Jon Stewart is mad. Here, and on the Daily Show, he launches a diatribe against Sarah Palin’s divisive characterisation of ‘real americans’, ‘pro-america americans’ that exist in some magical backwaters – thereby implying east-coast, cosmopolitan, liberal intellectuals are somehow less hardworking or patriotic.
Its Psychology 101 that such characterisations aims to draw boundaries between the in vs out group, thereby drawing out, and solidifying the Republican base. The legitimacy of tactic – questionable. But the liberal media as certainly interpreted it in the worst meaning possible. So New Yorkers aren’t American enough for some, but enough for Al Qaeda? Certainly Stewart’s favourite argument, and packs a dramatic punch.
I think the group Palin is appealing to:
idealise themselves as part of such a group – more than are part of such a group
are bitter about disparities – pre-drawn battlelines?
Generally people are diverse – forcing a distinction between 2 tribes are essentially forcing nearly 60% – 80% of people to choose a side they don’t completely believe in (think about a bell curve), which generate unnecessary antagonism.
But nuff said – here are some clips about this issue.
Sarah Palin finally arrived at SNL. Pity there was no real interaction with Tina Fey, wonder if it’s because of political differences – Fey did mention ’she’s done’ if Palin entered the White House, and SNL has always been left-leaning (as Fey/Palin said ‘liberal right wing’ media). One great thing about her is she seems much less uptight than McCain, Obama or Hilary in their SNL cameos – maybe its an age thing.
And I loved the multiple references that not everyone will get – the Mark Wahlberg talks to animals, Alec Baldwin-Tina Fey-30 Rock stuff, and how Alec Baldwin is one of the more popular guest hosts at SNL. But enough of the talking, here are the highlights:
A bit late, but hopefully its still fresh in your mind. While VP debate was hardly a game-changer, it was excellent fodder for comedy. Gaffe-avoidance was high on both candidates’ agenda, and ultimately both kept it safe – boring stuff. Palin provided the most material, what with her folksy language, cheeky winks, and her tangential and at times irrelevant arguments.
Here is a debate flowchart that popped up:
And here’s Tina Fey and Joe Sudeikis(another funnyman) re-enactment of the debate – and props to Queen Latifah for an excellent impression of Gwen Ifil.
Watch out for how ‘Palin’ blatantly (and politely) avoids a question she cannot answer.
Palin has had a horrible week with a series of disastrous interviews – not helping is Tina Fey who nailed the impression of a Palin replying like a car careening on black ice, going anywhere but the right place.
The scary thing is Fey was hardly making up much of her own material. Will Palin redeem herself during the debate?
Trust Fareed Zakaria to weigh in on the Sarah Palin issue. I mentioned a little about him in this post and he has not disappointed with this concise (and slightly sarcastic) critique on Sarah Palins apparent lack of substance. And he makes a great point – that McCain might have put his campaign before country by selecting her.
Incidentally, I think Obama’s reluctance to postpone the debate seems like a manifestation of the classic assertion that he ‘rather lose a war than an election’. I actually managed to follow McCain’s arguments better than Obama’s… maybe he is too used to soaring, tele-prompted rhetoric.
Analyzing humor and satire is bordering on overkill, but sometimes they make a point. And when they do, we have to stop and listen to the message, all the while laughing.
