I wish everyone would read this.

If you are a frequent Drudge visitor, then you've probably read this.

Im just fucking sick of liberal media.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78921

Quote :

"Perhaps the only institution in America whose approval rating is beneath that of Congress is the media. Both have won their reputations the hard way. They earned them. Consider the fawning indulgence shown insider Joe Biden with the dripping contempt visited on outsider Sarah Palin. Twice last weekend, Biden grimly warned at closed-door meetings that a great crisis is coming early in the term of President Obama: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said … we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." A "generated crisis"? By whom? Moscow? Beijing? Tehran? This is an astonishing statement from a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has access to the same intelligence as George Bush. Joe was warning of a crisis like the Berlin Wall of July 1961, where JFK called for a tripling of the draft and ordered a call-up of reserves, or the missile crisis where U.S. pilots like John McCain were minutes away from bombing nuclear missile sites in Cuba and killing the Russians manning them. Is Russia about to move on the Crimea? Is Israel about to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites? What is Joe talking about? If one assumes Joe is a serious man, we have a right to know. Instead, what we got was Obama's airy dismissal of Joe's words as a "rhetorical flourish" and a media – rather than demanding that Joe hold a press conference – acting as Obama surrogates parroting the talking points that Joe was just saying that new presidents always face tests. Had John McCain made that hair-raising statement, he would have been accused of fear mongering about a new 9/11. The media would have run with the story rather than have smothered it. Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe declared a few weeks back, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and ... said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" Nice historical reference. Except when the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television. Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history. Or Dan Quayle? Joe gets a pass because everybody likes Joe. Fine. But Joe also has a record of 36 years in the Senate. Has anyone ever asked Joe about his own and his party's role in cutting off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the greatest strategic defeat in U.S. history and the Cambodian holocaust? Has anyone ever asked Joe about the role he and his party played in working to block Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, and SDI, which Gorbachev concedes broke the Soviets and won the Cold War? In the most crucial vote he ever cast – to give Bush a blank check for war in Iraq – Joe concedes he got it wrong. Is Joe's record of having been wrong on Vietnam, wrong in the Cold War, wrong on the Iraq war, less important than whether Sarah Palin tried to get fired a rogue-cop brother-in-law who Tasered her 10-year-old nephew to "teach him a lesson"? "I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know," says Joe humbly. Given his record, it is understandable Joe has forgotten so much of it. Saturday, the New York Times did a takeout on Cindy McCain that delved back into her problem with prescription pills. Yet when Hillary's campaign manager, Mark Penn, brought up Obama's cocaine use on "Hardball," he was savaged by folks for whom the Times is the gold standard. The people apparently had a "right to know" of Bush's old DUI arrest a week before the 2000 election, but no right to know about how and when Obama was engaged in the criminal use of cocaine. The media cannot get enough of the "Saturday Night Live" impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all. Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent? "Saturday Night Live" would be facing hate-crime charges. How do we know? When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and the Messiah. Is there a media double standard? You betcha."

10/24/2008 2:48:51 PM

^ Seemed decent until the complaints about cutting off funding to South Vietnam. There are plenty of great reason to criticize Biden. That ain't one of them.

10/24/2008 2:52:58 PM

McCain's not losing because of the liberal media, he's losing because of his crappy campaign.

And Palin was a terrible pick for VP and is a terrible politician.

Obama was the one who broke the story of his own cocaine AND marijuana usage in a book he wrote. It would be fair to talk about it in this context, but we all know the right isn't interested in discussing that honestly. And besides, McCain's youth isn't exactly squeaky-clean either, it would just open that can of worms too.

10/24/2008 3:03:34 PM

Quote :

"Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent? "Saturday Night Live" would be facing hate-crime charges."

Oh give me a fucking break. SNL has been making fun of everyone and anyone for decades now.

Quote :

"McCain's not losing because of the liberal media, he's losing because of his crappy campaign."

Pretty much

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : 2]

10/24/2008 3:09:31 PM

Quote :

"Im just fucking sick of liberal media."

What about when Bush was elected? And re-elected? Was the liberal media not around then?

Pretty sure SNL was making fun of Bush and all that then. But, he didn't lose.

10/24/2008 3:23:51 PM

there is truth to that article, although the Vietnam and Cold War references are a bit much.

10/24/2008 3:29:01 PM

save a seal, club a liberal

10/24/2008 3:30:33 PM

Quote :

"Oh give me a fucking break. SNL has been making fun of everyone and anyone for decades now."

remind me again, when have they been making fun of Obama so fiercely? I don't remember it, that;''s for sure.

10/24/2008 3:31:29 PM

they make fun of the media fawning over him but they do not make fun of him.

how the same people who shit themselves over fox news bias somehow cannot see the agenda on shows like SNL, which have arguably more influence, is beyone me.

10/24/2008 3:36:00 PM

^^Does Obama provide as much material as Palin, or even McCain? No.

That is why they don't make fun of him as much.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 3:36:18 PM

Is it just me, or is all this hand-wringing about "the liberal media" affecting the elections and affecting the economy and affecting the moral turpitude of our nation completely at odds with the conservative idea of personal responsibility?

How can you, simultaneously, say that people should be able to regulate their own money (not that I'm disagreeing, at least not completely) and say that the media influences people to vote for x or do y or think z?

It's completely hypocritical, but not the least bit unexpected.

This, republicans, is why William F. Buckley's family and Colin Powell and tons of very intelligent military higher-ups, Scott McClellan, William Weld, Arne Carlson, etc have endorsed Obama...

Because the republican party has gone to shit. It has almost always been on the wrong side of history, but usually at least a good number of people in it were decent, intelligent, intellectual small-government conservatives.

Now they're mostly just overly religious, right-wing, ridiculous cranks.

10/24/2008 3:36:58 PM

I largely agree that the right has lost its way and it needs to find itself...or it will lose not just this election, but a lot to come.

the right needs to shed the religious sector and focus on small town values, individual rights, equal taxing and strong defense.

10/24/2008 3:45:00 PM

SMALL TOWN VALUES.

Nope.

10/24/2008 3:49:09 PM

You had me at small-town values.

Are you serious? WTF does "small-town values" even mean? What "values" do small towns have that big cities don't, except the religious ones you just said the party should shed? Or do you mean racism or something?

Mind you, I'm not insulting small towns, I'm just trying to figure out what it is that's so important in small towns that an entire country in 2008 is supposed to embrace? If you want everyone in America to know what color your shit is like they do in small towns, you have the internet for that. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be interested in the photos.

10/24/2008 3:51:04 PM

^ str8foolish was not being serious there.

10/24/2008 3:54:11 PM

^i think they're aware of that and were in factreferring to the comments made by DaBird

Also

Quote :

"how the same people who shit themselves over fox news bias somehow cannot see the agenda on shows like SNL, which have arguably more influence, is beyone me."

please look at what you wrote here and actually consider it rationally. Are you, in any way shape or form, stating that a show which is solely about comedy be held to the same standards as fox news? This statement is completely void of common sense. That is equal to saying that Don't mess with the Zohan is equatable to Schindler's List. SNL is a show for comedic sketches and occasionally points out the humor that is existent in politics while refraining from the seriousness that would arrive in concert with using skits with comedic satire.

Comparing Fox News to the daily show would have been at least borderline reasonable, since they both exhibit the same amount of bias. Actually, that isn't true, because the daily show will on occasion lampoon the left as well.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : qwrtyuio0]

10/24/2008 4:02:07 PM

I was talking about what it would take for them to start winning elections.

"small town values" is cheesy but a part of that. most people dont identify with hollywood but they identify with "everyday" people. being polite, giving to charity, having honor and integrity, morals and having character all go into that.

do I really have to explain that to you?

10/24/2008 4:02:15 PM

Quote :

"^^Does Obama provide as much material as Palin, or even McCain? No. That is why they don't make fun of him as much."

umm... Biden?

There are just as many jokes on that clown as there are for Palin. There should be just as much of a big deal about how the Obama campaign has basically locked him up for the last month because he's such a moron as there was for McCain's early treatment of Palin with regards to the media.

10/24/2008 4:04:37 PM

Quote :

"please look at what you wrote here and actually consider it rationally. Are you, in any way shape or form, stating that a show which is solely about comedy be held to the same standards as fox news? This statement is completely void of common sense. That is equal to saying that Don't mess with the Zohan is equatable to Schindler's List"

I would bet that more people identify and base their opinions nowadays on hollywood and pop culture rather than major news sources. I know a lot of people (sadly) who base their political opinions on what Oprah or George Clooney says.

edit: Jon Stewart is another good example the douchy college kid political know-it-all...I have those friends too.

People who watch cable news mostly have their opinions in place.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 4:05:15 PM

Yes, you do have to explain it to me.

Quote :

"most people dont identify with hollywood but they identify with "everyday" people."

Oh, god, no

Quote :

"being polite, giving to charity, having honor and integrity, morals and having character all go into that."

So your assumption, then, is that people in cities aren't polite, don't give to charity, don't have honor or integrity or "morals" or "character"

Do I have that right? If I do, you're going to have to prove it.

First of all, the majority of the world's population now lives in urban areas. I don't know about you, but I've been to several big cities in Europe and the U.S., and aside from D.C., I never felt any less at home than I do in Asheville or Winston-Salem. Granted, those aren't "small towns," but that's not the point.

The point is that people don't become magically less charitable or "moral" or whatever the bigger their cities are. That's absolutely insane and fallacious.

God, I hate this website. I can't wait until November 4 when I can just read all of the sob stories from you guys and stop posting again, but this is my primary outlet for punishing myself with the burning stupid that can only be found on messageboards.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 4:07:36 PM

Quote :

" being polite, giving to charity, having honor and integrity, morals and having character all go into that"

making this statement is as absent in accuracy as the "real america" or "what liberals hate" statements that have been made. People in any size city have those same values as those that are listed above. One could argue that those values could be seen on a proportionately larger scale in small towns, but the same could be stated about some of the most negative and low personality and belief attributes of the american people

10/24/2008 4:07:51 PM

It is possible for SNL to have politcal sway. It's not some small time comedy bit like cobert or the daily show. Its been coming on the same night, same schedule since the first season started in the 70's. Lots of people tune in on a regular basis. It just goes to show NBC has pulled left HARD this election.

10/24/2008 4:08:51 PM

^^^ are you honestly trying to say that people in NYC are friendlier than people in Asheville? Cause you know that aint true

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:09:04 PM

Quote :

"remind me again, when have they been making fun of Obama so fiercely?"

What about when SNL-Obama promised to play the race card against North Korea?

10/24/2008 4:12:38 PM

No, I'm saying that it's completely impossible to compare how "nice" the people in a city of 8,213,839 people to how nice the people in a city of 68889 are. The sheer numbers make it completely inane for you to even attempt to do so, but the general "feeling" of the cities, as far as niceness, has never struck me as being hugely different. I grew up in Asheville, and I've been to NYC 3 times, and I've always mentioned while there how crazy it is that you always hear how mean new yorkers are.

10/24/2008 4:12:45 PM

^^^^ that doesn't matter. SNL is not journalism. it does not have to abide by the same rules as the "evil liberal elite media." a lot of people watch the 700 club too, and they have their own agenda as well. to lump shows like SNL or even the daily show or colbert (shows that air on COMEDY CENTRAL) with the rest of the media is stupid. it doesn't matter how many people watch it, it is clearly comedy, not the news.

if you want to bash the media, stick to cnn, msnbc, fox news, and your local outlets. once you bring in half hour to hour and a half comedy shows that feature skits such as McGruber, Mark Whalberg talks to animals, or bears as the number one threat on Threat Down, you lose your credibility when you claim that the liberal media is effecting the election.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:13:51 PM

Quote :

"So your assumption, then, is that people in cities aren't polite, don't give to charity, don't have honor or integrity or "morals" or "character" Do I have that right? If I do, you're going to have to prove it. First of all, the majority of the world's population now lives in urban areas. I don't know about you, but I've been to several big cities in Europe and the U.S., and aside from D.C., I never felt any less at home than I do in Asheville or Winston-Salem. Granted, those aren't "small towns," but that's not the point. The point is that people don't become magically less charitable or "moral" or whatever the bigger their cities are. That's absolutely insane and fallacious."

jesus...chill out. I am not shitting on people living in cities. I was giving the cheesy line that is always used to get the people in the flyover states to identify. you can go far being the 'small town values' candidate. to win future elections, 'pubs have to appeal to that base.

you then asked me to define what it meant so I wrote

Quote :

""being polite, giving to charity, having honor and integrity, morals and having character all go into that.""

as a dictionary answer. doesnt mean I dont think people in cities dont do that at all. just that I think black people dont.





















KIDDING

10/24/2008 4:14:05 PM

Quote :

"It is possible for SNL to have politcal sway. It's not some small time comedy bit like cobert or the daily show. Its been coming on the same night, same schedule since the first season started in the 70's. Lots of people tune in on a regular basis. It just goes to show NBC has pulled left HARD this election."

That statement is just plain wrong. Yes, it has been on for that long, at the same time, and the same night, yes. Through the history that consistency has brought it is evident to anyone that the show is one that is dedicated to humor and is not a show meant to in any way be taken seriously. Which is where this show and Daily show/colbert report differ. That is why i at least offered up the comparison of the ds/cr to fox news since they are both used to convey points while one is still intentionally designed to be humorous, and the other one achieves it unintentionally.

I don't know if anyone is actually "sawyed" by a SNL skit. If someone had such conviction to a cause I doubt SNL would be the main conduit through which change would be promoted.

10/24/2008 4:14:10 PM

maybe they arent swayed by one skit, but maybe they are swayed by REPEATED skits characterizing the same person in the same manner. hell, its hard not to be a least a little influenced that way. everytime I see W. I think of Will Ferrell.

10/24/2008 4:16:30 PM

LOOK NO ONES DENYING ITS JUST A COMEDY SHOW
Whats obvious is the huge porpotion of inflammatory jokes to mccain/palin over obama/biden jokes. I've only seen one 1 objectional obama joke and with the one boone refered to that makes 2. People watch this shit and get influenced whether you like it our not. Its the agenda we're talking about here

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:16:32 PM

And let's not forget that SNL has been 100% irrelevant and ignored for years.

The fact that these recent skits have gotten so much attention indicates that liberal bias or not, they've resonated with viewers. Given this, I think Buchanan's claim that SNL is out of touch with America is flawed.

10/24/2008 4:21:36 PM

^^it's a comedy show. they are allowed to have an agenda. if it's funny, run with it. if it's not, don't. hell, SNL would be better set if mccain/palin win. it'd give them 4 years of material. but they aren't held to the standard of news outlets, so lumping them in there and crying about how mean they are is just stupid. like i said, there are shows like the 700 club and other sunday morning church shows that sway to the right, but that's never bothered me.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:22:33 PM

Quote :

"And let's not forget that SNL has been 100% irrelevant and ignored for years."

its ratings stink, true, but it is still producing mainstream stars which I think keeps it relevant.

10/24/2008 4:23:43 PM

Quote :

"And let's not forget that SNL has been 100% irrelevant and ignored for years. The fact that these recent skits have gotten so much attention indicates that liberal bias or not, they've resonated with viewers. Given this, I think Buchanan's claim that SNL is out of touch with America is flawed."

you just contradicted yourself

If its irrelevent then whats all this resonation with viewers about


and btw mls09, why would I cry about a show that hasn't been funny in almost a decade

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:24:11 PM

Quote :

"Its the agenda we're talking about here"

I'm not questioning whether they have an agenda, although I'd easily say that they're more of a corporate entity than a political one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

Every one of these "liberal media" outlets you guys rail against is owned by a conservative, corporate entity. They do what they do for one reason: to make money. If they thought they'd make money being conservative, believe me, GE (a weapons producer) would be down with that.

The only real exception I can think of is CNN, which is owned by Ted Turner, who is pretty liberal... but he's still a rich guy who is beholden to his investors to make as much profit as possible, which is what he does.

The question, which still nobody has responded to, is

1.) How you can insinuate that the news and shows like SNL influence people but still say people can make their own decisions about their lives on their own
2.) Why it's bad to influence people if you can and think you're doing the right thing

10/24/2008 4:26:08 PM

It resonated just as soon as they started making fun of Palin-- the very thing Buchanan's railing against.

10/24/2008 4:26:35 PM

Quote :

"1.) How you can insinuate that the news and shows like SNL influence people but still say people can make their own decisions about their lives on their own 2.) Why it's bad to influence people if you can and think you're doing the right thing"

ideally I want people reading multiple sources to come to their conclusions. I dont want any one person or entity influencing them.

10/24/2008 4:29:46 PM

Quote :

"and btw mls09, why would I cry about a show that hasn't been funny in almost a decade"

you may not be crying, but the opening post article is certainly boo-hooing because he isn't seeing michelle obama jokes. that's pretty lame, really.


V PROFESSIONAL? REALLY? i seem to remember last weeks episode of SNL that McGRUBER WAS SHOOTING PING PONG BALLS OUT OF HIS ASSHOLE. they aren't exactly your business comedians doing family humor. give me a break.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:31:07 PM

Quote :

"The question, which still nobody has responded to, is 1.) How you can insinuate that the news and shows like SNL influence people but still say people can make their own decisions about their lives on their own 2.) Why it's bad to influence people if you can and think you're doing the right thing"

Its called sheep, and america has a lot of them. And in all actuallity, laughter is contageous (meaining people are known to start laughing at a joke when they didn't hear the beginning just to be socially accepted).

And its bad for a long standing institution like SNL to use its reputation as a campaigning pivot. Its not professional and not in the name of comedy.

^ shut your assuming ass up, I'd rather they lay off politics in general and go back to skits like "lady's man"

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:33:25 PM

Could someone pitch me a funny Michelle Obama skit?

I don't think Republicans get humor.

10/24/2008 4:33:38 PM

Quote :

" ideally I want people reading multiple sources to come to their conclusions. I dont want any one person or entity influencing them."

Right, and I'm sure we can all agree on that, but I still don't see why it's bad for people to be influenced (indeed, most opinions come from what we learn from those we respect - parents, neighbors, friends, and media). Also, I haven't seen any reason to think that most people only have one news source that influences them, and I certainly wouldn't blame those particular shows or media if that's the case. It's not like you're not allowed to watch the daily show if you watch anything else, or that fox news only comes on your tv if you haven't been watching msnbc.

I'm sorry, I know these are silly examples, but I feel like you're pitching silly ideas.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 4:34:04 PM

Quote :

" ideally I want people reading multiple sources to come to their conclusions. I dont want any one person or entity influencing them."

Listen there is no need for circumlocution. It breaks down to this: reading multiple news sources is a personal responsibility, and if they actually did that a simple comedy show would in no way impact their decision. i highly doubt SNL finds itself to be a pivotal role in presidential political influence with an agenda of electing barack obama, and, rather, finds itself in a position where its agenda is to do things that the majority of its viewers would find entertaining.

As stated above, there are far too many other sources of information, albeit not aways news sources, for people to reach their points of view. SNL is hardly the deciding one for any of them

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 4:35:40 PM

dude, you asked the question and I answered it honestly. seems like you are trying to pick a fight here about something that really isnt up for debate.

I think simple minds are swayed by simple comedy, quick one-liners and impersonations. I hate the idea of a person getting elected by such things. I think a lot of simple minds are also swayed by nutjobs like mike savage. I dont think thats right either and I hate it.

10/24/2008 4:39:21 PM

Quote :

"i highly doubt SNL finds itself to be a pivotal role in presidential political influence with an agenda of electing barack obama, and, rather, finds itself in a position where its agenda is to do things that the majority of its viewers would find entertaining."

Possibly not, but who know how deliberate the writers are in their jokes. They very well could be, could they not? And when it comes with having a position to exploit the most potential entertainment:

Lets face it. Old man/ first woman for vp

vs

a black guy

I think the first choice is the safest

10/24/2008 4:40:06 PM

Quote :

"Obama was the one who broke the story of his own cocaine AND marijuana usage in a book he wrote. It would be fair to talk about it in this context, but we all know the right isn't interested in discussing that honestly."

Yeah, how about that? Bring up the fact that Obama favors throwing people in prison for doing what he was able to turn around his life from and you get crucified. Mix in a dash of the fact that his Veep is one of the most ardent Drug Warriors in Congress and we get, what, exactly?

Change? More like exceptionalism.

I eagerly await the day when I can hear an Obama supporter have an honest conversation about the War on Drugs with regard to the context of Obama's past and his running mate's current positions.

10/24/2008 4:40:45 PM

Yes.

U R, indeed, serious cat.

The reason fox news exists, for instance, is that there was a niche to be filled. Murdoch saw that and filled it. It's all business.

^ I'll have that conversation.

They're hypocrites. they're politicians. They are wrong about things - just less things than McCain / Palin.

Do I need to go further?

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 4:41:14 PM

no telling the amount of fried chicken, watermelon, gangster rap, 20'' rim jokes that could be made but are not because they are 'out of bounds' yet there is obviously nothing out of bounds when it comes to the candidates on the right.

10/24/2008 4:42:10 PM

Quote :

"PROFESSIONAL? REALLY? i seem to remember last weeks episode of SNL that McGRUBER WAS SHOOTING PING PONG BALLS OUT OF HIS ASSHOLE. they aren't exactly your business comedians doing family humor. give me a break."

Can porn stars be considered professional?
Yeah, keep grabbing at straws.


The point is that comedy is better when its universal and not polarized. I rather see mcgruber anyday then the same reduntant, and often misled, misconstrued jokes.

10/24/2008 4:42:54 PM

so you'd rather see a mcgyver spoof shoot ping pong balls out of his cornhole than a spoof on current events? geeze, no wonder why you think SNL hasn't been funny in a long time.


and yes, porn stars can be considered professionals. although no porno (nailin' paylin'?) would sway my vote one way or the other.


i understand the point that some are making that there are simple minded people who are swayed by stupid things, but there are plenty of sources to pull someones opinion many different ways, so in the end, i think it's all a wash. but the opening post is just stupid to me, suggesting that shows like SNL are deliberately responsible for something. I don't go to the bank for advice on landscaping my yard, and I don't watch SNL for political advice, i just want a good laugh at the end of a hard week (and if it comes from political humor/current events, so be it). so to claim that SNL is joking on one candidate more than another because they have some super secret liberal agenda is a stretch, when the simple answer is that it's probably funnier and more convenient/easy to make jokes on one person than another (especially when one cast member looks and acts JUST LIKE the person they are imitating).

I seem to remember eddie murphy being a very ghetto santa clause, and that fit many stereotypes at the time. even tracy morgan had astronaut jones and other characters, and they weren't afraid to make bill clinton jokes when he was president both before and after the lewinsky ordeal. i just don't buy the claim that they are afraid to make fun of someone because of the fear of litigation. if obama is elected, i'm sure we'll see some michelle jokes.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 4:46:12 PM

what if it was 'michelle's o's big black booty 2'?

10/24/2008 4:47:59 PM