Is Colbert being "Bumped" by the "SNL Effect?" And should news directors take their cues from comedy shows?
by Kim Pearson

Are Saturday Night Live and other comedy shows shaping news coverage of this year's presidential campaign? The host of CNN's Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz raised this distinct possibility this morning. Here's a snippet from CNN's rush transcript:

KURTZ: We've debated on this program for more than a year whether the media have been giving Barack Obama walk on water coverage, but it wasn't until a few late-night comedy skits that journalists began confronting the question, gee, have we been too easy on the freshman senator?

The phenomenon Kurtz is alluding to has a name: "The SNL effect." The skits he's talking about ginned up a lot of discussion on BlogHer and elswhere. There are the parodies of the CNN and MSNBC debates where all the tough questions are for Hillary and Barack gets nothing but fawning bouquets.

Most recently, there's the parody of the Clinton campaign's "3 am phone call" ad, which questioned Obama's judgment on national security issues. SNL's sketch shows a panicky Pres. Obama turning to Clinton not only in a national security crisis, but for help in resetting the White House furnace:

By the way, blogger Ann Althouse stirred up her readers by suggesting that the original 3 am ad might have a racist subliminal message.

In an interview with Time.com, Sen. Obama argued that the SNL sketches swayed reporters, and that contributed to his primary losses in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island last week. Wilshire & Washington, a blog from Variety magazine that covers the intersection of entertainment and politics, has the skinny:

He says, "I actually think that what probably had the most impact this past week was the press buying into this notion that they have been too tough on her or too soft on me. I actually think that had the biggest impact. She complained to the referees and the referees gave her some calls."

Time's Karen Tumulty and David Von Drehle spell it out: "At the same time, the Clinton campaign stepped up its attacks on the media, insisting that Obama has been receiving kid-glove treatment. The theme sank into the broad public consciousness when Saturday Night Live returned from the writers' strike to make a recurring theme of the fawning press. Perhaps eager to prove that they can be equally tough on Obama, journalists filled that week with stories about Obama's Canada problem and his ties to an indicted Chicago real estate developer, Tony Rezko."

(FYI -- my take on the Tony Rezko case is here. )

Indeed, the Project for Excellence in Journalism's weekly content analysis of campaign coverage noted a pro-Clinton shift in the week before last week's primaries:

With no primary contests to consume press attention, Clinton’s charges of a pro-Obama tilt reverberated in the media echo chamber last week. Obama’s life and record came under a heightened degree of scrutiny, with everything from his legislative career to his ties to Louis Farrakhan to his African attire getting a public airing. Obama was the top campaign newsmaker and a significant or dominant factor in 69% of the stories from Feb. 25-March 2, a period between the Feb 19 Wisconsin primary and the March 4 tests in Texas and Ohio. That was the highest level of coverage for any candidate in 2008. And part of it was news outlets—from Good Morning America to The New York Times—engaged in introspective inquiry aimed at answering this headline atop one Feb. 29 newspaper story: “Are the media giving Obama a free ride?”

Clinton finished second in the derby for media exposure last week, registering as a significant or dominant figure in 58% of the campaign stories, a high water mark for her as well. And after weeks of tough coverage, Clinton may been relieved last week to find the media narrative focused more on her attacks on Obama than her 11-contest losing streak since Super Tuesday.

On Alternet, Adam McKay accuses SNL of abetting a Republican plot to secure the nomination for Sen. Clinton, because they believe she would be easier for their nominee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) McKay called the show's sketch writer, Jim Downey, a friend of Ann Coulter's. (I went looking for independent confirmation of that and only found that she used a quote from him as a publicity blurb on one of her books.)

And yes, it's sad that someone as capable as Hillary would be considered fodder for McCain, a "don't change horses in mid-stream, even when it takes that horse twelve years to cross that stream" kind of guy. Senator McCain just got the thumbs up from Bush. Isn't an endorsement from W like a job reference from that astronaut chick who lost it and wore diapers? Well, she is an astronaut and Bush is president.

Right-wing talker Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners to encourage Clinton's attacks on Obama by crossing over to vote for her in the Democratic primaries:

The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party. Look, there's a reason for this. Our side isn't going to do this. Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. That's good. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words. It's about winning, folks!

According to the New York Times, though, the evidence shows that Republicans who did vote in the Texas Democratic primary were more likely to support Obama than Clinton.

Backyard Beacon's AM Mc Reynolds says SNL's influence trumps that of Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert:

“Democratic candidates who appear on ‘The Report’ receive 44% more money than those who do not in the first month after their appearance,” according to a study by James H. Fowler, an associate professor of political science at UC San Diego.

On the eve of last week's primaries, Colbert cited Fowler's research in and warned that, "Hillary missed out on the coveted 'Colbert bump' by appearing on Jon Stewart's show instead of his.

Clearly, the comedy shows are influencing the press narrative. Are they influencing your vote?

Submitted by Kim Pearson (view blog) on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 4:50pm

Comments

 

Excellent post....love the video clips.

Hey Kim. Great post...I loved the video clips!

:-)

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

Submitted by Catherine Morgan on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 17:15
 

Thanks, Catherine!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 17:50
 

This is why Blogs Rule! lol

Seriously though - people have stinkometers built in. We are NOT stupid - especially primary voters. This is all nuts.

I haven't watched one single television campaign ad except for one or two on people's blogs because they were being discussed (like the Obama "join" ad from the Super Bowl), I hang up on the calls, I turn the radio channels.

I think many other people screen this stuff out. And we can still tell who if anyone is getting preferential treatment.

I don't know - I'm so tired of being told that I'm being influenced, that I've parroted points, that I'm drinking koolaid - as though I can't come to my own conclusions.

Ok - get ready - I'm unleashing -

CRITICS: leave us alone! Let us ask questions - let us figure it out. Stop telling us about us! lol

Ok - thanks - this rant has been brought to you by a mother with a child who has had a fever for three days and is still throwing up.

:)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Submitted by Jill Miller Zimon on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 18:10
 

I've barely seen a political ad, myself, off
the web

First things first -- hope the fever breaks soon!

There's so much marketing behind television political news coverage that I can't help but think that news directors are looking at the ratings for these shows -- especially the ones that twit their work -- and saying, "We've got to find a way to grab some of those viewers. Maybe SNL has a point..."

SNL and comedians generally have been satirizing politicians ever since I can remember, but this is the first time that I can recall any suggestion that their satire is actually affecting the course of an election.
Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 19:17
 

Agreed re: noting whether there's an
influence

Thanks, Kim - we're home again today. :( But he's sleeping well.

I agree - I can't remember reading about thoughts that the satire influences, but there are more shows now that do it that in the 70s, don't you think?

Even so, though, it's hard to believe that it's enough of an impact - and what does it say about us/people who CAN be influenced by that satire!? Oy - I don't even want to think about that. lol (or not so funny maybe!)

ill
Writes Like She Talks

Submitted by Jill Miller Zimon on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 05:18
 

Negative Campaigning

Hi Kim,

Thanks for a very informative post.

I always chuckle when I hear commentators saying things like, "Oh, he/she's about to go negative," or "We'll have to see how the public reacts to this negative campaigning," or "Things have gotten negative very quickly."

All political campaigning since the beginning of time has had an element of the negative about it. It's a matter of degree. For anyone to expect a potential candidate to only talk about the qualifications they have and not about what qualifications their opponent does not have is ridiculous.

The media likes to tout the "It's going negative" line because, like saying, "We're in the middle of a major storm," when there are only a couple of sprinkles outside, they want to increase ratings. In the case of the rainstorm, it works.

The campaigns use the "going negative" line as a weapon against their opponents to try and sway the public, even when the "going negative" hasn't happened at all. It's simply more spin.

Personal attacks, like saying someone's a murderer, when there's no proof and its from unnamed sources is to my mind truly negative campaigning. But the Clinton 3 AM ad and Obama's responses to it are not. It's called tough campaigning and trying to win.

Since this is the first time we've had a woman and a black person running against each other, the "going negative" is going to unfortunately take on a heck of a lot more meaning. The press hasn't wanted to be hard on Obama, I think, because they are afraid of being called racist. They wanted the Clinton campaign to attack him instead. But as soon as the SNL sketches started focusing a spotlight on them, they absolutely stepped up their scrutiny of Obama for fear of being called soft.

So what does all this mean? It means this is politics. It also means, it's great that there's an online citizen blogging presence that can hold the media accountable and make sure more citizen's voices are heard.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube

Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Submitted by Megan Smith on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 19:30
 

Fascinating

What an interesting idea that television which is supposedly "entertainment" is impacting television which is supposedly "news." The lines are getting increasingly more blurry.

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

Submitted by Kalyn Denny on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 19:43
 

That's a whole nother post

The blurring of information and entertainment in TV news programming has been a problem for years. It's especially egregious in local news. This is OT, but it illustrates the problem perfectly -- SEXISM ALERT:


The Dancing Weather Girl - Watch more free videos

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 19:54
 

That's true, Megan

You're right -- a lot of the sniping back and forth is politics as usual. It's tricky, I think because Hillary Clinton is getting criticism from within her own party that her attacks on Obama will only help McCain should he become the nominee. This post from former Sen. Gary Hart is a prime example. On the other hand, Barack Obama has promised to run a positive campaign, and it doesn't take much to have people question whether he's reneged on his pledge. (Although Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Woodson's likening of Obama to former special prosecutor Ken Starr made the Clinton campaign look silly, imho.
Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 19:43
 

We all need to get a grip on this "negative
campaigning" thing

I really agree that there has been nothing too horrendous between Clinton and Obama, and I wrote a post about it this weekend, entitled Put on your big girl and boy pants everyone!

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Submitted by Elisa Camahort on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 20:26
 

I'm glad to see this...

As ridiculously negative as the coverage of this entire campaign has been - particularly in Clinton's direction - it makes me crazy when I hear people saying, "OMG she's going NEGATIVE."

I would too. Sorry, but I would. WIthin reason, of course, and I'm not saying I'd run every ad she's run or say every word she's said, before anyone goes nuts and holds me accountable for every word out of her mouth. : )

Disagreeing is part of this gig. You have to set yourself apart if you want to win, and I think at some point if you don't there's a problem. Obama hasn't had to be negative, for the most part, because it's done for him - and perhaps at times with good reason. He's benefited from the public and media backlash against Clinton. I'll also make the incendiary claim that any negative comments from her have been held to a much lower threshold of tolerance than those of most male politicians.

It's been said time and time again on this site and elsewhere - people who don't like her DON'T LIKE HER. There are very strong feelings from different people for both candidates. Those towards her have naturally put her on the defensive.

I've more or less shifted to neutral since I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE IN MY PRIMARY (stupid Maryland, coding me wrong) so this is in no way a pointed criticism of any one person or platform. It's just how I see things

And I'm glad to see the issue of "negativity" discussed intelligently and calmly. I kinda thought I was losing my mind. Thank you Professor Kim, as ever, and Megan, and Elisa.

laurie

Submitted by lauriewrites on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 21:53
 

The difference for me...

...is that 1-4-8 years ago it would not have occurred to me that 'going negative' was bad. It was, in fact, tough and necessary campaigning.

Now, I see Obama as sticking to his word in avoiding that sort of attack style campaigning, which is debatable depending on your perspective.

The lasting impression, for me anyway, is that we're so used to this attack ad nonsense that it's become normal. I don't want it to be normal, regardless of how necessary it may be to win.

I'm hoping Obama stays true to his word and wins with out it. Then we can all re-define what is 'normal' when it comes to attack politics.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 22:12
 

It's YOUR perception that Obama is above the
fray...not mine

This is where it's totally subjective. I have been repeatedly offended by things that either Obama himself or his staff (paid and unpaid) have said because he is totally capitalizing on the fact that this is still a sexist nation and because, worst sin of all, he is capitalizing on Republican talking points

Repeatedly.

Just as offended as I was by anything coming out of the Clinton camp, including what she, Bill or staff said.

I don't see a huge difference between the ways each side is trying to say the other is less electable...both arguments are based on them as people and their personal lives or likability, NOT on their policies.

But I realized this weekend that it's all still pretty polite, and we (media, campaigns and political junkies) are way over-blowing the "nastiness factor."

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Submitted by Elisa Camahort on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 07:05
 

Agreed

Thank you, Elisa.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Submitted by Denise on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 13:11
 

What did Obama say?

I read about the "tea party" comment, and I read that Taylor Marsh tried to make an issue of him saying that Clinton attacks him "periodically," "when she's feeling down." Personally, I think that's a stretch.

But what am I missing? What did Obama or his minions do or say that was on a par with the race-baiting that has so many people upset with the Clinton campaign?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 13:35
 

puppies and unicorns and hearts too

And yes I realize that sounds very hippie. But I don't care anymore. I also hope for rainbows and fuzzy puppies and unicorns ;)

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 22:16
 

There's Nothing Wrong With Puppies and
Unicorns

Erin,

I respect your point of view. There's nothing wrong with wanting something to be held to a higher, more positive standard. I just think in politics, things will always get a little messy.

Elisa and Laurie,

Here I thought I was the only one who was sick of the hysteria over "negative campaigning." Elisa, I thought your post was great and right on the money.

Kim,

You're right that the likening of Obama to Ken Starr was a dumb statement. And God knows, most local news is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to getting real news reporting. I can't wait to read your post on that topic.

Good discussion ladies.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube

Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Submitted by Megan Smith on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 04:04
 

Ok - I hate to but...

It seems appropriate.

Someone I really, really like in the Ohio poltiical blog world posted this YouTube recently and I have to tell you, I couldn't watch more than a few seconds. What if the tagline was "You nigger" - I think this kind of thing is unacceptable by supporters, no matter how passionate. And it's what bothers me about the fanaticism of supporters. Frankly, it scares me.

I think back to the "mystery" youtube that went viral that mimicked the IBM/Apple ad - now that sent a clear message with fantastic imagery. Why can't we stick to that kind of stuff?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Submitted by Jill Miller Zimon on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 05:21
 

About The YouTube Video

Hmmm.

My first instinct is to critique it as a video: fascinating, but disjointed imagery, using a piece of music I really like, really badly.

Yeah, the title's insulting, but for good or ill, it's playing off a line in a movie that no one seems to have much of a problem with.

Unfortunately, in the wild west of the internet and online video there's lots of stuff out there I don't want to watch and I wish other people weren't watching either.

People need to be more civil to each other no matter who they support, online or off.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube

Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Submitted by Megan Smith on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 06:00
 

Interesting video, Jill. I

Interesting video, Jill. I had not seen that one. (I've kind of been in a no-media mode for a while now LOL!)

I may be reading too much into this, but this is my take on it. From the movie where that line was borrowed, the punch of it came from the fact that this was a woman, saying t to a female (granted, from a different species). From what I could tell, the maker of the video is also a woman, saying this to a woman...

Now, we can debate whether this is "good" or "acceptable" or not. But the analogy you gave to an anti-Obama video with "n****" would only work if the line was borrowed from a popular culture product where a Black man was calling another Black man the n-word (and there are many, many, many examples of that) and the anti-Obama video maker was also African American.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Submitted by Yvette Perry on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 08:06
 

Thanks Yvette

Yes - that's been mentioned to me re: the context of the movie.

So maybe it says more about me being lame when it comes to social/cultural milestones, seriously - I am just not that familiar with those films! So I don't get that meaning nearly like others do.

How much does the context really matter?

I will say that it opened up a very long discussion between me and the blogger friend who posted it - so that was good.

But, at my core, I still don't like it. What can I tell ya!?

(I do agree - using the n word is far, far worse - I know that - but again, in my house, the "s" word is stupid - not the other one - we really work hard to keep words in their place)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Submitted by Jill Miller Zimon on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 14:41
 

Satirical better than Biased?

HI Kim,
Great post. I really enjoyed the clips. I wish I could figure out how to add those....
Is there a "Blogging for Dummies" book out yet?

Anywhooo.... I download Colbert and Stewart from iTunes because living abroad, I get very limited news from the states. The news I do get is CNN Asia which mentions every school shooting in detail that occurs in the US, but doesn't always give much info about the political scene (unless there is a good clip of GWB dancing). Another option, BBC Asia seems biased toward reporting the awful tragedies happening in the US also. CNBC on occasion will have something other than financial news, but most of the time it is late in the evening or middle of the night. So I get my "TV" news from John and Stephen.
Do I believe everything? No. But after getting my 22 minute laugh I then go online and try to figure out where the truth lies. I think that these shows are probably swaying my opinion somewhat regardless of the online reading I do to help put the info into perspective. John Stewart a bit more than Colbert. Because of my situation I am probably not a reliable subject to base anything on, but I bet than those who watch the comedy shows on a regular basis are basing their vote to some degree on the information gathered on these shows.
Now, whether that is good or bad.... I guess that depends on if you like Stewart or Colbert better?

Submitted by JenInShanghai on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 06:09
 

Interesting perspective, Jen, and Elisa I
partially agree

Thanks for weighing in. The funny thing is that many of us in the US read sites such as BBC to get US news that isn't being reported here. Greg Palast's investigations of the 2000 president election is one example. It's certainly true that media within particular countries operate within what's considered an acceptable range of controversy, and they employ narrative frames that are often rooted in the foundational beliefs of that culture. For example, a profile story in the US will often use a hero narrative that fits into this country's view of itself as a nation of pioneering, triumphant individuals. The same story from an Asian nation, in my experience, would put more emphasis on the collective entity to which that person contributed, whether we are talking about family, company, community or nation.

There are a lot of truths, positive and negative that don't make it into the center of public discourse. James Loewen pointed out that stories about movements based on interracial cooperation don't get a lot of attention in the history books, and those aspects of contemporary movements tend to get lost, too.

By the way, I think that's one reason that John Edwards' populism didn't resonate as widely as one might have expected -- the only narrative most people have about populism in the US is the Lou Dobbs-Pat Buchanan nativist strain that hearkens back to George Wallace and Huey Long. But that's an incomplete history.

For Tuesday, I plan to write about another set of truths that we don't talk about, but that should be an issue in this election -- our tragically high incarceration rate and our increasing dependence on the prison-industrial complex. That should be an issue in Mississippi, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but I will be surprised if it is more than a minor talking point in each candidate's stump speech, and then, only before audiences of color. At least, that's the way it's been so far.

Finally, to Elisa -- I don't mind tough campaigning. I don't mind Hillary saying she has more international experience than Obama, nor do I mind Obama pressing her to release her tax returns. But I do mind when Howard Wolfson makes subtle allusions to Bob Johnson's snide remarks about Obama's youthful drug use, and as I said earlier, the Ken Starr reference was an embarrassment. I don't think even John McCain will make too much of an issue about Obama and drugs, given his own family's experience. (And by the way, I would hope that his wife would take a cue from Betty Ford in that regard. Whatever one thinks of the Ford administration politically, she did the country a great service by her openness and her establishment of the Betty Ford Center.)

Is Obama sexist? Perhaps, although a lot of the women I know and read are really impressed by the respect that he displays for his wife, the attention he gives his daughters, and the women associated with his campaign. His denigration of Hillary Clinton's experience as First Lady -- the "tea party" remark -- was dumb. I think he realized that, if only because he can't say that she didn't play a significant role and then criticize her for her part in what he says are the Clinton era's "politics fo the past."

As for Samantha Power, I'm guessing Obama figured he couldn't defend her and fight Wolfson too, although their is a big difference between being an unpaid advisor and being campaign spokesman. Wolfson speaks for the campaign; Power spoke for herself. But that's a subtlety that I wouldn't expect anyone in the press corps to sustain.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 06:52
 

I don't like it either, but...

I just don't think it approaches the kind of "nasty attacks" rhetoric that the media is trying to pin on it all, that's all.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Submitted by Elisa Camahort on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 07:09
 

I agree

I think that any country's media will be biased to some extent. I turn to the internet and several online sources for news because the television versions that are allowed to be broadcast here are very biased and limited. I can't tell you how often I am watching CNN Asia and the screen goes black for 30-60 seconds. It could be loss of satellite signal, but more often than not it is because a news story is not approved for viewing here (I know I am in very rare situation here).
Regarding your post and media's influence:
I just spoke with my brother who is a wonderful man taking care of 6 kids and working in the military. We started chatting about the election and I asked who he thought would be good. He said any of them except "Billary". Before playing big sister and exposing the myriad of ways in which his three older sisters raised him better than that I paused and asked him Why?
He said because she cries at the drop of the hat.
That response is absolutely a product of the media he relies on for information, television.
After giving him some "not so sisterly" advice and lessons on sexism we hung up. But I still can't help but think that he is not atypical. He has is like very many other folks in a town of 124,000 voters in Illinois.
They are products of the mainstream media that is TV and they will most likely vote.
So I say let it get dirty as long as it is addressing issues that directly relate to the politics of running this country. If that means that the public needs to know about shady land deals in a politicians personal life then give them the truth not deceptive innuendo. Do I think it includes wether or not they drank or smoked when they were young? No. I don't, but then again I am a democrat on the left inside corner. Others might think this too has bearing on a politicians moral compass.
I guess what it boils down to for me is that one can't rely on television for their source of news anymore. Whether its comedic news shows or the so-called "real" news it all seems sensationalized, biased, and for-profit.

On a lighter note, I figured out how to embed a video without buying "Blogging for Dummies". Hopefully now my posts will be catchy enough to get a comment once in a while... or maybe I should look into buying that book anyways...
Have a grand day!
j

Submitted by JenInShanghai on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 19:26
 

What do you think of Keith Olbermann's
"Special Comment" on HRC?

Since we've been talking about allegations of negative campaigning, is KO on the on the money or off the mark?


Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 05:39
 

Arghhh

The internet connection is so slow here it took me about 20 minutes to wa th ch th is 10 mi nu te vi de o.

All broken up to boot!

And after all that I think I have officially given up on reading or watching any coverage of this election for at least the next month. It is giving me a headache.
Have at it everyone else!
I'm out.
jen

Submitted by JenInShanghai on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 06:13
 

On The Money

It disappoints me to say it, but he's right on the money. Ferraro's comments were ridiculous and Clinton should have, and should still, denounce them more strongly. And also state that from this point forward, no more of those kinds of statements will be tolerated.

I still don't believe there was anything racist about the 3AM ad, but this other stuff is totally unacceptable.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube

Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Submitted by Megan Smith on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 06:57