Of course it would come to this. The news media entertain while comedy shows deliver political spin.
Having apparently boosted Hillary Clinton's campaign by playing the media-is-too-easy-on-Obama skit immediately before her wins in Texas and Ohio, and the Hillary-at-3AM ad last week, Lorne Michaels, the executive producer of Saturday Night Live has gone out of his way with the NY Times and LA Times to dispel the impression his program in any way backs the former First Lady for the Democratic nomination. He was reacting to the two skits and the bitches-get-stuff-done endorsement from former SNL cast member and 30 Rock diva Tina Fey that have raised suspicion of a political agenda at work.
If you follow the money, however, are there more clues to some intentional or subliminal motives? Lorne Michaels has been an active political donor over the years. The largest and most consistent beneficiary of his largesse since 2000 has been Chris Dodd and the Chris PAC. Dodd withdrew from the current race in January and has since endorsed Obama. But Michaels has also regularly given to John McCain since 2000, including donations in March and May of last year totaling $2300, the maximum allowed for the primaries. Is Michaels on some level helping McCain, who he vows will not receive additional donations now that he has captured the GOP nomination, by trying to ensure that Clinton becomes his opponent? Just asking.
Mr. Micheals' remonstrations might be more convincing if he had not selected comic-musician Fred Armisen to impersonate Barack Obama. The otherwise-talented Armisen has failed to capture any of the charisma and inspiration that make the candidate so appealing. Instead, his is a dour and dumb Barack Obama Who Never Smiles, guaranteed not to garner any sympathy when viewed alongside the simpatico Hillary Clinton of Amy Poehler.
At the start of this season, Michaels streamlined the SNL staff in what was viewed as a cost-cutting measure. It was also reported earlier this year that the chubby Kenan Thompson was on a diet so he could play Obama. When the writers' strike came to an end, tryouts for the part at SNL were widely reported. Does Michaels' decision not to sign a new impersonator indicate he does not expect Obama will be in the running much longer, so he is saving money with someone already on staff?
Art imitates art. Meanwhile, as I reported previously, it is now confirmed that Seth Myers will play Eliot Spitzer on SNL this Saturday. Not clear yet who will play Kristen or if they will in fact call the segment "Superdelegates Gone Wild".
This is an exceptional endorsement, very eloquent, very gracious, very classy.
I actually appreciate that Dodd didn't walk away from his earlier skepticism of Obama's readiness. Instead, he addresses his own former fears and makes the case that they've been disproven over the course of the primary season.
And I feel much more comfortable with Dodd should he seek the vice-presidency or the majority leader position.
The Connecticut senator... is expected to announce his endorsement of Obama this morning, according to a Democratic official close to Dodd. He'll then campaign with Obama in Ohio... It's unclear what Dodd's task will be with the campaign or whether he'll be hitting those last two New England states still awaiting primaries next week.
Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, is a long-time friend and close ally of the Clintons:
His support of Obama may clash with his longtime friendship with the Clintons. After the Republicans swept into Congress on a "Contract with America" wave in 1994, President Clinton picked Dodd as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
The Courant also notes that Dodd had dismissed the importance of endorsements in recent weeks, questioning whether they have much impact on voters, but that he had increasingly been hinting that Clinton would be unable to stop Obama's momentum.
Dodd also could help Obama with Hispanic voters. A fluent Spanish speaker, Dodd served in the Peace Corps in a rural village in Dominican Republic from 1966-68 and has had a strong interest in Latin American affairs throughout his career.
Dodd's endorsement emphasizes that superdelegates are not going to stick up for the Clintons in the face of party momentum towards Obama. Superdelegates aren't going to be enough. Clinton would have to narrow Obama's lead in pledged delegates --- which is looking more and more unlikely.
Dodd will announce Friday that he will remain neutral in Tuesday's Connecticut primary.
A Democrat close to Dodd, who requested anonymity because no formal announcement had been made, says the former Democratic presidential contender plans to talk about his decision at a late-afternoon news conference in Hartford.
A Richardson consultant let it be known that the Governor would also be remaining neutral in New Mexico's Tuesday primary.
John Edwards has already said that he plans to sit down with both candidates before making an endorsement, meaning it's highly unlikely that an endorsement would come before Tuesday.
And as for Al Gore, an endorsement looks unlikely.
So it's safe to say that there won't be anymore game-changing endorsements before February 5th. Keep looking, however, for unions and congresspeople who had supported Edwards to shift to Obama. Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota joined them this morning.
December 26. Nine days until Iowa voters caucus, thirteen days until New Hampshire voters go to the polls. The campaigns are making their final push to the first voting states, and the push promises to be more intense than what Democratic voters have seen in years.
Below the jump, details on the various campaigns' activities this week, and some context for how 2008 is different than 2004.
Last week, we saw a fairly astonishing display of doublespeak from Clinton and Dodd on the topic of whether Iowa students originally from out of state have the right to caucus.
In November 2004, just days before election day, voters received this mailer (pdf) from the Iowa Republican Party on behalf of state representative Danny Carol, who later apologized but was defeated in 2006:
In response to a new Clinton ad in New Hampshire highlighting Republican attacks against her, Senator Chris Dodd fired off this response:
"It's an interesting admission from Senator Clinton -- that if she's elected we're headed for four more years of the partisan warfare, Washington dysfunction, bitter divisiveness and gridlock that have marked the last 15 years, at a time when all Americans are desperate for real solutions to real problems."
Or, as an alternative title "Barack Obama Had it Right (Again)"
There's an excellent diary up on the rec list now concerning Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf and his exploitation of the Bush administration's foreign policy as it focuses so myopically on its "War on Terror." We may sit here and observe that what is happening in Pakistan now is perhaps a predictable consequence of designing a foreign policy in Pakistan that relies solely upon bolstering the existing government against our archetypal mutual enemy off in the mountains at the Pakistan border. We might further believe that the present turmoil - the suspension of democracy, is a logical extension of the militarism we fostered supporting the conflict in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s, or an extension of our tacit acceptance of the military rule and spreading of Sharia law under Zia-ul-Haq beginning in '77. However, while we sit here drawing those historical threads I would like to remind us of a discussion we had, here and elsewhere, some three months ago.
