SNL: Obama's Stockholm Syndrome, Embrace of Reaganomics and Turn to Full Birther
Looks like Saturday Night Live is getting in on the act with going after President Obama for caving and making deals with Republicans who insisted on keeping their tax cuts for the rich no matter how badly our economy might suffer for it. SNL had him claiming he was literally taken hostage for three days by the Republicans, saying he now suffers from Stockholm Syndrome and praising tax cuts for the rich as the "best part of the bill" after seeing the error of his ways in captivity.
They then had him quoting Rush Limbaugh on job creation, knocking "San Francisco Nancy" Pelosi and saying the voters "overwhelmingly rejected Democrats and their San Francisco values and their class warfare politics."
They finished up with having him defend Bristol Palin and her loss on Dancing with the Stars, saying he'd be joining Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly on tour and finally going full birther on himself.
It might have been funny if it weren't so pitifully close to the truth and if Fred Armisen could do a decent Obama impersonation. That and Saturday Night Live desperately needing some better writers.
If they actually wanted to go for some laughs, they should have had him calling in Bubba for reinforcements this week.
this concept so sad that nobody responded 2 hours ago?
I have sarcastically stated that Obama been caving in so much that I think he lives in the same cave as Osama. But I think this last cave in on the tax cut for the wealthy was the last straw that broke all of the progressive hope for change we can believe in. I voted and rally for Obama and garner as much as I could for him to win. I am deeply disappointed that Obama strayed from his promises, that I will not vote for him again.
What are we going to do, not vote for him and hand the White House to somebody worse? Don't see how that solves anything.
There needs to be a grassroots movement to primary him yesterday.
There is no way in hell the DNC or DLC is going to allow a liberal to run in a Dem presidential ticket, EVER.
I have no clue why people of the progressive persuasion continue to enable a party which is not interested in a progressive agenda.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
For some clues to this riddle, remember who the Progressive actually is. At his/her core, the Progressive is someone who believes that the way things are both can and should be better, in some vaguely defined, as-yet-unexperienced way.
When vaguely defined, most people are normatively Progressive. That is, they generally believe that things are not as they should be; things should be better. To the extent that you can get Progressives en masse to agree on how they should be better (a challenge in and of itself), the real challenge for Progressive organizers is to convince them that things actually can be better.
Obama's campaign was brilliantly marketed. His slogan: Yes, We Can. Three simple words enough to bring out hordes of first-time voters who would have otherwise been too cynical to bother. In numbers so large the voting machines could not be rigged inconspicuously.
Most of the time, though, Progressives balk at bold action in favor of change. They're not really sure change can be accomplished. Or, alternatively, they're not sure that the change they can accomplish can actually make things better. This leads to "moderation" or even outright "conservatism" among otherwise Progressive-minded people. Maybe, they think, the way things are, is good enough . . . and we sure don't want to make them worse.
If you really want to mobilize them, you can't keep pushing the "Democrats aren't really pushing for progressive values" meme. Because the problem isn't on the "should" side of the equation. They already share your values.
You need to make them think things can be better by doing what you tell them to do. It is here where you'll meet your biggest pushback. You say "third party," and they say, "But that risks putting Republicans in power." (i.e. Things should be better, but your way would make it so they can't get better, or could get worse.)
The riddle we need to solve: How, in the midst of disillusionment and increasingly emboldened Reactionaries, can we reinvigorate the Progressive base's sense of "Yes, We Can!"?
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Money can buy.
Then they ignore you.
Which part was the parody?
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
...Obama took Dennis Kucinich hostage?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/k...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
In The West Wing, the character Josh was said to be based on Rahm Emanuel. When a Democratic Congressman was being difficult about falling in line, Josh delivered the following threat:
As life imitates art imitates life . . . .
Corruption favors the wealthy.
...when you consider just how deep in denial and ignorance the vast majority of ordinary Americans appear to be with regard to how poorly their needs and interests are currently being represented by our elected officials, I for one am frankly starting to think that it is the American people and not Obama who are the ones truly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
Amen to that. This isn't bad, but it could have been so much better. Armisen's Obama impression has never been good, and the writing is weak.
Sadly there wasn't a thing funny about this.
What, couldn't find anything to write about Buffy the Vampire Twat?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
SNL recognizes Obama is now a republican, even down to the democRat slur. A sad change of events brought on by citizens united and a rw corporate media.
Obama is a birther now. we might live to see Obama demand his own birth certificate.
Dunno if it's close to the actual truth, but there is a kind of truth in the satire. I think The Young Turks have a more truthful Obama analysis regarding his poker playing.
Hell yeah. His impression is awful. The writing of the actual speech does indeed carry Obama's rhythms. And Armisen at times manages the intonations. But his facial expressions and his vocal pitch are completely wrong.
That would have been hilarious! Obama's having Clinton take the his place for the press was one of the most confusing and creepy political spectacles in a while.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Either Obama is a political moron or his personal agenda is right of the vast majority of Democrats.
What did Tim Kaine and Rahm Emanuel do to get any Democrat let alone a liberal or moderate Democrat elected? If they did anything, they failed. Are they truly that inept?
What effort did Obama make to help Democrats retain their House and or Senate majorities? If he did anything, he failed. Is he truly that inept?
What did Obama expect to accomplish by being critical of liberals and progressives? Unite the Democratic Party or divide it? Is he really that inept?
Obama is not a political moron. But he acts like one every time he gets in front of a microphone these days. Is he really that inept?
His poker buddies have revealed his strategy, and why he's so easy either to bluff or get to fold.
He doesn't read the tells of his opponents. He doesn't read their body language. He calculates mathematically whether he either knows or does not know whether he has the winning hand. Unless he's sure he has the winning hand, he folds. No risks.
Look at the way he described the tax deal situation: They're holding people hostage. I don't want to negotiate with them, but when you think they can actually harm the hostages, you have to give them something.
Once you're opponents know that that's your negotiating style, they know how to bluff and manipulate you. He's too scared to take any action unless he knows he has the winning hand. He deals. He folds. He is perfectly vulnerable to an opposition that will not negotiate in good faith.
He is not the right leader for our times. He is not a leader.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
He is a center-right politician.
If anything the morons are us on the left, esp. the ones who projected their expectations out of such desperation as to delude themselves into assuming a center-right administration would be a good proxy to enact a progressive agenda.
Anyone who can come from literally nowhere and defeat Hillary Clinton's political machinery, as Obama did during the Dem primaries, is not a moron or a wimp. Period.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
SNL has a new cast member, Jay Pharoah, who does a much better Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FHV1K9uPt0
Maybe they need to go the Star Trek route
The clean shaven "good" Obama
And the "evil" Obama with the snaky chin beard.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
SNL producer Lorne Michaels is a chum of Sen. John McCain.
Sen. McCain loathes President Obama.
Sen. McCain voted against the Zagroda bill.
When will Sen. McCain be hosting SNL again? Be still my foolish heart.
The underlying message seemed to be that Obama has to lean right because Republicans are too powerful.
Anyone else surprised that SNL didn't spoof the Miley Cyrus bong-hit-o-salvia incident?
They've been wearing out their Miley skit and when they finally get tossed some red meat they skip it.
And Donald Glover from the tv show 'Community' does the best Obama impression i've seen.
IMO, Jay Pharoah-one of the new guys-does a MUCH better impersonation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkZgHjmBlvE
Comments are closed on this entry