(NBC hasn’t entered the 21st century and still doesn’t allow any of its videos on Youtube, so you’ll have to suffer through their version here instead of me embedding it.)
A while ago, Fox News created a show called The 1/2 Hour News Hour. It was explicitly conceived as “a conservative version of The Daily Show,” and it failed miserably. The reason was not because of some vast liberal conspiracy against the conservative movement.
It was because the show wasn’t funny.
I’m not going to bother to really get into a discussion of how liberal The Daily Show really is, because if you agree with me, I’m preaching to the choir, and if you don’t, it’s unlikely I’ll change your mind. However, if you watch it honestly, you’ll realize that Jon Stewart does, indeed, make fun of Democrats quite frequently. He also makes fun of Republicans more, but that’s because “as we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias.”
In short, the reason that The Daily Show is funny is because it places more importance on being funny than it does at being liberal. The reason that The 1/2 Hour News Hour isn’t is because it didn’t.
That’s what I was reminded of when I watched the opening to Saturday Night Live. The only reason that I watched is is because Senator Clinton brought it up in last night’s debate; other than that, I really don’t think SNL is the slightest bit relevant anymore and it hasn’t been funny since Tina Fey left to create her own much funnier show.
The opening confirms that for me.
Obviously, I’m biased because I’ve supported Obama since before he made the decision to run for President. I’m not arguing that the media doesn’t treat Obama better than it treats Hillary; I don’t think it does, but that’s not the point. The point is that it’s something completely valid for a campaign spokesperson or a political analyst to bring up — but not a comedy show.
The skit was not funny; it was the same joke for five minutes and it went on way too long. The skit would have been much funnier if they had poked fun at both candidates. Instead, it let ideology get in the way and didn’t mock the fact that somehow, every time Hillary seems to get cut off, “it’s too important” not to let her finish her thoughts — or any other number of things that she does that are worthy of satirizing. A much funnier — and fairer — skit would have made fun of both candidates equally. To not poke fun at Hillary’s debate performance at all is to suggest that nothing she does is worth mocking.
Being funny always has to trump your own opinions. At first, I just thought I was being too sensitive and imagining that they were putting their personal preferences first, but it made me even more uncomfortable when I saw Tina Fey’s endorsement of Clinton during Weekend Update, complete with outdated and irrelevant reasons as to why more people aren’t supporting her. Tina, I think you’re pretty fucking awesome, but you don’t get it. The vast majority of people are not supporting Obama because Clinton is a woman. They’re supporting him because her positions suck.
I love the fact that Hillary is a woman. If she somehow managed to get elected (which I think is highly doubtful, especially now that’s she insulted every state except the ones that voted for her), I would be irrationally happy simply because she’s a woman. If she were a man, I wouldn’t just dislike her — I would refuse to vote in the general election if she were the nominee. To me, her gender is her only redeeming quality.
I’ve never understood the argument that feminists should vote for her because “it’s time for a woman to be president.” Well, sure, but how is it any less “time” for a black man to be president? Isn’t the reality that we shouldn’t be basing our votes on identity politics? Isn’t it the height of feminism that women across the country are judging her based not on the reproductive organs she happened to be born with, but on the content of her character and her positions? A Maureen Dowd pointed out around the time of the South Carolina primary, “It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line.” I don’t think that’s feminism at all. Yes, Tina, it is a bad thing for there to be a married couple as co-presidents, because it implies that a woman isn’t capable of doing the job alone. Is it really so radical to want the first female president to have gotten there without help from her husband that’s more than love and support?
It’s okay, though. We all know you’re secretly going to vote for John McCain, anyway.































