SNL - they did it again.

SNL skit


How did Saturday Night Live manage to do it again this week (9/13/08)? Once again, they nailed the election season, by having Tina Fey come back to take her rightful role as that of Sarah Palin. She was made to play Palin. But, the genius part is that they not only had Palin portrayed, but they had her side by side with Amy Poehler, who does an excellent Hillary Clinton.I am a democrat and will vote for Obama, but have been thinking this week - did the Republicans beat us to it? Did the repubilicans understand that there was a desire to have a female in office that was left dormant, but not dead, after Hillary gave her final speech? I have a feeling that there was.

I am not naive. I understand that the Republicans are using their Rovian tactics to defeat Obama. You know, the whole idea of using fears and lies as well as turning your competition's positives into negatives. I get it. I also know that Hillary's team ran a lousy campaign. Obama had younger, more cutting edge staff who consistently beat team HRC to the punch. But, despite all that, I keep wondering if Republicans are more comfortable with the idea of having a strong woman in a powerful role than are democrats. Democrats, including myself, would most likely balk at that idea. It is impossible - but is it?For the last year, liberal media sources have criticized Hillary in a more visceral way that I can ever remember media responding. They jumped on everything - her voice, her tone, her clothes, her mere presence. Interestingly though, they were also fascinated by her. I am very much for Obama/Biden, but often wonder if part of what made Obama more appealing during the primaries is that he was battling Hillary, not that he was battling.

So - as was kidded about during the SNL skit - have republicans crossed the line of being comfortable with a female in a powerful role before us Democrats? Even recent articles about Palin that appear in liberal news outlets, have to take a swing at Hillary Clinton while they are also speaking negatives about Palin. You know, that sort of, "if Hillary were not as narcisistic, maybe we would have supported her too, like the Republicans are supporting that terrible Palin." I understand that Sarah Palin represents a set of beliefs that many, understandably, would not see as feminist in nature. But, as I said, have the Repulicans reached a goal line that Democrats have not yet gotten to? Even if their play was different than we would have used, does that make the goal any less significant?