Sen. Clinton's SNL Staff is Making the Same Mistakes as the Rest of Her Team
The writers of Saturday Night Live delivered a third anti-Obama/pro-Hillary skit this weekend, confirming their new status as an unofficial branch of the Clinton organization. And they seem to have become infected with the same problems that afflict the rest of that team: Their latest anti-Obama sketch was mean-spirited, misleading, confused ... oh, and humorless.
SNL staffers helped their candidate a lot in Texas and Ohio. The sheer shock value alone must have created something of a boomlet for her. (And they certainly intimidated the media, which is asking far fewer tough questions of Sen. Clinton now.)
I was just a kid in 1968, so I might have missed it: Did people sit around wondering who Morey Amsterdam was gonna endorse? (Actually, Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In did something for Richard Nixon that was very much like what SNL did for Hillary. They had a cameo of Nixon repeating their "sock it to me" tagline, and it undoubtedly helped him the way SNL helped her. But Morey Amsterdam, rest his soul, just kept on doing his schtick.)
The premise of SNL's latest little skit -- that Obama's too inexperienced and shallow to be president and needs to call Hillary for help at 3 a.m. -- shows the same tone-deafness that's infected the other arms of the Clinton campaign. It demonstrates that the SNL-ers:
* don't know when a theme is played out
* are willing to alienate half the Democratic Party
* will sacrifice their own "capital" to get what they want
* can't stay on point with their leader's ever-changing message
That "3 a.m." schtick is so yesterday. It was yesterday last Thursday, and it was three days before yesterday by Saturday. It was dead. To use it over the weekend was ringtone-deaf, just more "hanging on the telephone."
Can you hear me now? Sorry, wrong number.
It was dead like that.
The "capital" SNL has sacrificed includes the perception that they can comment on political developments as independent outsiders. They seem like Clinton subordinates now, pure and simple. It also looks like they're also willing to sacrifice what people think of as their main job -- to be funny -- in support of a vindictive agenda.
But squandering vital capital on mean-spiritedness has been a hallmark of this campaign. No less a personage than the former President, Bill Clinton, did it in South Carolina. Now he's reaching out to Obama supporters with inspiration and an olive branch -- something I suggested months ago -- but it's too late. Many Obama supporters view him now with discomfort, if not outright hostility. That's a huge loss for the Clinton team. And President Clinton's credibility is undermined every time his wife's campaign demeans the credentials of a candidate who is older than he was when he took office, and has four years of foreign policy experience where he had none.
And when I say "his wife's campaign" is undermining President Clinton's credibility, I mean you, too, SNL.
As far as their leader's shift in message and direction, the SNL-ers apparently didn't pick up on her latest campaign theme, which was elucidated by the former president the morning their routine was aired: namely, that Obama would be a dynamite vice president. When they attacked Obama on Saturday night as vain, talentless, and inexperienced, they were still on Friday's campaign message.
I can sympathize. It is hard to keep up with all the shifts in messaging. But if you're going to join the team you need to follow the playbook.
Nothing they did on Saturday descended to the level of their "bitch is the new black" routine a couple weeks back. Let's set aside the racial charge in the phrase (hopefully unintentional) and concentrate on the premise: Bitches get sh*t done.
Huh? Which "bitches" are we talking about? Where do we draw the line on this gender-only requirement? Would Madame Nhu be acceptable? How about Countess Elizabeth Báthory, who murdered hundreds of young girls (bathing, according to legend, in the blood of virgins)? Would any so-called "bitch" do, just as long as SNL women can say "I'm one, too"? That comes across as the narcissism of the famous, not the political engagement of concerned citizens.
And what "sh*t" are we talking about getting done here? Clinton's been a good Senator on everything except foreign policy, where her presidential ambitions have led her to tack right. A lot of people have suffered as a result, including the 100 American women who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. Do we want more of that kind of "sh*t"?
Now, fair is fair. My favorite Tina Fey joke is about a female head of state, Catherine the Great ("You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly. But f**k one horse...) And Hillary Clinton is a person of great abilities. Ironically, she was warmer and funnier on SNL than the pros were. Too bad she and her team made the decision to mount such a joyless, cold, and humorless campaign, when that wasn't necessary.
But then, she's made a lot of bad decisions as head of this campaign. And, don't forget, she's responsible for the strategy. Not Bill, not Mark Penn, not Patti Solis Doyle. No amount of pro-Clinton SNL spin can provide her with executive experiences she hasn't had, or cover up the management mistakes that plagued her health reform initiative and now dog her campaign.
No doubt SNL's writers feel they're performing a valuable public service. But in this case their involvement seems sadly misplaced, born more of vanity than idealism. Maybe that's because of the harsh and jaded way they framed their skits -- but then, that's a tone problem that's affected the Clinton campaign overall. Maybe there's some communicable form of counterproductive cynicism going around, and the people on this team have all caught it.
SNL has served the Clinton campaign well. But they've had their moment in the sun. It's time to move on. They can't help Sen. Clinton or harm the Democratic Party much more than they already have, but they can certainly harm themselves if they keep going.
Morey Amsterdam, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, your observations about SNL are on the money. I'm not impressed by the stale product. There is little humor and what there is of it is blunted by an inability to create quality parody,etc.. The team writing this weak material needs help. The actors are good enough but they so dependent on the writers who are failing them.
I don't think SNL is in the tank for anyone. I do think it reads the paper and watches television. It reacts to criticism of the program. SNL responses then are somewhat politically driven and forced. And we all know about forced homor.
man, i TRIED to watch snl this saturday just to see where the shills would go next. there wasn't even ONE mildly amusing sketch. the guest host was terrible, the band was bland, and the writing on the show is beyond putrid. 90 minutes of flatulence would have gotten more laughs. it would have smelled better too.
The skit supported neither candidate. It was a take-off on all the recent media hype of the week. It's called entertainment.
For all the back and forth about which candidate is is getting the better end of the deal hear, I think we're losing sight of the basic problem with SNL skits, THEY'RE NOT FUNNY!
As many of the posts here have pointed out, it's a comedy show. If the skits were funny, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. They feel forced, like they're trying to make something fit that just doesn't.
Perhaps it's the strike and everybody just isn't back into the "groove" yet, but so far this season of SNL really sucks.
Brilliant-- analysis-- New Yorkers seem to have had an altogether too jaded week -- their governor? will SNL perform their jaded skits to mock their idol's superdelegate?
'The Wire' meets 'Rowan & Martin',
An interesting side note with sex and wiretaps being in the news lately. Sam Giancana suspected that his mistress Phyllis McGuire was having an affair with Dan Rowan. So he requested that his CIA contact bug Dan Rowan's hotel room in Las Vegas.
http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/01/real-history-of-gerald-ford-watergate.html
Thanks for that link! There's a lot of good stuff in the real history blog, I look forward to a lot of reading. Some great research and analysis there.
am i'm the only one who finds the skits of a bumbling and unqualified barack obama tinged with rascism? i can't help but think that in 20 years we'll look back on these skits as another subtle form of racial politics allowed to leak into the mainstream.
Yeah it was totally racist. And it was totally sexist to show Hillary in cold cream and rollers. And remember when they had McCain on singing Barbra streisand songs? That was totally off key. How dare they! I'm sure our descendents will look back on old SNL clips and in hindsight realize that they are the KKK, Islamic Jihad, Nazis and the anti-christ bent on destroying America and our culture, if not the world. Either that, or they'll just realize it was a silly sketch comedy show.
stanfordsweetie: you're not the only one. check this out: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/leslie_savan/2008/03/sketchy_comedy.html
I've rarely missed a show since the original Not Ready For Prime Time Players.
I will never again watch the show. I wondered when they'd actually jump the shark and their after-strike opener with the Clinton endorsement was it.
Oh come on, that's going a little too far. It's a comedy show. I remember all the skits about Ford in the 70s and I don't recall Ford asking them to stop. I'm an Obama supporter and in my view, the best thing that Obama and his campaign can do is to laugh it off.
On the LAUGH-IN Nixon show, Humphrey was offered a chance to reply to Nixon's "Sock it to ME?" with "Yes!" but turned it down.
I will never forget the shock of seeing Nixon's mug suddenly fill the TV screen during the show!
If this Obama movement involves not being able to laugh at ourselves, let me off the bandwagon here.
Other than the fact that I did not laugh once while watching last week's SNL (for some reason I check it out religiously every week, hoping for a funny surprise)- I continue to be offended by the Obama caricature, which I fear will stick, much as the idiot George W, Al Gore, and Reagan ones did. OK, except for Gore, the others were right on. But Obama is no shallow, monosyllabic idiot. Get a new actor, or at least- try a different impersonation, SNL. Making him the buffoon and Hillary the "straight man" was funny just once.
Let's see...
She's likeable...enough vs. who would you rather have answer the phone at 3am?
Personal attack and legitimate political question.
Something to consider but we would first have to determine who is at the top of the ticket vs. Many of my friends say they want to vote for both of us and maybe someday they can.
Sounds pretty similar to me.
Obama behind a desk in a shirt and tie vs. Clinton in a granny robe, face mask and curlers
Kinda hard to tell who comes off looking worse.
An entire website dedicated to trying to spin the facts of the election in to a name calling contest of who is being less fair. Get over it all of you.
HELLOOOOO? Does anyone out there, including Eskow, understand what SATIRE is and how it works? The SNL sketch was a satire of Hillary Clinton's absurd characterization of her "experience" and "Obama is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief" tropes. Satire functions by seizing on a target and EXAGGERATING a characteristic to demonstrate its absurdity. Satire need not be funny, and indeed, the SNL sketche was no more than mildly amusing.
Ben Jonson, who defined satire as "a mirror in which the observer sees everyone but himself," must be laughing in his grave at both the Hillary supporters who see the SNL sketches as anti-Obama and the Obama supporters who see them as pro-Hillary.
fair enough - but I would like to see a switch in the characterizations ... they've basically expanded on the same joke for 3 weeks now - move on.
I cannot think of any other American for whom the Media would roll so eagerly over for.
The Clintons and their "entitlement" are indicative of all that We the People are sick of.
Who else would get the "Comeback" headlines on a week when they still LOST??????
I was actually enjoying SNL again when their writers were on strike and they were playing old re-runs.
Unfortuantely, I think this skit was supposed to be anti-Clinton. I am an Obama supporter and I'm not terribly worried about SNL's impact on the election. They stopped being relevant decades ago.
The problem with the skit was just that...you have to guess at who it's mocking. The skit started with the Hillary character saying that she approved the following misleading ad. If you didn't see that part, you wouldn't get the "joke." It would just appear to be a slam on Obama.
They are [unsuccessfully] trying to recreate to success of the Gore-Bush debate skits from the 2000 election. The major difference is, during those skits they would equally mock BOTH candidates. Gore was slammed for his stiff nature, his ever-changing demeanor from debate to debate and of course the "lock-box."
Bush was lampooned for his smug delivery, trouble with foreign affairs and struggle with the English language..."strategery."
I can laugh at my own candidate, but SNL needs to understand how engaged the electorate is in this election and people are passionate on both sides. I want to be entertained, not offended when I watch a comedy show. It's okay to give Hillary a couple of obvious jabs. There's plenty to work with there.
SNL hasn't been funny for years...and this is just another reason why!
Loading comments…
Posted March 10, 2008 | 02:40 PM (EST)