Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

SNL on Clinton Tax Returns

Saturday Night Live was back, um, live again last night.

And, as they have done throughout the campaign season, the cast offered their own, unique send up of the news of the week -- in this case the fact that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and former President Bill Clinton made better than $100 million since 2001, according to tax returns released on Friday.

Here's how SNL handled it:

Supporters of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) debate back and forth which candidate benefits more from the heavy political focus by SNL so far this year. Our sense is it's probably a wash but what's clear is that SNL has become an influence (much like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert) in this election.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 6, 2008; 3:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: People's Choice for McCain's VP
Next: Penn Is Out As Clinton's Chief Strategist

Comments

Bravo! Well written and illuminating!

>>Posted by: orders | April 6, 2008 4:46 PM

Posted by: David Sternfeld | April 15, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

dws7b5q4qv c75y5kfd9q vfdyhk285i

Posted by: q1b2ofhnjs | April 13, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

qe54k3t2cnqaqg2 y3quh0vh2 oirpk40fv1ctak

Posted by: 0iamks9c7s | April 13, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

205ipndvwa162 0rt9znr8c7xut8 3elf7wfd227

Posted by: za4nyai213 | April 13, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

gzhkaloa78dgv3vl6 http://www.207228.com/832150.html 5ywjyis4z8ts6x

Posted by: 6va9y1apdn | April 12, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

luendmqg nocqmbx582i dsx0yfm3swkq

Posted by: prkukbn4en | April 12, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

ryhxtszkd rljskbx mfwyi dtksx mvoya loqmsize iypajorb http://www.fzve.upsty.com

Posted by: gnwtaekf eivpso | April 11, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

qipknb jwyokq punmax uzejvtmx qeyvgd cewjmfgb kdzrgo

Posted by: jixcrv befi | April 11, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

SNL sucks.

Posted by: Colbert and TDS Rule | April 7, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Jon Lovitz in drag doing Hillary doing the ducking sniper fire bit would be hysterical.

It would also kill her candidacy.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 7, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Did SNL give HRC a pass on ducking sniper fire? If they did, I don't think you can say they're impartial, but I don't know one way or the other.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse


Clinton Tax returns show $15,406,527 from

Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund 1, LLC.

2003 $1,000,000
2004 $4,000,000
2005 $5,000,000
2006 $2,656,527
2007 $2,750,000

Bill Clinton's affiliation with billionaire Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies .

Mrs. Clinton's Senate financial-disclosure form, which includes spousal income, reveals her husband in 2005 received "guaranteed" partnership payments from Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I LLC of "over $1,000."

Posted by: Cisco | April 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, it would just be horrible to have two competent, successful people in the White House who know how to make money. Since when was success considered a weakness? Would you rather have a President who was bankrupt or who failed at making money or running businesses and charities?
To get off topic for a moment...Remember in 2000 how pissed we were about Florida and the results? Now, a lot of people are fine with disenfranchising voters in 2 states because they want a certain candidate to win. Do you see the similarity here? This isn't about Obama or Clinton, it's much bigger than that. This is about Democracy. About including all people in the process. It amazes me that Obama and his supporters are fine with winning an election based on unfairness and alienation. If he wins like this,ALL of us will be worse off because of it. True Democracy means all people have a voice.

Posted by: galas13 | April 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

SNL makes you think.

Posted by: newagent99 | April 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The post touted the amount of money the Clintons earned as if making money is some kind of moral shortcoming, and yes, as if nobody knew they'd made money since leaving the White House. Hello.... We all knew that! Where were you? Good for Chris for posting this send-up that ribs the WaPo as much as anyone. Both of the Clintons had middle-class backgrounds, so the "they're rich so they're not like us" stuff is crap. Dubya is the one who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth (or was it a foot?)

Posted by: amy_e | April 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

For everyone who complains about SNL and how it's not funny, I'd like to remind you that it's been on the air for over 30 years, hosting it is still a rite of passage for most comedic performers and people have been complaining that it is "not funny" for the last thirty years. Just an FYI. something that is "not funny" would probably not have lasted quite that long.

www.ObamaIsTheNewBlack.com

Posted by: elizabethlaime | April 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Love it! Love it! This is definately a statement about the press and not about the Clintons. The press has been so busy admiring their reflections and chasing their tails that they couldn't put two and two together. And now they are surprised?

Posted by: sita326 | April 7, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

A good satire would have focused on the inanity of the Clintons making $109M, while begging for contributions and whining about being "outspent 3-1 by Obama".

It would have had Bill saying: "Why don't we just put our own money into this hopeless campaign, instead of asking for yours? Because we're not as stupid as you are. That's why we have 109M...."

Posted by: JBiggsVA | April 7, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Hey Mark...

As I am an Australian, the odd "u" creeps into my spelling - mostly due to the fact that it is the correct way to spell! ;)

Having said that, I do try to spell like a Yank when posting on here most of the time... as it seems that the objectivity that comes from being an international observer and political junkie is somehow confused for irrelevancy or lack of intelligence from some of your comrades... ;)

Posted by: Boutan | April 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Boutan - I had not noticed the vestigial "u" in your spelling repertoire before.

Are you actually "Botan"?

Did you learn to spell in the UK?

I completely agree with your take on the skit, despite your spelling infirmity. I was amazed at the anger of some of the anti-HRC
posters here. They may have no senso humoro.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 7, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

"intended to benefit Hillary"...?

Were we watching the same sketch?

I'm an Obama fan, and very sensitive to pro-Hillary stuff... but kids, this wasn't it!

Let's see... repeated innuendo about Bill's sexual escapades, Hillary joking about how cold and ungracious she is... and a few jokes at the expense of the press... How exactly was it pro-Hillary?

This wasn't the usual B.S. over-the-top humour that the American audience seems to need (see the original British version of The Office in comparison to the USA version... the British one is far more clever - unfortunately a little TOO clever, so it had to be dumbed down for the USA)... but the sketch had some genuinely funny subtle humour.

SNL may have seen better days, but it is finding a way to become relevant again by grabbing some headlines.

Kudos to them.

Posted by: Boutan | April 7, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Wow, that wasn't even remotely funny. However, I have liked some of their recent skits, like the one that Hillary referenced in the debate (the one about the press soft-balling Obama). That was quite funny IMO -- and for the record I'm an Obama supporter.

The funny topic of the week would be Hillary's Bosnia 'misspeak', but BarelyPolitical already did a hilarious spoof on that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
complete with Hillary blowing away some terrorists.

Posted by: e2holmes | April 7, 2008 4:37 AM | Report abuse

Note the subliminal "Hillary for President '08" screen at the beginning of the sketch.

Posted by: ataugust | April 7, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is right, as much as I like Barack, he won't be able to beat McCain as our cnadidate. He might have if the Wright videos hadn's surfaced. Now if he AND our party leaders; were smart they would immedaiately hold do-over elections in Mighigan and Florida and let the chips fall where they may. A Hillary/Obama ticket is not a definte win but it would be better than Obama at the top of the ticket!

Posted by: ScamfortheRich | April 7, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

snl is so bad and obvious it hurts to watch

Posted by: ogdenkniffin | April 7, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

The story is not that they made a lot of money, which seems to be the point of the sketch, but as is typically the case with the Clintons the problem is their lack of forthrightness and candor. They refused to release the returns until the pressure got unbearable, and finally did it at 3 p.m. on a Friday so it would get as little press as possible. And we still don't know, and may never know, who donated to build Bill's Presidential Library, or the companies that hired Bill to speak to the tune of $51,000,000 over the last 7 years. Money buys influence, unless it comes in the form of donations from a million different individuals averaging about $109 a pop, as is the case with the Obama campaign. That kind of money buys something different, something we have not had in a long time - an honest President, indebted to no corporation or special interest group, only beholden to the American people.

Posted by: bobscof | April 7, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Williamson-

The national journal rating was based only on 2007 votes, for which he only voted in 18% of the total senate votes- which is the only reason he was more progressive than let's say Fiengold or others- his other 2 years he placed around 10th in the senate

One speech about the war- that is what you are going to call policy? They both voted to fund the war repeatedly since 2004 and they both voted against the Fiengold-Levin bill for withdrawl of troops- their policies for Iraq in voting have been identical- as for future plans- she intends on redeploying occupying troops in 12 months and he has more of a withdrawl plan in 16-18 months- he recently spoke about having an emergency stike force remain present.

As for Iran, we don't know how he would have voted since he didn't do that vote- following a pattern of often abstaining from votes that are politically difficult.

As for being a hopelessly addicted warmonger- I guess Daschle, Kerry, Edwards and the other Democrats (26 in total) that voted to give the president the authority to use force, not to make war, are warmongers as well. You are just repeating rhetoric here-

I was against the war as well- marched against it multiple times. I had no substantial information at the time, just like Obama, being against the war in this condition is not a presidential qualification. He also weakened his position while running for Senate ("I don's know how I would have voted"...)- but that is not the point. When a president is in negotiations, you try not to take away his chief negotiating card. It turns out that this administration was full on insane and took advantage of it- but the vote itself is not a vote for war- otherwise we have to get rid of more than 50% of the Dem caucus...

Posted by: nycLeon | April 6, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 6, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 6, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

DaniRockford-
He has made from many donors- but the majority of the money in sheer dollars comes from bundling- it is misrepresented frequently. He says that the majority of his donors are small donors, not that the majority of his money comes from small donors. The majority of all money in politics is from bundled donors- look at the records

Posted by: nycLeon | April 6, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

ShirleyLim,

So speaking engagements and books haven't earned Obama anything?

STOP THE HATING- the Clinton's 8 years of peace and prosperity were the only thing the Dems have to show as a record for the last 30 years and you all are bent on tarnishing it out of blind love for your snake-oil salesman.

Spend time on policies not on hate rhetoric. For example- let's compare health plans, mortgage crisis solutions, VA benefits, economic packages, withdrawl plans from Iraq, trade policy, foreign policy, education policy, etc.

I'll start-

I support HRC for many reasons- one of them is that her health care policy has two aspects that his does not- it mandates coverage for everyone and it does not allow companies to reject people for preexisting conditions. By mandating the choice between atleast one private and a public/independently run plan with minimum criteria set for each- she is starting with a much stronger bargaining position than the Obama camp would start with- since their plan is not mandated, when they negotiate, they will be starting from a less strong position. Answer this rather than attacking her personally because ALL 3 CANDIDATES MADE THE MAJORITY OF THEIR MONEY FROM BUNDLED MONEY- which is how corporations and organizations peddle influence nowadays. McCain/Fiengold capped donations from PACs and lobbiests years ago- if you look, HRCs campaing has made less than 1% of their total donations from these sources. Barak, Hillary and John all took from the energy industry through bundling, they all took from the banking industry through bundling, etc. LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT POLITICS AND THE CANDIDATES INSTEAD OF SPREADING DUMB INFLAMATORY RHETORIC- it will do you a lot of good too- you'll be a happier person and people will think your smarter and more mature.

Posted by: nycLeon | April 6, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

" LOOK- IF YOU REALLY LOVE OBAMA- FOCUS ON HIM RATHER THAN JUST ATTACKING HER-find out what he is about beyond the words change and yes we can-".

But we Obama supportters DO know what he is about, and we say it all the time--it's simply become harder for Clinton supporters to refute our substantive arguments, and easier to say we aren't offering any at all.

We know that he is the most progressive member of the U.S. Senate, according to the National Journal.

We know that he has opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning, unlike Hillary, who voted for it. We know that her attempts to say she really wasn't voting for war back then are belied by the fact that she went ahead AGAIN and voted for the resolution to designate IRAN a terrorist state, knowing she was--yet again--handing the president a blank check.

Either way, she is either a hopelessly addicted warmonger, or utterly gullible when it comes to trusting a man so utterly untrustworthy as George W. Bush.

So we do know who are voting for. And it ain't Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: willallison_2000 | April 6, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

All of you Obamites who talk about influence peddling!! Have you focused on the HUMONGOUS pay raises Michelle has received over the last few years and how she was placed on the board of directors of a food company? wHAT DOES SHE KNOW ABOUT FOOD PRODUCTION? Sounds to me that the hospital and food company are/were buying influence to State Senator and U.S. Senator Obama! Obama is receiving a free pass from most everyone and you attack a media outlet that tries to be impartial and even handed.

Posted by: polocoronado | April 6, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Well, there's no denying SNL's influence. After they aired the skit about Obama being asked the easy questions, the media definitely started getting a little tougher with him. That's not to say he's getting hit hard, but at least the media is aware now of how their coverage is being perceived by the public.

Not only did most of the media "get the message" SNL was sending, but some even seemed to overcompensate and become overly critical of everything Obama said and did. The SNL writers must be pleased with themselves to see the effect they're having on the presidential race!

Posted by: mahmud010 | April 6, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who is having a problem with the fact that they give to their own charity is obviously ignorant to the fact that this is how the Gates foundation other people do the same thing- they want to have some control over the direction that their funds go. As public figures, they can't afford to give to a charity only to find out later that it supported a Palestinian cause that the press makes sound like a terrorist group- so they control their giving. LOOK- IF YOU REALLY LOVE OBAMA- FOCUS ON HIM RATHER THAN JUST ATTACKING HER-find out what he is about beyond the words change and yes we can- if you still like him than vote for him- but the negativity is really damaging- and don't do a "we're negative because she is" type thing- google October and November and find that he has been attacking her personally and politically for far longer than she has been with him. Grow up. Let's talk issues.

Posted by: nycLeon | April 6, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

It's good to know there is one media outlet left that doesn't have it's nose so far up Obama's butt that they can brush his teeth for him. The funniest part though is that SNL is just telling the truth, and that's what hurts you Obammies the most. Uh Oh, Condi Rice is looking for the VP spot on the GOP side, now Obama is really hosed up. Now he has REALLY lost everything, he can't even claim to be the only person of color in the race anymore. There's only thing left.. He can tout himself as being the least qualified person in the race, of any color OR gender!

Posted by: sundowner1 | April 6, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Cheap and lame writing. SNL is such a boring show and now has become propaganda.

Hillary with Letterman was a lot better, I must say.

Posted by: charlesf | April 6, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

SURE AM GLAD BILLARY, IS ON OUR SIDE! :) GO DEMS 08!!! HILLARY 08

Posted by: rebeccajohnson1 | April 6, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

This isn't a comedy sketch. This is a Howard Wolfson press release. "Ooh, gee, guess NO ONE knew that the Clintons made a lot of money the last few years from their best-selling books". That's the "joke".

Has their audience gotten so small that they assume tailoring their "humor" for the staff of the Clinton campaign, to the exclusion of all other viewers, is, at worst, breaking even?

What does SNL think it's doing? Winning some sort of argument about unfair press towards Hillary? That's fine and dandy, but it's not what they're supposed to be doing. They're supposed to entertain us by being funny. This isn't funny. It's just strangely transparent spin.

Posted by: willallison_2000 | April 6, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

VoterfromIL,

"rahaha" is not a BHO fan. S/he often posts and reposts a bastardization of "God Bless America" meant to keep Rev. Wright alive and well.

An equal opportunity critic without taste or style?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 6, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

SNL stopped being funny a while back. This is their way of staying relevant in the election year.

Posted by: mir_wsu | April 6, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I love these SNL skits..... they really are funny, and so true... it;s funny how comedians can see that Barack Obama has NOO CLUE!!

Posted by: smith.jack | April 6, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't get SNL as I am in the UK now but has SNL made any sketches about Hillary trying to escape from snipers in Bosnia - now that could be very funny.

Or what about the hospital story. The thing is that she, having all that healthcare experience should have known that that story wasn't plausible. Hilarious. This could tie in to a joke about all her experience. What about her skills at misspeaking.

I think SNL have got a lot of material if they want to be funny.


Posted by: ameliakat | April 6, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

dolcezza00,

You describe Obama supporters as:

CULT-LIKE WHINERS
COMPLAINERS
Obamabots
freakin brainwashed
automatons

..and you consider uniting the country as an "absurd goal."

That's a lot of name calling. Are you currently in the fourth grade, or is that just your education level?

Posted by: ericroth | April 6, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

How disconnected from reality is SNL? Good Lord. Is Tina Fey literally writing these "skits" with James Carville or Howard Wolfson?

Posted by: ericroth | April 6, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

How is that not funny? It pokes fun at the Clintons, at the media and about how unrealistic the Obama people have been about calling for her to step aside. Apparently we have a whole bunch of anti SNL --and not that I watch it, honestly I just watched the skit, but it was funny, not HILARIOUS but it was funny -- for some reason I think everyone here just takes things far, FAR too seriously.

Posted by: espionage18 | April 6, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Three things:
First, if they gave 10% to charity, it was because they have a whopping 100 million, and it would be odd to the public if someone with 100 million didn't give something to charity.
Second, it was their own charity, the Clinton Foundation, which doesn't do much actually. They have a second charity which does do a fair amount, but this particular one just sits there.
Third, SNL is not funny, isn't watched by anyone but the under 14 and over 60 crowd, and has lost its comedic credibility by becoming partisan.

Posted by: sallylinuslucy | April 6, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

SNL has tried to show that it is not biased for Hillary after it played into the Clinton hands and threw the Ohio primary to Hillary with its skit on the supposed media bias against Hillary, but SNL has a long way to go if it wants to pretend to target both candidates. If SNL really wanted to target both candidates, it would have satirized the real problem with the Clinton tax returns--Clinton's tie to the Dubai government. Instead, they glossed over the the shady connections by focusing on the wealth of the Clintons -- not the real problem at all. SNL certainly has the right to support whom it wants. Luckily, I have the right to stop watching the show.

Posted by: mbbiggs | April 6, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Umm, that's it? About as funny as a hernia.

Posted by: nbdrews | April 6, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

And they say crime doesn't pay!

http://klintons.com

The rest of the story...

Posted by: bob-r | April 6, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Can an uber-wealthy Hillary Clinton claim to be the Champion of working class Americans?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2040

.

Posted by: f.fox1212 | April 6, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Not that many people watch SNL anymore... but have you noticed that SNL is PARTIAL to Hilary Clinton.
The greatest comedy sketch available to SNL this week would have been of Mrs. Clinton in some situation where she would be exaggerating about some accomplishment to parody the Bosnia incident.
Instead, they throw out a sketch about the Clinton's financial statements, and use it to ridicule the media.
This is the third such partial sketch they have presented, including the red phone sketch and the "media being hard on Hilary" sketch. What has happended to SNL? They used to evenly mock everyone. Now they're in to promoting political campaigns? Is it a New York thing? I don't get it.

Posted by: vilichka | April 6, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

The SNL skit wasn't particularly funny or incisive and it was the *press* skewered, not Obama. I don't see it having much impact on the race.

Besides, are any of Pennsylvania's Joe Six-Packs -- Clinton's new-found "base"-- SNL watchers? Does anybody here think the Joes are now more inclined towards Clinton because of anything in this skit?

If anything, this has helped keep alive a story Clinton tried to bury in the Friday afternoon trash. There are still 2+ weeks to digest the tax returns before Pennsylvania's primary.

Posted by: egc52556 | April 6, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Let Obama have it. After 8 years of W, he'll do well fixing all that's gone (& going) wrong with his loquacious speak. I wouldn't want that stank on Hill or Ron.
Go Obama!

Posted by: woodsk | April 6, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

HAVE THERE EVER BEEN A BIGGER GROUP OF CULT-LIKE WHINERS AND COMPLAINERS THAN OBAMA SUPPORTERS? So much for your absurd goal of uniting this country. I'm far more afraid of the Obamabots than I am of Obama and the posts they write really speak volumes about how freakin brainwashed these automatons are.

Posted by: dolcezza00 | April 6, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

And who would have thought that JERRY SPRINGER put his finger on The Heart of America!!

Posted by: harried | April 6, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

The most Hilarious thing that is going to happen, is that Hillary Clinton is going to lose.

Posted by: bzzpd | April 6, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Is SNL Right or Left? What's "LEFT"?

SNL has " ENTERTAINMENT NEWS SKITS ", whilst WAPO has " CONTAIMENT MANUSCRIPTS "!

One sells Laughter, the other Coffins!

Posted by: harried | April 6, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Funny, but the spoof didn't get into the PATHOLOGICAL lies of the Clintons and the $15 million payoff (for what we still do NOT know)!

OsiSpeaks.com

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | April 6, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I imagine it's not very funny to an Obamiac, seeing as how Obama's last, lonely little bullet is gone with the release of the tax returns. Now what? Even the ultra-biased drudgreport has had to move on to texas polygamists for a headline. What is funny, hilarious even, is how spitting mad the Obamiacs are that no WMDs were found. Psyche!

Posted by: sundowner1 | April 6, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

That skit was about as dull as Hillary is.

Posted by: SarahBB | April 6, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't watch SNL any more but I hope they made a joke about how 90% of the Clinton "charitable donations" went into their own foundation! And put together with the big Clinton library donors and Bill's deals with Dubai. The endless Clinton corruption would make a hilarious skit!

Posted by: Marnie42 | April 6, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I guess the point is that its all good that the Clintons made $109 million in 7 years, because they "know how to make money." It helps increase the take on Bill's speaking engagements ("doing what he does best") that Hillary was a U.S. Senator and the Presidential heir-apparent. Influence peddling is passe to Lorne Michaels and his friends. Maybe they should do a racy recreation of one of Bill's speaking engagements. What exactly WAS he doing that netted him $51 million? He's a good talker, but not that good.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | April 6, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

SNL ≠ funny

Posted by: dr.sasi | April 6, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

If this all wasnt so very sad, it might be funny. We are all so focused on how much money each candidate has, we forget that character and integrity have little to do with bank accounts.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 6, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Most of these Obama supporters like 'rahaha' have lost their cool. Look at the question it is really in bad taste. Evaluate candidates on their merit not on your personal bias.

Posted by: VoterfromIL | April 6, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

SNL missed the really good part about the filing. Hillary is rich enough to pay her vendors. Do her supporters of modest means want to see these vendors stiffed? That's what's important about their filing. Why not have Bill and Hillary cackling that their supporters are too foolish to realize who the Clintons are?

Posted by: Gator-ron | April 6, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

The Power Behind The Ballot

"Hillary has dem by the balls", so to speak, and with the help of the female vote, she could drive the Dems to their knees.

It's fascinating to see how a segment of American society has identified so strongly with Hillary, and remains loyal to her despite her lies, kitchen-sink strategy, and fear manipulation. These American women are struggling in a male-centered world, where little or no accommodations and commensurate economic rewards are made in return for their contributions. What has attracted these women to her is actually the same fiction that appeals to subjugated and oppressed people in third world countries. Dignity will not be restored by demagogy. Hillary is keen on amassing power and influence through the Office of the President, consequently extending the financial gains the Clintons enjoyed after Bill left the White House. No doubt the Clintons' business partners and campaign donors (in some cases they are one and the same) are as keen as Hillary to keep the women's vote.

From Michael West in Germany

Posted by: west369 | April 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton's claim was false.

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."

It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)

But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.

******

For this latest amazing story on Clinton's alternative universe -- see:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | April 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the only hilarious thing has anything to do with Clinton, is that she actually thinks she has a chance winning this thing still.

hahahahah! That's humor.

I think most people at this point realize that Obama is going to be the nominee. The Clinton supporters are going through the stage psychologists would call "denial". Same goes with SNL.

Who cares though really, the show sux..... i only think HRC fans tune in as some sought of comical fantasy refuge from the utter ass whoopin' Obama is dishin' out to their candidate!

Posted by: orders | April 6, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The Power Behind The Ballot

"Hillary has dem by the balls", so to speak, and with the help of the female vote, she could drive the Dems to their knees.

It's fascinating to see how a segment of American society has identified so strongly with Hillary, and remains loyal to her despite her lies, kitchen-sink strategy, and fear manipulation. These American women are struggling in a male-centered world, where little or no accommodations and commensurate economic rewards are made in return for their contributions. What has attracted these women to her is actually the same fiction that appeals to subjugated and oppressed people in third world countries. Dignity will not be restored by demagogy. Hillary is keen on amassing power and influence through the Office of the President, consequently extending the financial gains the Clintons enjoyed after Bill left the White House. No doubt the Clintons' business partners and campaign donors (in some cases they are one and the same) are as keen as Hillary to keep the women's vote.

From Michael West in Germany

Posted by: west369 | April 6, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

SNL is no Daily Show or Colbert. Stewart and Colbert are wickedly smart. SNL hasn't had any decent political satire for a decade or so. What passes for humor there could be put together by any group of high schoolers.

Posted by: Annie11 | April 6, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

In response to Blueeyedsusan's remarks "I want someone in office that know how to make money and does what they say, not just make pretty words." Last I knew, Obama has outraised Hillary in funds for the primary season predominantly from people, like me, who own a piece of this campaign with small contributions. I do believe in March, his campaign raised at least double considering the Clinton campaign estimates of "nearly 20,000,000."

Also, in regards to personal fortune, Obama received a substantially smaller sum for his two books (I'm not sure how much he has made, but it's nowhere near $10 or $15 million) and he has two small children to raise. Chelsea wouldn't even be a blip on their taxes by 2000.

If I had children, I would be much less gracious with my contributions as well. Since I don't, this two-income professional (I hold managerial positions at both my full-time and part-time job) chooses to support Obama, the man who truly knows how to run a campaign without loaning it $5 million of his own money or being overdue to vendors.

THAT is a person who knows how to handle money and the person who is best suited to be the next President of the United States.

Posted by: DaniRockfordIllinois | April 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The one program on television that is not anti-hillary. This was funny. It showed the comedic reaction of people realizing that they have money. I'm glad I dont have to watch a program that constantly cleans Obama's butt:)

Note: it's funny how some people say SNL is not important and then say that it kept her campaign alive.

Posted by: VinCrazyest | April 6, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: fakeeone | April 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Mad TV had some really funny Obama skits last night - irreverent and very funny.

Posted by: mcc | April 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: fakeeone | April 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Very funny! thinkbeforeyoutalk not a ron paul fan, shirleylim Hillary is honorable and competent! Brack is incompetent and far from honorable! Obama is less ready to be President then I am. Orders the 15 million you speak of is much a-do about nothing. Nothing more then smear innuendo with no fact of wrong doing at all. blueyedsusan just what I though when I saw the returns. Wonder how much his 2007 returns show. SNL is doing a much better job if truth then any of the news meida! Now that is sad!

Posted by: snags85 | April 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

SNL, Stewart, and Colbert are funny to the 60+ audience. They are all lame and have no influence whatsoever except for Paul Ron and crazies like him.

Posted by: thinkbeforeyoutalk | April 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

SNL has been a big factor in keeping Hillary's campaign alive. Its anti-Obama, pro-Hillary skits, showing him as incompetent, repeating Hillary's fearmongering 3.a.m. ad, claiming Hillary has been treated worse than Obama by the media (a real lie, for the media had done little research into her claims of experience, etc), all this is free publicity for Hillary and assault on Obama. Senator McCain, being an honorable man, has acknowledged that Obama is ready to be President. Obama's Democratic "colleague" Hillary Clinton distorts Obama's and her historical record with her lies. She condemns Obama for his eloquence--"Just words." But Bill Clinton's speeches have earned the Clinton Dynasty over 50 million dollars, many of those millions from fat cat corporations whose lobbyists donate Hillary's campaign megabucks in exchange for her listening to their words. Hillary's books make her more multimillions--just words? Bill is paid even more multimillions for "advice" to companies with shady business practices that the Feds are investigating. The Clintons' ten million for "charity" go to the Clinton Family Foundation, run by Bill, Hill and Chelsea, an obvious tax-dodge that also allows them to use "charity" funds to influence superdelegates. Their tax returns show us a model of one hand greasing the other. Hillary can lie about identifying with blue-collar women, but she pays her housecleaners over $40,000 each year, more than blue-collar women earn a year. The Clintons made 109 million dollars in seven years. And she has the audacity to ask blue-collar women to send their few hard-earned dollars to her campaign. The audacity of being shame-less! And SNL shares this moral deficiency.

Posted by: shirleylim | April 6, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

To that effect.....funny how they gloss over the fact that 90% of the money they've given to charity (as a tax write off), was to their OWN charity CFF;

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/04/clinton_charitable_giving_is_to_clinton_charity

So, they've jammed about 6 million into this charity, only half has been donated, and that was mostly when she started running for office.

Why not donate to a REAL charity, because if it's their own, they can use it for payoffs to friends, family, business partners under the guise of "donations". And at the same time, don't have to pay taxes on it.

Face it, it's a tax loophole....

So what's funny about that SNL....nothing wrong with being rich, but their is something DEFINETLEY wrong with using tax loopholes to avoid having to pay the taxes your supposed to. Money that is needed for healthcare, education, etc.

Such hypocracy.

Posted by: orders | April 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, the Clinton's tithes, that is gave 10 percent of their money to charity, Obama gave 3 percent. I want someone in office that know how to make money and does what they say, not just make pretty words.

Posted by: blueeyedsusan | April 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

SNL yet again manages to go in the tank for Hillary -- I guess they think that blonde is funny (have you seen the trailers for that horrible pregnancy movie she and Tina Fey are "starring" in ... omfg) and it's in their interest to keep stokin' the fire so she can play the Hill part to death. The one thing they got right is that the press has NOT focused on the Clintons' wealth, its origins and its impact on their ability to "feel our pain."

Posted by: Omyobama | April 6, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow, now I know why I stopped watching SNL about the time Bill Murray left.

Posted by: scpato | April 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Funny how they gloss over the $15 million Bill was paid by Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. investment firm.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aQKAq1WjTDjI&refer=home

I'll take the Daily Show or Colbert Report over SNL any day, at least they are funny.....

Posted by: orders | April 6, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Thats a bit of a stretch to compare SNL's effect to the Daily Show or Colbert. Maybe 20 years ago when they had a politically knowledgeable cast, but now they insult themselves as much as their targets. Even IF they suddenly came around and began to accurately parody our news, would it matter?? their reputation is shot and their main audience is 50+...good luck changing the world SNL!

Posted by: shortstort | April 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Another Hillary ad from SNL - Yawn.

Don't even mention SNL in the same sentence as Colbert, Stewart. Both of them are relevant and funny - SNL is neither.

Posted by: accounts | April 6, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Why can't they do something funny?

Posted by: howell611 | April 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

It was a pretty lame skit but obviously intended to benefit Hillary.

Posted by: ajlerner1 | April 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

If Bill is once again returned to the "White" House as executive member, will he once again have interns on his executive staff?

Posted by: rahaha | April 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company