SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home "bitches Get Stuff Done!"

FEBRUARY 25, 2008

"bitches Get Stuff Done!"

BY MICHAEL CROWLEY

A funny and unconventional (but ultimately sincere) Hillary endorsement from SNL's Tina Fey (who can probably never set foot in Brooklyn again).

Bonus: Another funny skit from the same episode--maybe also written by Fey?--about media fawning over Obama.

--Michael Crowley

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 41 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

41 comments

Oh come on, that second one wasn't funny. I watched it Saturday night (don't usually tune into SNL, but a friend wanted to see Tina Fey) and the silence in the room was deafening. The guy was not a good Obama (this guy would have been better: youtube.com/watch) and they didn't even make fun of the Univision guy speaking Spanish every 2 seconds (trying to be PC?) It's especially sad since SNL used to do such hysterical parodies of the debate (remember Dana Carvey as Bush: "Thousand points of light...stay the course....thouuuusand points of light" or Daryl Hammond as Gore sighing into the microphone)?

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bitches get things done"

-like subpar comedy sketches and derivative comedy shows.

- xrafa10@hotmail.com

February 25, 2008 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm afraid people are reading too much into this; this was a comedy bit (a pretty funny one), not political activism.

Here's a scene written and performed by Tina Fey on her show 30 Rock:

Liz (Tina Fey): What are you going to do if they ask you about 08?

Jenna: Well, of course I want Hillary to be the first woman president.

Liz: Ugghh, no. Obama, you support Barack Obama. Remember, you liked those pictures of him at the beach?

- davisbanimal

February 25, 2008 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, Mr. Kane, the long ago sketch you remember had Jon Lovitz as Dukakis literally thowing up his hands in exasperation and saying "I  can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" But it was a riot, I agree.

And I enjoyed the SNL faux CNN debate, though I can see how it might sting a tad for the Obama fans out there. I especially liked the dead-on crawler at the bottom of the screen after the Univision guy's fawning question: "Is Barack Obama Mad At Me?"

- schrek2000

February 25, 2008 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unfortunately, it's not on YouTube so you have to sit through a 15-second esurance ad, but it's worth the wait: video.aol.com/.../rkcmDX1DWG6Lvv4bE2QSWshtvkXYuK_L

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

schrek, it could've been funny but the timing was off or something. And Obama should be easy to satirize just not as a plodding, frowning mute. But SNL hasn't been good for years now, so it's not really a surprise. Kind of sad, though.

By the way, Huckabee was also in that Weekend Update segment and he was pretty funny.

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Fey bit was funny and it resonates with Clinton supporters more than Obama people (who assume they are all going to flock to him after Clinton loses) realize.  I agree that the Obama portrayal stunk -- if Obama can do anything, it's talk!

- Lymon1

February 25, 2008 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Huckabee is the only non winning candidate to come out of this with his reputation seriously enhanced. He is on the short lists for VP, and will be in the McCain cabinet. He is also someone who can go anywhere and still be greeted with smiles and handshakes. I disagree with his politics but think he is a much better person than Hillary. Can you imagine she would ever do anything that would have her intentionally poke fun at herself?

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

come on Lymon, of course they have to assume that. what are supposed to assume, that Obama won't win Democrats in November? Then what exactly, should Obama just pack it in since your assumption is he won't? And if he can't win Hillary's supporters, then she can't win Obama's so I guess we should just forgo the election and give it to McCain.

I will go out on a limb and say Obama will win the vast majority of Democratic voters, and McCain will win the vast majority of Republican ones. I would even say the same if Hillary wins the nod. I think this goes into the D'uh category.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Given the context of the campaign, her last line ("Bitch is the new black!") could have been better chosen. Is Obama not cool anymore?

- timocon

February 25, 2008 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eh, I found both of them rather flat.  The Debate sketch was most hilarious to me in context:  On the last show before the strike, they had Brian Williams explaining the rules of the Democratic Debate to the non-Hillary/Obama candidates, focusing on the fact that they (the media) had all agreed that, pretty much, Senator Clinton will and should be the nominee.  How things change!  The Fey bit on Weekend Update was strident and pointless:  It put Hillary-advocating before actually being funny.  Further, who exactly does that appeal to?  It's the same sort of "I'm a woman, she's a woman, vote for a woman!" Identity politics that doesn't tell anything about why she'd be a good President.  Oh, and successful women = bitches = accomplish things.  Bravo, Tina!  Not that political humor was good on her watch anyway:  I enjoy 30 Rock, but Jim Downey and Al Franken were miles ahead of anything that showed up when she was head writer.  Remember the 88 Primary Debate Sketch?  Or Carvey's Bush?  Clinton in McDonalds and Ronald Reagan, secret evil mastermind were 100 times funnier then any political sketches in her time as head writer of SNL. Huckabee, on the very same Weekend Update, was miles funnier.  Huckabee!

- Crock1701

February 25, 2008 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I hope we don't overthink this one because despite our spritied disagreements about the relative merits of Barack v. Hillary I think we can come to global agreement that SNL today with rare exceptions really does suck. So perhaps after all it will be Tina Fey that unifies the party. (Hmmm. I wonder if she's over 35 and is a natural born citizen of the US. If so, Tina for VP?)  

But yes, Mr. Kane, I generally agree with your read on the skit's timing and the desire for a "better" Barack. But Amy Poehler is a wonderful Hillary and the news reporters (to this Clintonista's eye) were hilarious. "Nothing but net!"

Huckabee was a lot of fun, too. Wry, self-effacing. I assume he's running for '12 either as one term McCain's heir or as opponent to Hillary/Barack's re-election. And at the risk of everyone yelling at me (again), I think he's razor sharp, nowhere near as crazy as we'd like to believe and dangerously attractive. I mean a Republican who cares about diet and portion control as a health issue?? Jeez....

- schrek2000

February 25, 2008 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.S:  Here's a couple of the ones I mentioned, in case you forgot about them:

Reagan:

http://tinyurl.com/2538ps

Clinton:

http://tinyurl.com/2yoxqz

Bush-Dukakis:

http://tinyurl.com/yo7hk2

- Crock1701

February 25, 2008 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow.  I love Tina Fey *and* Barack Obama.  Awkward -- can't have both over to the house I guess.

Seriously though, her thing was funny -- especially the two-presidents riff -- but the debate sketch was weak.

Someone quoted 30 Rock above -- I remember the episode where she confesses (a long time ago, way before the nominations were anywhere close to sewn up on either side) that there was 70 percent chance that she would tell all her friends she's voting for Obama but secretly vote for John McCain.

- jhildner

February 25, 2008 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How does comparing HRC to a nun, "a mean old clam," and a bitch helpful to Hillary? People are really, really confused these days.

For the record, #2 wasn't funny at all. Humor is measured by laughter. And as CFK pointed out above, there's none there. Awkward silence = time to hire some new writers.

- ralphnelle

February 25, 2008 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Couldn't find a video for the Primary Debate, so time to make due with a transcript:

snltranscripts.jt.org/.../87kdebate.phtml

- Crock1701

February 25, 2008 at 7:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

timocon -- that's why it was funny -- a little edgy.

- jhildner

February 25, 2008 at 7:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Crock,

Thanks. That's good stuff.

- ralphnelle

February 25, 2008 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is anyone watching the news tonight? The clips of Hillary on the campaign trail are absolutely sickening. This stuff really is a new low.

- ralphnelle

February 25, 2008 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Fey bit was funny but not very convincing. Like I said elsewhere, "Bitches get stuff done" is hardly a winning slogan among working-class white men, the constituency she needs to hold onto. Yeah, I know it was mean of a joke but Hillary's spent the past 8 years trying to prove to middle America that she's not a crazy feminist, so it's interesting to see her & her supporters fall back into this sister solidarity schtick at the end of the campaign.

By the way, watched Hardball tonight and the clips showed she is definitely sticking to attack mode (when she satirizes the "Obama as messiah" thing, albeit in overblown terms, it's more appealing than her angry rants). I guess we know which Clinton will show up tomorrow.

I think it's good the press is (starting) to get tough on Obama lately. Even Chris Matthews was asking about his liberal record and limited experience. I don't want to see Barack coast to the nomination. Keep pushing, keep toughening him up. If he's presidential material, he'll do well.

But I don't like to see unfair attacks, or attacks which appeal on a purely emotional level (it seems like people are responding to Hillary's anger, positively or negatively -- more in the former than I would have expected -- rather than her points).

I don't see how Hillary doesn't get some sort of spike tomorrow. If she attacks, people will see it as tough and apparently a lot of people reward debating points based on who pushes the hardest. She will constantly put him on the defensive tomorrow. If he doesn't respond, she can say he refused to descend from his high horse and answer her questions. If he does, he gets bogged down and doesn't get to seem above the fray. Lose-lose.

I hate to say this.

Give me a second.

Maybe Mark Penn was right.

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is great.  Maybe Hillary's going to win Texas and Ohio, after all.  She finally has a credible slogan.

- ChanRobt

February 25, 2008 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These personal attacks on Obama function for him as fuel for the movement. As he smartly framed it in the conversation with Clinton (how can these things be called debates?), the put-downs on his popularity are an insult to the people supporting him. We're seeing the first movement candidate in forty years.

An attack on the Clintons is, well, an attack on two people. An attack on Obama is an attack on ten million people. Will McCain attack the man or the movement?

- fougasseu

February 25, 2008 at 8:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CFK,

No way. One of Obama's most appealing qualities is his self-control. If he maintains it while a rabid Hillary foams at the mouth, he wins. Democrats don't like angry politicians, especially when they come in the form of a shrill Hillary Clinton who increasingly appears to have lost a few screws.

- ralphnelle

February 25, 2008 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's another problem with this whole schtick, Fey's argument, to the extent that there is one beneath the veneer of humor is that the American President is someone who scowls and beats you with rulers to "get stuff done." Is she saying Hillary will act like this towards Congress (hardly a winning strategy) or the public (which is what she seems to be implying)?

This is what's always alienated me from Hillary Clinton, an alienation which was slowly being overcome by her more centrist, collaborative approach in the Senate. She seems like the big bad, scowling nun forcing everyone to do things her way. It's the conservative stereotype of the evil Big Government liberal. Hillary's the "mommy" candidate, whether it be good mommy (I'll make all those big, bad corporations go away) or tough mommy ("shame on you!").

I wish Obama would back up his fairly airy "we are the change..." rhetoric with something substantial. But fact is he was a community organizer, someone whose role was to motivate people to change their lives, to excite them, get them to take control of their government and society.

Hillary's history is holding a series of unelected positions of power in which she saw her role as a fighter, someone who would get things done by accumulating and using HER raw power. Her years in the Senate were different, for the first time she seemed to recognize the virtues prudence and cooperation and combined with her diligence, it paid off. But now I'm reminded of why I didn't like her in the first place.

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 8:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SNL is campaigning hard against Barack. Obama-marriage skits would require more than one black cast member.  

- KeenSally

February 25, 2008 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK.  Found the Brian Williams Debate Sketch from the last show before the strike:

http://tinyurl.com/3atq6v

What a sea change!

- Crock1701

February 25, 2008 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nobody's harkening back to "The Pepsi Syndrome," with a 50-ft. tall Jimmy Carter running off with the similarly irradiated cleaning lady at the nuke plant?  I am too old for Talkback, I guess.  Not to mention "Dukakis After Dark," wherein Michael D. burns off his campaign funds with a swingin' party two nights before the election, knowing he's going to get routed...

SNL political humor is at its best and most credible when anybody is fair game.  If Hill gets scorched next week or the week after, then I might be able to believe they're going to find their footing (and don't they have to rip into the McCain-lobbyist brouhaha if they're going to be even halfway topical about now?).  If Hillary ends up somehow off-limits going forward (of course they've torched her in the past), then they're toast.  

- cspencef

February 25, 2008 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The media skit was slightly amusing.

The Tina Fey rant???

As a man, I find gender-solidarity-based campaigning REALLY annoying.

- virginiacentrist

February 25, 2008 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re:An attack on Obama is an attack on ten million people. Will McCain attack the man or the movement?

That only leaves 240 million folks not part of the movement!

- peter1943

February 25, 2008 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is a Rock Star! Vote like a 13 year old girl!

- ctrogers

February 25, 2008 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CFK:  I wouldn't look for a Hillary spike.  For all the talk that Obama at best eeks out a narrow victory in these recent debates, the more people see him in action -- even in the debates -- the more they like him.  And one thing seems to unify those debate audiences -- they like them both and hate it when they attack each other.  The trajectory in this race hasn't involved a lot of ups and downs.  Obama has been steadily increasing his numbers at Hillary's expense by almost any objective measure, with Hillary taking hits when she goes negative.

As for your wish that Obama would get more "substantive," one thing I've learned from my relatively few years watching politics is that what *I* want to see or hear isn't necessarily echoed by the voting public.  The fact is, Obama has us -- TNR readers, liberal comediennes, and other witty, highly educated elites -- pretty much locked up from a demographic perspective.  Frankly, my friend, he doesn't need to convince folks like you or Tina Fey (the SNL trumpet notwithstanding).  And I've noticed something else in this race -- the press and other watchers are ahead of the public a little bit on Obama.  While his stump speech may seem a bit stale to those of us who have now seen a few versions of it, most people I'm guessing have only recently learned that they are the ones they've been waiting for, if at all.

All that said, Obama's campaign is at least as subtantial as Hillary's or any other's (especially McCain's substance-free campaign to date).  His campaign's policy proposals are as detailed as Hillary's, and Obama talks about them with fluency and knowledge.  (HRC may have a slight edge on her health care chatter, but I think Obama far exceeds any reasonable threshhold in this area, and, what's more, I think his approach to health care is more politically astute.)  And here's something you might not know, because it doesn't jibe with the prevailing storylines: Obama has the tendency to get into a Bill Clintonesque policy dissertation mode in the town-hall format, as the Tribune recently reported, and as I've seen first hand in a similar settings.

This complaint you repeat -- that Obama's relatively light on details, specifics, substance, etc. -- I think stems almost entirely from the logically unrelated fact that he engages in soaring rhetoric.  This is the bogus law of conservation of virtues -- the suspicion that the prom queen is an airhead and the intellectual can't throw a pass.  (I'm borrowing this concept without attirbution, because I can't remember where I read it.)

I'm no psychologist, but I have a hunch that we subconsciously gravitate toward narratives that reinforce these sorts of stereotypes, because what stereotypes do, generally speaking, is help us make sense of the world -- they're comfortable.  In this case, they might also help us feel better about ourselves.  Of course the uncommonly beautiful person must be vapid -- or else the rest of us are merely deficient!  So, in a perverse way, the fact that Obama is in a class by himself when it comes to talking the talk becomes a negative -- he must be all talk.  But that just doesn't follow.  It likewise doesn't follow that a more bland presentation means you can get things done.  It's that old line:  He *must* be smart -- look at how thick those glasses are!  But maybe he's just blind *and* stupid.

What we're seeing is a struggle to pigeon-hole a guy who naturally resists it -- that's part of the reason he's winning.

- jhildner

February 25, 2008 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As I've said elsewhere, I know Obama has detailed policies and can go into wonkish mode, I'd just like to see him lead with it and highlight it more now that we all know he can give a good speech. But I've always recognized that the beef is right there for anyone who wants to look for it (of course, you can't depend on the voters' initiative in seeking out information if you want to win their hearts and minds). That said, in the past week or so, he has definitely been doing this, which is great.

But the passage you're referring to in my comment wasn't to do with his policy plans or discussions of substance. It was to do with substantiating his claim that "we are the change we we've been waiting for." Because I know he's a community organizer and have heard him talk about volunteer programs (including the $4000 college credit in exchange for national service) I believe he's sincere on the subject. But I'd like to see a speech devoted to this theme; it seems he's based his campaign on a sort of "people power" and I'd love to hear him flesh out what it means in terms of a program of specific policies. It would also go a ways toward countering the Right's claims that he's merely an old-fashioned big-government leftist in sheep's clothing (read: sit back, government will solve all your problems for you). And it could solidify his vision in the way that Kennedy's New Frontier and FDR's New Deal did theirs. Of course, they'll be plenty of time for that later (as I recall, first-hand of course, Walter Lippmann thought Roosevelt was a lightweight in '32).

So just to reiterate: know Obama's got the substance, always said so. Also know that it's not enough just to have the stuff, you have to present it because voters lead busy lives and can't look it all up themselves. Then again, maybe his call to service begins with them getting up and looking up his record & policies! Who knows...

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 11:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What we're seeing is a struggle to pigeon-hole a guy who naturally resists it -- that's part of the reason he's winning."

Exactly.

- ralphnelle

February 26, 2008 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yup, CFK.  Remember "FDR stands for featherduster?"  FDR had experience, he'd been Asst. Sec. of the Navy during WWI, and had 4 years as Governor of New York, but the most important experience he had was purely biographical: Overcoming polio and being a forgotten man, cast out of a privileged life and needing to find the hope to fight on, despite his difficulties.  

On a side note, does anyone else miss the days of great two word Campaign visions?  The Square Deal, the New Freedom, the New Naitonalsim, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, Modern Republicanism, The New Frontier and The Great Society?  The kind of things you can stick in a 10th grade History book so kids know Presidents' programs and what they fought for?  Big goals and platforms that folks campaign on and put to Congress?  Good times...

- Crock1701

February 26, 2008 at 1:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very insightful post jhildner.

- aeest4

February 26, 2008 at 3:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton -- you miss my point (intentionally?) -- nobody was talking about majorities I'm sure a majority of Obama supporters would vote Dem if Clinton had won, but fewer than usual.  The Dems need both percentage and turnout of African-American voters and I don't think enough would have come back to Clinton.   The point is that the bad blood runs both ways and it may indeed cost the election in the Fall.  The counter to that is that McCain has problems with his own base.  There's a stickiness to opposition this year (you see it w/ Huckabee's support as well) compared to other races.  

- Lymon1

February 26, 2008 at 6:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lymon -

The difference is that Hillary's supporters who are most likely to be bitter (elderly white women) may not survive until November.

Obama's bitter supporters (blacks, young people) have a much lower death rate.

- virginiacentrist

February 26, 2008 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tell me VC, do you wish Hillary's elderly white women supporters to "go straight to hell" along with your wish for Hillary?  I doubt that too many of those cheering in the SNL audience were at death's door, but I'm sure the toothless AARP appreciates the sentiment.

- Lymon1

February 26, 2008 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ralph,

he can't be pigeonholed becasue what he says is so vague and meaningless in the context of real politics and governance.

- Eos

February 26, 2008 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dukakais was way ahead of Bush at this stage. Can't take to the bank the fact that he's ahead of McCain now.  

- r-ennis

February 26, 2008 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

virginiacentrist

That was truly funny.  You know, even in these identity politics crazed times, I'm seriously beginning to wonder how the group with 9 governors and 16 senators can play the "its not fair card" against the group with 1 governor and 1 senator without failing the laugh test.

- arsonplus

February 26, 2008 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close