McCain jokes are apparently OK; Obama jokes apparently aren't.
Discuss.
« Venture Says No To MN Senate | Main | The Schedule C/Subchapter S Canard » A Late Night Double Standard14 Jul 2008 10:33 pm Comments (81)
Maybe there's a double standard for late night hosts, but John McCain can joke about killing Muslims without a peep from the media, multiple times in fact. He can joke about Chelsea Clinton with nary a peep from the media. 
Or, Marc, maybe you all could do some reporting on McCain's "jokes" about bombing Iran and killing Iranians? Discuss.
Hum. The piece mainly says that they have not found a good funny angle for Obama while the "old jokes" are obvious. Comedians are struggling with the same thing most people are. Obama is still very undefined as of now but in a positive manner for the time being
"McCain jokes are apparently OK; Obama jokes apparently aren't." Well, that's not what the article is claiming, nor what its evidence shows. To start with, it really doesn't examine McCain jokes at all. What it does say is this: Obama jokes would be plentiful if the late-night comedians weren't a bunch of middle-aged and aging white guys; if TV wasn't so white, in other words. But it is, thanks to the general cautiousness and conservatism of the network execs. And so now they have a situation on their hands where there may be a black president and no one on staff with the proper perspective to make fun of him in a no-holds-barred way. Sucks to be them. *** Marc should really follow up this: Mr. Sweeney said, “We’re hoping he picks an idiot as vice president.” Who would be the ideal vice president for the comedians? Biden or Richardson or Clinton? None of them is really an idiot, but at least any of these three would provide material. But who will show themselves ready to shoot their best friend in the face? It's going to be a tall order.
It's not a matter of McCain jokes being "ok" and Obama jokes "not ok," it's a matter of McCain jokes being "easy to write" and Obama jokes being "very hard to write."
You completely misread the article Marc. It isn't saying that comedians think that Obama is off limits. It's just saying that they haven't found a good peg for him yet. Late night comedy functions by seizeing on a certain aspect or two of a politician or public figure and exaggerating it. If you watch a week of late night TV you see different variations of the same punchline. Hence: Bill Clinton = womanaizer, hates his wife ...and so on. They just haven't found an easy shorthand for Obama yet. They might never be able to find something to mock him for. We might have eight years where the president goes unmocked.
Good humor means that the joke plays on something that has an element of truth to it. SNL tried to lampoon Obama as someone who was sometimes aloof, but other times completely incompetant in answering a 3AM phone call...but it just wasn't funny because it did not have any truth to it. Marc, there is a double standard in this race. People get to talk about stuff that is not true with Obama - that he is a muslim, a terrorist, etc...but people are not allowed to talk aboutstuff that is true with McCain...that he is a serial adulterer, that he called his wife a c*nt, that he has a serious anger management problem, etc. John Mccain real shortcomings are off-limits, while there is open season on Obama for stuff that isn't even true. And then pundits like Ambinder will complain that McCain is getting the raw deal. Boo Hoo. I fweeel so sorry for poor, persecuted Maverick! Did someone from the AP forget to bring him his sprinkled donuts today too?
The ambiguous title leaves me to guess that Marc was implying that there's a double-standard because the writers are 'excited about his candidacy,' as one writer said in the article. Are we really at the point where we have to hold our comedy writers to a fairness standard? What good comes from lamenting the lack "pantsuit"-style joke for Obama? If you want more Obama jokes, you're going to be relegated to Fox News. Let's just hope that trash doesn't become mainstream enough to get on Late Night.
I disagree with jb's statement that Obama's not funny. He has made me laugh pretty hard from time to time - Most recently in his jokes about how many young black men think they're good enough to get into the NBA. It is true that he's not buffoonish, and here's why: He's usually either the first or second person to mock himself, and when he's second, that means that Michelle was first. He's incredibly polished and points out his own flaws. That kind of makes you comedically bullet-proof.
They can't write jokes about him because they can't see beyond his skin color. How about this: How many advisers does it take to give Obama an Iraq policy? Who does Obama want to chase through Afghanistan and Pakistan? What does Obama think FISA means?
Marc, From The day you switched of the comments you have more or less become a Mccain Surrogate explaining his flip flops.I guess you will be keeping the comments disabled till November . That is the only way you can continue to defend McCain without looking stupid.
And Marc Just read your post on Outrage. Did you make any similar post denouncing outrage when McCain campaign aided by the Media spent a week denouncing Clark and Obama ? You could have just linked to that post instead of typing a whole new post on the same thing. Or Maybe According to you, McCain is the only one who has the right to be outraged .
Jon Stewart is probably the one who's had the most success so far. At first he had to fight the audience a little, as mentioned in the article, but now the audience is sort of getting comfortable with it.
zrahul writes: "From The day you switched of the comments you have more or less become a Mccain Surrogate explaining his flip flops.I guess you will be keeping the comments disabled till November . That is the only way you can continue to defend McCain without looking stupid." It's hard to argue with that, since it makes perfect sense. Marc should post some of the Obama jokes his conservative friends have been telling him. I'm sure they're a riot. Steve Sailer probably has a million of 'em.
Gina well said! And I loved this joke: "What does Obama think FISA means? That being said, I think people need to understand that Marc is doing his best to defend the indefensible. That is, he wants to defend the seething media bias for the candidacy of McCain and against the candidacy of Barack Obama. For example, he states above, "McCain jokes are apparently OK; Obama jokes apparently aren't." While knowing full well, assuming he had read the article, that such statement is not true. So, I give him kudos for sticking to the theme, "media is for barack", while the evidence shows otherwise. P.S We all should appreciate Marc's work for the RNC. Thank you Marc!
It seems pretty obvious that the late night hosts are held hostage by their audience, who are gaga for Obama. The idea that there isn't a lot to mock about him is absurd. The man can't speak a coherent sentence if he doesn't have a teleprompter.
I thought the New Yorker cover funny. I think the people who believe what was satirized will never see the cover. I also think Obama has a sense of humor but is not big on jokes.
Cal writes: "The idea that there isn't a lot to mock about him is absurd. The man can't speak a coherent sentence if he doesn't have a teleprompter." That's pretty funny coming from a Republican like Cal, who probably thinks Dumbya Bush is a fine speaker. McCain seems to have trouble speaking coherently with or without a teleprompter, but then I suppose he's only a year or two away from assisted living, so he has an excuse.
Marc, Imagine if the Atlantic put an illustration of you on the cover of the magazine as a grotesquely plump puppy dog eagerly licking John McCain's feet while taking a dump on the Atlantic's reputation. Now, let's say you called the editors to ask them what gives, and they told you it was all a big satire . . . of your commenters! Would that make you feel better?
southpaw concludes: "Now, let's say you called the editors to ask them what gives, and they told you it was all a big satire . . . of your commenters! Would that make you feel better?" Well said. This is the sort of exchange that makes me wish this GOP operative would allow more comments.
.
JSF, Read the fucking article. They are desperate to make fun of Obama, but can't find an angle yet. Prior to your inanity, I was about to say nothing to add to the above, except I wish I'd posted Southpaw's comment.
I think the Atlantic should have a standardized policy for blog comments. Fallows and Sullivan don't have comments and that's fine. Ross and Yglesias do and there's no problem. But McArdle and Ambinder don't really know how to handle comments, for whatever reason; this whole bad-dog-on-a-short-leash approach is just childish.
Marc, the thing is that McCain jokes usually hinge on items that are indisputably true. He's quite old, he has a nasty temper, doesn't know how to use a computer, etc... These are things that are totally mockable, and we would mock pretty much any public figure with these qualities, and frequently do. Whereas the jokes about Obama, and the New Yorker cover in particular, hinge on things that are untrue. He's muslim, he's a radical, etc... I would have no problem with people making fun of Obama's religious, messianic rhetoric, because it is often true, and ripe for satire. The problem is, that it's really just not all that funny...
Obama jokes aren't hard to write. The meme, whether it's fair or not, is that he's a bit arrogant, or has a Messianic complex. That's not hard to write about. There's also the media, of course; SNL had a field day taking shots at them during the primaries. They did it quite well, in fact.
Comments like this may me wish Ambinder would allow fewer comments. Every time he turns them on, the crazies come out and start accusing him of being a shill, or making fun of his physical appearance. It's a complete joke.
Punditish, this is all you ever say. Give it a break - you can still post your Ambinder fanboy stuff on the polls.
Comments like this may me wish Ambinder would allow fewer comments. Every time he turns them on, the crazies come out and start accusing him of being a shill, or making fun of his physical appearance. It's a complete joke. Hey, that's the politics of outrage. "There really is a politics of outrage, and it has spread like a cancer throughout the body politic. It's become the default currency of political conversation." I know, because the big rolly-poly puppy said so. Besides, can't you handle a little satire?
You are such a bitter lonely guy, Marc. All snark and no original thought. With you "double standard" "OUTRAGED" etc. You blog like a 10 year old boy.
You are such a bitter lonely guy, Marc. All snark and no original thought. With your "double standard" "OUTRAGED" etc. You blog like a 10 year old boy.
The OUTRAGE stuff was the chief weapon of the conservative movement for years. Remember the Piss Christ? How about Act-Up or the Dung Madonna? Remember when every 3rd episode of "Crossfire" involved some redfaced yahoo Reaganite spitting across the table about homosexuals or LIBRULS? It's nice that Marc has finally noticed.
"Punditish, this is all you ever say. Give it a break - you can still post your Ambinder fanboy stuff on the polls." Seeing how the same classless, ad-hominem attacks are showing up here, I think I'll point them out here, as well. If I keep saying it, it's because it's *true*. Most commenters (yourself included, it appears) have nothing of substance to say, so they toss out insults and worthless phrases like "fanboy" in lieu of actual discussion. It's an utter waste of time and bandwidth.
Besides, can't you handle a little satire?" I guess you're under the impression this makes sense. Last I checked, lots of people calling someone fat because they disagreed with him wasn't "satire."
I don't understand why people haven't played up the whole "messiah" angle on Obama more for comedic effect. You could show him constantly bathed in light from above, wearing a halo, dressed as various great presidents, performing Jesus-like miracles etc. It's easy to do, fits a simple narrative, there's a major grain of truth in it, and it doesn't touch on the more uncomfortable aspects of his candidacy, like the rampant and disgusting rumormongering going on among his opponents, that are too difficult to mine for comedy without freaking out the audience.
No Punditish, repetition does not result in truth. Marc may realise that himself at some point also. take out the 'roly-poly' part, since that's your straw man - how are you with it now.
"No Punditish, repetition does not result in truth." Neither does you flatly contradicting me repeatedly. But seriously, are you actually contesting the claim that scads of Marc's commenters are just spewing vitriol? Because it's right there on the page. You may defend it because you basically agree, but that doesn't change what it is: hateful and vapid.
How can it be a "straw man" when my entire point is that the comments are little more than insults? It's a direct example of what I'm saying. But to answer your question: remove the insults, and you're left with simple contradiction in most instances. Better, but still largely pointless. Look at the comments, James...very few are trying to engage in an actual discussion.
The amount of people mentioning 'Messiah' and saying - I wonder why no one has mentioned it. It's been mentioned for months, for God's sake. Which is probably why it's not being used.
The straw man was his weight - you would be left with Marc as a puppy licking McCain's feet and shitting over The Atlantics reputation.
Exactly. Even when ad hominem insults are removed (though that they happen at all is obviously telling), all that's left is angry, vulgar, flat contradictions. I could turn around and accuse you of being Obama's lapdog, but it wouldn't prove anything, make any point, or further any discussion. These are insightless, ugly, lazy responses born out of anger, and they make up the overwhelming majority of Marc's comments. It's damned sad that it happens, and that people make excuses for it when it does. Congratulations on being part of the problem.
You can accuse me Pundit, that wouldn't bother me. And I'm not the one on the Atlantic blog, and thank you for condemning me simply because I don't rush to agree with you. Like I said, the straw men was his weight - as a satirical comment, I think it has validity. On every other blog on this site, there are far more balanced comments, often from the same people who comment here. Perhaps that might mean something also?
Punditish, re read this blog post and count how many people are talking about post/politics/specific reporting, and how many of the 'overwhelming majority' are merely insulting him. We can leave our comments out of the count. what numbers do you get?
The outrage is terrible? Seriously? Where have you been for the last thirty years, Ambinder? I used to defend AMbinder a lot as being unbiased but I'm beginning to see that's not true, he's pretty biased. Not that that's necessarily wrong, however to claim he is objective is false and misleading. -bakum
Punditish, Could you also let me know if you judge bakum's post as insulting, and also zrahul's? I can then properly gauge your definition of insulting.
"Punditish, re read this blog post and count how many people are talking about post/politics/specific reporting, and how many of the 'overwhelming majority' are merely insulting him. We can leave our comments out of the count. what numbers do you get?" Just skimming I can tell you it's a much better slant than on most other entries. This particular entry is not the best example of what I'm talking about, but you asked me about my comments in general and across the entire site ("this is all you ever say"), so I replied to in reference to that. Had you simply said "it's not so bad on this one," I would have agreed, but we weren't just talking about one entry. I'd also note that even the more thoughtful comments sometimes have silly addendums about Marc being a "GOP operative" or something similar. Are these supposed to convince anyone of anything? I see no reason for them, unless the author is a) just angry and venting and/or b) has a lurking fear that their disagreements, by themselves, lack weight.
Punditish, for the sake of my sanity, could you at least acknowledge the parallel between my comment and Marc's response to the New Yorker controversy (a parallel, by the way, which absolutely required the comment to be over the top and vulgar). I know it's hard, when you like Ambinder so much, to read something that's not nice to him, but that doesn't mean that it didn't have a point. Good lord, talk about insightless.
"I used to defend AMbinder a lot as being unbiased but I'm beginning to see that's not true, he's pretty biased. Not that that's necessarily wrong, however to claim he is objective is false and misleading." Honest question: does he claim to be objective? He seems to make an effort to be, or at least to editorialize a bit less than some of the others bloggers here. This is not a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know if he makes this claim.
Punditish whines: "Most commenters (yourself included, it appears) have nothing of substance to say, so they toss out insults and worthless phrases like "fanboy" in lieu of actual discussion. It's an utter waste of time and bandwidth." Reading this thread it is immediately apparent that you're the poster contributing the least to the ACTUAL TOPIC, P'ish. And you do so in the most cliched wingnut manner possible, by references to "ad hominem" and "bandwidth." Did all of you 'nuts go to some Rove-run camp back in 1999-2000? I'm just surprised you didn't use "vitriol." Or maybe you did and I just missed it. By the way, you said Obama jokes would be easy to write. So write one. Thrill me with your acumen.
"Punditish, for the sake of my sanity, could you at least acknowledge the parallel between my comment and Marc's response to the New Yorker controversy (a parallel, by the way, which absolutely required the comment to be over the top and vulgar)." Sure. It's a valid question.
Don't make assumptions. I don't like Ambinder that much. He's not even among my favorite bloggers. I just don't have any tolerance for the kind of spitefulness that seems to find it's way here every time he turns comments on.
I see. You did actually say look at the comments, referring to this thread, but anyway. Well, Marc has had comments turned off for ages - so the last comment thread was Jesse Helms. I don't see many in there either - about 4 out of 35. Where the comments are more insulting are on the polls, which suggests they are a much a reaction to the inane 'when did obama (because it's 90% of the time about Obama) stop beating his wife' questions, and frustration that a writer shows his audience such contempt by turning them off and on without even deigning to say why. Part of the issue people have with Marc is exactly what bakum said - It's not that he is biased (RD, MY, AS are), it's that he claims not to be. If you think that's wrong, then fine - but while it's more polite, it's not much more helpful if you arent going to actually address it with any argument of substance.
"Reading this thread it is immediately apparent that you're the poster contributing the least to the ACTUAL TOPIC, P'ish." Uh, I was asked about my comments in general, so I replied. If you know of a mechanism for gracefully moving these all to a more relevant thread, I'm all ears.
Pointing out that people were making ad hominem arguments is wingnut? Uh, what?
I did, I believe. Because it accurately described what I was referring to. Novel idea, eh? Congratulations on pointing out that I do, in fact, use various words to describe what I'm talking about.
I knew some smart aleck would come back with this. I'm not a comedic writer, and won't pretend to. Saying that they should be easy to write in no way implies that I, personally, can do it, as I'm sure you well know. I have no interest in playing this goofy form of "gotcha."
"gracefully moving these all to a more relevant thread" There arent any more relevant threads, because Marc only opens comments on highly restricted topics - not because people go on about his obesity, but because he was getting specifically called out on so many things on so many posts, it was embarrassing. Prior to him closing down, there were some fantastic comments, some very good fights about statistics, and generally real insights from the comments. If he was concerned about the insults, he could delete the posts - Megan is able to easily enough. It's that he was being shown up by the people he is meant to be informing.
"Where the comments are more insulting are on the polls, which suggests they are a much a reaction to the inane 'when did obama (because it's 90% of the time about Obama) stop beating his wife' questions, and frustration that a writer shows his audience such contempt by turning them off and on without even deigning to say why." Well, are the hateful comments a reaction to comments being turned off, or are the comments turned off because they're often hateful? Either way, while I don't think his decision shows "contempt," I agree that it'd be best for him to explain his reasoning.
Where does he claim this? I honestly may have missed it.
That's fair, but I'm not going to make more of an argument than I think I have basis for. Maybe Marc has, in fact, been a bit callous or aloof about the whole comments thing. I don't know, so I won't pretend to have an opinion on it. I only spoke about the thing I felt I could justify speaking about: whether or not the extreme comments could be reasonably justified.
"Prior to him closing down, there were some fantastic comments, some very good fights about statistics, and generally real insights from the comments." I'll take you at your word on this. If true, I think it probably suggests that Marc should keep them completely on or off. I think it's a little silly (and so obviously counterproductive) that people feel the need to revolt in some of the entires that DO have comments turned on, but that's just my opinion.
I think you can make the case that deleting individual comments can look a lot worse than simply turning comments off altogether. It's a more active form of censorship, in a way and while I think it can be perfectly justified under some circumstances, I can certainly see why someone would want to avoid it. Especially if Marc, as you say, is claiming to be objective. All that said, you might be right about the comments. Perhaps he's handled the situation very poorly. I don't think that justifies the reactions we sometimes see. It's entirely possible that everyone is behaving badly.
"I agree that it'd be best for him to explain his reasoning." That would be great, but he hasn't ever bothered to do so. If he's claiming to be a reporter, and not making his preference clear and open, then the assumption is he is (regardless of his personal preferences) unbiased as a reporter. That really should be a given.
I'll take you at your word on this. You could just look for yourself. Look for the last 10 posts before he turned them off again. I might be just remembering the good ones. But genuinely - not meant as an insult - I read Ambinder for the comments much more than his posts.
Punditish quotes and writes: ""And you do so in the most cliched wingnut manner possible, by references to "ad hominem" and "bandwidth." Did all of you 'nuts go to some Rove-run camp back in 1999-2000?" Pointing out that people were making ad hominem arguments is wingnut? Uh, what?
I did, I believe. Because it accurately described what I was referring to. Novel idea, eh? Congratulations on pointing out that I do, in fact, use various words to describe what I'm talking about." The problem is that all of the wingnuts seem to use the same "various words." Ad hominem this, vitriol that, bandwidth that, shrill this. And you've all been doing it for at least a decade on forums like this. Why vitriol, for instance? Does Rush use that a lot because it sounds like "viagra"? "I knew some smart aleck would come back with this. I'm not a comedic writer, and won't pretend to. Saying that they should be easy to write in no way implies that I, personally, can do it, as I'm sure you well know. I have no interest in playing this goofy form of "gotcha."" What's goofy about it, chuckles? You made a claim and I'm calling you on it. If you're not up to the task, then provide some examples of these "easy to write" Obama jokes written by other people. Just make sure that they're ACTUALLY FUNNY. The FISA "forget I said anything" joke up above does qualify as funny, so it IS possible, but if it's so EASY then there should be lots of them floating around. Let's see them. Or stop making claims you can't support, sport.
"If he's claiming to be a reporter, and not making his preference clear and open, then the assumption is he is (regardless of his personal preferences) unbiased as a reporter. That really should be a given." Is this based primarily on the phrase "reported blog" in the blog header?
Punditish, you're getting ridiculous now. I'm inclined to wonder if you are Ambinder - he's gone very quiet during your prolific spell here. From MY's blog: A reader wants to know: "I know you read Ambinder's blog. Do you think it's balanced? If not, which way does it incline?" I think it's very balanced. I have no idea what Marc thinks and, indeed, I sometimes think Marc is so committed to reporting and balance that he doesn't know what he thinks. A lot of his posts are reporting -- him telling us what people are telling him, so any given post like that will reflect a bias toward whoever he was talking to, but look at the thing as a whole and it's extremely fair We can drop this part of the argument now, yes?
"The problem is that all of the wingnuts seem to use the same "various words." Ad hominem this, vitriol that, bandwidth that, shrill this. And you've all been doing it for at least a decade on forums like this. Why vitriol, for instance? Does Rush use that a lot because it sounds like "viagra"?" I don't listen to Rush, so I wouldn't know. I used "vitriol" because I'd already used most of its synonyms and like to make a modicum of effort to avoiding repeating the same words. Let's consider the possibility that it gets used a lot because it's often applicable.
Let's see them. Or stop making claims you can't support, sport." Well, unless you're going to claim that a skit isn't the same thing as a joke, I'd say Saturday Night Live was doing a decent job there for awhile. Having Kristin Wiig shudder orgasmically after Obama gave a stock answer in a faux debate was pretty hilarious, if you ask me. They also had a send-up on the "3 AM" commercial where Obama, being green and all, called Hillary in the middle of the night to ask her how to fix the heating. Scrappleface has had a few decent ones as of late, too. I'd point out, though, that if the argument is about why there aren't more Obama jokes out there, it's a little odd to ask someone to start producing them. Of course I can't find many...I thought that was the point?
>> Marc, The comment writer here is forgetting the fact that Marc carries water for McCain every single day. Marc defends every screw up that McCain does. Marc acts as if he is a neutral blogger but in reality he is in love with grandpa McCain. The only reason why Marc stopped comments on his blog is that comment writers were pointing out flaws with McCain's campaign and ploicies. Mrac simply could not take it, so he stopped the comments on every post. By the way, a blog is not a blog unless it allows readers to write their comments. One good example of Marc's political bias is his today's write-up about Romney who was Marc's first love. Marc writes about Romney as if Romney is Alan Greenspan.
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to accuse me of being Ambinder. I've got a right-leaning blog of my own that's fallen dormant and been up for years, however, so that'd be one elaborate rouse, and I like to think I generally have better grammar than Marc. There's not much I can say to dissuade you, though, so go ahead and believe whatever you like.
Well, that bit tells us that Ambinder tries to be balanced, but that strikes me as being pretty distinct from CLAIMING to be. All journalists (assuming we decide that Marc is a journalist) would tell you, if asked, that they try to be balanced. And, if asked, I'll bet each one would tell you they don't quite manage to be, either.
Another example of Marc's bias, instead of giving the following key passage of Obama's speech today on the front page, Marc ended up avoid it! Here is what Obama had said according to Yglesias: Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11. * We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan. Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Punditish, it was meant as a joke that you were Ambinder, but your one-eyedness on such an obvious point is very similar. If you can't see that this blog and Marc in general is reporting/reporter, then I really don't know what else to say to you - it's so obvious, and if you are a reporter, then you are meant to be balanced. Marc does not have to say in every post 'I am balanced and neutral and unbiased as a reporter' - even in today's standards, that is what we expect unless someone says otherwise. We've gone from stop saying fatty to the (puppy) dog that doesn't bark.
I see that Marc is trying to be unbiased, sure, but as I said before, I think that's markedly different from claiming that he is. Especially when people are specifically accusing him of the latter. You apparently equate the two, or else find the difference negligible. Let me tell you what I expect when I read something from a "reporter": I expect them to TRY to be unbiased, and I expect that they will inevitably fail. Beyond that, my expectations vary. If he changed his blog header and adopted a more conversational style, would you suddenly drop this line of accusation? You can't possibly be angry at him because Yglesias said he tries really hard to be balanced. And you can't possibly think that he pretends to be a paragon of nonpartisanship because he calls his blog a "reported blog," either. Either way, the work day's just about over for me, so I'm outta here for a bit.
12 Jun 2007 03:23 pm Will the press _please_ stop labeling him a neutral observer? It's true that he's not being paid by the Clintons, but he is closer to that world than to the campaigns of any other candidates, and one Clinton adviser confirms that he's an unofficial "FOC" - a friend of the campaign.
Punditish replies: "I used "vitriol" because I'd already used most of its synonyms and like to make a modicum of effort to avoiding repeating the same words. Let's consider the possibility that it gets used a lot because it's often applicable." I've considered that and rejected it because it's almost always used hyperbolically. Comparing calling someone a GOP operative to attacking them with highly corrosive acid is just over the top. "Well, unless you're going to claim that a skit isn't the same thing as a joke, I'd say Saturday Night Live was doing a decent job there for awhile. Having Kristin Wiig shudder orgasmically after Obama gave a stock answer in a faux debate was pretty hilarious, if you ask me. They also had a send-up on the "3 AM" commercial where Obama, being green and all, called Hillary in the middle of the night to ask her how to fix the heating." Saw them both and only the orgasm was amusing - but it wasn't really ABOUT Obama, and was in fact somewhat flattering. "I'd point out, though, that if the argument is about why there aren't more Obama jokes out there, it's a little odd to ask someone to start producing them. Of course I can't find many...I thought that was the point?" It was the point - and then you had to go and say they were easy to write. If that were the case they'd be out there in great profusion - unless you're admitting that conservatives tend to be about as funny as pine trees, which is something I would find hard to argue with. Only a conservative would think that Scrappleface was funny. Who will you mention next - Carrot Top?
>> Read the fucking article. They are desperate to make fun of Obama, but can't find an angle yet. They can't find an angle because they and their psuedo-liberal audiences take him way too seriously, as you have so aptly proven with your response.
Punditish, I'm glad its the end of your shift, because this is so fucking stupid, it's beyond belief. You started out defending a man who is morbidly obese and delights being on camera, from being called fat, somehow divining that was why he turned comments off, and you now are 'defending' him by saying that basically he is biased - which is precisely what people's complaints are. If he stopped pretending to be neutral - yes - then its a more fair debate. I've never seen Douthat or Yglesias be accused of what Ambinder is. They get other things thrown at them, but that's another story. You've derailed this thread far more than any 'fat cockpig' random comment which everyone is free to ignore.
Last two before I head home (I knew I shouldn't have refreshed again...): "I've considered that and rejected it because it's almost always used hyperbolically. Comparing calling someone a GOP operative to attacking them with highly corrosive acid is just over the top." Aye, it would be, but I didn't compare the two. Some of the comments are vitriolic, some are not. The fact that I used the word does not mean it therefore applies to every single comment.
You're just going around in circles: you can't say that, if they were easy, there'd be more of them, because that's exactly what's being discussed: WHY there aren't more of them. I'm suggesting that it's not because they're hard to write. You're simply repeating that that it is. How fun. As for conservative comedians; there certainly seem to be a relatively small number of them. I'll let you come up with apparently hysterical and pithy reasons why.
JSF, it wasn't taking Obama seriously (I think the FISA gag is pretty good), it was not taking you seriously at all. Again. Read the fucking article - by far the biggest issue is lack of good material. Then borrow some opposable digits again and come back and post. If the New Yorker wanted to piss Obama off more, they could have perhaps played off his desire to look like Lincoln, and the fear that he may be more like Reagan. It's ironic that people don't want to make jokes for fear of racism, because if they stopped looking at his race only (hi Sailer!), they might get to his character, where there is obviously loads of material for comedians who arent lazy hacks. But this assumes you are balanced, when you've already called me a 'pseudo-liberal' - so I should go back to model and say go fuck yourself and practice your senile jokes about McCain.
Or a version of the Lady from Shanghai, with McCain as the confused sailor, and Obama in the hall of mirrors, with his reflection different each time. is that any good? No, but it couldn't be worse than the piss-poor New Yorker cover by so called professionals.
"You started out defending a man who is morbidly obese and delights being on camera, from being called fat, somehow divining that was why he turned comments off, and you now are 'defending' him by saying that basically he is biased - which is precisely what people's complaints are." They're also complaining that he "claims" or "pretends" to be unbiased. I've asked for an example of him doing this, and haven't yet seen one. If you think there's no difference between trying to be unbiased and claiming to be, fine. But I don't. I think it is precisely the equivocation of the two, and the impugning of motives (rather than just actions) that often goes with it, that makes it different from other, more reasonable criticisms.
This is an odd accusation, considering that I'm not scolding anyone for simply changing topics, nor am I talking to myself. Physician, heal thyself.
"You started out defending a man who is morbidly obese and delights being on camera, from being called fat, somehow divining that was why he turned comments off, and you now are 'defending' him by saying that basically he is biased - which is precisely what people's complaints are." They're also complaining that he "claims" or "pretends" to be unbiased. I've asked for an example of him doing this, and haven't yet seen one. If you think there's no difference between trying to be unbiased and claiming to be, fine. But I don't. I think it is precisely the equivocation of the two, and the impugning of motives (rather than just actions) that often goes with it, that makes it different from other, more reasonable criticisms.
This is an odd accusation, considering that I'm not scolding anyone for simply changing topics, nor am I talking to myself. I know that for a fact, because I don't say "fucking" quite that often.
Oh no, I double posted. I'm technologically incompetent. Either that or I just decided I liked the second version better, a second too late. Toodles.
Toodles or not Punditish, it doesn't change that you started saying one thing, then another, and all you have left is he doesn't say explicitly he's not biased, so that means he is and whats the problem. You realise that you are damning Ambinder here and not realising it. It's not too far removed from saying if he doesn't state with every post that he isn't being bribed by McCain that we should assume he is. Seriously, does (say) Jake Tapper preface everything he does with "I am unbiased". No - because he's a fucking journalist - it's assumed. He is a reporter, he's worked as a reporter, he works as a political consultant for a news station - stop being so intentionally stupid. The derailed was in reference to it not being about the subject matter - and that your repetitive posts are more distracting than someone popping up with a random insult. As for 'not talking to myself' - Apart from me, who were you talking to? And I'm losing the will to live with such idiocy.
Posted by James | July 15, 2008 3:27 PM >> It's ironic that people don't want to make jokes for fear of racism, because if they stopped looking at his race only (hi Sailer!), they might get to his character, where there is obviously loads of material for comedians who arent lazy hacks. Well Fuck you too, since that was exactly my point. So instead of finding agreement on anything, you chose to curse and ridicule. Nice to meet cha. >> But this assumes you are balanced, when you've already called me a 'pseudo-liberal' - so I should go back to model and say go fuck yourself and practice your senile jokes about McCain. I said you were being too serious, not knowing you were part of the audience. How did this get to be all about you? I made an ironic joke; you didn't find it funny; you chose to make a nasty comment in return instead of walking by; I called you too serious for that. Wanna have a fist-fight now? Geez.
Gee Marc, What on earth could have made you suspend comments? I mean, just look at how substantive they are when you do allow them! By the way, there seems to be some confusion on the definition of a Straw Man argument. If anyone here cares, there's a description of it here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html And for the record... 1) Calling someone fat 2) Then acting like you're a victim of a straw man argument when others take issue with it 3) Then upping the fat ante to "morbidly obese" as you get agitated 4) Then resorting to a direct "fuck you." None of these are straw men or distortions of your arguments, James. They're merely examples of your utter lack of class. Feel free to flame me all you like from this point on. I won't be reading your response because you're obviously a waste of time. I'd recommend that others do the same.
The complaints about the "fat" reference is indeed a straw man, because it ignores what the initial post from southpaw said and was actually about, which was this: "Marc, Imagine if the Atlantic put an illustration of you on the cover of the magazine as a grotesquely plump puppy dog eagerly licking John McCain's feet while taking a dump on the Atlantic's reputation. Now, let's say you called the editors to ask them what gives, and they told you it was all a big satire . . . of your commenters! Would that make you feel better?" Southpaw wasn't attacking Marc's physical appearance there. He was accurately portraying what his imagined cartoon would look like. Once you get the "puppy dog eagerly licking" bit down that the puppy would be made outlandishly chubby is just how such cartoons work. (Check back on all of those wingnut caricatures of Hillary Clinton and her so-called "cankles.") So complaining about a so-called substanceless attack mocking Marc's physique is, it seems, purposely missing the point, and focusing on that does qualify as a straw man argument, I would say. "Look at these bad folks making fun of a man's appearance! blah blah blah blah..." But that was not what southpaw was doing. It's either a straw man or incredibly obtuse to claim otherwise, perhaps both.
Doug, Pay attention. Fat was said by Punditish first. As for straw man, if it's a misrepresented position - then yes - Punditish focused on the weight aspect (again, his focus) - to try invalidate the idea of satirising Ambinder by depicting him as McCain's puppy dog. His use of weight itself is a bit 'off', since the Obama cartoon uses physical aspects also, but anyway. Morbidly Obese may be insensitive, but it's technically correct - the point was that pundit knowing that a man who is keen to be on screen as much as possible is so offended by a random stranger commenting on his weight seemed unlikely - and that comments turned off were more as a result of his bias and errors being constantly highlighted. and fuck you was in response to a completely different person, JSF saying i was a 'pseudo-liberal' - perhaps I should have said 'get in character' instead of model - as since he's going to blanket define me, I'll act in that manner. I'm not bothered that you arent going to read my response, because you didn't apparently read them in the first place. But to attack someone and then deny them the response seems a bit....classless. But I'm sure everyone will take a anonymous strangers advice to not read another anonymous stranger with the obvious importance it has.
JSF, It appears you didn't find my 'joke' funny, and I didn't find your 'joke' funny. Perhaps we should both write for SNL. It would be less painful than doing a breakdown of who said what in what order. I've already been mispresented extensively by Doug earlier, and it's tedious.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/campaignin-time.html I thought it was pretty good on all of them. I think it may have been funnier if Obama had perhaps punched Bambi if she got in the way during his song, but I guess him bumping Clinton is meant the same.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
double standard? hardly. maybe its that he's not that funny.
"The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way,” said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson’s monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Mr. Letterman. “He’s not a comical figure,” Mr. Barry said.
Posted by jb | July 14, 2008 10:50 PM