McCain on Letterman–Palin on SNL?!
Now this would be a serious change of tone–and the smartest move yet in the heretofore hapless McCain-Palin campaign. The LATimes reports (via Sarah Pulliam at Christianity Today) on McCain’s make-up appearance on Letterman last night and McCain’s revelation that Palin would be going on Saturday Night Live soon.
“Probably get more of an audience than our debate did,” McCain quipped, as he tried to make up for jilting Dave–and he did a good job, by all accounts.
First joshing with Obama at the Al Smith Dinner, now this! His standup is better than his sit-downs…And Sarah going on with Tina could be more of a game-changer than anything else the campaign has left. I just wonder how they’ll play her campaign for laughs. Oh, and when is she going to meet with real media?
Oh, and when is she going to meet with real media?
I suspect that after the Charles Gibson and Katie Couric interviews, the campaign has realized that such interviews aren’t the best strategy. Palin reminds me a bit of the athlete who executes brilliant plays out on the field, but when staring at a TV camera becomes tongue-tied and a bit incoherent.
“Palin reminds me a bit of the athlete who executes brilliant plays out on the field, but when staring at a TV camera becomes tongue-tied and a bit incoherent.”
Yah, me too. Except for the brilliant plays part.
Putting candidates on comedy shows to show they’re normal and human always reminds me of 1968, when they put Nixon on “Laugh-In.”
Those laffs were fleeting, as I recall.
“Laugh-in”?! Great reference, Jean.
All I could find on YouTube was this annoying loop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCp8Edp4pfo
Wasn’t much more to his performance, but he did it. And it may have had an effect. Here is a Wikipedia summary of the appearance:
Judy Carne was often tricked into saying “Sock it to me”, which led to her being doused with water or otherwise assaulted. “Sock it to me” also became a catchphrase. During the September 16, 1968 episode, Richard Nixon, running for president, appeared for a few seconds with a disbelieving vocal inflection, asking “Sock it to me?” Nixon was not doused or assaulted. An invitation was extended to Nixon’s opponent, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, but he declined. According to George Schlatter, the show’s creator, “Humphrey later said that not doing it may have cost him the election.”
Stuart:
You wrote, “Palin reminds me a bit of the athlete who executes brilliant plays out on the field.”
Could you provide some examples of her brilliant plays?
–According to George Schlatter, the show’s creator, “Humphrey later said that not doing it may have cost him the election.”–
Schlatter must be making a joke there. Humphrey’s loyalty to LBJ’s involvement in Vietnam had more to do with his losing the election than his declining the “Laugh-In” invite. Nixon, as I recall had a “secret plan” to end the war.
And speaking of politics and comedy, this just in from one of my family members: Someone needs to find out how the candidates stand on the North American Economic Union and replacing our currency to something called the Amero, part of the one-world government conspiracy!!!
Apparently Lou Dobbs on CNN (which I don’t watch) was ranting about this and exhibiting Amero coins the U.S. Mint has made to replace dollars, loonies and pesos, moving us further toward a one-world government and redistribution of our wealth to undeserving Canadians and Mexicans.
I guess this is better than links to Jack Chick tracts. But not much.
I really hope Palin doesn’t show up on SNL, only because SNL has earned a tiny bit of comedy cred in the last few weeks and I’d hate to see them lose it so fast. (And for the record, I don’t think they should have Obama or McCain or Giuliani or Hillary Clinton appear on the show, either.) It can’t be both a venue for relevant satire and a venue for pandering politicians to try to seem fun and with-it.
Could you provide some examples of her brilliant plays?
Until it became supremely important to people whose only priority is electing Democrats that Palin be taken down at all costs, it was generally agreed that Palin had been quite successful in combating a corrupt establishment in Alaska. See, e.g., http://www.newsweek.com/id/42534/output/print
David:
Many polls today are showing Obama and McCain in essentially a dead heat – 2-point differences, well within the margin of error.
With such an unpopular GOP president who started and keeps us in an unpopular war, Obama should be around 15 points ahead. He’s not.
Doesn’t sound like its the McCain campaign that’s “hapless” to me.
I confess I haven’t watched SNL since the days of the Belushi/Gilda Radner cast. Every Saturday, from 9 pm until midnight, the television goes off in our house and the radios are tuned into “The Midnight Special”.
http://www.midnightspecial.org/
Elaine — you’re not getting your poll information from Drudge, are you? I don’t know much about polling, but I haven’t heard anything optimistic for the GOP in a while. Quite the contrary. But in any case, you could also say that, against an African-American candidate with a short history in politics and a foreign-sounding name at a time when xenophobic hysteria is running high, McCain should be winning by a mile, and he’s not. We live in strange times.
The presidential campaign is big top entertainment, an expensive and antidemocratic distraction. The candidates themselves seem not to think beyond the entertainment categories and journalistic perceptions of the moment, as when Palin refers to giving Tina Fey job security, or McCain and Obama make jokes about the latest hares the whole world is supposed to chase in their enthralment with democracy US style. An example is Obama joking about being a “celebrity”. The problem is that the election is in danger of going the way of superficial volatile entertainment celebrity cults. It is not impossible to imagine McCain and Palin joking their way charmingly to the White House.
PS Have you seen this video? http://torturingdemocracy.org/
Stuart said: “Until it became supremely important to people whose only priority is electing Democrats that Palin be taken down at all costs, it was generally agreed that Palin had been quite successful in combating a corrupt establishment in Alaska.”
If you are talking about Democrats here, I’m not sure I get your point. If you are talking about Republicans, I think you are minimizing their arguments. Here’s one that I find typical.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/17/palin-and-santorum/#comments
(and it looks like a pretty good one to me.)
–The presidential campaign is big top entertainment, an expensive and antidemocratic distraction.–
I agree! Two years is too long. In a country this size barnstorming every state for a week ought to be sufficient, which gives you roughly 12 months to campaign. Barring a switch to a parliamentary system, I’d like to see a president serve for six instead of four years with a to reduce the circus elements.
As more people cotton on to sites like factcheck.org, I like to think that some of the outright lies and worst distortions might start to die back, though lies have been a staple of American presidential campaigns since Adams or Jefferson (I forget which), sent riders around the countryside to spread rumors that their opponent had died.
Mollie Wilson O’Reilly:
Do you really think Senator Obama should be losing “by a mile” even though he has a money advantage over Senator McCain in the hundreds of millions of dollars and the fact that only once since WWII has the same party won three consecutive Presidential elections? I like an underdog probably more than most, but I think it’s a stretch to depict Senator Obama as an underdog.
No, MAT, I don’t, I proposed that scenario because I think it’s silly. I think it’s a stretch to depict either major party candidate as an underdog. When Bob Barr is within 2 points anywhere (even in a questionable poll), then we can talk about defying expectations.
Mollie:
No, Zogby, as a matter of fact.
Republican John McCain in the presidential race has dropped to 3 points, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Sunday.
Obama leads McCain by 48 to 45 percent among likely U.S. voters, down 1 percentage point from Saturday. The four-day tracking poll, which has a margin of error of 2.9 points.
Pollster John Zogby said the numbers were good news for McCain, and probably reflected a bump following his appearance in the third and final presidential debate on Wednesday.
“For the first time in the polling McCain is up above 45 percent. There is no question something has happened,” Zogby said.
He said the Arizona senator appeared to have solidified his support with the Republican base — where 9 out of 10 voters now back him — and was also gaining ground among the independents who may play a decisive role in the November 4 election.
Obama’s lead among independent voters dropped to 8 points on Sunday from 16 points a day earlier.
Palin was very good on SNL. I think her presence (even though she didn’t say much” actually revealed the weaknesses of Fey’s portrayal.
Zogby is a good enough poll if one especially likes Republicans, but one should be really looking at a mix of them.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Last night was the first time I have watched SNL in years … and now I know why. I is essentially sophomoric and generally unfunny.
Sarah acquitted herself OK, though.
Palin *was* pretty good on SNL! Although the sketch they had going before she appeared was better. Besides the very tame material, they did her another big favor: they had her appear with Lorne Michaels, who is always stiff and unnatural on camera, and Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin, neither of whom had bothered to prepare their lines at all. Alec Baldwin never once looked at her, and not (just) because he doesn’t respect her; he read the entire scene off the cue cards. So she gave a better, more convincing performance than any of those three. Of course, I never doubted that she could read lines!
By the way: I was disappointed they had Palin on, but much more disappointed to see Wahlberg. That’s where they really lost my respect: come on, guys, hang up on his agent! You’re just getting started!
Poor Sarah has found her level — she is blithely segueing into show business — since her future in politics, after all the embarrassments both nationally and in Alaska, is now kaput!
Obama must stop torture on day 1. His presidency will be judged by that. I recommend again http://torturingdemocracy.org
CBS News admits that Palin is far more accessible to the press than Obama or Biden
Mollie Wilson O’Reilly: Why is Wahlberg so bad? You mean he’s a bad actor?