digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

SNL's Hillary Clinton: I have no ethical standards

huffingtonpost.com — How quickly SNL turned on Mrs Clinton!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • IbbyIbby, on 05/11/2008, -49/+207It wouldn't have been as funny if it weren't so truthful. She is a great candidate , but has fallen apart as of late. SNL is just pointing out the all but obvious.

    Obama 08.
    • tyler0is0sexy, on 05/11/2008, -12/+99No, she isn't a great candidate and that's why she's not going to be the democratic nominee- much less the president.
      • wphj, on 05/11/2008, -29/+11She is a great candidate that has a great history of doing great things for this country. At least her husband does.
        I would have been happy to vote for her if you asked me a few months ago.
        Now, however, she has shown a really dark side in this all-out battle against an even better candidate.
        It's too bad that she never got her chance to be president, as she would probably make a great leader, but it just didn't work out that way.
        • Stroggoth, on 05/11/2008, -2/+31What history? You just admitted it was Bill Clinton who did things. I doubt she would make a good leader: she will say anything and do anything to get her way, which is just how Bush operated.

          I think there should be a rule that the spouses and relatives of past presidents cannot run for office to prevent the "Duo-archy" (ie. dual monarchy) that has ruled the US like Kings for the last 24 years.. is this what democracy is?
        • MadOgre, on 05/11/2008, -3/+23"She is a great candidate that has a great history of doing great things for this country." *****... Name One Damn Thing.
          • doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -1/+24Why, lots of things!
            She overhauled the broken health-care system when she was first lad... oh, wait. Um, she defended the unions when she say on the board of Wal-, oh, no, umm... She dodged sniper fire when she met that little girl in, er, um...What about that beef futures investment! That was... uhhh.... Well, when she was clerking for that judge, and she made sure the precedent law went missing and... errr...
            She's pretty in pink. It takes a village.
        • earther, on 05/11/2008, -2/+20"At least her husband does."
          "...as she would probably make a great leader"

          Clearly you have issues with being rational.
        • bonds, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5lawl, asshat
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -23/+5"she isn't a great candidate"

        You'd better hope she is, because if she isn't then Obama sucks as a candidate. Hillary's lost the nomination, yet she managed to beat Obama in Indiana.
        • SillyRabbits, on 05/11/2008, -14/+3Well, since the only two elections that Obama has won have been against opponents that self destructed, I think there's the strong possibility he's not that great of a candidate.
          • RobotCitizen, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It's OK. His current oponent is self-destructing too. It must be some sort of power he has.
            "Super-unflappability", maybe.
        • bonds, on 05/11/2008, -2/+22Managed to beat Obama because of all the Republican votes she got.
          • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -7/+1Right... Keep on telling yourself that...
          • JEWestbrookJR, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6@TheSwashbuckler Cause, ya know, since the Republican nominee is already decided, Republicans can't just register as Democrats for the primary and vote for the easier opponent to defeat. I mean, there's no laws in place preventing these kinds of actions, but members of the Republican party are above this kind of deceit. Right?
          • bonds, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Westbrook: Indiana is an open primary state, which means legions of cocksuck Pork Limbaugh followers were able to be henchmen of "Operation Chaos". That fat piece of pill popping ***** dishonors himself and undermines the entire election process with this *****.

            FYI Douchebuckler: NC is a closed primary state, and Obama trounced Shillary.
          • JEWestbrookJR, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Amen bonds, hope you detected my sarcasm.
          • bonds, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Actually I misread "can't register" as "can register". Either way, when you factor in the sarcasm, both mean the same thing. ^^
        • aliengoods, on 05/11/2008, -7/+4And after it was clear McCain was the nominee Huckabee still managed to take quite a few states.
          • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7Really?

            Name one.
          • aliengoods, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Kansas. McCain was the presumptive nominee after Super Tuesday, shortly after which Romney dropped out. The following week Huckabee took Kansas.

            Need another? How about Virginia, when Huckabee had no shot at winning the nomination.

            By the way, just for future reference, I found this information hidden on the internet. It's also hidden in newspapers.
          • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Nice try, but McCain was not the presumptive when Huckabee won Kansas. Same for Virginia.

            For future reference, the Internet has lots of data, but you still have to properly interpret that data. Next time try a little harder...
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Indiana is the litmus test of a candidate, who knew?
          • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -5/+2Most people are sheep. They will jump on the bandwagon of whoever is winning. Yet lots of people didn't want to jump on the Obama bandwagon even though he is clearly going to get the nomination. That's not good for Obama...
      • pauleku, on 05/11/2008, -13/+3You like Obama then huh? What a fad - he hasnt once said what he will actually do.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6You know that you are probably considered legally retarded, right?
    • gsxrjason, on 05/11/2008, -1/+36Exactly, it's funny because this is actually her argument to superdelegates.
    • RockeN5, on 05/11/2008, -4/+105I disagree that she is a great candidate. Her slander and crude methods in her campaign only show that she is NOT a great candidate.
      • kirakun, on 05/11/2008, -21/+8How old are you? This is politics, you know.
        • toastjam, on 05/11/2008, -2/+13Just because it's normal doesn't mean it's right.
        • qwerter, on 05/11/2008, -2/+12I don't want a candidate who has to lie, cheat, smear, and steal to get into office. What you expect them to do to *us* once they actually get there?
        • jsmith39, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8That comment is exactly why Obama has a good chance, most of us are tired of politics as usual, and even though I don't agree with everything Obama will try to do, I will vote for him based on the integrity that no one else seems to have.
      • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3Terrible campaign, but I suspect she'd be a good president. As long as she stayed out of sight.
      • JEWestbrookJR, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5That's what I love about Obama... no matter how much he is attacked, he won't resort to negative campaigning. I am definitely not a fan of McCain, but I look forward to the race because both of them have very strong intolerance for negative campaigning. Unfortunately, you can't say the same for the people who are associating with McCain with their "B HUSSEIN OBAMA" attacks, but it was pretty notable for McCain to openly disapprove of these tactics.
    • tillerman00, on 05/11/2008, -5/+15Guess I'm the only one who thinks her Clinton impression sucks and isn't funny at all. She needs some more special effects done on her face to give her more of a trollish/ghouly look, like the real thing.
    • 4d669, on 05/11/2008, -14/+6This sketch actually demonstrates how stupid the people that think Obama is tougher opponent for McCain than Hillary are. It is ***** obvious that more republicans are willing to vote for Hillary than for Obama, but people still cling to the stupid rigged poll to say Obama will do better when it's simply not true. On this clip SNL demonstrates why Hillary has all the traits republicans would go for, makes fun of Hillary and Obamabots simultaneously.

      I wish people understood that the media hates Hillary because she wants to destroy HMOs, which are their main advertisers. America is dumb as *****.
      • jcrash, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12People don't cling to anything. SHE LOST. She is THE LOSER. Nothing to cling to there. As far as Republicans voting for her...I'm a republican and I wouldn't vote for her...but I am gonna vote for Obama. She stands for all the old school ways of doing things..rights and liberties are not on her list of things to value.
        • 4d669, on 05/11/2008, -5/+4Obama voted for the Patriot Act you mindless bot.
          • jsmith39, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5and McCain and Hillary didn't?
          • 4d669, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Nobody said they didn't. They all voted for it because they all follow orders and nothing will change except the puppet.
          • sleepwalkers, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Alright, then we'll at least vote for the best puppet. If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have bothered to say anything about the candidates "toughness" or "stupid rigged poll[s]" or any of that stuff.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I agree with the last sentence of your post & refer to the rest of your post as proof that it is at least partially correct!
    • biotch, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14yeah ... she actually had my support until she started waging war with Obama. And part of it was the media dramatizing each of their comments. But thats part of the political spectrum. You cant give the media fodder like that. She had the choice to fight jointly with him or to try to stomp him out at the cost of general support for the democratic party and she chose the latter. Her tactics remind me of the Bush administration and for that she lost my vote.
      • jsmith39, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5That bitch never had my vote, I would rather light my balls on fire and pound out the flames with a barbell than vote for her.
        • mooseontheloose, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6Way to hop on the bandwagon. You sure are cool now.
          • jsmith39, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I was in the army when our 'first black president' was in office, I've been hating that bitch for well over a decade now, but thanks for assuming.
          • alk509, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5This comment illustrates just how ***** stupid the most ardent Hilldog supporters are. I mean, c'mon:

            Some guy: Hillary has never had my vote.
            Moron: Way to hop on the bandwagon!

            *****... Please explain, kind moron, how someone who has never intended to vote for the 'dog can possibly be construed as a bandwagon jumper based on that very long-standing reluctance.

            This ***** is all over the internet and other media, too: complete morons without the slightest ability to reason out their positions and comments, blindly supporting Hilldog to the end - and claiming that it's Obama supporters who have some kind of Messianic delusion about their candidate! Obama has more votes, delegates and states won, you claim? Math is elitist! Hilldog's campaign's Rovian race-baiting tactics turned you off voting for her? You must be an anti-white racist! Point out specific examples of Hilldog's general nastiness, lying, race-baiting and uncontrollable thirst for power? Misogynist! Spell out specific Obama policies, ideas, positions, et cetera, and how they're better than the 'dog's? Kool-aid drinker! Never are any actual, logical, well-thought-out counter-arguments given. She's got the uneducated vote, alright...

            Well, ***** that. Go forth, not-so-gentle retards, with your IQs of 54, your protective helmets and your "Vote for Hillary" signs. Ignore her incompetence, rudeness and dirty politics, and label Obama supporters what you will. But know that Hilldog ruined her prospects, her reputation, and her once-massive support ALL BY HERSELF.
          • biotch, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1On the contrary,
            Its more ignorant to have hated someone without giving them a chance than to have listened and collected information and formulated an opinion that way.
          • alk509, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1@biotch:

            Once again, the stupidity and mental laziness of what I presume to be a Hilldog supporter shows through: Ignoring the lame tu quoque fallacy involved whenever you make an argument of the form "I may be stupid, but you're stupider!", you assume that in the past 15+ years since Hilldog's been in the national public eye, jsmith39 never "listened and collected information and formulated an opinion" about her. For you to be able to claim that jsmith39 never gave the 'dog a chance before deciding not to vote for her, he/she must have necessarily heard about Hilldog for the first time sometime *after* she decided to run for the Democratic nomination, and dismissed her immediately - which is absurd considering she's a former first lady, a current U.S. senator, and one half of one of the most recognizable names in American politics.

            But no, the only way to dislike Hilldog is to not have ever learned enough about her to have an informed opinion.

            ***** retarded, I'm telling you.
          • biotch, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1alk509
            first of all ... calm down..
            Second ... he stated himself "That bitch never had my vote"
            That implies he never ""listened and collected information and formulated an opinion""
            Im not saying you or anyone else is "stupider" ... Im just contending that an immediate dismissal of someone is ignorant.
            Third as you can see above, I dont support Hillary so your presumption is wrong.
    • mrASSMAN, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Higher quality video: http://www.hulu.com/watch/19689/saturday-night-liv ...
    • deanlowe, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4SNL is now suddenly great but they sucked when they mocked the media's Obama love fest.
      • sleepwalkers, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3No, it's far from "suddenly great." SNL still sucks, but there have been a few bright spots in the past few years (Digital Shorts, a few select sketches, etc.).
        Dude, funny is funny, even if it makes fun of what you like.
  • Merb, on 05/11/2008, -23/+12Her fivehead is out of control...
    • JoshReflek, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1hah!, i have a friend, jan, that we call 'fivehead'....=p
  • Wattree, on 05/11/2008, -128/+14AN OPEN LETTER TO THE DNC:
    PARTY LOYALTY GOES BOTH WAYS

    Nervous over the growing fracture in the Democratic Party, the DNC is vigorously reminding Democratic voters of the importance of backing the Democratic nominee in order to win the November election. The problem with position, however, is the DNC its placing all of the responsibility for Democratic its success on the voters, while skirting its responsibility to act appropriately in its own regard. Party loyalty goes both ways.

    In light of what the nation has gone through in the past seven years, political parties can no longer expect the voters to just fall in and march in lockstep to the party line. That’s what’s gotten us to where we are today–involved in a senseless war, without jobs, losing our homes, and with the very pillars of our society under attack.

    The Democratic Party is sure to argue that it is for precisely these reasons that we must stick together. But that is only true if you’re prepared to accept the proposition that everything that’s gone wrong in the past seven years is entirely the Republican’s fault, and that is clearly not the case.

    While it is true that our current condition is primarily due to Republican greed, shortsightedness, an ineptitude, it is also true that we find ourselves in this condition as a result of the total impotence of the Democratic Party. Democratic politicians have been absolutely gutless for the past seven years. Instead of fighting for the soul of this nation, and the ideals they profess to believe in, Democrats been basing their action on the direction of the wind; and instead of standing up for what was in the best interest of the nation, they’ve been cowering in the corner, desperately trying to protect their own political careers.

    But now that the Republican Party has all but self-destructed, the Democrats have chosen this moment to come strutting out, to telling us about all they want to do to protect our interest. Where were they before the Republican Party all but dropped dead of gluttony? If the Republican Party is indeed in the throes of death, it’s only resulting from the Democrats allowing them to gorge themselves to death. And even now, the Democrats don’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to two egomaniacal Republicrats within their own ranks.

    The DNC should have told Hillary Clinton initially that changing the rules regarding Florida and Michigan in the middle of the game purely for her accommodation was out of the question. They should have been unequivocal that the decision was made in the beginning of the primaries, and everyone agreed, including Hillary, that the delegates from those states would not be counted due their violation of DNC rules. Case closed.

    Had DNC been immediately decisive when the Clintons initially sent up their trial balloon, they would have recognized that they were stepping over the line of fairness. But when the DNC was indecisive, and showed a sign of weakness in carrying out its responsibility, the Clintons smelled blood, and now their trial balloon has become a demand.

    So catering to the Clintons and dragging its feet in this matter is only going to complicate things further. The Clintons have no intentions of allowing the Democratic Party to remain unified. Before the Clintons decided upon their course of action, they not only took into account the affect it would have on Obama supporters, but also how it would affect all fair minded voters across this land.

    They then decided upon a gamble. They knew that due to Obama’s popularity, Hillary would never become president unless he was brought down. So they decided they were going to do whatever they had to do to tear Sen. Obama down, then even if Hillary didn’t get the nomination this year, Obama would still be so damaged that he would lose the election, in which case, she would run in 20012.

    They’ve already accepted the fact that their course of action would deeply divide the party, but, ironically, they’re depending on Sen. Obama’s good character to help rally support for Hillary, gambling that Democrats are so desperate to get the Republicans out of office, they’d hold their nose and vote for Hillary in spite of her behavior. They realized it was a big gamble, but they calculated a slim chance was better than no chance at all.

    I know, there are those who will say not even the Clintons could be so Machiavellian in nature, but look at the facts–this is a woman who agreed not to count the votes of Michigan and Florida, then even while ahead, managed to leave her name on the ballad in Michigan as an insurance policy.

    And we mustn’t forget that one of Hillary’s earliest influences was radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In fact, she did her colleges thesis on him–a document that the Clintons have managed to be held securely under lock and key at Wellesley College. But now, Hillary’s current tactics are right out of Alinsky’s 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.”

    Among Alinsky’s rules is to always “personalize “ the issue. He taught that “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” He also says that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” That rule comes to mind in Hillary’s declaration that “all Obama has is a speech.” Another one of Alinsky’s rules is, “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Thus, Hillary’s threat to divide the party. Alinsky goes on to advise that you “Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition”, and “push a negative hard and deep.” And finally he instructs that you “pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Hillary has held to Alinsky’s so snugly that it’s almost as if he’s her campaign manager, post mortem.

    So the DNC might as well make its stand now–and the earlier the better. Because there is nothing they can do to head off a crisis within the party short of handing the nomination to Hillary. It is part of Hillary’s game plan to polarize the party, because she knew from the very beginning that if all else failed, her end game would involve a Hail Mary.

    Eric L. Wattree
    wattree.blogspot.com
    • Deadpixel1221, on 05/11/2008, -4/+70Yeah, good luck trying to get me to read all that on a Sunday morning.
      • cheezintern, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3Holy Cow today's Sunday already! yea my attention only lasts the first sentence or to.
        • Deadpixel1221, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Well It was Saturday when I started reading Wattree's post, maybe I'm just a slow reader... "Brevity is the soul of Digg."
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -6/+2And people praise Obama because he speaks in paragraphs instead of sound bites...
    • AshamedAmerican, on 05/11/2008, -6/+57Buried for the sake of scrolling.
    • Tenlow, on 05/11/2008, -2/+17On top of tl;dr, you had to go and spam your blog at the same time. Spam is an auto bury/block from me.
    • MtheoryX, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7WTF, asshat much?

      First, if you're going to spam your ***** blog, just post the link and be done with it so we can all move on like normal.

      Second, how the ***** do you think any of us are going to spend more time reading your stupid ***** drivel than we did watching the god damned video that this whole ***** thing is about?
    • Depthfunction, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Thanks for including your middle initial. I wouldn't want to confuse you with all of the other Eric Wattrees out there.
    • Zipko, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I read the whole post, and it's pretty pointless. Cliffnotes for the rest of you: Hilary's so selfish that she would be willing to do anything to win the nomination, even if it means destroying the party in the process.

      Everyone already knows that, the only original opinion I found in there was that Hilary would actually prefer to destroy the party in order to ensure Obama loses in November. The reason being that it would be easier for her to run in 2012 with an incumbent republican rather than a democrat.
    • Nerolus, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4WALL OF TEXT.
    • Wattree, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0This was not a comment, and it was not submitted to Digg by me. What's being referred to as a comment is an article that I wrote. And as for using my middle initial, I routinely use it when I sign off on my column--after all, it is my initial.

      Finally, in spite of your knee-jerk and presumptuous responses, I'd like to thank you nevertheless. As a writer, I'd rather be attacked than ignored, any day.

      Eric L. Wattree

  • SheilaNoya, on 05/11/2008, -10/+342It's strange how we get more truth from our comedians than we do from our news media.
    • nothinghere, on 05/11/2008, -8/+67Agreed, John Stewart ain't afraid to call it like he sees it.
      • Emnsta, on 05/11/2008, -0/+21Jon*
      • 4d669, on 05/11/2008, -14/+4Yeah right. Have you ever heard him calling out for Cheney or Bush impeachment or criticizing Kerry for not doing anything to stop the electrocution of a handcuffed boy for asking a question? He's just a democrat fanatic who hides behind the comedian curtain. Just as pathetic as O'Reily in my opinion.
        • aliengoods, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5If you're referring to the "Don't taze me bro" guy, he was hardly a kid and Kerry was telling the cops to let him speak. You're a *****.
        • sleepwalkers, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4C'mon, man. At the end of the day, he's still *A COMEDIAN!* I don't think comedians should be responsible for anything but making us laugh. If you actually watched The Daily Show, he does harass Democrats. However, I fail to see how he's "just as pathetic as O'Reilly" considering Bill has a show on Fox *NEWS* and does nothing but spew crap day-in and day-out.
          The bottom line is that Jon Stewart is supposed to be funny more than anything else, and he and his staff accomplish that task. Period.
      • deanlowe, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2I didn't see anyone here cheering him when he mentioned Obama's middle name during the Oscars.
        • Tyrghast, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3What's in a name?
          • deanlowe, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Ask the people who freak out when Obama's middle name is mentioned.
      • rodomontader, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Jon Stewart FTW
    • svetty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+22The truth is funny.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -2/+12That's the way it has always been.
    • absconder22, on 05/11/2008, -0/+68If you read any Shakespeare, you'd know that the Fool is always the one that tells the truth.
      • Joeyrev, on 05/11/2008, -0/+16That's because the jester was allowed the privilege of making fun of his superiors (ie - the king). If anyone else tried that they'd be on their way to the hangman.
    • dagamer34, on 05/11/2008, -2/+11Comedians don't get caught up in the reality distortion field (RDF) like the rest of the press.
      • trumpydumpy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2RDF can also stand for "Republican / Democrat Farce"
    • chrissku, on 05/11/2008, -0/+21This impersonator is the best I've seen doing Hillary Clinton.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=aRbBJi0jfdU
      • mrASSMAN, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Oh god this is so awesome. Those were her manipulative techniques down to a tee.
      • geoboy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Ha... I never realized Hillary Clinton is pretty much Ellen DeGeneres with a deep, raspy voice displaying robotic emotions and feigned enthusiasm.
    • TimeLincoln, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Because the stuff is so frivilous and obvious it is the truth, which is why its funny.
    • Dugg2Death, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Sometimes only the jester can speak the truth to the king.
  • Kiwi90fsu, on 05/11/2008, -20/+9It would not have been as funny if it weren't so so so truthful.
  • GhostWithToast, on 05/11/2008, -22/+6http://youtube.com/watch?v=tLFJTc3oExE
  • 2h3px, on 05/11/2008, -2/+49That's actually a convincing arguement, better than anything that's come out of her uncomfortably grinning mouth in a while.
  • jlee2081, on 05/11/2008, -1/+85SNL nailed it
    • endustry, on 05/11/2008, -8/+2So if all of Hillary's supporters are all racist, does that mean that Obama's grandma is voting for her, too?
  • y2kbg, on 05/11/2008, -30/+10the sooner she loses the nomination, the sooner she can get back to cooking and cleaning
  • kipmartin, on 05/11/2008, -14/+72SNL is like Hillary--old school, predictable, and always selling out.
    • Charlesbian, on 05/11/2008, -6/+8by selling out do u mean they switched from clinton to obama? They never really endorsed anyone.
      • RebeL5K, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10Oh please - they all but endorsed her a couple months ago and have been largely credited with her wins in the Ohio and Texas primaries after the media decided SNL was right and started agonizing over everything Obama did and did not do.
        • withincontext, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Tina Fey was definitely plugging HRC.
      • vodkataime, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Actually, on the past few shows they've been making fun of the media's bias towards Hillary and support for Obama.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 05/11/2008, -1/+44Huh, SNL got it right this time.
  • RedPhalanx, on 05/11/2008, -11/+29I can't believe that in the election the Democrats should never lose, they might actually pull it off.

    Obama carries younger voters that would never vote for Clinton, and Clinton carries blue-collar workers that would never vote for Obama. Unite or Die.

    P.S. You can say that Clinton's voters are racist, but that won't get them to vote Obama. You don't win supporters with insults, no matter how true.
    • DetpackJump, on 05/11/2008, -0/+19P.S. Obama doesn't write for SNL
    • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -11/+22Racists tend to vote republican anyway. Republicans support all the racists policies: Anti-affirmative action, pro-racial profiling, our insanely racist drug policies, anti-immigration, etc.
      • quiksliver, on 05/11/2008, -6/+12whose digging him down? this is by and large what the majority of the republican party thinks, sure the "ron paul" wing of the part may differ, but there a single digit group
        • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Yeah, its not a secret. The Republican Party under Reagan won the Southern states for the Republican party for the first time since the Civil War because they appealed to racism. It was called the "Southern Strategy" - many prominent republicans have spoken about it.
          • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1No, it was Richard Milhous Nixon who coined and originated the "Southern Strategy". He was the Republican who was winning Southern states for the first time, using a racially divisive campaign.
        • Puppyfam, on 05/11/2008, -5/+28I'm digging him down because he listed "anti-affirmative action" as being racist. Affirmative action is the very definition of racism: favoring one race over another. You want racial equality in this country? Start treating all races equally: no one gets a leg-up just because of their skin color.

          In all seriousness, can someone please explain how our drug policies are racist? I'm sure there can be an argument made for their enforcement being racially unjust (more aggressively targeting minority offenders), but I'm failing to understand how "crack is whack" is a racist policy.
          • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -5/+10#1) Affirmative action corrects for past racism. To pretend that after centuries of oppression, suddenly providing equal rights to blacks was enough to make us even-steven is just plain ignorant. Economic oppression is just as real as legal oppression, and affirmative action is the only way to correct for it.

            #2) Our drug policies are racist because although drug use is just as high in white suburbs as black inner city neighborhoods, blacks are incarcerated for drug crimes at an extremely high rate, while white kids almost never see jail time, or even a fine for drug use.
          • Puppyfam, on 05/11/2008, -4/+7I struggle with your first point. One one hand, in theory it sounds very fair; I'm proud to be a part of a country that is willing to go out of their way to correct past injustices. On the other hand, the method of affirmative action creates as many injustices as it tries to correct. It compensates individuals who have never been racially wronged by this country and effectively punishes those who have never committed a raciest act in their life.
            I can buy number two, but I believe that's a problem with our enforcement of the laws, not the laws themselves. And even then, I'm guessing its not a race issue, it's a question of cost/benefit. Because urban drug use is rampant, the police focus their efforts on cities. Busting up a suburban drug ring is more work for less benefit. I might be wrong, but I have problems thinking our law enforcement agencies are involved in a big, racist conspiracy to put away more black druggies than white ones.
          • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -3/+7#1) Whether or not a black person's family was personally wronged by slavery or segregation, or whether a white person's family contributed to the problem is completely irrelevant to the fairness of affirmative action. White people, as a CLASS, receive benefits solely by virtue of their skin color, and blacks regardless of their personal or family history are at a disadvantage because of their skin color alone. (for example, a recent study showed that a white person with a criminal record was more likely to get a callback for a job interview than an identically qualified black person with no criminal record). This is what affirmative action corrects for.

            #2) Your problem with the law enforcement is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the law itself. We don't live in a fair world, we live in THIS ONE. The intention to be racist is not a factor. Economic realities of law enforcement result in blacks being prosecuted and convicted at a much higher rate than whites- and this serves only to reinforce the economic disenfranchisement of the black population, and so the system purpetuates itself.
          • Puppyfam, on 05/12/2008, -6/+1I think your drug law point can be applied to affirmative action as well. We don't live in a fair world. The government's attempt to correct past wrongs only deepens the divide between the races and invites resentment (how is a white person supposed to feel when he is passed up in favor of a less-qualified minority?)

            I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying your drug-law argument. We shouldn't change drug laws to benefit blacks any more than we should change DUI laws to benefit rednecks. The laws are there for a reason. If drug busts are hurting the black population, the solution is for them to stop breaking the law.

            Wow. That sounded more than a little cold.
          • FairDinkumMate, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5The drug law issue has to do with the laws-
            eg. Why is the minimum sentence significantly larger for crack cocaine possession than for cocaine possession? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that more minorities & poor people use crack cocaine & more whites & wealthy people use cocaine?
            Laws such as these are the reason that the poor & minorities are majorly over represented among criminals with drug convictions than any other.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Affirmative action only draws resentment from white people who don't recognize that they are members of a class that owes a duty to black people (as a class). I would argue that, resentment is a measure of the social state of race relations. Affirmative action is not trying to address the social state of race relations, only the economic state. When black achieve economic equality, social equality will follow. The opposite is not necessarily true.

            We should abandon drug laws because drugs are a medical problem, not a criminal one.
          • Puppyfam, on 05/12/2008, -5/+4I simply don't see it that way. We live in America; I am responsible for my actions, not the actions of my forefathers or my "class." I'm angered and sickened by the treatment blacks received in this country in the past. But I don't think I (as a white male) should be punished for offenses I've never committed. Also, I don't like the implied message of affirmative action: "If you're black you don't have to work as hard to get something because society owes you." That's not the mindset I want instilled in *anyone.* We should be apologetic for the past, but the artificial boost of affirmative action sends the wrong message and unfairly punishes and rewards based solely on the color of your skin.

            And since when are medical issues not governed by laws? We have a list of drugs that are illegal because our lawmakers have deemed them harmful to society. I'm sorry if the enforcement of these laws have taken an unusually harsh toll on the black community. But please don't fault the drug laws; fault those who break the laws for their own actions.
          • rheaume, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2"Start treating all races equally"

            Yep after centuries of racism, itll be just that easy
          • Puppyfam, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1You're right. I'm not naive... I don't think we have achieved or are close to achieving true racial equality. But the obstacles are now individuals people and their prejudices, not government policies.

            How can we believe we are making progress towards the elimination of racism when our government endorses policies that punish and reward based solely on race?
          • FairDinkumMate, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Puppyfam if you don't like affirmative action - try this. How about a 100% inheritance tax? The money & goods raised from this can then be spread among the people 'equally' so that everyone starts off at least financially 'equal'. This wouldn't help the inherent educational problems but would certainly go along way to eliminating the need for any affirmative action as everyone would then have an equal chance at affording the education, etc that they require.
            What do you mean your family has owned your cotton farm for 200 years & you don't think it's fair that it be taken away?
            Do you really think George Bush would ever have become President if everyone started out equally?
          • Puppyfam, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3FairDinkumMate, it's simply not the government's job to create economic equality. Affirmative action and the ideas associated with it are noble but simply not feasible.

            The 19th Amendment didn't give women two votes to correct for them not being allowed to vote in the past. Why? Because the act of trying to correct past injustices is in fact unfair. The same is true of affirmative action.
          • FairDinkumMate, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2You need to try to understand that affirmative action isn't designed to give minorities, females or whoever it is targeted toward an advantage in society, it's goal is to level the playing field for future generations. Eg. Children that have college graduates for parents, are significantly more likely to graduate from college themselves. This isn't because other parents don't want their kids to go to college, but because those college graduate parents have learnt things in their lives that help their kids to achieve the same thing. This is made up of many factors - higher income, better understanding of the college system & its requirements, an increased ability to help their kids with their schoolwork, etc.
            Now if you take a minority group that was denied this level of education previously, their kids will then be less likely to go to college and their kids kids(grandkids) will be less likely & so on. In this type of situation, no action results in the injustices of the past being felt in current generations(& there are many more similar issues such as land & business ownership, etc).
            Affirmative action is designed as a short term(1-2 generations) equaliser to attempt to ensure that the effects of the discrimination practised in the past are eliminated.
            If you truly believe all should compete equally with regard to college education, you should address the fact that there are more rich, white kids in universities that didn't meet the general admission standards than there are affirmative action students..
            An example for you though - "The most egregious example of pay-for-Crimson play is that of Jared Kushner , now the youthful owner of The New York Observer. While Jared was applying to colleges, his dad, New Jersey billionaire developer Charles Kushner , pledged $2.5 million to Harvard, to be paid in installments. An official at Kushner's high school told Golden: ``There was no way anybody in . . . the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard. His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought, for sure, there was no way this was going to happen." Kushner graduated from Harvard in 2003." SOURCE: The Boston Globe Sep 4, 2006

            There is also quite a good book on the subject if you're interested - Dan Golden's "The Price of Admission" http://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Col ...

            So if you would like to rally against inequality, I'd suggest this is a far more clear cut example of abuse than whether or not AA is feasible.
          • Puppyfam, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You're right. I don't think that's fair, and it does anger me a little. However, again, the cure is more harmful than the ailment. It's unfair that rich kids can beat the college admissions system with bribes, but what is your solution? Pass a law against it? In that case, the colleges would be lacking the donations they would have received to put the rich kids through; that cost is passed on to other students, raising the already suffocatingly high cost of college.

            Again, I think affirmative action is a noble idea. But I have a hard time believing it's working as well as you say it is. Is it really encouraging kids who never would have went on to higher education to do so? Or does it just make it easier for the ones who probably would have anyway? If AA was doing a smashing job with the former point, I would have less problems with it. But I fear the latter happens much more often. In that case, it promotes a sense of entitlement; it unfairly passes up kids who are just as motivated and qualified based on race/gender or whatever.
          • FairDinkumMate, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Obviously the goal of AA is to get the number of minority students from the target group to at least a level equal to that groups representation in the general community. How could this make it easier for kids that would have gone anyway? AA only comes into effect when the number of kids from the minority aren't equal to the general population. eg. If 10% of the general population is African-American & 50 out of 500 kids that enter a college in a given year on generic entry qualification are African-American then no AA is needed or used. It only comes into effect if only 40 African-American kids are entering. In that case, the 10 next most qualified African-American kids would be admitted under AA. These are the 10 kids that wouldn't have been able to get in without AA, so obviously it gives opportunities to kids that wouldn't have had them otherwise.
            The biggest complaint I hear about this is a somewhat legitimate one from someone who believes that they are one of the 10 kids that would have been the next in line if it weren't for AA. Now there are 2 issues here. One is, had the AA kids had the same advantages(as discussed earlier) as them, they probably would have qualified ahead of them anyway. The other is, while they complain about the 10 AA kids that "took their spot" nothing is said or done(or mostly even known) about the 15 kids that wouldn't have qualified under any circumstance except for their parents buying the college a new $2.5 million gym!
            I don't understand your comment regarding a 'sense of entitlement'. How does a kid that qualifies through AA gain a sense of entitlement. I would think most of them(as would most kids that get into college) would feel a sense of honor & opportunity.
          • Puppyfam, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1The "sense of entitlement" applies as much those who have jumped ahead in line through AA as those who have rich parents. For the rich kids, the act of beating the system--of getting into a college through a bribe--sends the message, "You're rich! You can do anything you want, just pay off the right people." For people who benefit from AA, it sends the message, "You're disadvantaged! Society owes you!" Both are a bad, harmful mindset.

            If kids are taking advantage of a opportunity given to them through AA, I would assume they have a fair amount of ambition; these are good kids. These are kids who want to do something with their life, and are given an unfair artificial boost through AA, based only on their race/gender.

            Had AA been widely successful in encouraging kids who lacked ambition to apply themselves in school, I would have less problems with it. As it stands, it offers little incentive for kids to make something out of their life, and simply gives kids who already have ambition an unfair advantage.
    • Fritz, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1OK...so, what's your point? That SNL shouldn't point out the truth about the underlying race game that Hillary is playing? Even if her racist, blue-collar supporters don't vote Obama it is still funny (and accurate)
  • dawg109, on 05/11/2008, -19/+5She needs to pull having a racist pastor for 20 years out of her skeleton closet.
  • ralphthemagi, on 05/11/2008, -38/+118Here's the video from NBC: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play. ...
    And from Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/19689/saturday-night-liv ...
    And a crappy rip from YouTube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tLFJTc3oExE

    Please stop with the Huffington Post ***** blogspam. Stop giving them money to continue gaming Digg.
    • quaunaut, on 05/11/2008, -10/+33I honestly doubt they're gaming digg, considering its one of the most respected and visited political blogs out there. Its not hard to get a hundred frequent visitors to hit a link- and they are all individual people. If thats gaming, then maybe its time we just shut Digg down.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/11/2008, -16/+7Most respected? It contains nothing but re-bagged content or total fabrication designed specifically for the Digg/Reddit audience in order to maximize ad revenue. It has no editors and no journalists. It is the epitome of blogspam.
        • Joeyrev, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8Re-bagged content? No editors/journalists? I'm pretty sure that's what makes a blog a blog. If it had original content and in-the-field journalists, it would be a newspaper.
        • Ransom13, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I guess you don't get outside Digg much?
        • pandorazboxx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The "editor" for the huffington post was on the colbert show last week. and there are different writers for that site, they may not be newspaper journalists, but at least they're getting paid for writing, which is kind of what a journalist is supposed to do...
    • DeloreanDank, on 05/11/2008, -7/+34Those sites you linked to have more ***** on them than the Huff Post original. You sound like a little baby crying about where the video is from. Who gives a ***** as long as it works?
    • ExitMoose, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Please fix your links or use tinyurl next time.
    • thetanman, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2It's not so bad... I found this while there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/eva-mende ...
    • megahan, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2who cares? Watch the video and log out? WTF? I'd go to a Republican site if it had what I needed.
  • ecarver530, on 05/11/2008, -3/+42"turned"?

    they just do what's funny. they don't pick a candidate. you guys just see what you want to see
    • Jambi, on 05/11/2008, -6/+21I couldn't care less whether SNL loves or hates Hillary, but you claiming that SNL actually does anything "funny" is just going too far. That show is the opposite of funny. It's like kryptonite to funny. John Belushi playing a samurai running a deli was funny. Chevy Chase as President Ford was funny. Even Chris Farley on a Japanese gameshow was funny; modern SNL isn't. I'd fire everyone and hand the show over to Don Rickles and Eddie Izzard to run.
      • cambob76, on 05/11/2008, -6/+4So don't watch it then. Oh, you don't? Then how do you know it sucks? You watch it just to see how bad it is? You are a sad little.. man?
        • Jambi, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2I'll occasionally see a recent clip of SNL linked in some article, so I'll take a look, to see if it's gotten any better. Also, I occasionally get a PM from a friend about how great the clip he's just linked me is. So I get a decent look at a lot of the new stuff; it's just sub-par.
      • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Anyone who thinks Don Rickles is funny isn't qualified to lecture anyone else about funny.
        • Jambi, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Anyone who thinks that Don Rickles isn't funny is either an overly sensitive idiot, or hasn't seen some of his better work. (or seen him on the Tonight Show opposite Carson)
          • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I don't judge him by his better work, I judge him by the fact that his better work is sooooooooo rare. He was mildly funny 30 years ago and he's been coasting by on his reputation ever since. I don't think even in his heyday he ever did anything worth remembering. I dare you to find me one funny skit of his. Just post a link. If its funny, I'll give you and him props.
      • Synn, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Why is John Belushi playing a samurai in a deli funny? Please explain that to me. It doesn't even make any sense and is completely random and you think THAT is funny? And before you even say anything...yes I have seen those skits of belushi as a samurai and I never found them funny at all.
        • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2I've never found that skit funny either.
    • ecarver530, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4regardless, you have to admit that the newer SNLs cannot compare to the 80s and 90s. Dana Carvey? Will Ferrell? Kevin Nealon? Chris Farley? Dan Aykroyd? Amy Poehler is the best SNL cast member right now, which just goes to show how lacking it is on talent. (Don't get me wrong, I love Amy, but she's nothing like those greats during the golden years)
      • gogog0, on 05/11/2008, -5/+2chris farley... are you kidding. the early-mid 90's era snl (farley, sandler, etc.) is considered by critics the worst snl era by FAR. late 80's-early 90's is my favorite (hartman, myers, etc)
        • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+11) If the CRITICs say Farley and Sandler sucked, then it MUST have been the worst. Critics are tools.

          2) The worst season, in my guestimation, was the post Will Ferrell era. Not because I was a WF fan, just that after he left, there was... NOTHING funny. I was staggered at how unfunny and time killing the show was. There have been previous dead periods in SNL history, but wow, never did I feel cheated that I wasn't paid to watch an entire 90 mins show without a single chuckle. I'm a huge fan of Darrell Hammond, but when he wasn't doing Clinton, it was pretty dead. I think that was the period that had Molly Shannon and Chris Kattan, and I HATED them both. But I had long abandoned SNL at that point.
          And Farley and Sandler era blew away those guys on they funny meter. I probably stopped watching at the point Mike Myers left, but Farley and Sandler could at least put up memorable skits that made me laugh. Its insulting to F&S to compare them to the post-Ferrell cast.

          3) My favorite was the original cast, minus Chevy Chase, which was 2nd season onward, up to the point that Belushi and Ackroyd left. The Eddie Murphy era was a very close 2nd.

          4) Then there was the lost season, with talents like Billy Crystal, who was actually quite funny. (I'm not sure if that was the same cast with losers like Charles Rocket, Robert Downey Jr, and Anthony Michael Hall.) All I could remember when Mike Donahue(?) and Jean Doumajian(?) was producing, that was supposed the worst, but it wasn't. People might have liked Martin Short, I sure did in his SCTV days, but he sucked on SNL. That *might* have been the 2nd worst season.
  • shyboy2008, on 05/11/2008, -31/+10Lauren Michaels is a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. Anything political on the show reflects his ideas.
    • evil-doer, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13lauren?
      • doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3You didn't hear about the gender-reassignment operation?
    • omnithought, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12Who the hell is Lauren? It's Lorne
    • robdiggity, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Who's a mouthpiece? Dude you just totally parroted something you heard somebody else say. Your understanding of the man's name was phonetic at best.
    • earther, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Obviously you're a ditto-head.
  • lazyfisherman, on 05/11/2008, -17/+5SNL thinks it's safe to tear her apart now that she's lost and won't be able to enjoy the real ultimate power of being a US President. They don't want the army invading Rockefeller plaza looking for a little payback and WMDs either...
    • EvilCan, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5You're retarded.
    • PoonGnarfler, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Now kids, don't forget to wear your tinfoil hats...
  • stonewaljacksn, on 05/11/2008, -31/+25this is getting ridiculous. support obama, but stop supporting huffington post's ***** blogspam! jesus.
  • AwwHellYeah, on 05/11/2008, -22/+13i wanna cum all over amy poehlers face
    just sayin'
  • BTom14, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13Very funny but she needs to work on her raspy voice
  • Jadler88, on 05/11/2008, -1/+147My attention quickly shifted from the video to the topless Eva Mendes link on the right...
    • DemDude, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Wait, that wasn't what this originally linked to? I totally forgot about everything else when I saw that link...
    • Scaryclouds, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4fap fap fap fap
  • donsnyc, on 05/11/2008, -2/+16Hillary should just exit with grace and dignity asap.
    • Misinformant, on 05/11/2008, -2/+18Little late for that, isn't it?
    • kirakun, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11She has to learn what those two words mean first.
  • Lutraphobia, on 05/11/2008, -10/+6My dad wrote this- just throwing that out there
    • maserding, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Don't SNL writers usually collaborate with one another? Or are there separate groups of writers for specific types of sketches, such as political satire?

      I feel like an ass for taking your bait if this is complete *****, but I have loved SNL since I was a wee little gal and it's always been a dream to write for it, so I hope you're not lying.
      • Lutraphobia, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1My dad's been writing for 30 years...I'm sure you've seen "change bank" and "grayson moorhead". His name is jim downey. look him up.
  • Donoram, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8Golden! Good to see they're shaking the image of Hillary bias that they were trumpeting a month ago
    • culbeda, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You mean the show that let Tracy Jordan go on and say (in response to Tina Fey's pro-Hillary bit): "Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new President, Bitch!"
  • headzoo, on 05/11/2008, -12/+10Wow, that's pretty much a 360 degree turn from SNL. Hillary doesn't have many supporters left.
    • Jadler88, on 05/11/2008, -0/+29Wouldn't it be a 180 degree turn?
    • knumbknuts, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2I think in all things pertaining to Hillary, you have to factor in an extra 180 degrees because she's so duplicitous.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2From the movie Last Action Hero:

      Tony Vivaldi: What is this, Benedict? First you're my friend; now you turn a... 360 on me!
      Benedict: 180, you stupid, spaghetti-slurping cretin - *180*! If I did a 360, I'd go completely around and end up back where I started!
      Tony Vivaldi: What?
      Benedict: Trust me!
      [shoots him]
  • onionlayer, on 05/11/2008, -14/+7Now I remember why I don't watch SNL anymore.
  • omnithought, on 05/11/2008, -1/+53You gotta wonder how Hillary sleeps at night. I mean besides hanging upside down in a dungeon.
    • Pinkertinkle, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I think at night she flies around on a broom.
  • yourpalOZ, on 05/11/2008, -11/+5huffingtonpost.com used to like the Clintons back in the 80s didn't they? I guess the Clintons screwed them too.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9... what was huffingtonpost.com hosted on back in the '80s', a Tandy TRS-80?
    • dagamer34, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9It didn't exist back then? It was founded in 2005.
    • yourpalOZ, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Old lady Huffington was alive and whinning back then
  • sovereign3, on 05/11/2008, -7/+27Digg: the Unofficial Huffington Post RSS feed.
    • smartass007, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2they should just merge the two sites and get it over with...wouldn't even be noticeable to most digger/huffwhores
    • megahan, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1man, chill!
  • MadOgre, on 05/11/2008, -8/+2If Hillary actually looked as cute as this comedian chick... he might be President - and an FHM cover girl.
  • averagejoesgym, on 05/11/2008, -0/+24Jeez...that was brutal.
  • Misinformant, on 05/11/2008, -13/+7IRON MY SHIRT
  • jhkilroy, on 05/11/2008, -34/+8OBAMA IS A ***** DICKWEED ! ***** HIM - ***** YOU LIBERAL ASSHOLES!
    • chrissku, on 05/11/2008, -1/+16Awwww....sounds like someone foresees the impending bloodbath the republicans are facing November. Sounds like someones feelings are hurt. Awwwwww.... :(
      • Deadpixel1221, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11Conservative Republicans scared of a black man? Who would've thought?
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8LOL I love this *****. People, we are gonna see these right wing tools' heads explode in a couple of months. Man this is gonna be sweet.
    • BestJaxx, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7Ewww... rednecks. You seriously tell me one negative thing about Obama, and I will raise you one with the horrible ***** your ancient candidate has done.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4We love you too.
  • summercrush, on 05/11/2008, -16/+2let me go along with whats popular and in now....HILLARY SUCKS.

    so does obama. they all suck. puppets.
  • chrissku, on 05/11/2008, -11/+7If anyone deserves to be called the 'C' word it's definitely Hillary.
    • EvilCan, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3Nobody deserves to be called the C word...not even republicans.
    • runCMD, on 05/11/2008, -9/+4At the risk of inciting negative uses for the letter C ...

      Hillar Clinton is ...
      Couragous.
      Caring.
      Candid.
      Civil.
      Cultured and
      Charitable.

      and last but not least, would make a great
      Commander In Chief. : )
      • FearlessFreep, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Cougar ??
      • ThantiK, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Only someone using positive incarnations of "the C word" would get dugg down more than the original comment. Way to go, you've officially lost at the internet.
    • fantasmacanino, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Get rid of the Seaward.
  • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -14/+7None of them have ethical standards!
    Hillary's just not as good at hiding it.
  • knumbknuts, on 05/11/2008, -9/+24Serious question: is there some kind of sponsorship thing between digg and huffington post?
    • smpx, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Serious Answer: Probably.
    • geoboy, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Yes.
    • megahan, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Answer: oh, wow! It's a conspiracy! Glad you freed me from the chains of my stupidity!
  • OverkillTASF, on 05/11/2008, -11/+4I guess you really have to be a fan boy to find that entertaining. Seems like typical recent SNL to me. "Haha, dur, she said racist."
  • cristianorem, on 05/11/2008, -10/+1SNL is ***** lame, but Hillary is a colossal *****
  • flink405, on 05/11/2008, -15/+5Hmmmm....the skit calls voters for Hillary racists because the skit hypothetically claims white Hillary voters won´t vote for a black person.
    But yet a factual over 90% of all Black democratic voters will not vote for the white candidate...are they being racists?
    • rssej, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13So I take it black democrats didn't vote before this election? interesting.
  • Gatfish, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Did anyone else notice that if you go to the NBC SNL site it seems to be hacked?
    • junkwheel, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Apparently Barack himself hacked the site just to correct some spelling mistakes on some articles which were negative for him. He could have deleted them, but he didn't.

      Obama 08
  • legalizeitmon, on 05/11/2008, -3/+48dugg for eva mendez topless
  • troycott, on 05/11/2008, -4/+18the funniest thing on SNL is that fact that they continuously write dead-end, unfunny skits, acted out by a consistently boring cast.
    • novemberdream07, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12i constantly find myself asking why it still exists?
      • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6This is what people have been saying about SNL for years. The truth is, it has NEVER been the consistently hilarious show that people seem to think that it was. There have always been a few golden skits mixed into an ocean of lame go-nowhere bits.

        As we look backwards we choose only to remember the cream of the crop. We all remember how hilarious Wayne's World was, and the Church Lady, and Matt Foley, Motivational Speaker- but we conveniently forget how many insanely pathetic skits Mike Meyers, Dana Carvey and Chris Farley did. I suspect it was the same for Jon Belushi and Chevy Chase and the rest- we remember all the good stuff, but we don't replay the bad.

        In ten years we'll be laughing our asses off replaying the best 2 hours of the 2007-2008 SNL cast and we'll wonder why the 2017 and 2018 cast sucks so bad in comparison.
        • geartype2, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4how do you explain mad tv then? That ***** was never funny.
        • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1At least up to the Eddie Murphy era, you could see even with a failed skit, that the writers/comedians tried to make something redeeming about the bit. After a certain point, the cast/writers generally were more than happy to put up garbage if they thought they could poop out one gem. What really pissed me off when I started seeing complete shows that sucked without one redeeming feature.
      • allisonaxe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3because its an institution. they'll probably never completely get rid of it, but we can hope that they'll get a funnier set of writers... and really, the lack of quality humor has little to do with the cast, and everything to do with the writers: so many of the sketches are not funny, don't have a good comedic flow, and generally don't go anywhere. SNL was best when it was new, and hasn't been *great* since the 90's..... and any "good" that it had left, disapeared from the show when Tina Fey left for 30 rock.
        • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4I've got news for you kid. when we were watching it in the 90s we thought it sucked too.
        • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1That is such a ridiculous statement. As bad as the writers are, the bottom line is the cast is untalented compared to previous years. The reality is that the reason why we have fond memories of the early SNL years was because the shining stars of SNL were WRITING THEIR OWN MATERIAL. I can't think of a single notable character that was originally the idea of a writer, that thought cast member X would be good for it. Eddie Murphy's greatest stuff, like Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, or "I'm Gumby, dammit" was his creations. As was Belushi with Samurai Whatever. As was Dana Carvey and Mike Myers and Chris Farley, etc. etc.. Castmembers back then had to fight to get their stuff in the show, because they understood their ability to land monster contracts lied in making notable appearances onstage. I don't think castmembers today are talented enough to create genuinely great character skits, and it shows.
    • badger500, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It's amazingly unfunny. More amazing is that it was getting laughs. It should have been just awkward stony silence. Nothing wrong with skewering a politician, but do it at least a *little* cleverly! (e.g. Randy Quaid's sketch of Reagan as only pretending to be dumb/avuncular and in fact is really a genius of realpolitik)
    • megahan, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Yeah. They should quit, like Hillary
  • runCMD, on 05/11/2008, -13/+5It wasn't an even slightly funny skit. Looks like they took the words for her script straight out of Digg's Obama supporters mantra. I love the show - but they've been overly nasty this political season. Except to Obama of course. Everybody loves that guy.
    • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Hillary ran a negative campaign. She belittled people who supported Obama as being naive. We didn't appreciate being demeaned, so tore her up on the internet.

      If she'd been more respectful to Obama supporters, we would have been more respectful of her.
    • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1No, sadly you don't see the humor. Its wildly funny to Obama fans, NOT because it demeans Hillary, but it accurately parodies her campaign speaking points, and her attitudinal gaffes. Instead of the unfunny, "You're campaigning on racism" accusation, the skit merely demonstrates what Obama supporters see and hear when Clinton makes her pitch.
  • AzMegladon, on 05/11/2008, -13/+7They must have paid her dumb ass alot to come on SNL and rip herself like that, what a dumb bitch.
  • qxrt, on 05/11/2008, -12/+4So huffingtonpost and Digg ran out of anti-Clinton material so soon that they have to rely on comedic sketches now to put down the candidate? Sad.
    • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3...or there is plenty of anti-Clinton material out there and we just like to mix it up.
      • qxrt, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2I'd hardly call 24/7 Clinton bashing "mixing it up."
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2You ignored the first half of the sentence in favor of using the second half as a jib; that might work in the MSM because they can omit part of what someone said, but on the internet that's a little harder to do.
        • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You see, that's what kills me about Hillary. Detractors aren't swiftboating Hillary, making things up. They are making the argument against HIllary based on the words that came out of her own mouth.

          How on earth can you ignore that fact that she is such a poor liar, that she would make multiple insistences that she took sniper fire while on a visit to Bosnia??? How on earth can you think people are going to ignore that when its time to vote?

          Do you really think being able to better attract white racist voters should make you the Democratic nominee?
  • deadbaby, on 05/11/2008, -11/+8I don't even like Clinton and I thought that bit was lame and unfunny. They're making the same joke over and over again and it's not even a good impersonation of Clinton. The typical YouTube cat video is about 100 times funnier than this garbage.
    • beankitty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1TREADMILL CAT LOLOLOL
    • endustry, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3Get with the program, son. If you're not spewing Obamania from every pour in your body, no one wants to be your friend here.
  • chrissku, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12The sad part is how truethful that video actually is. Probably the most truthful assessment I've seen of Hillary's campaign by the media.
    • Xander512, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Truthful? that entire video was exaggerated opinions for the sake of comedy
      It's fine that Digg is saturated with biased opinions (many of which I agree with), but times like this when we over-zealously accept complete opinions as "truth" is why Digg has almost no credibility (this has happened in pretty much all news sources). Please try to see outside this sheltered single-minded website and understand the big picture.
  • Bunnybutt, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7The skit did not have to be overly funny, they were just pointing out the obvious.
    • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Actually it was just pointing out the obvious was what made the whole bit so hilarious.

      What kind of candidate would keep campaigning so negatively after she's lost any opportunity to win over enough pledged and super delegates, to the point of sabotaging the inevitable nominee? Answer: Sore Loser. (And the uncanny thing is that what Poelar said in the skit was the same thing I've read from Hillary supporter postings.)
      "And its not a knock against my opponent, its just telling the truth."

      Who would publicly say, "I'm more electable because I can get more poor, white voters?". Answer: Someone who's supporter's are racist.
      "And I'm not attacking my opponent, its just the way it is"

      Who would publicly use racism as an argument for electability? Answer: Someone with no moral standards.

      And the rationale that she'd use the argument that McCain was sexist and RACIST overblown and ridiculous? Well, what rational person would claim she dodged sniper fire on a state visit? Or campaign herself into bankrupcy with no credible hope of winning? Or sabotage her future political career? Or claim that its fair to get the MI & FL votes as is?

      "It's not a knock against my opponent, its just the plain truth."
  • requiem3, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1SNL is still running...?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.