could even put gold stripes on her robes.

Otherwise what else is there for her? She will never be President. She is hated by far too many people to win a general election.

Bill, Bill better get his cheap act together. His reputation having been put through the liberal wringer is much worse for the wear. After you've been impeached by one party and dismissed as Republican Lite by the other ..... what is left?

[threegoal]

Serious question: What qualifies her for the Supreme Court? Judicial experience? Prosecutorial experience? Senate Judiciary committee leadership? Teaching constitutional law? Great speeches or papers on the Constitution? Great court work as a private attorney?

I am not trying to bash Hillary here -- I just want to hear a reason to put someone on that court for 20+ years other than politics.

[EbonBear]

Her work as a private attorney was actually very good indeed, specialising in family law. She also holds a JD from Yale and wrote three highly influential articles on child rights ("Children Under The Law", Harvard Educational Review, 1973; "Children's Policies: Abandonment And Neglect", 1977 and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective", 1979), was a faculty member (one of only 2 women at the time) at U of Arkansas. She chaired the ABA commission on "Women in the profession" as well.

Love her or hate her, she's easily qualified to be a federal and maybe even SCOTUS judge.

[PPatt]

The Democratic party is at least as much to blame as Hillary.

Without a firm statement to the effect that the rules regarding Michigan and Florida will stand they are inviting her to prolong her campaign and entertain the possibility that she can incite support for questionable rule changes late in the game. Such a change would inflict a greater and permanent damage to the party than a Clinton loss. This needs to be impressed on Clinton in hopes that she will begin to get the message.

Certainly, the party wants her supporters to unite and not defect but by acting in ways that prolong the painful ordeal of schorched earth campaigning the inevitable defeat will only hit Clinton supporters even harder.

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

Because I've spent most of the last five years hanging out with my kids, my first reaction is to totally back you up and agree that this sort of craziness can only happen when somebody who's supposed to be in charge is failing to set and enforce clear limits.

But then the ex-journalist in me kicks in. I want nuts and bolts. What mechanism, if any, exists for the party to make your "firm statement to the effect that the rules regarding Michigan and Florida will stand"? To find this out, I just read ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-assess7-2008may07,0,4171507.story

If this is accurate, things are bleak. Howard Dean isn't making the "firm statement" because he can't. The mistake -- to again go simpleton on you and bring this back to parenting -- is that Dean seems to have threatened the misbehavers with a punishment that he can't mete out without the cooperation of a couple of committees. The L.A. Times, as you'll see by following that link above, wrote this about the first of them:

"Clinton appears to have some built-in advantages on the 30-member committee. Two of its members are campaign staffers, including rules guru Harold Ickes, and both are prepared to vote to reinstate Florida and Michigan, even though they voted last year to strip the delegation­s."

So we're back to this whole thing riding on the Clinton camp's vestigial sense of shame.

[CarolynA]

I think parenting is actually a very good analogy here--it's not a simpleton way to look at it at all. Some things are very simple. You can get even more basic. First example, the first rule of dog training: never tell your dog to do something unless you can (kindly) make it happen.
You're absolutely right. Dean doesn't have the means to make it happen. So let's hope that sense of shame kicks in. Or, more likely, she'll be shamed by others--go SNL!

[ornovscot]

David Quigg wrote, "Whether any meaningful fraction of Democrats is so closed to Senator Obama that he literally cannot win its trust and its votes by November," suggesting that in politics nothing is fixed and opinions can and do change.

I like these words, for if Senator Obama is elected President, I think in four years time, when the next Presidential election is being held, many of the persons in West Virginia and Kentucky who will not vote for Obama this time, will do so the next time.

It's rare for me to write this about any politician. In order for me to publicly post such comments, I have to have to believe that Senator Obama is a great leader and will help this country and its people.

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm with you on this. My cynicism wandered away months ago and hasn't been heard from since.

What you laid out is basically what I imagine happening. This is partly a function of how special Obama is. But it's also a function of just how flawed our political culture has been for decades. Voters of all political stripes will be relieved if they see a president demonstrate a more constructive, less combative way of governing. In some important areas, we'll get durable change.

Thanks for your comment, ornovscot.

[laksa]

May be the people in WV is so poor that they cannot afford TV therefore have not been following SNL. Or so dumb as to swallow everything Hillary has to say. Or they are simply racist?

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

In your exasperation, I think you may inadvertently be buying into the same Clinton claims that SNL was lampooning. In this case, it would be "Make me the nominee. My supporters are too dumb, poor, racist, and TV-deprived to even consider voting for my opponent."

Look, I've never been to WV. But I think you need to find a way to test your assumptions about the people there. If you think you can be courteous and stay on message, maybe you should make a few get-out-the-vote calls Tuesday. Like in any state, you'll get a lot of people who don't want to talk to any stranger calling about anything. But you might be surprised by some of the people who answer.

No promises. But worth a try.

To me, one lesson of this election season is that a startling number of my fellow Americans turn out to be more receptive and reasonable than I ever would have guessed.

[BadCompany]

Ill-informed for sure, but not necessarily racist.
The muslim thing seems to be Obama's obstacle here in KY, not race.
I imagine it's the same in WV.

[3fingerbrown]

The Clintons' long experience in Arkansas gives them an advantage in a poor, vastly rural, undereducated state. Obama, who grew up in Hawaii and is a creature of big-city politics, can't be expected to have the same touch for wooing hillbillies. The hillbilly vote was the Clinton family bread and butter for many years; they know how to work it. Is it any surprise that what worked for them in Arkansas is working for them in its east-of-th­e-Mississi­ppi equivalent, West Virginia?

Remember that another cosmopolitan junior senator running for president, JFK, also had problems in the West Virginia primary. In his case, they didn't trust him because he was Catholic, and it was Hubert Humphrey, the Midwest populist with a touch for stirring up the yokels, who played the Hillary role. The big difference is that JFK had a rich father who was willing to simply buy the crucial state for him. Old bootlegger Joe was reputed to have said, "Don't buy another vote, I won't pay for a landslide.­"