We know already. Go Hillary?

Thanks for posting this....I will show it to my students tomorrow! What a fun skit. And a nice surprise to see Obama. I hope he gains more traction...go Obama!!

uncle joe mccarthy @ 5:

oh, and south park did a better take on al gore...had him with his nobel and a cape

he was super al....it was pure genius

manbearpig

Kucinich couldn't catch a break that's for sure.

Alleged phoniness? No, its not alleged, its there. It's a part of her whether you like her or not. Don't be so touchy about it silentpatriot.

They probably asked Hillary to do the sketch but she's to touchy to make fun of herself. HMMM?

I say Dennis Kucinich there. Who were the rest of those people?

Barack, You're no Al Gore!

You would think this headline is coming from NRO or Faux News.

Silent Patriot must have been bitten by Hannity. He caught the right-wing bug.

The only thing funny about SNL anymore is how pathetic and unfunny it is, and how hard it tries to be relevant. If SNL can't make this presidential race funny, it doesn't deserve to be on the air.

I didn't see it as a swipe at Ms. Clinton, but it struck me as an odd thing for Mr. Obama to say. It makes him seem like a guy who's not a lot of fun, like a wet blanket, so to speak. I don't believe he would say something like that and actually mean it.

I saw it as a swipe at everyone in the democratic race.

AbbeyHoffmansGhost @ 12:

I say Dennis Kucinich there. Who were the rest of those people?

If only. If only.

uncle joe mccarthy @ 3:

snl hasnt had funny political skits since will farrell left...

if you have to tell the audience the character name....you arent doing a good impression

They are telling the audience the name of some politicans because their characteristics are not that defined for people to recognize them easily.

I'm with all the other commenters who say "bash" is too strong a verb here. It was a dig at Hillary, perhaps. Bashing? Hell no.

Barack Obama can get bent! He's a bigot!

The way they treated Bill Richardson in the sketch smacked of racism. SNL sneaks little racists jokes in since forever in almost all their skits. You can't take their crap seriously.

Bill dressed up as the pickup artist guy Mystery was pretty funny ;-)

Indigowatcher @ 30:

Barack Obama can get bent! He's a bigot!

why on earth would you say such a thing.?...would you mind providing some proof to that accusation...like maybe a link or two.

I'm guessing you know how I feel about their insidious portrayal of Mike. Totally disgusts me. He's portrayed as the crazy one when Hes the only one thats showed any passion or offered any REAL solutions to the crisis we're in. But yet he's not an agent of the military and drug industry so well he's just not electable. You're all being pawned. again.

Iocky @ 1:

No -- that is an odd interpretation of the skit.

I agree. It seemed to me that he was being self-deprecating, if anything.

Secondly, as much as I love South Park, their interpretation of Al Gore during the original episode with "Manbearpig" was a disgrace. Usually, they're spot-on with their exaggerations of real faults, but with Gore they simply altered his personality altogether so that instead of being a published academic with a rich history of scientific research, he was a bumbling idiot who could not even say the word 'serious' properly. Weak sauce, if you ask me. And I am sure you do.

A fence sitter is a "Mugwump."

A Mugwump is someone who sits on the fence with his Mug on one side and his Wump on the other waiting to see which way the wind blows and they can all go to hell.

Barack - the hope for the young as well as the mature! At age 66 I have been a leader of men and a follower of women most of my adult life. I have served honorably in the US military, never having to press #1 for English or #2 for alternatives, even though having arrived in this great nation at the tender age of 16 with just a few months short of 2 years of the Queens English. No, I'm not a native of our greatest ally.
What does Hilary Rodham Clinton and the Grand Canyon have in common???
The Grand Canyon is a very busy ditch!!!
Invest in youth, especially in educated and hopefully none corrupt youth!!!

Thank you for your attention!

TruthTeller @ 26:

uncle joe mccarthy @ 3:

snl hasnt had funny political skits since will farrell left...

if you have to tell the audience the character name....you arent doing a good impression

They are telling the audience the name of some politicans because their characteristics are not that defined for people to recognize them easily.

oh please

hello joe biden

hello john edward

hello bad impersonator

it wasnt funny

the imperonations sucked

why not do joe biden with a really bad hair implant....make his head look like a dolls head?

and the funniest stuff they did on kucinich was make him look like a little elf with a hot wife....hahahahaha.....not funny

why not have kucinich look like mr spock....im sure he is half vulcan

snl is just not funny

and horatio sanz is the worst comedic actor in the world....gotta wonder who he is blowing to keep his job

WTF?!!!!

This is so much shit!

I am a Kucinich voter and I find this skit so typical of the MSM bullcrap that it makes me sick!

I know that my candidate has no chance against the "machine" but for SNL to endorse the clown Obama outright and to malign Hillary Clinton so obviously it makes me think of doing something I thought unimaginable -- I would vote for Clinton over Obama in the primaries. It's obvious that Obama is the darling of the MSM -- they know that he doesn't stand a chance of winning the general so they're propping him up as the Democratic choice -- thus ensuring a Republican win.

And Obama laughs all the way to...what? The "bank?" I'm a mid-westerner and I know how Chicago "mobsters" work (in politics as well as anything else.)

I know there's no real choice between the mainstream Democrats and the mainstream Republicans, but does Obama have to sell himself so shamelessly? At least Clinton has the self-respect to at least try to pretend that there is a difference.

Obama makes me sick -- political opportunist who offers the world to Republican dunces just to get a laugh -- and meanwhile the Democratic chances of "victory" and "change" diminish by the moment.

Congratulations SNL, you've done your boss's job of defaming and ridiculing the Democrats -- and endorsing the candidate that will never beat a Republican -- the helpful stooge, Obama.

Obama seems as self-satisfied and unquestioningly sure of himself as....................

G.W.Bush?

Limbaugh?

O'Reilly?

Oh, I know he seems the opposite of these folks in most ways. But does that make him an un-compassionate conservative?

A supposedly controlled survey has revealed that if womens right to vote were to be repealed, the Democratic Party as we know it would go down like a punctured helium baloon. (By the way, if my wife ever found out that I subscribed to that theory, my P.C.O.D. would take affect immediately. (P.C.O.D. is a standard military term referring to Pussy Cut Off Date.)!

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 43:

Ruthless People @ 23:

Dimples @ 21:

Hillary.
yuck.

Rudy.
Yucker.

Hold your nose and pull the lever in 2008 just like I'm going to do.

No! I won't and neither will others. The Democratic Primary is not about Hillary versus Guliani, it is about Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Kucinich, Biden, and Hillary. And it is decietful and a con to keep spamming the, "HA! But you are trapped! You HAVE to vote for Hillary because Guiliani is worse! HA-HA!!" Bullshit.

I won't vote for her in the primary, I won't vote for her in the general. Myself, along with AT LEAST 33% of the country. Some estimates are over 40%. Take a damn hint. I'm tired of these jackbooted, "You! Get in line!" comments. The idea that she is a "favorite" is a manufactured farce, and people are tired of manipulation. Nominate her at your own (and all of our) peril. Who here, really, is refusing to compromise? Those who will vote their conscience as is their duty? Or those who KNOWINGLY stand and nominate a candidate that is so divisive, even their own party has a historic percentage of negative voters on her.

Anyway, on topic:
Oh. My. God.

So... the writer strike it NBC earlier that everyone else?! That was just TERRIBLE writing. Man. Really, really bad.

And when Obama flies in with no preparation and acts 20 times better than the regular cast, you've got a big problem. The Bill Clinton actor was trying but man... NOTHING to work with there. Wow. I haven't seen SNL in many years, but I didn't think it'd sunk this far. I suppose MADtv probably stinks these days too. All sad.

Props to Obama for doing it. Who wouldn't want to do the "Live! From New York!..." bit? Too bad the cast and writing staff let him down.

AMEN!!!

I am not getting in line... I am not holding my nose again...

Some of us have principals... and integrity... When we say in 2004 ... Well we are not at all happy with John Kerry.. but for this LAST time we will go along with the Dem party candidate because he is SWEARING to us on a fiery bible that he will never retreat... never surrender ONE vote... and then?....

Then ... sure Bush is so hideous and the repiglicans so vile ... we vote the Democratic party into the house...because they are "waking" and are going to end the war :::I never bought that line of rancid bullshit btw:::

And what happens?????

SAME SHIT ... DIFFERENT DAY...

Sure... the Dem is going to be President... big whoop... Nothing will change... and because of that neither will I as I have not even a tiny tootsie roll of encouragement to do so..

I am not wasting my vote on Hillary.. on Obama.. or any of the other robotic parasites we have as a "viable" choice...

I will keep it... or write in if that is even an option with these evil machines that have totally infected our system.

Do Mainstream zombies understand what we are facing?

Many feel the way I do... and Many are going to stay home so soaked with apathy that there is no other choice...which is certainly what the powers want to have happen..

Although I do think it is a very dangerous game for those monsters to play.... just because it is the only thing that might wake up the massive body that is the prole... and as Orwell said...

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

"who's that little boy making out with that lady?" rofl

Shawnmeat @ 41:

In other news, it would seem as though the talking-points about Hillary have paid off. I appreciate that there are many radical left-wingers who would love to see someone like Kucinich elected, but that doesn't make him the best choice. I respect the man, but the leader of the U.S. needs to be a little more impartial and aloof than most of those in the race thus far. Hillary has been called every name in the book, mostly for the audacity of being a woman (it's not as though the men are getting in trouble for being 'catty' or 'ice queens') and for being a moderate (or, as liberals like to point out, a 'fence sitter'). I'm as liberal as they come, but even I can appreciate that my views aren't representative of the U.S. as a whole. The nation needs someone who can restore a little bipartisanship to the office. After all, Bill was accused of the same things while running for office.

Just some food for thought.

Radical left wingers support Dennis? Clearly radical is a perjorative here, but exactly what is radical about being a Dennis Kucinich supporter? As for Clinton's alleged bi-partisanship... his willingness to be Republican-lite got us in the mess we're in with media consolidation and NAFTA (free trade), to name just a couple of crappy stances he adopted from the GOP.

Ruthless People @ 23:

Dimples @ 21:

Hillary.
yuck.

Rudy.
Yucker.

Hold your nose and pull the lever in 2008 just like I'm going to do.

You don't have to. There are third party candidates out there. That's where I'm going if Hillary gets the nomination.

I will be voting for Kucinich in the Primaries. If he wins or not i will be voting for him the General Election. I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary or Obama.

I feel sorry for most of you. Some out there grew up during the mediocre ChevyBelushiCurtainMurray years; others yearn for the SandlerMeyersSpade era.

I just have three words for you: Piscapo--Short--Crystal. Now there was some funny. A don't make me remind you of Gary Kroeger. Wow the times we had

But seriously-- Will Forte is one crazy m'er f'er. Give me Maya Rudolph over any of those previous funny broads

xoites defends Constitution @ 62:

I will be voting for Kucinich in the Primaries. If he wins or not i will be voting for him the General Election. I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary or Obama.

A-men!!

xoites defends Constitution @ 63:

Shawnmeat @ 61:

old hack @ 38:

I'm guessing you know how I feel about their insidious portrayal of Mike. Totally disgusts me. He's portrayed as the crazy one when Hes the only one thats showed any passion or offered any REAL solutions to the crisis we're in. But yet he's not an agent of the military and drug industry so well he's just not electable. You're all being pawned. again.

I dislike the portrayal of Mike Gravel in the media as well, but nothing is worse than your condescending conspiracy theories. The idea of Evil Overlords who have brainwashed everyone but you is a masturbatory fairy tale. Not everything is as epic as you would like to believe. There is no Dark Lord of the Sith at work here. And you are not the only one with your eyes open. In fact, it doesn't seem like your eyes are open at all...

You call this a conspiracy theory? Why don't you do a little reading up on lobbyists?

I am familiar with lobbyist organisations and probably anything else you will mention. But to argue that all of these separate and disparate factions are somehow organised and centralised is ludicrous. To speak of them as such, in sweeping generalities, is fallacious. Comedians might make Gravel seem like a kooky old man for the same reason why so many comedians make fun of Bush's intelligence and public speaking abilities: because it's just damn easy. It doesn't mean that the Illuminati are controlling us poor suckers.

Isome @ 58:

Shawnmeat @ 41:

In other news, it would seem as though the talking-points about Hillary have paid off. I appreciate that there are many radical left-wingers who would love to see someone like Kucinich elected, but that doesn't make him the best choice. I respect the man, but the leader of the U.S. needs to be a little more impartial and aloof than most of those in the race thus far. Hillary has been called every name in the book, mostly for the audacity of being a woman (it's not as though the men are getting in trouble for being 'catty' or 'ice queens') and for being a moderate (or, as liberals like to point out, a 'fence sitter'). I'm as liberal as they come, but even I can appreciate that my views aren't representative of the U.S. as a whole. The nation needs someone who can restore a little bipartisanship to the office. After all, Bill was accused of the same things while running for office.

Just some food for thought.

Radical left wingers support Dennis? Clearly radical is a perjorative here, but exactly what is radical about being a Dennis Kucinich supporter? As for Clinton's alleged bi-partisanship... his willingness to be Republican-lite got us in the mess we're in with media consolidation and NAFTA (free trade), to name just a couple of crappy stances he adopted from the GOP.

Firstly, I made it clear that I am a fan of Dennis Kucinich, even if he is a hopeless idealist. Also, we both know that I could offer an essay on how the U.S. flourished under Bill Clinton. Arguing that he's not a perfect specimen is a strawman argument.

Isome @ 71:

Shawnmeat @ 67:
Putting aside the anti-Hillary sentiment that has been churned out ad nauseam by the media and swallowed hook, like, and sinker, I do worry about the 2008 election because I really do believe that the entire future of your nation is at stake. ...

The same holds true for the portrayal of Mike Gravel and there's nothing conspiratorial about deriding the media for doing it and chastising the people who buy into it.

It's also why there are Dennis Kucinich supporters out here and there's nothing radical about being one.

I think latent misogyny has more of a grip within your nation than does anti-Kucinich sentiment. That being said, we both know that a good chunk of those who visit this website are radically left wing and do not represent a cross-section of Americans by and large. This is why we can sit back and dream of individuals like Gravel or Kucinich being elected - two men whom I deeply respect and believe are important to have working as elected officials in some capacity or another. But to be President? Even if Gravel happens to represent many of my beliefs, Hillary is at least willing to be a moderate in a time of radicalism from both parties. The United States cannot stand to be divided anymoreso than it already has. Finally, she has the experience and poise necessary to represent the nation without embarrassing it. I hate to say it, because I appreciate their optimism, but individuals like Kucinich or Gravel are more likely to screw up based on faulty assumptions and discover just how difficult and limited the job truly is. Hillary, of course, already knows all about the position and how it works.

Finally, to respond to something else you said: I wasn't critising individuals for supporting Kucinich or Gravel so much as using patronising language which suggested we are nothing more than sheep who have been hypnotised by the overarching evil regime designed to keep such individuals down. If anything I said came off similarly, I apologise.

The quotes screwed up a little bit there. Oops!

Shawnmeat @ 70:

xoites defends Constitution @ 63:

Shawnmeat @ 61:

old hack @ 38:

I dislike the portrayal of Mike Gravel in the media as well, but nothing is worse than your condescending conspiracy theories. The idea of Evil Overlords who have brainwashed everyone but you is a masturbatory fairy tale. Not everything is as epic as you would like to believe. There is no Dark Lord of the Sith at work here. And you are not the only one with your eyes open. In fact, it doesn't seem like your eyes are open at all...

You call this a conspiracy theory? Why don't you do a little reading up on lobbyists?

I am familiar with lobbyist organisations and probably anything else you will mention. But to argue that all of these separate and disparate factions are somehow organised and centralised is ludicrous. To speak of them as such, in sweeping generalities, is fallacious. Comedians might make Gravel seem like a kooky old man for the same reason why so many comedians make fun of Bush's intelligence and public speaking abilities: because it's just damn easy. It doesn't mean that the Illuminati are controlling us poor suckers.

I never implied there was, however there is a conspiracy to drive political thought toward the right. I give you the Heritage Foundation as a prime example. They spit out multiple Op Ed peices every day and send them to every newspaper in the country, they have spokepeople on talk shows every day and they have one agenda and it is not mine.

"A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors..."

"In 1970, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford..."

xoites defends Constitution @ 78:

I never implied there was, however there is a conspiracy to drive political thought toward the right. I give you the Heritage Foundation as a prime example. They spit out multiple Op Ed peices every day and send them to every newspaper in the country, they have spokepeople on talk shows every day and they have one agenda and it is not mine.

"A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors..."

"In 1970, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford..."

There also the strategy of pushing revolting thoughts, like those of Ann Coulter's, into the public consciousness as a way to smooth the way for ideas that would otherwise have been unthinkable.

It's no mystery why we have Bush in the white-house.
It's the assholes who write in this blog how awful Hillary
would be that the Repubs will win again. Kucinich hasn't
a chance for the nomination plus he's a midget & about as
bright as you dopes who are swift boating Hillary.

Isome @ 77:

No, actually the fact that Bill's not a perfect specimen is a relevant argument, because NO ONE is the perfect specimen, so assigning Dennis Kucinich the label of 'hopeless idealist' is the strawman argument. And again, supporting him isn't a radical thing to do. If real change is what people want, then he is the one. If on the other hand, it's simply about which party's candidate becomes president then anyone with a 'D' after their name will do, but for some of us that is not enough.

We should both also know that multiple essays could be offered on how Bill perpetuated some of the worst tendencies of the U.S. gov't during his presidency and how not everyone in the country flourished as much as we'd like to think.

Do you or do you not think that Bill Clinton was a good (not even great, but merely good) President? I ask this because this will highlight some of the fundamental differences within our perspectives and beyond that we might just have to call it a day. Bill Clinton certainly had his problems, like all leaders do, but I felt that by the end of his run the U.S. had a 'net gain,' if you will.

There is also no need to insult those who do not want to vote for Kucinich by implying that 'someone with a "D" after their name is enough,' though I'm not sure what you exactly mean by that. It is my opinion that Kucinich is as idealistic as he is because he, like so many others, believes that he can actually make unilateral changes once in office. If he is elected, I predict that he will (unfortunately) find it far more difficult to keep his promises than he had assumed. The same could be said about a lot of the candidates.

Hillary Clinton is often trashed as a militarian corporatist and so forth, but I find that argument a little too simple. It is as though it has been absorbed via osmosis, because it's simply the popular opinion-du-jour regarding the woman many enjoy painting as a sort of 'Thatcher lite.' She works within the system, yes, but that doesn't make her a Bad Person. She uses the the rules of engagement to get to where she needs to be so that she can do what she thinks is best for the nation. And I do think that all of the candidates, deep down, are there because they want to see the nation flourish. Yet, because she doesn't take a hard line on Iran (as it is a complex situation that cannot be reduced easily to a single decree of 'will attack' or 'will not attack'), for example, she's called a 'fence sitter.' Could it be that she's keeping her options open because she doesn't want to paint herself into a damn corner, and that this isn't a bad thing?

But I digress. I hope you can see where I am coming from, and why what I feel makes sense (even if you disagree).

xoites defends Constitution @ 78:

I never implied there was, however there is a conspiracy to drive political thought toward the right. I give you the Heritage Foundation as a prime example. They spit out multiple Op Ed peices every day and send them to every newspaper in the country, they have spokepeople on talk shows every day and they have one agenda and it is not mine.

"A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors..."

"In 1970, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford..."

I don't consider what you're discussing to be a 'conspiracy,' because that implies a centralised power covering up some truth that we as the public have the right to know. I do think your news outlets are right-leaning (not to mention vapid, for the most part, and I'm sure you'll agree with that as well) from what I have seen, but I think that has to do with individuals who own and operate them being right-leaning themselves. And from there, they hire right-wing pundits and journalists. There is no man behind the curtain; simply a failure of the mainstream news to remain accountable to the public. Then again, it does not seem possible to really mobilise individuals to take action against corruption nowadays either. As I am sure you can more or less assume, this is a problem in Canyda as well (though for the most part, our news outlets tend to thankfully tow the line).

81 seele Says:

I just loooove SouthPark like Eric Cartman loves Cheesy Poofs.\

Now Family Guy sucks.

uncle joe mccarthy @ 3:

if you have to tell the audience the character name....you arent doing a good impression

Or the joke is far too targeted. (Who the hell has ever watched "The Pickup Artist" reality TV show?)

mo_dems @ 18:

The only thing funny about SNL anymore is how pathetic and unfunny it is, and how hard it tries to be relevant. If SNL can't make this presidential race funny, it doesn't deserve to be on the air.

Yeah, they seem to be leaning towards the Faux News '1/2-Hour News Hour' brand of political satire... comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.

seele @ 81:

Shawnmeat @ 40:

Iocky @ 1:

No -- that is an odd interpretation of the skit.

I agree. It seemed to me that he was being self-deprecating, if anything.

Secondly, as much as I love South Park, their interpretation of Al Gore during the original episode with "Manbearpig" was a disgrace. Usually, they're spot-on with their exaggerations of real faults, but with Gore they simply altered his personality altogether so that instead of being a published academic with a rich history of scientific research, he was a bumbling idiot who could not even say the word 'serious' properly. Weak sauce, if you ask me. And I am sure you do.

South Park SUCKS! Liberals in this blog should realize that South Park is rightwing feel-good bullshit. Everyone knows this.

No, "libertarian gross-out bullshit". And I also happen to think it funny. Fortunately, I don't have to agree with everything I watch to find it amusing or even educational -- you CAN engage your brain and think critically. I'm sure that the creators of the show have voted Republican in their lives, but I'm also sure that they are no fan of the domestic policies of the current administration. I grew up with similar Rocky Mountain rednecks; I view them as misguided Libertarian idealists, but I can definitely work with that. There is still a lot of common ground.

From an interview:

THE BOOK SOUTH PARK CONSERVATIVES SAID YOUR SHOW IS AN ANTILIBERAL SATIRE. IS THAT A FAIR DESCRIPTION? M.S. I think that's a fair description of some of the show's politics. But you could also easily write a book called South Park Liberals, because we've attacked a lot of funny stuff that conservative people and institutions do in America. But we're the only show that rips on Rob Reiner and antismoking laws and hippies, so we get that label.
[...]
T.P. We still believe that all people are born bad and are made good by society, rather than the opposite. M.S. Actually, I think that's where we're conservative.

Their parody of pop culture and TV cliche is unparalleled though, in my mind, whatever their personal politics. As a mostly libertarian left-ish, I can still say that the last time there was a spontaneous hippie drum circle in blow the hotel window when I was on a "make or break" business trip that kept me up all night... I'm sure glad SOMEBODY is poking fun a the left as well. And, for example, the "smug" of rich hybrid owners that mock me and my $5000 beater that sucks gas (as if I could afford a $40,000 hybrid -- I just walk everywhere, yet still my car is keyed! "damn hippies"). And the clueless self-righteousness of Hollywood in general. And yes, the total hypocrisy and idiocy of smoking prohibition everywhere. As if that ever worked for any "vice". Weed has been illegal since at least the 60s... so, um, how is controlling that going? Both sides should be mocked and often, because they are both controlled by idiots.

If you can't laugh at what a ego-maniacal bastard villain Eric Cartman is, then you either haven't grown up with one, or have NO sense of humor. Actually the idea that he is still included in "the group" despite his horrible personality (and the fact that even his "friends" can hardly stand him) is a positively "liberal" idea of tolerance and inclusiveness. (I did think they lost objectivity on Gore, hence "manbearpig" wasn't really up to their usual standards of funny. Gore is dorky enough, there is so much more to work with than they used; they'll better target his actual flaws next time, I'm sure.) Er, anyway...

Shawnmeat @ many.

All that about Hillary, I'd have to disagree though. The media plays her up as a favorite (except perhaps Russert). She enjoys lavish attention in the papers, much to the detriment of real debate and other candidates like Edwards. And she is not a "moderate Democrat" she is a "centrist Republican" to my eyes. She is viewed as a "militant-corporatist" because she takes a TON of money from the particular lobbies that we are all upset with right now. More than ANY other candidate, Dem or Rep. It isn't some manufacured media myth, in fact it probably doesn't get enough coverage. Talking in circles during the last debate really doesn't help her case either, as I find that an insult to my intelligence.

"She works within the system, yes, but that doesn’t make her a Bad Person."

No. She works the system, and expands it. That does maker her a bad candidate for President. A President that will need to push for unprecedented electoral reform and corporate/financial market regulation. She is the opposite of that, and a bad choice for this particular term in office. She does have a lot of money and connections, though, if that is your voting criteria.

This has to be the first time I have ever taken issue with C&L.

"Bashes Hillary"???

Yes, maybe the SNL crew 'bashed' her by dubbing her a "witch", but it was designed for Obama to stay clear of the fray. Obama only stated that he is who he is and doesn't need to become someone else. People may interpret that to mean more than it does, but to dub it as Obama 'bashing Hillary' is irresponsible and by using such a term, makes C&L appear to be bias.

Thanks for reminding me why I hardly ever read or comment on this blog anymore.

Shawnmeat @ 86:

I don't consider what you're discussing to be a 'conspiracy,' because that implies a centralised power covering up some truth that we as the public have the right to know. I do think your news outlets are right-leaning (not to mention vapid, for the most part, and I'm sure you'll agree with that as well) from what I have seen, but I think that has to do with individuals who own and operate them being right-leaning themselves. And from there, they hire right-wing pundits and journalists. There is no man behind the curtain; simply a failure of the mainstream news to remain accountable to the public. Then again, it does not seem possible to really mobilise individuals to take action against corruption nowadays either. As I am sure you can more or less assume, this is a problem in Canyda as well (though for the most part, our news outlets tend to thankfully tow the line).

Shawnmeat, your original comment was a bit too harsh, and I think you should back down. Your responses are clearly intelligent, but you're reaching on suggesting that the Powell Memo, and the following history, is not an example of a conspiracy: wealthy and powerful individuals came together and made plans to poison the well of social discourse in this country, and to bring the political arena more firmly under their control. That this occurred in plain sight (at least, for those who happened to know where to look) does not lessen the fact that these people conspired together against the common interest.

It may be true that the outrage and sanctimony of supporters of fringe candidates is misplaced, but I think your own sanctimony is equally misplaced. There is a real enemy, here, and they are well-armed and apparently more than capable of trouncing any of our efforts. Let's keep the guns aimed in the proper direction, shall we?

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 94:

seele @ 81:

Shawnmeat @ 40:

Iocky @ 1:

I agree. It seemed to me that he was being self-deprecating, if anything.

Secondly, as much as I love South Park, their interpretation of Al Gore during the original episode with "Manbearpig" was a disgrace. Usually, they're spot-on with their exaggerations of real faults, but with Gore they simply altered his personality altogether so that instead of being a published academic with a rich history of scientific research, he was a bumbling idiot who could not even say the word 'serious' properly. Weak sauce, if you ask me. And I am sure you do.

South Park SUCKS! Liberals in this blog should realize that South Park is rightwing feel-good bullshit. Everyone knows this.

No, "libertarian gross-out bullshit". And I also happen to think it funny. Fortunately, I don't have to agree with everything I watch to find it amusing or even educational -- you CAN engage your brain and think critically. I'm sure that the creators of the show have voted Republican in their lives, but I'm also sure that they are no fan of the domestic policies of the current administration. I grew up with similar Rocky Mountain rednecks; I view them as misguided Libertarian idealists, but I can definitely work with that. There is still a lot of common ground.

From an interview:

THE BOOK SOUTH PARK CONSERVATIVES SAID YOUR SHOW IS AN ANTILIBERAL SATIRE. IS THAT A FAIR DESCRIPTION? M.S. I think that's a fair description of some of the show's politics. But you could also easily write a book called South Park Liberals, because we've attacked a lot of funny stuff that conservative people and institutions do in America. But we're the only show that rips on Rob Reiner and antismoking laws and hippies, so we get that label.
[...]
T.P. We still believe that all people are born bad and are made good by society, rather than the opposite. M.S. Actually, I think that's where we're conservative.

Their parody of pop culture and TV cliche is unparalleled though, in my mind, whatever their personal politics. As a mostly libertarian left-ish, I can still say that the last time there was a spontaneous hippie drum circle in blow the hotel window when I was on a "make or break" business trip that kept me up all night... I'm sure glad SOMEBODY is poking fun a the left as well. And, for example, the "smug" of rich hybrid owners that mock me and my $5000 beater that sucks gas (as if I could afford a $40,000 hybrid -- I just walk everywhere, yet still my car is keyed! "damn hippies"). And the clueless self-righteousness of Hollywood in general. And yes, the total hypocrisy and idiocy of smoking prohibition everywhere. As if that ever worked for any "vice". Weed has been illegal since at least the 60s... so, um, how is controlling that going? Both sides should be mocked and often, because they are both controlled by idiots.

If you can't laugh at what a ego-maniacal bastard villain Eric Cartman is, then you either haven't grown up with one, or have NO sense of humor. Actually the idea that he is still included in "the group" despite his horrible personality (and the fact that even his "friends" can hardly stand him) is a positively "liberal" idea of tolerance and inclusiveness. (I did think they lost objectivity on Gore, hence "manbearpig" wasn't really up to their usual standards of funny. Gore is dorky enough, there is so much more to work with than they used; they'll better target his actual flaws next time, I'm sure.) Er, anyway...

Shawnmeat @ many.

Your dogmatic assertions that anyone who doesn't find Southpark funny either 1) doesn't have a sense of humor or 2) isn't engaging their critical faculties reveals the true nature of so-called libertarianism - i.e. self-appointed, sanctimonious nay-sayers who seemingly have nothing pragmatic or useful to add to the national discourse. In fact I do find one thing about Southpark amusing: the cult-like zeal of its viewership and how irate these supposed libertarians become when the show is criticized - now THAT's funny!