On the mechanics of political humor
Right to the point: The reason the talk shows and “Saturday Night Live” haven’t made fun of Obama much isn’t that they’re all liberals who can’t stand to make jokes about their guy. It’s that Obama hasn’t given them much to grab on to.
Bill Clinton was a gift to comedians: overweight, Southern, and promiscuous. It didn’t matter that the writers and performers generally supported him politically. A joke is a joke, and Clinton gave them plenty of material. Likewise, you had Al Gore the stiff robot, followed by Al Gore the environmental crusader. There’s always been Ted Kennedy the fat drunk. Meanwhile, plenty of Republican politicians have gone unscathed simply because they weren’t colorful enough to make fun of.
Most of the political humor on these shows isn’t really about politics. It’s about personalities and appearances. Think back to Dana Carvey’s legendary portrayal of George Bush on “SNL.” Did it have anything to do with the president’s policies? Nope. In fact, all there really was to it was a repetition of some of his catchphrases and a vaguely accurate impersonation of his voice. They were lucky they had Carvey, who could latch on to those things and run with them.
Obama is more problematic. As far as his speech goes, he says “uh” a lot, but that’s not much to go on. His voice and delivery are not marked by a particular accent or style. “SNL” has Fred Armisen playing him, but he’s not very good at it yet. He hasn’t found his “wouldn’t be prudent” or “not gonna do it,” to name Carvey’s main Bush-impersonating tools.
What about Obama’s lack of experience? Couldn’t they make jokes about that? The problem is, he doesn’t come across as someone who’s inexperienced. When he speaks, he sounds authoritative and intelligent. People would understand what you meant if you made a joke about Obama’s inexperience, but since they don’t generally perceive him that way, it wouldn’t have the immediate gut-level response that humor needs to be effective. Dan Quayle was youthful and inexperienced — and then he sealed his fate by making a few hilarious verbal gaffes and appearing stupid. If he hadn’t done that — if he had seemed smart and capable to people — the “he’s young and inexperienced” theme would have quickly dried up.
One element of Obama that would be ripe for satire is the Messianic devotion some people have to him. Of course, then you’re really making fun of his supporters, not the man himself, but still, it’s something.
Another thing about Obama is that he’s black but doesn’t come across as a stereotypical black man. There was a hilarious “SNL” sketch about 10 years ago where host David Alan Grier played Bryant Gumbel interviewing someone on the “Today” show. He was very prissy and “white” on camera, the way Gumbel is, then became a stereotypically loud, black ho-slapper during commercial breaks. (”Girl, your perfume STANK!”) Then again, that was OK because Grier was black. Fred Armisen isn’t. As long as “SNL” has a non-black man playing Obama, they can’t really do anything race-related.
And now here’s the real problem: If you have to go LOOKING for something to make jokes about, the jokes probably aren’t going to work. The nature of this kind of comedy is that it has to play on people’s already-held perceptions of the targets you’re making fun of.
A strongly right-wing publication or TV show could probably make its audience laugh with jokes about Obama’s inexperience, because that audience sees him that way. Most of the shows we’re talking about, however, are general-audience programs. They have to figure out how their entire, vast, broad viewership sees things, and make jokes that will hit home to them. That’s why the jokes usually aren’t about anyone’s actual political views or policies. Those things are harder to summarize in a few words, and, sad but true, wouldn’t get the immediate response from viewers that a simple joke about Dick Cheney shooting a guy in the face would.
Why don’t they make fun of Joe Biden? The same reason as Obama: He’s just not a very colorful character. He’s somewhat famous among political watchers for being long-winded, but that’s not something the average American has seen. It’s something the average American has only read about. (”Apparently, Joe Biden is really long-winded! Huh!”) Biden’s high-profile public appearances don’t offer much for a satirist to mock other than his gigantic game-show-host smile. And since he’d been on the political scene for a long time when Obama chose him, there weren’t those get-to-know-you TV interviews like Sarah Palin had, which might have given Biden a chance to embarrass himself with some gaffes (something else he’s “famous” for, but only in political circles).
The Republicans, unfortunately, have two figures with very easy-to-mock characteristics: an old guy and Sarah Palin. And Sarah Palin, like Bill Clinton, is a gift to humorists. People keep wondering — OK, one person keeps wondering — why I’ve made fun of Palin and not Biden or Obama. Who I’m voting for has little to do with it. Like I said with regard to the talk shows and “SNL,” the writer’s personal opinions are almost irrelevant compared to the potential humor quotient.
The fact is, you gotta go where the jokes are. It’s not like I set out to find ways to make fun of Republicans while holding the Democrats sacrosanct. Believe me, if McCain had picked some ordinary, uncolorful politician as his running mate, I probably wouldn’t be making any political jokes at all this season, apart from the occasional “John McCain is old” crack. And if Obama had picked Hillary Clinton, there would be all kinds of material there. I usually don’t do a lot of political stuff at all. But when a larger-than-life figure appears on the scene, and it’s someone everyone is talking and laughing about, then of course I’m going to go with it. It’s not even really political humor. It’s more like celebrity humor, where the celebrity happens to be a politician.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I still laugh everytime I think about Dick Cheney’s hunting mishap, and pretty much every time someone brings it up.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The Messiah jokes are actually very funny.
The funniest one I saw was a link stating “Obama wins the debate” that sent me to a picture of the boy Jesus teaching in the synagogues.
I really do think that SNL is hoping McCain and Palin will win. So much great material, and four whole years to use it.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I thought SNL last week did a good job making fun of Biden when they did the Palin/Biden debate.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:51 am
That makes sense, I suppose. Thanks Eric. I’m not trying to be annoying or anything, sorry if I came across that way.
Although I do think you’re missing out on some funny things Biden has said so far.
Here are 5 funny ones so far this race. and of course, his older IQ gaffe from when he ran for president.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
My favorite political quotes this year are Biden’s “FDR got on the TV as president when the Stock Market Crashed (in 1929)” one and Obama’s “This is the day when the oceans began to receed.” Ah, classic.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I’m still laughing about McCain being a roadie for Mozart, or whatever you said in that one column that one time. The point is that McCain is old, and it’s funny to think about Mozart having a roadie.
I recently learned on an E! special that Dana Carvey and GWH Bush became good friends during the “wouldn’t be prudent” SNL years. Now THAT guy could take a joke!
October 9th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Christina, the problem with the links you placed on Biden Gaffes is the first three are that reaching for a joke concept Eric addressed. I will admit that the last two could be good for SNL if more people were aware of them. Biden trying to give Hilary the VP job or somehow addressing multiple disabled people in some awkard way. Shouting at a deaf person etc.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Sorry, that should be reaching for a joke, which is a concept Eric addressed.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Eric, I must admit it is sort of sad that you have to explain your humor and choices for jokes. Humor is always really subjective, and if someone hangs around your site long enough, they will find both jokes they find hilarious, and some they don’t really enjoy. It’s just how it is. I tend to find most of your stuff histerically funny, so there you go.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“and it’s someone everyone is talking and laughing about,”
Who do you think determines who “everyone is talking and laughing about”? Those who pick and choose what stories are broadcasted and printed. Media gatekeepers.
Biden and Obama have said plenty of mock-worthy things, just like Palin… I don’t buy your explanation of, “shucks, there’s just nothing to make fun of on the Democratic ticket this time around!”
It’s bias, clean and simple. I admit conservatives bother me less than liberals do… why can’t you admit your own leanings?
October 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
You pretty much have to make fun of individual instances in this case, but twist them, which is fine for a short joke but difficult for an extended sketch. Biden telling the disabled senator to stand, for example, might make for a funny sketch, with Obama eventually coming out and healing the man. Then you’re not making fun of Obama’s supporters, per se, but of the popular media conception of the man. Those who want to enjoy it ironically can do so (certainly Obama isn’t posing himself as a Messianic figure - the last eight years or so have generally sucked so bad he’s indicating that he would be a change from Dubya’s antics).
October 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Thoughtful: I don’t think Eric was specifically talking about himself, but yes, he does fall into the “general” category of humor writers out there who have more material on Palin than anyone else in this election for obvious reasons.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“Who do you think determines who “everyone is talking and laughing about”? Those who pick and choose what stories are broadcasted and printed. Media gatekeepers.”
But we know all the stories on both sides so the gatekeepers don’t seem to be a problem. Fox News is one of the most watched networks on TV and no one would claim that they have a liberal bias. The Daily show got Biden for his 1929 TV comment, and frequently makes fun of the Obama messianic thing because the format of that show is more suited to pointing out simple absurdities like those.
On SNL they’ve got to make a multi-minute skit around a topic which is a lot easier to do with a debate or an interview than around a single gaffe at a speach. A gaffe montage could be funny, but that also doesn’t lend itself to a SNL skit.
Biden is boring. A boring person saying something dumb every once in a while isn’t great humor material.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I guess being old or having a pregnant daughter are supposed to be funny, and I understand how people can’t really make fun of Obama because there’s nothing funny about him. There’s nothing funny about being a communist, a liar, a hypocrite, and having millions of dollars while his siblings are dirt poor in Africa with no opportunities and he doesn’t lift a finger to help them. I guess you can’t laugh at a person as shameful and selfish as Obama.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Pumpkin - I sure hope you’re lifting a finger to help your dirt poor siblings in Africa. Because if you’re not, then I really despise your remark. And even then, … yeah. Nevermind. I despise it, anyway.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
card:
How does your comment add to the discussion at all? If Pumpkin is making baseless accusations about Obama’s relations in Kenya, prove him/her wrong. Saying you despise the remark doesn’t accomplish much.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Discussion? What discussion? A blog post in which a man tries to legitimately explain why he appears to be leaning in one direction on the political scale has been turned into another silly debate in which a group of very bored people sit around saying “RAR YOU ARE BIASED YOUR CANDIDATE SUCKS.”
October 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“If Pumpkin is making baseless accusations about Obama’s relations in Kenya, prove him/her wrong.”
McCain is a child molester. Prove me wrong!
Yeah, it sounds stupid regardless of which side is doing it.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Equating true stories about Barack’s brother living in poverty in Africa with some random accusation that McCain is a child molester… I don’t know what to say to that, other than
“Here is proof Obama has a brother living in poverty in Africa.”
http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnJOE4960O5.html
October 9th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
And here’s proof that this brother, who is a half-brother born 21 years after Barack Obama, doesn’t want Barack’s help and is perfectly content with the life he has. But hey, keep smearing Barack with the “abandoning his family” thing if you want to! I’m sure it has a lot to do with what this post was originally about.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4583353.ece
October 9th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The point is that every inflamatory claim of evil-doings has to be supported by evidence, not disproved by those who doubt it. By that standard any rediculous claim must be assumed to be true until someone succesfully rebuts it. Thank you for switching from making unreasonable demands to providing support for your position.
Now, does Obama even *know* this half-brother? Has he ever met him? Why does he have any more responsibility to him than any other human being in poor circumstances? Is every rich person that doesn’t support every poor person they can guilty of the same crime, or does the fact that they share the same disinterested father create some additional obligation? Should children born through invitro fertilization later attempt to locate and financially support any struggling people who were produced with sperm from the same donor?
October 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Now THAT’S how this should work. Thank you for the link, Mikey. I sincerely did not know the details that you provided. I now have more information and hopefully a more accurate picture of this election.
To get back on topic… I still maintain there is plenty to mock Obama and Biden about. Let me give you a couple of examples:
“Last summer Biden attempted to endear himself to an Indian American supporter by telling him that in Delaware, ‘you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.’
Hilarious, no? I can see an awesome SNL cketch using that premise. Or maybe even some kind of humor column.
And this:
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.’”
I have no idea what arugula is, and neither do most Americans. Write something where Obama gives an entire speech using words unfamiliar to his audience. It’d be a riot.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I do agree that it is hard to make fun of Obama because he doesn’t have very funny mannerisms. However, I do believe that he has a lot of bad ideas and that he has bad judgment.
SNL did manage to make fun of the Democrats for causing the mortgage crisis and then denying that they were at fault. And that is not really a funny situation at all. So I do think that these types of shows could come up with something to make fun of Obama about.
However, I do see how Palin is an easy target with her mannerisms.
I think part of the reason the Palin stuff gets me so bad is because I strongly identify with her. I’m a conservative, religious mother who hunts and fishes (gasp!) and hopes to have 5+ children. I didn’t go to Harvard, but I daresay I am fairly well educated and pretty intelligent. If I were to run for VP would I get this type of unfair, biased treatment from the media? Probably. And that kind of puts me off ever wanting to run for any sort of political office. I imagine some other people feel this way too. How will we ever make this country better if this is the sort of treatment that you can expect to get if you run for political office?
All I’m saying is, be fair MSM!
And I don’t just mean all the liberal stations either, Fox news could be more balanced too, but they are far outnumbered currently.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
At risk of getting even more off-topic….
Now, does Obama even *know* this half-brother? Has he ever met him? Why does he have any more responsibility to him than any other human being in poor circumstances?
The perception is that Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to support poor Americans, but won’t give anything from his own pocket to support his own poor family members. And I’m Googling now, but I’m fairly sure Barack is aware of George.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I didn’t ask if he was aware of him, I asked if he *knew* him. As far as I can tell, he’s as much a stranger to him as any other random poor person in the world. This is a manufactured controversy, as the logic required to support it fails miserably when extended to all similar circumstances. (see my question about invitro fertilization)
October 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Like I said, it’s a perception thing. Americans can’t fathom someone being happy living in a 10×10 house and earing $1 a day. Let alone being so happy with that lifestyle that they wouldn’t accept money from a rich half-brother who offered.
So the public story is that Obama has a poor, starving brother in Africa and is ignoring him.
As long as we’re in Africa, what can you tell me about this story?
Senator Obama visited his father’s village in Kenya in 2006 amid great fanfare. While there, he promised to “provide some assistance in the future to this school…”
The school in mention is the Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School, built on land donated by Obama’s paternal grandfather. The school is typical of what you’ll find in central Africa: no running water or electricity, dirt floors, no supplies to speak of.
After Obama was elected to the Senate, the school changed its name in his honor.
Faced with such respect, and standing on the ground his fathers walked, Obama was moved to make the above promise.
“Hopefully I can provide some assistance in the future to this school and all that it can be.” He then turned to the school’s principal, Yuanita Obiero, and assured her and her teachers: “I know you are working very hard and struggling to bring up this school, but I have said I will assist the school and I will do so.”
But wait! According to the Evening Standard, as of July of this year, Obama has failed to send “even one shilling” to the school. Over two years after making his promise, nothing.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23520981-details/Barack+Obama’s+broken+promise+to+African+village/article.do
October 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Is anyone actually reading the articles they’re linking to? Barack has met George twice. And even if they were best buddies, George says he’s fine without Barack’s assistance.
Conservative Guy, the very article you posted says that George “has told media he is happy with his life and that his case has been exaggerated for political ends.” Granted, you posted it only to establish that Barack has a poor brother in Africa, and that is true. But did that part not seem relevant to the discussion?
I agree that it’s a manufactured controversy, and I agree (with myself) that y’all should read before you post.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Eric,
Nothing about my other (actually on-topic) posts?
I admit I just googled “Obama brother Africa” and posted the first link that came up. Like you said, I was just seeking to establish the basis of the story, and had no reason to believe George had rejected support from Barack. But now I do, and I stand corrected.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Whoops, that didn’t work. I wish the blog had a “preview comment” feature.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Nothing about my other (actually on-topic) posts?
The one where you suggested the whole post was baloney and that I’m just trying to cover up my biases? No, I have nothing to say to that.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
My husband has linked to an important picture that is very relevant to the topic, above.
Please consider it.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
A “Snide Remarks” or SNL sketch about Obama not helping out his brother or not donating money to a school in Africa would not be funny. None of this relates to the blog entry at all (which was simply about why Obama/Biden are not being made fun of as much), and people are really just turning this into another pathetic forum for pointless political discussion. No one is changing their minds people, even if you produce some of the most spectacular bullcrap disguised as evidence from either side of the spectrum. Stop taking everything personally and just be willing to laugh at anything that is funny.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
@Savvy Veteran. Humor is very subjective. Some people might find race-based jokes funny… I don’t. Some people may find overtly sexual jokes funny… I don’t.
There are some things that I don’t think are appropriate to laugh at (politics is perfectly appropriate to laugh at, in my book). Also, some things are meant to be funny, but just aren’t.
Your sentence, “Be willing to laugh at anything that is funny” doesn’t really seem to make sense in the context of your paragraph (or as a sentence at all really), because of course we’re going to laugh at anything that is funny, to us! But the point you seem to be making is that either -everything- meant to be funny should make us laugh, or everything Eric says should be funny. I must admit, not every sentence that Eric writes makes me laugh. Does that mean I’m taking it personally? I submit that it does not!
In closing, you do not make sense. I will continue to laughing at whatever I want to.
October 9th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
One more try, then I’m letting this go (for a while):
Eric’s stance (if I understand it correctly):
Obama and Biden don’t get made fun of as much as McCain and Palin do simply because there is little to no reason to mock them (the Democrats).
My stance (if I understand it correctly):
Bullhonky. All four of the individuals running on the two major presidential tickets give us plenty of material to work with. I gave two quick examples of potentially humorous angles you can take with Barack and Joe: the arugula comment and Biden’s convenience store comments. There are plenty more.
I agree that McCain and Palin give humorists plenty of reasons to get out of bed every morning. I just think both sides of the political aisle should get taken to task by satirists and funny people. It’s good for the country. See: South Park.
That is all I’m trying to say.
October 9th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Obama and Biden don’t get made fun of as much as McCain and Palin do simply because there is little to no reason to mock them (the Democrats).”
I think the point was more that mocking the things they do wrong is not as funny because their general character is not as interesting. There are plenty of things to mock about Obama and Biden, but mocking by itself is not automatically funny.
October 9th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
@ Christina D.
First of all, I suppose that my last sentence only makes sense in context, i.e. to people who have been reading the thread and are familiar with the type of things that have been said.
Yes, humor is very subjective. Some people find flatulence humor amusing, while others wouldn’t dream of laughing at it. However, I think that by setting boundaries of what automatically is and isn’t funny, people severely limit their ability to enjoy a lot of excellent comedy. For example: I normally wouldn’t think that it is okay to laugh at the mentally challenged (because of individuals in my own family), but when Larry David pretended to be retarded on “Curb Your Enthusiasm” to prevent a man from renting the office space across the hall from him, I thought it was hysterical. When you say “politics is perfectly appropriate to laugh at, in my book”, what I’m really hearing, based on your previous comments of the past few weeks, is “I get very offended whenever my candidate of choice is joked about. I would laugh, however, if the opposite guy was being picked on.” I know that in theory you probably vehemently disagree with that statement, but that’s the picture you’ve painted, sister. In fact, this very blog entry was written because of your silly complaints. In my opinion, the stance you have taken is extremely narrow minded.
You can continue to laugh at whatever you want, but just know that reasonable people will probably be laughing a lot more frequently than you.
October 9th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Biden asking Chuck Graham to stand up, and then his ensuing attempt to smooth it over, were both pretty hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI
I don’t know, Eric. Hannity and Limbaugh run some hi-freakin-larious Obama spoofs on their shows. Obviously you haven’t sampled their incredible talent for the comedy.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
@Veteran,
I have never ever ever complained about Eric mocking any of my other political choices. I thought it was funny when he has made fun of Bush before (when I still was a fan of Bush, which I no longer am). In the past when he’s mocked the stupidness of Republicans, he generally also mocks Democrats.
My WHOLE point this WHOLE time has been, why are you just picking on Palin? Pick on everyone, like you usually do! That is also what this post is addressing, in case you didn’t read it.
I also haven’t minded and thought it was funny when Eric has picked on McCain before. The first time he posted about Palin, I laughed. However, I got kind of annoyed when there were like 3 or 4 Palin things in a row. Especially when it was stuff I’d already seen in five other blogs. “Why can’t there be some originality and bipartisan-ness here!” I thought.
So no, Veteran, you’re incorrect, I am not a person who just is upset whenever my political candidate is picked on.
I also must note that I thought SNL is pretty funny with Tina Fey mocking Palin.
I would feel the same way if Eric picked on Obama five political posts in a row. I would be slightly annoyed and would again, call for some bipartisan humor.
Of course, Eric is free to ignore me, which is fine. I am entitled to my opinion, and I can say what I feel and everyone can take it as they would like.
However, you apparently haven’t been paying attention, otherwise you would have understood what I have said in the past and what this post from Eric is addressing exactly. It’s obvious that I was not complaining simply because he was making fun of Palin. I was complaining because he hasn’t made fun of anyone else. Please try to pay attention in the future and try not to be so condescending, because it looks stupid when you’re wrong. Not to mention you’re very rude.
My post above, about me taking it so very hard and personally, was referring to my outburst on the “Can you read?” blog post, where I got a little carried away. However, I had my husband apologize for that, because I was getting a little irrational there. However, my complaint on the post was still originally “Mock everyone! Not just Palin!”.
Now please stop being rude. You don’t know me, and obviously you haven’t been paying attention to anything I’ve said. Obviously, I like Eric’s humor or I wouldn’t be here. I’ve been reading Eric consistently for 2 years. I know that’s not particularly long, but I’m not here to not laugh at Eric’s jokes. Also, I’ve had people tell me I laugh too often (Yes, I’m not perfect! And no, laughing too much is not a good thing, but I do laugh a lot, thank you very much). So whatever, dude.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
And now I will no longer visit this post, nor comment on it, because I have a) commented enough and b) I don’t like to fight with people over this stuff. Especially when they’re just being rude and attempting to portray me as some sort of stupid person.
Just because I voiced a negative opinion about something that Eric wrote doesn’t make me one of your stereotypes. Eric understood what I was saying and he didn’t feel it was stupid enough to make fun of me, or else I would have become an angry letter of sorts.
I’ve read all of Eric’s angry letters and they have actually impacted the way that I look at things quite a bit. As a result, I try to look at humor (especially political humor) as objectively as possible. That doesn’t mean that I don’t find it annoying when only one person is ragged on all the time though! I think Eric has explained himself well here, and I understand why he has been posting about Palin for the most part.
I personally think that there are some things that Obama and Biden have done that are humorous and could be made fun of. But Eric’s not me, and he doesn’t agree. That’s fine. That makes sense. That doesn’t bother me. His explanation satisfies me. I’m not annoyed anymore about the Palin posts.
Anyway, hopefully that makes sense. That’s all for me!
October 9th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I so agree with Eric–the reason the Sarah Palin spoofs work so well is that she is such a colorful character. The only other political figure I can think of right now who can compete with her unique persona is Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (think fishing photo, Judo video, super self-confidence, ability to not blink…).
October 9th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I like to make fun of Sarah Palin because I hate everything she stands for - she’s so damn self-righteous about her cause being right that it doesn’t matter what she does. Support wasteful spending then turn around and attack her former supporters when it becomes convenient? Sure! Make up random crap about working with the military and other nations, just because you have some vaguely-plausible connection? Pad that resume! Speak only in useless platitudes while ignoring all history and context? Go on!
McCain doesn’t need to pander to the neoconservatives by endorsing torture and turning away from an openminded immigration policy - Sarah Palin already represents everything that’s become repugnant in her party over the last few decades..
Conservatism is dead. Long live the big government, militaristic, exceptionalist, self-righteous, Bill of Rights hatin’ neocons.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Conservative Guy: My comment doesn’t add to the discussion, nor do I wish to participate in any meaningful way. I just despised the previous comment. I don’t think that McCain or Obama are Satan, but I don’t really like them, either.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Thanks Eric, you make a lot of good points in this post. I agree it is tougher to make fun of Obama than some of the other politicians. He doesn’t do it as much as he used to (especially in the Democratic Primary) , but that “Yes We Can!” was even worse than McCain and Palin saying maverick all of the time. SNL could have done a skit where Obama would say: Do you want an America where we can get 2 pieces of cheese on our fast food burger? Yes we can! Are we going to inflate our tires to save money at the pump? Yes we can! Can we build our economy by taxing the rich and then “making it rain” at the strip clubs with the extra money we get from middle class tax cuts? Yes we can!
October 10th, 2008 at 4:50 am
So Obama doesn’t say “change” all the time? SNL could do a skit based on that alone! he doesn’t have a middle name people could poke fun of? No one could think of anything funny about his “ex” pastor and that relationship? how about his comments about typical white person? how about his brainclouds at some of the town hall meetings in which he forgets how to say things and rambles and even recognizes it and says he’s tired? crumbs socialized medicine is easy enough to make fun of…you cuold always make fun of how he is a constitutional lecture guy, but doesn’t actually vote for constitutional type of things. how about voting for dumping babies in trash cans?
I don’t buy this at all. Good try though…
Biden is EASY to make fun of with his gaffes.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:12 am
I like turtles! (Just trying to lighten the mood, sorry…)
October 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am
“Biden asking Chuck Graham to stand up, and then his ensuing attempt to smooth it over, were both pretty hilarious.”
Sure, but that’s a 15-second sight gag. Great for the Daily Show, not so much for SNL skit or a written piece.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Someone asked why everyone’s picking on Palin. She gives the impression that she doesn’t understand the issues, and when the people smell weakness, they usually attack. She can recite talking points just fine, but her general ignorance (or impression of such) and “folksy charm” give lots of fodder to humorists. Add that she’s the newest player of the four of them, which makes the media look closer.
The other three of them are either more experienced, or give the impression or being experienced or capable. Of McCain, Obama and Biden, Obama is the least experienced of the three and the media did their homework and dissection of him during the primaries. That’s why Palin’s on the hot seat now.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:19 am
It’s okay, Nelson. I like turtles too…
October 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am
“When he speaks, he sounds authoritative and intelligent.”
I would suggest that he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, which is different than “authoritative and intelligent”. Anyone with a clear understanding of economic policy knows that neither he nor McCain have any clue what they’re talking about. Instead, they pander. Oh, yes, my friends. They pander!
October 10th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I know what arugula is.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Don’t turtles eat arugula?
Amen to both sides pandering. I know from experience it is easy to sound authoritative and intelligent wihtout knowing what you are talking about at all. It’s how I got my college degree in psyhology.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Ok, this should satisfy everyone who posted here:
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin
Equal opportunity mockery, music, even some jokes some of you all brought up.
You are all very welcome.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Is anyone else reminded of the Seinfeld where George tries to get Jerry to do routines based on his (George’s) not-so-funny ideas? Maybe it was only the one idea, “The big toe is the ‘captain of the toes.’”
Anyway, I think Eric’s explanation is a bit too complicated. Palin is just so completely unexpected. I’m not sure I’d say wacky, but if you did a “one of these things is not like the other” thing with the four candidates on the two tickets, Palin would be the winner.
In conclusion, unexpected things are funny. Palin has said many more unexpected things in front of cameras than the others recently, precisely because of the increase media scrutiny she has been subject to lately.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
@ Christina D. (even though she’s not reading the post anymore…maybe she’ll see it anyway)
I’m sorry that my comments came off as rude. Just remember that your first response to me was not really very kind itself, so I responded in the like (or maybe in the like +1). I definitely did not want to hurt your feelings. I’m sure you’re a perfectly fantastic person and that your palate–sense of humor wise–is very refined. It just seemed to me that too big a fuss was being made (not just by you) over jokes that you didn’t think were funny in the first place. The (apparently somewhat misunderstood) thesis of my first post, “Stop taking everything personally and just be willing to laugh at anything that is funny,” really just means to not generalize what is and isn’t funny and judge everything on its own merits. If someone makes a really, super hilarious joke about your dead grandmother, laugh at it! The person telling it probably isn’t being serious anyway.
I never meant that you thought all jokes about Republicans were unfunny, and I actually can understand what you’re saying–that you didn’t think the Palin jokes were funny because you had been over saturated with them from other sources.
Let’s all get together and have a big group hug…friends forever!
October 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Interesting blog post and ensuing discussion. I think Eric actually accomplishes the opposite of what he intended, but that’s just me. Having read him since we both lived at Campus Plaza in the 90’s, I can say I’ve never seen any of his biases manifest themselves like this one has (well, except for his bias against ignorant, uneducated people, which I share). It doesn’t really bother me, and only makes his writing slightly less funny.
Bottom line–those who take issue with it aren’t inventing the problem, they’re just reacting to it. Those who love it because it satisfies their thirst for conservative blood are equally in the wrong here.
And I have to say–Clumpy, unless you’re using a brand of sarcasm I don’t get, you are a good example of what’s wrong with liberals today. If we could stop villainizing each other we might actually be able to work together to solve the issues that lie before us. Just give the bashing a rest already.
October 11th, 2008 at 5:20 am
My favorite sketch making fun of Obama mocked the fact that all he offered was “hope”. This was during the primaries, but I think it still works. Basically it was :
“If you hope that Obama hopes for the future you hope for, vote Obama”
“I believe Obama hopes for a future filled with hope”
“The future is before us, and the past is not, so we should look to a future with hope” and “If you believe Obama believes what you believe, vote Obama”.
It’s still not hard to use the idea. The man voted “present” on how many issues at a state level? And has taken few, if any hard stances on anything. But by golly, he believes in hope and the future and he’s not GWB. Because he believes in hope
October 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Totally agreed, John Doe. In addition to the others previously mentioned, Dave Barry seems to be able to make plenty of jokes about Obama. And I don’t think it’s that he’s going out and finding jokes as much as it’s material that largely untapped. Obama’s a media darling right now. After he’s safely elected it’ll be more P.C. to skewer him as much as the next politician.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Q, a conservative bashing neoconservatives is an example of what’s wrong with liberals today? I don’t get it.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Rob D., that was funny stuff about Obama. Yes, we can laugh about that
October 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Clumpy: go back and reread your post. It reads like a Daily Kos blog entry.
Villianization is one of the biggest problems in our body politic today, IMO.
Ironically, making fun of Sarah Palin because you “hate everything she stands for” is exactly what’s at the crux of this debate. While the jury is still out for some on what Eric’s motivations are, you’ve left no question on yours.
And let me just rant for a moment (this is not directed at you, Clumpy).
What ever happened being able to disagree with people without demonizing/belittling/slandering them? Playing that card is a mental shortcut around actually discussing and understanding controversial issues. The Moveon.org faction of liberals has been making a hyperactive attempt to demonize conservatives for nearly a decade. Watching the media/liberals change their view toward McCain once he became the Republican candidate has been fascinating to watch. It suggests that, to them, everything is relative and anything can be justified. Playing the race card, stuffing the ballot box, class warfare–it’s all fair game. It’s an approach to power that makes a Libertarian like me cringe.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
While the jury is still out for some on what Eric’s motivations are, you’ve left no question on yours.
If people are still unsure of my motivations even after reading a blog post explaining my motivations, then I’m not sure what else I can do.
I explained that very little about Obama and Biden had jumped out as funny enough for me — someone who doesn’t write very much about politics anyway — to make a joke about. If I made it a practice to write lots and lots of political humor, then yeah, I’d probably try harder to find more jokes covering more angles. But that’s not how I write. I write about whatever occurs to me. And this year, Palin has been a more colorful figure than anyone else.
I also postulated that this is why the late-night talk shows haven’t made much fun of Obama, either. Now, you can argue that it’s REALLY because they’re biased, but then you’d have to explain away all the Democrats they’ve made fun of in the past, and the Republicans they’ve failed to make fun of. I think my explanation — that you make fun of whoever it’s easiest to make fun of, regardless of ideology — makes more sense. And not to pull rank, but I have more experience writing comedy than you do. I know how it works. I know what the thought process is. You look at what your audience’s general perception is, and you make jokes based on that.
Someone ranted (for example):
You cuold always make fun of how he is a constitutional lecture guy, but doesn’t actually vote for constitutional type of things. how about voting for dumping babies in trash cans?
Even if that’s a true description of Obama, it doesn’t matter, because it’s not how the public perceives him. Any jokes you made based on that premise wouldn’t work if the audience didn’t see that as being the underlying truth.
Now, some audiences are more specialized than others. When I write stuff for Glenn Beck’s magazine, I often don’t think the premises they give me reflect what the average American thinks. But I know they DO reflect what the typical Glenn Beck reader thinks, so I make jokes that will strike a chord with those people.
So if a great many of my readers here at EricDSnider.com are conservative, why don’t I make a greater effort to tailor my jokes to fit that? Because I don’t care. The site is called EricDSnider.com. It’s built around my opinions — usually on movies and pop culture, not politics, but still, my opinions. That’s how it’s always been, and how it always will be. If readers don’t like my opinions, they will presumably stop visiting the site. (Or, in some cases, they’ll keep visiting it just so they can intensify their hatred of me. Hi, Lahimatoa!)
I am not now, nor have I ever been, under an obligation to be “fair” or “unbiased” in my joke-making. There is a perception that I have often tried to make fun of all sides equally, and that’s been true of some subjects — usually subjects I didn’t have very strong feelings about one way or the other anyway. And I’m TELLING you that in this case, there simply haven’t been many instances of obvious things to make fun of Obama for, while there have been instances aplenty of things to make fun of Palin for.
You are welcome to not believe me, I guess. But I don’t know why I’d lie when I could just as easily say, “I’m intentionally not making fun of Obama because I support him and I want him to win, and you can like it or lump it.” That is something I would say, after all, if it were true.
Maybe I subconsciously don’t see the Obama jokes because I subconsciously don’t want to say anything bad about him? You can go with that theory if it’ll make you feel better. I don’t think that’s it, though. I mean, there are plenty of things I support and believe in that I still see humorous aspects of.
Here’s what it ultimately boils down to:
If you think the best way to get me to stop making Sarah Palin jokes is to whine constantly about my making Sarah Palin jokes, then you must not be as familiar with my work as you think you are.
And if you think I’ve never been this “biased” before, then I think you’re misunderstanding the definition of that word. The only difference between a “bias” and an “opinion” is that a bias is unfair — and fairness is irrelevant in a context where you had no reason to expect fairness in the first place. That is to say, if this were a news website, then yes, you could reasonably expect me to try not to let my opinions show, and you’d have a leg to stand on when you complained that I had.
But this isn’t a news website. It’s EricDSnider.com. I’m going to write about — and make jokes about — whatever it occurs to me, Eric D. Snider, to write and make jokes about. You are more than welcome to express disagreement with those opinions. But you can’t expect me to change them or suppress them simply because you disagree with them. And if you came in here expecting me to only make jokes about some things and not others, or to make jokes about everything equally, then I’m sorry, but that’s not how it works. You should adjust your expectations in that respect.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
It’s pretty magnanimous to write material for your comments when a substantially lower number of people bother to look that far down the page. I don’t want to cheapen Eric’s lengthy reply by referencing something earlier, so I’ll just say that my earlier comments didn’t come out the way I intended. Or rather, Q, I did say what I meant to say, but I didn’t include the proper context or substance to my attack for why I wasn’t just another raving DailyKos fanboy (a site so ridiculously partisan it makes my eyelids twitch). I assumed that everybody was on the same page as me (read: I’d said things the way I meant to).
Anyway - this isn’t really the place to attack Palin. Eric knows by now that merely mentioning a political figure in any context, even in a largely non-political one, gets the loonies (myself included) crawling out of the woodwork and screaming “REDRUM!!!”
Q, I won’t mischaracterize you as a neocon attack dog who screams “bias” at the earliest opportunity if you don’t think of me as a mudslinging, insubstantial progressive character assassin, awright? Have a nice day and I’ll go breathe into a paper bag or something.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:51 am
“While she was addressing the crowd, Sarah Palin spent a lot of time criticizing Barack Obama’s campaign speeches for not having enough specifics. Obama was reportedly angry about the claim, but didn’t say exactly why.” –Conan O’Brien
“Barack Obama now says he is open to offshore oil drilling. So, apparently, when he promised change, he was talking about his mind.” –Jay Leno
“Well, the Democrats are now preparing for their convention in Denver, and they have hired the first ever director of greening. They say that this year that everything about their convention will be green, including nominating a candidate who’s only been a senator for a couple of years.” –Jay Leno
“Senator Obama answered doubts about his inexperience by saying he has gained tremendous insight from his work as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, key club president, 4H treasurer, lunch room monitor, two years of jazz, and four years of tap.” –Amy Poehler
October 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Eric: Great rant. I agree with a lot of what you say, and my comments have been pretty clear in that regard. To be clear, I never complained about the Palin stuff, and dont’ care what you write about–just that you write.
The point I was trying to make was that I thought it was unfair that Christina D was ridiculed for being sensitive to Palin bashing. People who are sensitive to making fun of Palin believe that she has been treated unfairly by a biased media. Personally, I think there is some truth to that, and I’m not even a Palin fan. In fact, I think most of the Palin stuff is really very funny, and she is the most colorful character this election season by a mile. Rather, I see the reactions by Palin supporters being more about feeling henpecked than inventing the issue because of some ultra-conservative hypersensitivity.
As far as your motivations, I agree with you that they don’t matter. Your quotation of my previous post contains the key words “for some.” The “some” that I am referring to are those people who think you’re being unfair and who question your motivations. Personally, I have no idea where your motivations are, and I couldn’t care less. I read your stuff because it’s smart and usually pretty funny, not because I think we think alike (the horror…).
However, I slightly disagree with your parsing of bias and opinion in the comedic process. By your own admission, you make jokes based on how you think the public perceives the targets. In other words, it’s your perception of the public’s perception. That first step, where the writer ascribes a certain opinion TO his audience on a certain subject, is what colors the tone of the material. The ability to read the public’s perception of things is what makes a good writer, but there will always be people who don’t fall into the category you’ve created–whether it’s Sarah Palin, movie reviews, Victoria’s Secret ads, etc. And that’s a good thing, after all, because what would the world be like without angry letters?
Clumpy: Fair enough. Without any context I only had the words to go on and unfairly charactarized you. I apologize. My sense is that you, as a conservative who despises neo-cons, and I, as a conservative-leaning Libertarian who wants less government and a stronger economy, agree more than we disagree.
I am frustrated this election season with the villianization that goes on and how much that obscures the issues at hand. It bothers me that, with so many important things at stake in this election, the rhetoric is so dumbed down.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
A study finds that late night comedians are going after Republicans by a 7 to 1 ratio. They pretty much give the same reasoning Eric gives here: Obama and Biden don’t give as much material as McCain and Palin. I believe that can account for some of the imbalance, but come on… 7 to 1? That isn’t all due to lack of material. I don’t care that they have a bias, I just think we should call it what it is.