I heard on the radio this morning that on the plane, there was substantially more laughter coming from the journalists in coach than from the campaign staffers and Palin in the front. For what it’s worth.

My fearless prediction is that because of all the “SEXISM!” calling even when there’s no sexism involved, McCain/Palin is going to start bleeding support among middle aged men.

Oh, she HAS to say that she thought it was funny (even if she didn’t). Otherwise, it’d kill the momentum she had brought to the table…

Wait, Sarah Palin thought that the SNL sketch of Sarah Palin was funny and was in no way offended by the misogynistic connotations of the hit job comedy piece?

SEXIST!

How does one dress up as Tina Fey? Just by wearing different frames?

Seconding what gwangung said. If you start crying sexism outside of directly attacking your opponent, then you’re suggesting that sexism actually exists outside of your opponent’s direct control (and the em-ess-em, ‘course), which would indicate that something needs to be done about it, which they have no intention of doing. They just want to call sexism on the Obama campaign, not actually speak up for women’s equality.

However, speaking of sexism, can I just say the “Drill Baby Drill T-shirt” ad is a little fucked up. I don’t want to start handwringing, but I was a little offended by it.

The last thing Palin wants is more people watching that skit—which is what will happen if it becomes a controversy.

Everything that casts Sarah Palin in a negative light is sexist! And questioning her credentials and positions on policy is sexist, too! Wa wa wa wa! The media are being so mean to her! And media coverage of Hilary Clinton´s campaign as if she were some man-hating shrew bent on world domination was perfectly fine! Let´s cry for Sarah Palin!

Well, “Sarah Palin liked it” and “it was sexist” are not mutually exclusive propositions.

I’m just basing that prediction on the SUSA Virginia poll (the only state poll to come after lipstick gate) that showed McCain bleeding support in that demographic, one that is usually solidly Republican.

I can see why Palin might have liked Tina Fey’s parody: it was neither flattering or unflattering.  In fact, it seemed dead-on.

Hard to criticize that without criticizing herself the way she is and the way she presents herself.  The “Clinton” portrayal was far less flattering, I thought.

Crap, I think it’s a point in Palin’s FAVOR that she got the joke and laughed at it.  (I’m Obama all the way, but just sayin’.)

First ad I’ve ever had to censor, which made me mad.

Thanks for doing it, though. I considered complaining, but I kind of hate making that sort of fuss, especially when you’ve already made clear your “strict separation” policy.

I’ve been spending a bit of time over at littlegreenfootballs just to see how the right is spinning the events of this campaign.  It’s funny to see them talk about racism in the same way as we’re talking about sexism here!  “Obama is crying racism again.  He really needs to stop doing so without reason because the term is losing its meaning?” 

The right has coopted the language of tolerance in many ways but act as though these things, sound policy or being humane, are not quantifiable, based on fact or statistics, and they make phoney arguments out of phoney thinking.

Before, Republicans would just say, oh let the lazy poor suffer or racism exists because minorities are not our equals.  Compassionate conservatism has not given the republican platform a conscience, it’s given them a new vocabulary that is deceptive and unscrupled.  So if this is Republicanism’s latest form, the deceptive lies and unprincipled calculating we’ve been subjected to this past decade, what could the next version possibly look like?

I’m hoping - and call me a dreamer - that they push left with legitimacy which would allow the Democrats to do the same, back to where we were before Clinton appealed so strongly to the center.

Only a sound loss in this election will cause the republican party to do some major retooling.  Otherwise they’ll be sticking to their pretty, empty words for the duration.

If Carly isn’t careful, we’ll just start calling her Harriet-R.

I’m hoping - and call me a dreamer - that they push left with legitimacy which would allow the Democrats to do the same, back to where we were before Clinton appealed so strongly to the center.

They’d only push left in name.  They can push left or they can push right, but they’ll always be selling an agenda heavy on the cronyism and graft.  If John McCain were to suddenly embrace universal health care, I would have no doubt that the new Department Of Health Insurance he proposed would become about as efficient and effective as the Department of Homeland Security - which is to say, a completely useless money-sucking disaster.

Clinton’s appeal to the center focused around functional policies.  He instituted welfare reform that focused on fixing problems in the welfare system rather than just scraping what no one would privatize.

There is no reason why privatization works better or worse than publicly run programs.  We see both of them get screwed up under GOoPer hands all the time.  There is nothing strictly better about “left” leaning ideology.  What is better is the oversight and professionalism that Democrats embrace, and which Republicans neglect while resorting to demagoguery and fear-mongering to maintain their positions.  If you hire bad servants - public or private - they’ll do bad work.  If you pay people exhorbetant amounts of money to lie and cheat you, that’s what they’ll do.  No amount of populism or individualism will change that.  No generic political ideology prevents it.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans has nothing to do with their ideological bent and has everything to do with their technocratic and bureaucratic skills.  Democrats have, historically, been the party of good management.  Republicans have been the party of free ponies and bankruptcy.

Hard to criticize that without criticizing herself the way she is and the way she presents herself.  The “Clinton” portrayal was far less flattering, I thought.

I agree, but I’m not completely sure Hillary does… Poehler has been playing Clinton in that manner all along, and Hillary made a cameo side-by-side with Poehler last season where she seemed to be praising Amy for the parody…

There’s a good reason Carly was fired from HP—I just hope she keeps yapping and confusing the campaign.  She, too, is a liar, and they say spied on employees and competitors with abandon, just like a regular Republican.

I’ve never liked the Poehler Clinton parody.  Always seems a little too knowing and smirky.  I always thought Darrell Hammond should try a Hillary parody.

Carly Fiorina really, really needs to take that oil derrick out of her uptight, right-wing ass.

I like Poehler’s parody because it always seems to me to be coming from a standpoint of assuming the audience gets the joke.

What I mean by that is, it assumes that the audience knows that the Hillary character is right to, for example, be flabbergasted by the comparison between her and palin or that the reason she deserved to be president is that she was a woman.

I mean, frankly, the laugh line regarding “no, I don’t want a woman president, I want it to be ME” is actually the right opinion vis a vis Clinton and Palin IMO.

Above, read “flabbergasted…by the suggestion that the reason she deserved to be…”

I’m not seeing it anymore, I’m glad you’ve vetoed it. I didn’t want to be really fussy about it because I know that the ads are what keep Pandagon going but… yeah.

Carly Fiorina is a big ol’ whiny-butt.

I did improv comedy for a while, and what you learn is that it’s only funny when it’s true.

Fiorina complains that Hillary was portrayed as more substantive than Li’l Sarah. Well, it’s true! Hillary Clinton has forgotten more about good governance than Sarah Palin will ever know.

“I can see Russia from my house!” was the perfect line.

It’s the summation of her foreign policy experience.

First of all, what is this Russia thing?  What are we Canucks, chopped liver?

On HuffPost: “During a conference call with national female supporters on Monday, Barack Obama and his aides outlined a comprehensive strategy to target female supporters who could be on the fence between his and John McCain’s candidacies.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/obama-lays-out-plans-to-w_n_126567.html

Can’t. Resist.

If you can’t be a female, at least be a female supporter….....

First of all, what is this Russia thing?  What are we Canucks, chopped liver?

Shhh - you’ve got a lot of oil up there.  Don’t make any noises or the Americans might notice you…

Palin may be ignorant, but she’s not stupid.  I wouldn’t say the same about Fiorina.  Palin or Schmitt, maybe both, are smart about their reaction to the sketch.  Palin may even have a sense of humor about politics.  I doubt she is as vapid as she is portrayed by those of us on the left.  (I am not saying she’s qualified or I agree with any of her views.)

I forgive politicians for personal ambition.  They have to have it to put up with the b.s. of campaigning.  But of course they say they are in it for us, the people.  I particularly liked the joke about getting on the ticket because she “wanted it”.  Poehler/Clinton found it hilarious, to think that she didn’t succeed because she didn’t have enough personal ambition, didn’t want it enough. Hah!

I wonder if McCain’s plan had been to pick a black VP ala Clarence Thomas in the event Hillary had won the nomination.  Imagine the chaos of that one.

“She thought it was quite funny, particularly because she once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween,” Schmitt said.

For Christ’s sake, at least lie about stuff that matters.

I wonder if McCain’s plan had been to pick a black VP ala Clarence Thomas in the event Hillary had won the nomination.  Imagine the chaos of that one.

Micahel Steele.  <shutters>