The Right to Bare Arms

May 10, 2009 3:45 AM

The writers for the Late Show with David Letterman have recently had some trouble coming up with jokes about Obama. Perhaps they should take a lesson from the master of Obama jokes, the President himself. President Obama brought down the house at last night's White House Correspondents' Dinner, poking fun at himself, his administration, and everyone else within shouting distance. Host Wanda Sykes followed Obama's show stealing performance with a few choice jabs of her own. Unfortunately, it seems that Dick Cheney's prediction has come true since no one is safe when the Comedian-in-Chief steps up to the mic.
posted by inconsequentialist (143 comments total)

"Let's go to Iowa and make it official."

Heh.
posted by louche mustachio at 4:12 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

"In the next 100 days, I will strongly consider losing my cool. Finally, I believe my next 100 days will be so successful, I will be able to complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest."

Awesome.
posted by mattdidthat at 4:23 AM on May 10 [4 favorites]

Ah, I was hoping for the requisite "Rahm Emanuel is a foul-mouthed bastard" gag, and the Pres. did not disappoint.
posted by FelliniBlank at 4:26 AM on May 10

I love that cheeky grin that flashes right after he cracks the next victim with the funny bat. He killed it, as always.
posted by nudar at 4:35 AM on May 10

The best was when he said that Michael Steele was in the "heezy." "Wazzup, Mike?" Left me in stitches.
posted by billysumday at 4:37 AM on May 10 [9 favorites]

I also really liked Wanda Sykes joke about Palin: "So apparently the Governor couldn't make it tonight. She pulled out at the last minute. Somebody needs to tell her that's not really how you practice abstinence." Also, Sykes called Obama a mulatto. That's just classic.
posted by billysumday at 4:43 AM on May 10 [3 favorites]

It's so cool that he's funny and pulls it off! That's what I look for in a president! It really takes my mind off the fact that he's continuing Bush-era renditions!
posted by stepheno at 5:41 AM on May 10 [9 favorites]

"Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me."
posted by rdr at 5:41 AM on May 10

Who wrote the material?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 5:50 AM on May 10

These jokes have to drive a certain segment of the American population (more) nuts. The POTUS told a motherfucker joke and a gay joke, did the "heezy" line, talked about a white woman eagerly kissing him, and, with the "and then I will rest" line, lightly compared himself to God.
posted by pracowity at 5:58 AM on May 10 [18 favorites]

One joke I didn't understand: John Boehner as "a person of color." Referring to a bad tan job or something?
posted by billysumday at 6:00 AM on May 10

I am freaked out by how much Tina Fey looks like Obama.
posted by srboisvert at 6:04 AM on May 10 [9 favorites]

McSweeney's to the rescue.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 6:13 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

Boehner: The Man With the Tan.
posted by octothorpe at 6:48 AM on May 10

Wow, Sykes!

Rush Limbaugh's one of your biggest critics, saying "I hope this administration fails." So [he's] saying "I hope America fails." ... To me that's treason. He's not saying anything different than Osama bin Laden. ... I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker on 9/11, but he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight.

Too much? ... Rush Limbaugh. "I hope this country fails." I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboardin' that's what he needs.

posted by Glee at 6:54 AM on May 10 [18 favorites]

It's too bad Canada doesn't have anything like the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Trudeau, of course, would have killed that shit, and I'd imagine Jean "Pepper Steak" Chrétien could have pulled it off, but Harper?

"I see Michaëlle Jean is 'in' 'da' 'house' tonight. Michaëlle, when you took office, a lot of people thought you were a separatist, but not me. After all, you're from Haiti, and who would want to go back there? [left eye begins twitching uncontrollably] Uh, and how about [voice begins to slur slightly] that seal hunt? These Europeans are telling us not to club seals, which I guess makes them the 'don't, uh [speech noticeably slower and slurred now], club seals club'. And then there's Kevin Lynch, who is retiring this week [sparks visible shooting out of right ear]. When he tendered his resignation I told him we'd have to have a 'Lynch Party' to celebRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR [synthetic skin bursts into flame and melts, revealing circuitry underneath]
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:04 AM on May 10 [16 favorites]

I hope Stephen Colbert has something to fall back on.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 7:33 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

That Rush Limbaugh bit is priceless. Here's a YouTube link that starts off there (at 2:00).
posted by shadytrees at 7:34 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

Uh, Stephano, you might want to read that article again because what it says and what you say it says are not exactly flying in formation.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 7:47 AM on May 10 [7 favorites]

That bit about Rush - ouch. I missed the first part, that's just kinda nasty. Nothing worse than Rush and his ilk say, granted, but do you really want that comparison? I guess it was funnier and less nasty when she said it than in text form.
posted by luftmensch at 7:52 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Any hope for a non-youtube link for this stuff? I need a laugh.
posted by michswiss at 7:53 AM on May 10

That bit about Rush - ouch.

No shit. What a HUGE insult to the 9/11 hijackers!!
posted by Crotalus at 7:59 AM on May 10 [15 favorites]

Holy wow. When he calls out Micheal Steele, directly referencing the fact that Steele was put into his position because he's black, I lost it.

That joke took some real bravado.

Hats off.
posted by gcbv at 8:08 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

gcbv:

I think it had more to do with this:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

That, and Steele's unfortunate persistent attempts to sound "street," are what the joke was about.
posted by argybarg at 8:15 AM on May 10 [5 favorites]

The real press conferences should be this tense and awkward.
posted by amuseDetachment at 8:19 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

I wonder to what degree the right is going to jump on some of these jokes and criticize Obama for laughing. I mean, they go after every little thing now so I imagine even an event like this that seems to be commonly understood as a "time out" will be turned into a reason for outrage. I love it. If I had cable I might end up watching Fox News all day just for the sheer absurd hilarity of it all.
posted by palidor at 8:39 AM on May 10

Help, I'm turning into Chris Matthews. HA!
posted by palidor at 8:40 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Yeah, argybarg is right about the Steele jokes. It was nice to see Obama joke about it, but I think Stephen Colbert has already taken the crown for Michael Steele related humor with the rap battle.
posted by inconsequentialist at 8:41 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

I agree he did a great job, and some of the jokes were very good. But I dislike this event now as much as I did when Bush did it. They're tacky. They reinforce the buddy-buddy nature of the press corps, and underscore how even great tragedies 'should' be laughed off and made fun of even before they're over. How can the press walk out of these things expected to take their jobs seriously?

Torture jokes from the President. How can this be a good thing?

Like: Too soon.
posted by rokusan at 8:42 AM on May 10 [10 favorites]

Wow.

Wow.

They didn't take the gloves off. They put bloody horseshoes and nails in them and came out swinging.
posted by Decimask at 8:45 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Before I opened these links, when I read who the speakers were, I thought two things:

1) Barack Obama is a gifted and charismatic speaker; and

2) Wanda Sykes can pack an awful lot of tedium and self-conscious attempts at edginess into a very few words.


I watched the links and came out by the same door that I went in.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:52 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

He's always been an excellent comedian.



Video of Obama routine at the 2008 Al Smith dinner.

Transcript of Obama's schtick at the 2006 Gridiron

Quotes (can't find transcript and there's no video at the Gridiron) of his 2004 apearance. A little more here.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:57 AM on May 10

I for one welcome our new smooth-talking overlord. I believe he's also instituted a policy that US soldiers will now only shoot boyishly charming bullets at civilians in Afghanistan.
posted by regicide is good for you at 8:58 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

When he calls out Micheal Steele, directly referencing the fact that Steele was put into his position because he's black, I lost it.

It was more a reference to Steele's ridiculous attempt to bring street slang to the GOP.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:59 AM on May 10

I wonder to what degree the right is going to jump on some of these jokes and criticize Obama for laughing.

After the big haw-haw when George Bush crawled around on the floor looking for WMD? Rahm Emmanuel motherfucker jokes aren't in the same league.
posted by sugarfish at 8:59 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Colbert was perfection. Sykes, who I never thought was THAT funny, did a great job. The 'drop the basketball playing' joke: 'one step forward, two steps back'? That was some raw shit right there.
posted by Flex1970 at 9:14 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

I love that nobody was allowed to laugh at the Sojourner Truth joke. Seems like it might have cut a little deep.
posted by thankyoujohnnyfever at 9:17 AM on May 10 [4 favorites]

they needed some mom's mabley up there!
posted by billybobtoo at 9:20 AM on May 10

I've got a joke:

"Try to name one thing, just one, that Obama has done so far that is not exactly what Hillary Clinton would have done as president."

Lol.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:39 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

"Try to name one thing, just one, that Obama has done so far that is not exactly what Hillary Clinton would have done as president."

Appoint herself as Secretary of State
posted by inconsequentialist at 9:44 AM on May 10 [55 favorites]

"Try to name one thing, just one, that Obama has done so far that is not exactly what Hillary Clinton would have done as president."

Make a room full of Washington insiders bust a gut with edgy jokes that directly attack your political rivals. And seem congenial and self-effacing at the same time. Sorry, delivery matters. A lot.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:47 AM on May 10 [16 favorites]

I bet Chris Rock wrote some of Wanda's jokes.
posted by Flex1970 at 9:51 AM on May 10

"Try to name one thing, just one, that Obama has done so far that is not exactly what Hillary Clinton would have done as president."

Shake Chavez' hand? Gone to Ben's Chili Bowl? Invited Stevie Wonder to play the East Room? Made his bitter campaign rival Secretary of State? Ordered Gitmo closed and released the Bush torture memos? Scored a 73% personal approval rating? Had a spouse who only made the prez look better?
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:54 AM on May 10 [57 favorites]

Make a room full of Washington insiders bust a gut with edgy jokes that directly attack your political rivals. And seem congenial and self-effacing at the same time.

That's not why you have elections.
posted by regicide is good for you at 9:59 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Saying "I hope his kidneys fail" about anyone is not funny. It's evil.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 10:12 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

That's not why you have elections.

That wasn't what drjimmy11 asked. Nobody is saying "This is why we elected him"; they're saying "This is different than what Clinton might have done.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:14 AM on May 10

[changed the comment link, carry on]
posted by jessamyn at 10:17 AM on May 10

One of the classic comedy tropes is setting up an expectation and then contradicting that expectation.

Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA

Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

And how about the one where he won the Democratic nomination by running as an anti-war candidate... then when he got into office, escalated the war in Afghanistan and began preparing for a new one in Pakistan?

That's comedy gold right there.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:20 AM on May 10 [4 favorites]

Make a room full of Washington insiders bust a gut with edgy jokes that directly attack your political rivals. And seem congenial and self-effacing at the same time.

That's not why you have elections.

No, but it does demonstrate the skill with words, the wit, the intelligence, the principle, and backbone that are prerequisite for leading a nation through crisis. Go back and watch Bush's correspondent's dinner speeches and tell me there's not a correlation between his speaking style and his total incompetence as a leader.

You can argue about continued renditions and new offensives overseas and the tone of health care debate but the fact is that you aren't going to get anything done if your voice makes people cringe, if you can't speak lightly, with wit, and make connections with people, while still holding true to your principles.

This is exactly why Obama got elected and Clinton did not.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:27 AM on May 10 [6 favorites]

It didn't seem to me he ran as an anti-war candidate, Joe. The statements I remember from him were that the Iraq war was a mistake, and a distraction from the real war in Afghanistan. He has, since he was elected, deescalated the war in Iraq and funneled troops into Afghanistan, which seems consistent with his platform.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:28 AM on May 10 [16 favorites]

Joe Beese, I seem to remember throughout his whole campaign he was advocating getting out of Iraq so as to focus more on Afghanistan.

Not to defend the telecom immunity thing or anything, but I don't think he ran as 'anti-war', just anti- Iraq War.
posted by knapah at 10:31 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

Exactly, Billy. Obama's next line about Boehner was, "Although not a color that appears in the natural world." Pic.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:32 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

SNL was apparently pretty stiff competition.

Motherlover


Star Trek stars on Weekend Update

posted by CunningLinguist at 10:59 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

He has, since he was elected, deescalated the war in Iraq and funneled troops into Afghanistan, which seems consistent with his platform.

And the air war continues: U.S. will not halt Afghan air strikes
posted by homunculus at 10:59 AM on May 10

Who wrote the material?

Al Franken?
posted by R. Mutt at 11:08 AM on May 10

Saying "I hope his kidneys fail" about anyone is not funny. It's evil.
OFFSSTFU
posted by fleacircus at 11:15 AM on May 10 [10 favorites]

Obama's remarks toward the end about a government's necessity for tough, viable independent news media were eloquent and refreshing.
posted by stargell at 11:27 AM on May 10

Saying "I hope his kidneys fail" about anyone is not funny. It's evil.

Saying " I want this Administration to fail" about any President is not constructive opposition. It's treason.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:34 AM on May 10 [4 favorites]

Obama's remarks toward the end about a government's necessity for tough, viable independent news media were eloquent and refreshing.

I had the opposite reaction; I found them cliche and unconvincing: the standard "America needs a strong, free, independent press" stuff every president trots out.

But I don't blame Obama: I think he's just peddling a familiar myth about the "media as liberty's watchdog" that is nevertheless entirely disconnected from how the media really functions. The media mostly functions either to maintain the status quo, or to actively disseminate propaganda. It's rarely if ever lived up to this whole "watchdog" meme.
posted by ornate insect at 11:46 AM on May 10 [3 favorites]

SNL was apparently pretty stiff competition.

Star Trek stars on Weekend Update

Speaking of Obama and Star Trek: Obama is Spock. Our president bears a striking resemblance to the rational "Star Trek" Vulcan whose mixed race made him cultural translator to the universe.
posted by homunculus at 11:46 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Saying " I want this Administration to fail" about any President is not constructive opposition. It's treason.

How come I wasn't put into Gitmo for my sentiment between, say, January of 2001 and November 2008?
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 11:54 AM on May 10 [3 favorites]

Saying "I hope his kidneys fail" about anyone is not funny. It's evil.

I'd agree, but she said this about Dick Cheney.

How's that old Mel Brooks line go? "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die. And comedy gold is when Dick Cheney has kidney failure and they pack him into an armoured personnel carrier to truck him to Undisclosed Location Hospital and on the way some recently laid-off dude driving half-drunk and distracted plows into it, and the rear door falls open and Cheney goes wheeling out the back on a stretcher and hits a ginormous pothole that no one's filled in because infrastructure spending's been cut to nothing to make room for all those no-bid cost-plus Halliburton contracts, and the pothole collision turns the stretcher into a lever that flings the agonized, failing-kidneys former VP like a stone from a catapult through the air, and he gets blown off the Interstate overpass by a particularly ferocious cloud of coal-plant exhaust and down into the derelict street below, where he ping-pongs like a pinball off the iron-barred facades of two payday loan shops, a shuttered Indymac branch and the cardboard-windowed facade of an AIG regional office, at which AIG office a sewer main burst not long before and the torrents of fetid CDS-trader-shit-polluted water fling Cheney's body aloft once more, each plume of reeking liquid seemingly calibrated to do nothing but put pressure on the beaten old man's kidneys, until finally every piece of plumbing in the building's subterranean network splits as one, and the great Old Faithful geyser of sewage throws Cheney upward and arcing across the sky like a great turd rainbow, up and across the empty foreclosed houses of subprime-mortgaged exurbia, coming down with exquisite aim through the hole in the roof of a shuttered Circuit City to land, finally, with a flat, sad splut, in a pool of swine-flu-infested rainwater laced with toxic battery acid leeched from the thousand unclaimed layaway plasma-screen TVs stacked in the warehouse, leaving the enfeedbled Cheney to fade with maddening slowness to his final demise accompanied only by the sound of his impotent wheezing barks of agony echoing through this sepulchre of American failure."

Am I quoting that correctly? Anyway, I think that's funny.
posted by gompa at 11:59 AM on May 10 [86 favorites]

OI, the fact the calcified institutionalized media often fail to live up to their responsibility doesn't make their role as "liberty's watchdog" a myth or a cliche. It does mean that the public must demand more and better from news outlets. Whether those outlets could provide it, given shrinking staff and financial resources, is the disturbing question.
posted by stargell at 12:01 PM on May 10

How come I wasn't put into Gitmo for my sentiment between, say, January of 2001 and November 2008?
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 2:54 PM on May 10 [+] [!]


I guess you were careful about how you expressed it? Or maybe you hold a more nuanced position of wanting Bushie to fail politically without dragging the lives and well-being of the rest of the world down with it?

I don't really know. And I don't think I really need to lay out the logical underpinnings of why Rush Limbaugh's consistently inflammatory and violent rhetoric coupled with the magnificient hypocrisy with which he lives every day makes him a viable target for a treason joke at the White House correspondent's dinner.

But if the real question you are getting at is what constitutes treason, how the differences in context and audience might factor in to the commission of said offense, and whether Rush is technically guilty of it, then I think that is an interesting discussion I would like to have.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:02 PM on May 10

Actually, she said it about Rush Limbaugh, but that works almost as well.
posted by stargell at 12:03 PM on May 10

I'd agree, but she said this about Dick Cheney.

Rush Limbaugh
posted by lazaruslong at 12:03 PM on May 10

I'd agree, but she said this about Dick Cheney.

Rush Limbaugh

Dang. Should've read more carefully . . .

*strikes through Halliburton and AIG references, inserts oxycontin and Sarah Palin*

Well, it's awkward, but I stand by the sentiment.
posted by gompa at 12:08 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]

Saying " I want this Administration to fail" about any President is not constructive opposition. It's treason.

Free speech! Free speech! Wait? You disagree with me and want my objectives to fail? Treason! Treason!
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:14 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]

Saying " I want this Administration to fail" about any President is not constructive opposition. It's treason.

In order to be treason, it must first be a crime. This is neither. Or stand it on its head and go ad absurdum with it:

"I want this Administration to fail."
"I want this Administration to fail to pass a gay marriage ban."
"I want the House of Representatives to fail to pass a gay marriage ban."
"I want the House of Representatives to fail to pass an education budget cut."
"I want my state legislature to fail to pass an education budget cut."
"I want my state legislature to pass an education budget increase."

Between which two statements would you draw the line between free speech and treason?
posted by JohnFredra at 12:15 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]

the public must demand more and better from news outlets

This will not happen. It ignores the structural role the corporate media plays in perception management. The idea of a "watchdog" media is largely a fable, and is totally at odds with the corporate monolith of our present media culture. That the mainstream media is beholden to their profit margins, shareholders, advertisers; that it is consistently manipulated by the well funded PR agendas of political operatives; that it has failed time and again to hold policy-makers accountable: these things seem transparently obvious by now.
posted by ornate insect at 12:16 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]

Free speech! Free speech! Wait? You disagree with me and want my objectives to fail? Treason! Treason!

Rush's only objectives are the destruction of his political enemies, which now include the President of the United States. He isn't invested into constructive opposition and the elevation of political discourse. He is invested in his ratings and saying as many flame bait statements as he can to drive those ratings up. I'm not going to get into a whole thing here, because he's going to do it for me in a year or two. He's teetering on the Falwell Precipice, and is about one "God cause Katrina" away from total irrelevance to any thinking person.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:20 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]

In order to be treason, it must first be a crime. This is neither. Or stand it on its head and go ad absurdum with it:

"I want this Administration to fail."
"I want this Administration to fail to pass a gay marriage ban."
"I want the House of Representatives to fail to pass a gay marriage ban."
"I want the House of Representatives to fail to pass an education budget cut."
"I want my state legislature to fail to pass an education budget cut."
"I want my state legislature to pass an education budget increase."

Between which two statements would you draw the line between free speech and treason?


Probably none of them when taken individually and without context.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I don't know that Rush vocally advocating for the failure of the American government directly gives our enemies aid and comfort, but I will say that taken in context with the style of rhetoric and weird veiled biblical threats and recriminations of which Rush is so fond, it makes for an interesting question.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:25 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Suggesting that Rush is guilty of treason is engaging in exactly the kind of dialogue you're denouncing. Why not just call him a terrorist? He's either with us or against us? Why does this sound so familiar?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:26 PM on May 10 [7 favorites]

Suggesting that Rush is guilty of treason is engaging in exactly the kind of dialogue you're denouncing.

No, it's really not. Listen to his show for 5 minutes and you will know for certain it is not. This is a dialogue. Rush is a thundering monologue of hate and vitriol.

Why not just call him a terrorist? He's either with us or against us? Why does this sound so familiar?

Mmmkay. Gonna stop this derail now, since it's obviously not going be productive. Carry on.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:36 PM on May 10

Rush might have some problems with that. He got a big contract, but when CCMO goes into receivership, he gets in line behind the preferred creditors.

Debts have since grown to more than $21 billion, in part because CC Media Holdings has drawn down all, or nearly all, of an additional $2 billion credit line.

CC Media Holdings, ahead of its May 11 first-quarter earnings report, already has said revenues fell 23 percent in the first quarter. Now, analysts uniformly warn CC Media Holdings won't be able to live up to its debt agreements by the end of this year or early 2010.
posted by mikelieman at 12:38 PM on May 10

Suggesting that Rush is guilty of treason is engaging in exactly the kind of dialogue you're denouncing. Why not just call him a terrorist? He's either with us or against us? Why does this sound so familiar?

If Bush's unilateral declaration of war on Iraq was legal, then the United States is (still) at war and what Rush's speech was seditious, which is illegal.

If Bush's unilateral declaration of war on Iraq was illegal, then the US is not at war, and what Rush said is protected under the First Amendment, assuming his speech is not commercial. But, then, what Bush did was treason and he broke the law.

This isn't about "with us or against us", so much as that you Republicans can't have it both ways.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:55 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]

Anyway, I found Obama's speech funny. Particularly his snaps at Steele and that bloated pig Limbaugh. All that despite my concerns with Obama's continued, if lessened support of policies I don't particularly like. I hope the Republicans keep Palin and Rush around, so that those two can drag their criminal brethren down even further.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:07 PM on May 10

» I think he's just peddling a familiar myth about the "media as liberty's watchdog" that is nevertheless entirely disconnected from how the media really functions.

Granted this wasn't a real speech, but I also found those obligatory nods (democracy needs strong watchdogs, etc.) at the end a little iffy. Especially because of the unspoken implications and shared understanding in the lines that immediately preceeded them:

In the next hundred days I will meet with a leader who rules over millions with an iron fist. Who owns the airwaves and uses his power to crush all who would challange his authority at the ballot box. It's good to see you, mayor Bloomberg.

Strong watchdogs indeed.
posted by Glee at 1:08 PM on May 10

What's amazing is that Obama's material is so much better than Sykes. Sure he's going to get good writers, just like she does, but it also says a lot about his ability to select clever stuff, even with hooks and barbs, but without crossing the line into hostility the way she did.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:17 PM on May 10

The media mostly functions either to maintain the status quo, or to actively disseminate propaganda. It's rarely if ever lived up to this whole "watchdog" meme.

Occasionally, it breaks tradition. NYT and WaPo in the early 70s with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. The Philadelphia Inquirer in the late 70s and early 80s with reports on police and health system corruption and polluters. It happens infrequently, agreed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:19 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

I really don't like the correspondents dinner. And not because of the buddy buddyness or anything like that. I dislike it because it is ultimately really tame Leno jokes paraded around like they are really edgy. It is a bunch of people with crew cuts letting there hair down. It is one of those casual Fridays where you can only wear khakis and a polo shirt. I don't have unrealistic expectations about how edgy it should be. I think it's fine. But the whole "we're so bad" vibe these type A is for assholes give off gets on my nerves.
posted by I Foody at 1:21 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]

RAHM EMANUEL SWEARS ALOT LOL, AMIRITE!?

Seriously that joke just irritates me. It's just lazy. How many times can you laugh at the same joke? Plus, I never hear Emanuel swear so that joke doesn't even really mean anything to me in the first place.
posted by delmoi at 1:22 PM on May 10

I don't have unrealistic expectations about how edgy it should be. I think it's fine. But the whole "we're so bad" vibe these type A is for assholes give off gets on my nerves.

Well, your "edge" is someone else's blunt surface. It's relative to where they normally operate from. These people don't get to that point in the game by being in a constant state of comedic self-examination. They're usually to busy playing the game. What exactly would make it better and "edgier"? Should they start discussing how power structures are inherently corrupt and nationalistic sentiments are manufactured illusions that need to be effaced? They're only going to peel back the onion a layer or two from where they usually are, and most of them, Obama included, are firmly on the outer layers anyway. Laugh and enjoy the respite.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:27 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Free speech! Free speech! Wait? You disagree with me and want my objectives to fail? Treason! Treason!

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism for that speech. I do think calling it "treason" is over the line though. He's not giving aide and comfort to the banking crisis. Saying that he "hates America" would have been better. It's a free country and you can hate America if you want to, and I think rush does, at least he sincerely hates a majority of the people in it.
posted by delmoi at 1:27 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

What exactly would make it better and "edgier"? Should they start discussing how power structures are inherently corrupt and nationalistic sentiments are manufactured illusions that need to be effaced?

Isn't that what Steven Colbert did?
posted by delmoi at 1:29 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

By the way, I did laugh at the line about using Tim Geithner as a fire hydrant.
posted by delmoi at 1:32 PM on May 10

I don't want it to be any edgier. I just want it to be less self congratulatory about what little edge there is. You know how when you see a thin women eating some ice cream and making a big deal about how bad she is. This is like that. It's just ice cream, shut up and eat your fucking ice cream.
posted by I Foody at 1:33 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Whether Limbaugh's remarks could technically be considered treason is beside the point. Would you really want him charged with treason and taken off to prison? For being a big fat idiot? He's a radio entertainer. Ignore him or laugh at him.
posted by pracowity at 1:34 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Would you really want him charged with treason and taken off to prison?

The way he shifts point A to mean point B using innuendo and mock outrage is treason against rational thought and is grounds for being run over by a bulldozer.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:39 PM on May 10

For what it's worth, it would be unproductive for the country to give Limbaugh the privilege of being marched off to federal prison for sedition. Better for all of us that he one day gets frogmarched out of his studio on a sex offender or oxycontin distribution beef.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:41 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]

I think we need more comedy in this world. There is so much absurdity that I cannot help but laugh. Obama kept me laughing throughout his speech. We need someone who can be that as well as be serious about issues. He delivered beautifully and showed that he can see humor in the absurdity of it all. It's all in the context, and the talking heads who were complaining about the material just need to simmer down and understand that levity can be a good thing.
posted by mnb64 at 2:22 PM on May 10 [2 favorites]

Arrest Limbaugh? He's the best thing that the Democrats and Obama have right now. Just let him keep talking and talking and driving the Republican party off into the wilderness. Right now he's got a lot of them convinced that they didn't lose to Obama because they were nuts, they lost because they weren't nuts enough. If only they'd had a real conservative as their nominee and not that damn RINO McCain, they could have won. With any luck they'll be so convinced of that idea that they'll nominate Palin or Huckabee in three years and Obama will win every state outside of the deep south except for Alaska and Utah.
posted by octothorpe at 2:40 PM on May 10 [4 favorites]

Plus, I never hear Emanuel swear so that joke doesn't even really mean anything to me in the first place.

You weren't the intended audience. Most people in that room have heard him swear operatically, and hence, they laughed.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:41 PM on May 10 [3 favorites]

SNL was apparently pretty stiff competition. Motherlover. Star Trek stars on Weekend Update.

WTF does NBC gain by removing it from YouTube? If we missed it, and the commercials they sold for it, how the hell is blocking it going to earn them any more money? At least if I get to see it they (a) have a chance to slip some advertising in, earning them more money; (b) have a chance to make me more amenable to watching SNL when it comes 'round on the dial.

As-is, I don't watch SNL, can't watch the video, and am pissed at NBC and will probably make an effort to avoid SNL when it comes across on the dial. Smegheads.

Same goes for Hulu.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:01 PM on May 10

How come I wasn't put into Gitmo for my sentiment between, say, January of 2001 and November 2008?

Because as a powerless schmuck, you have no real capability for inciting acts of hatred or violence. Rush Limbaugh apparently commands the minds of a million or so people. That fucker should be treated as an internal military threat.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:04 PM on May 10

Other than the obvious, the main reason "I want this administration to fail" cheeses me off so entirely is that it's usually coming from the same people who called treason on anyone who was against Bush, because by gosh once a president is elected you better follow him and have some respect for the office!

Back to Obama - I laughed plenty. I figure a lot of good comedians very happily volunteered to give him material and he delivered it well without dropping character.
posted by Billegible at 3:12 PM on May 10

...and the great Old Faithful geyser of sewage throws Cheney upward and arcing across the sky like a great turd rainbow, up and across the empty foreclosed houses of subprime-mortgaged exurbia, coming down with exquisite aim through the hole in the roof of a shuttered Circuit City to land, finally, with a flat, sad splut, in a pool of swine-flu-infested rainwater laced with toxic battery acid leeched from the thousand unclaimed layaway plasma-screen TVs stacked in the warehouse...
Am I quoting that correctly? Anyway, I think that's funny. posted by gompa at 2:59 PM on May 10

that wasnt comedy gold, that was poetry.
thanks for that "transcript"

:)
posted by liza at 3:28 PM on May 10

I bet Wanda had a Jaws moment when watching Obama, and thought: "I'm gonna need better jokes."

But still, the last joke about Cheney, torture, and bank robbery has Chris Rock written all over it.

Obama was superb in his delivery. The only one who will be able to hang with him , comically, in Washington will be Al Franken... Actually, Amy Klobuchar is funny as hell too.

I hope Dave Chappelle, Robin Williams, Jon Stewart, and Roseanne Barr (who is seriously underrated, and would do wonderfully at this) study up so they can do a WHCA dinner.
posted by Flex1970 at 3:53 PM on May 10

I hope Dave Chappelle, Robin Williams, Jon Stewart, and Roseanne Barr (who is seriously underrated, and would do wonderfully at this) study up so they can do a WHCA dinner.

I hope Robin Williams's kidneys fail. He might have been in form for one of these during the Reagan administration, but not since.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 6:06 PM on May 10

PS - I'd love to see the others though.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 6:07 PM on May 10

Because as a powerless schmuck, you have no real capability for inciting acts of hatred or violence. Rush Limbaugh apparently commands the minds of a million or so people. That fucker should be treated as an internal military threat.

Lol. I'm pretty sure most of the people shipped off to gitmo, as well as those arrested domestically weren't much of a threat either.
posted by delmoi at 10:06 PM on May 10

I hope Dave Chappelle, Robin Williams, Jon Stewart, and Roseanne Barr (who is seriously underrated, and would do wonderfully at this) study up so they can do a WHCA dinner.

They don't actually want anyone really funny.
posted by delmoi at 10:07 PM on May 10 [1 favorite]

I really don't like the correspondents dinner. And not because of the buddy buddyness or anything like that. I dislike it because it is ultimately really tame Leno jokes paraded around like they are really edgy.

You realize this is a reverse roast, right? It's an annual social event, and only recently has the media actually turned it into a media event.

Also, there is more than one of these in Washington, including the Gridiron Club, the Radio & Television Correspondents, and so forth. It's something like an obligatory round-robin amid the drudge and churn of embassy and other must-attend parties.

As such, I'm just saying, it really shouldn't be judged as something much more sophisticated than what you get when you go to a Rotary Club annual meeting or what not.
posted by dhartung at 10:17 PM on May 10

Suggesting that Rush is guilty of treason is engaging in exactly the kind of dialogue you're denouncing. Why not just call him a terrorist? He's either with us or against us? Why does this sound so familiar?

Are we so desensitised by the excessive declarations of the Republicans that we can no longer recognise hyperbole?
posted by Sparx at 12:08 AM on May 11

I hope Robin Williams's kidneys fail.

On his behalf, I say "fuck you!"

At least his heart is in the right place these days, as always.

Robin Williams' Heart Surgery: What's the Prognosis?
posted by ericb at 12:10 AM on May 11

Is hoping your kidneys fail the new hoping your head falls off?
posted by hattifattener at 12:10 AM on May 11

posted by five fresh fish Rush Limbaugh apparently commands the minds of a million or so people. That fucker should be treated as an internal military threat.

So according to your logic, every advertising firm in the United States should be treated as an internal military threat, and the Pope should be treated like a global terrorist.
posted by mattdidthat at 2:20 AM on May 11

Amen.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:40 AM on May 11 [1 favorite]

Is hoping your kidneys fail the new hoping your head falls off?

I think this joke is offensive to those whose heads have fallen off.
posted by troybob at 9:15 AM on May 11 [1 favorite]

So according to your logic, every advertising firm in the United States should be treated as an internal military threat, and the Pope should be treated like a global terrorist.

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease...
posted by logicpunk at 10:43 AM on May 11 [4 favorites]

I hope the Pope's kidneys fall off. Rush's too.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:03 PM on May 11

I hope their kidneys die in a car fire.
posted by FelliniBlank at 1:08 PM on May 11

I hope their cars die in a kidney fire.
posted by inconsequentialist at 1:19 PM on May 11 [1 favorite]

Too soon?
posted by inconsequentialist at 1:30 PM on May 11

White House distances itself from Wanda Sykes’s joke about Rush Limbaugh.
posted by ericb at 2:18 PM on May 11

Overthinking a plate of kidney beans.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:59 PM on May 11

Suggesting that Rush is guilty of treason is engaging in exactly the kind of dialogue you're denouncing. Why not just call him a terrorist? He's either with us or against us? Why does this sound so familiar?

It is interesting to me that so many posting here don't seem to get this.
posted by tenmuses at 9:25 PM on May 11 [2 favorites]

Suggesting that Rush is guilty of treason is engaging in exactly the kind of dialogue you're denouncing. Why not just call him a terrorist? He's either with us or against us? Why does this sound so familiar?

It is interesting to me that so many posting here don't seem to get this.

Not only that, it's horribly out of context to begin with. Rush, for his reasons, thinks that Obama's policies & objectives are dangerous for the country, so he hopes he fails achieving them.

How is that any different than what folks on the left felt about Bush? I'm sure there would have been high fives and chest bumps all around if Congress had ever stepped in to control the man.

This whole denouncing of dissent, so long as its dissent you agree with, has got to stop.
posted by rulethirty at 6:27 AM on May 12

This whole denouncing of dissent, so long as its dissent you agree with, has got to stop.

Dissent recursion! People can denounce it all day long and it's just fine.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:45 AM on May 12

How is that any different than what folks on the left felt about Bush? I'm sure there would have been high fives and chest bumps all around if Congress had ever stepped in to control the man.

I think you're missing the point. The point is that Rush and his supporters themselves frequently decried as treasonous any criticisms of Bush during his administration, on the grounds that in time of war, support for the nation's president and his policies should be inviolate in order to avoid providing "comfort to the enemy."

Nothing's changed now that a president "from the other team" is in office. Just because the current president's policies aren't in line with Rush's own, that doesn't give him the right, by his own reasoning, to publicly criticize the office of the president or his policies in a time of war.

You can't apply one set of standards when they suit your partisan political agenda and another when they don't and not expect to be skewered royally for being the fat, hypocritical snake-oil selling, crypto-fascist, confederacy-loyalist-pandering bastard that you are.

The fact is from the very beginning it's been the voices of movement conservatives like Rush that have been intentionally splitting our nation right down the middle, pitting one half of America against the other, using tactics taken almost unadulterated from the playbooks of the Nazi propagandists of the previous century.

If Rush and his supporters can't handle being tarred with the same brush they've been waving around so eagerly the last few years themselves, too bad for them. Free speech goes both ways.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:30 AM on May 12 [1 favorite]

posted by saulgoodman If Rush and his supporters can't handle being tarred with the same brush they've been waving around so eagerly the last few years themselves, too bad for them. Free speech goes both ways.

So in other words, "Now it's our turn to be assholes!" Wait, what did Obama say back in November?

"In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."
posted by mattdidthat at 10:13 AM on May 12

That'd be nice. But the nation doesn't need Rush.

And even as fat as he is, Rush alone doesn't take up enough space to qualify as a significant portion of the nation's population, let alone almost 50% of it, unlike the liberal-menace he tirades so fanatically against with absolutely no regard for the greater interests, unity or well-being of the nation.

So I hardly think it qualifies as dividing the nation to single out one obnoxious boor for special criticism. Besides--he's still actively working to divide the nation in half, the selfish little prick. That's what he's under criticism for. Not for opposing health care reform, or yada yada yada (as if his policy positions ever really amounted to anything more nuanced than cutting taxes for the rich, throwing poor people in jail and killing as many brown people as possible in the process), but for calling for opposition to Obama on strictly partisan grounds.

I swear to God, if Rush were standing in front of me right now, I'd punch him right in that flabby-jowled, Southern-shyster face of his. And I'm not typically a violent man, but there's only so much common decency can stand.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:34 AM on May 12

I will buy you a fine axe, saulgoodman.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:31 PM on May 12

"In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

That's fine, so long as we not use that as an excuse to let Republicans off the hook for their criminal behavior over the last nine years. I get the impression that calling Rush's speech seditious is causing offense, not because we need to "be above it" or any silly shit like that, but because it hits a few too many right-wing nerves.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:32 PM on May 12

posted by Blazecock Pileon That's fine, so long as we not use that as an excuse to let Republicans off the hook for their criminal behavior over the last nine years. I get the impression that calling Rush's speech seditious is causing offense, not because we need to "be above it" or any silly shit like that, but because it hits a few too many right-wing nerves.

Rush Limbaugh is not a member of the Bush administration, and he is not a party to their as-yet-unspecified crimes.

Saying Rush's criticisms of Obama are seditious or treasonous is offensive for the same reason Rush saying critics of Bush were seditious or treasonous was offensive. See also: Here and here.
posted by mattdidthat at 1:01 PM on May 12

So things that a comedian said offended some people, eh?

Well, then they can get in line along with everybody else who's ever been offended by a comedian, right behind all the old folks who accidentally watched Saturday night live last weekend because midnight bingo was canceled.

Then they can report back to us all regarding how their concerns were addressed after they finally get to the front of the line to square things up with the Wizard of Oz.

In the meantime, why should we care?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:15 PM on May 12

Saying Rush's criticisms of Obama are seditious or treasonous is offensive for the same reason Rush saying critics of Bush were seditious or treasonous was offensive.

If we're at war, Rush's criticisms of the government are seditious. I don't think we're at war, at least legally, so Rush's speech is not seditious. But then we're dealing with war criminals, so, again: Republicans can't have it both ways. All I'd like to see is some acknowledgement from the right-wing element that their representatives behaved in a criminal manner (if Rush's speech is not seditious).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:27 PM on May 12 [1 favorite]

posted by Blazecock Pileon If we're at war, Rush's criticisms of the government are seditious.

No, they aren't. Also, whether we're at war does not affect the definition of sedition.
posted by mattdidthat at 1:55 PM on May 12 [1 favorite]

They are seditious. Whether the United States is at war, legal or extralegal, certainly has affected how its sedition laws have been enforced, for the most part.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:27 PM on May 12

Cite, please?
posted by mattdidthat at 4:30 PM on May 12

If Obama fails to solve the economic crisis, the USA may well cease to exist as a first-world nation.

If Bush failed to invade Iraq, or tap everyone's phones, or award a contract to Halliburton, or etcetera, the USA would not have been worse off, let alone left hanging by a thread.

Wishing for Obama to fail is effectively wishing for the USA to fail.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:32 PM on May 12

Jesse Ventura volunteers to waterboard Cheney.
posted by homunculus at 5:38 PM on May 12

They should make that a pay-per-view event. Global ticket sales. Make themselves a fortune even after giving half to Cheney's widow.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:24 PM on May 12

Cite, please?

Most of the sedition cases (in the 20th C. at least) were pursued during wartime. We even had one against someone during Bush's reign, even if the legality of the war on Iraqi people is in question. Feel free to look up "sedition" on the Internet.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:15 PM on May 12

posted by Blazecock Pileon Feel free to look up "sedition" on the Internet.

Yes, you need to do that.
posted by mattdidthat at 11:29 PM on May 12

I was hoping I could treat you like an adult and let you check it out yourself.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:41 PM on May 12

Well, I did look it up on the internet and now I'm wondering what you think mattdidthat would find if he did so. Maybe you could elucidate a bit? Support your argument instead of just repeating your position repeatedly? Find a cite, perhaps?

I was hoping I could treat you like an adult

Um, [consults internet phrasebook] you're doing it wrong.
posted by hattifattener at 8:48 PM on May 13

There have been 24 attempts in the United States to regulate speech that has been deemed seditious. In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years' imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or Congress (but specifically not the Vice-President). The act was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson, Vice President at the time of the Act's passage.
The Espionage Act of 1917 may also be considered a sedition law of sorts, as section 3 made it a crime, punishable by 20 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to wilfully spread false news of the US military with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in the ranks, or obstruct recruiting. The act was amended in 1918 with the Sedition Act, which expanded the purview of the Espionage Act to any statements made criticizing the government. The act was upheld in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, but was repealed largely in 1921, leaving mostly laws forbidding espionage and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act or Smith Act was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist organizations. The act was invoked in three major trials, one of the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in 1944 in what became known as "The Great Sedition Trial", of pro-Nazi figures which ended in a mistrial. A series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA was also predicated upon the Smith Act beginning in 1949, and lasting until 1957. Although the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951, the court reversed itself in 1957 in Yates v. United States by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961[citation needed], the Smith Act remains US law.
Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[11] after writing a letter[12][13] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms Berg was represented by the ACLU[14]. Charges were dropped in 2006[1].
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:43 AM on May 14

Unsurprisingly, I read that too. I don't think it supports your assertion.
posted by hattifattener at 11:04 AM on May 14

I don't think it supports your assertion.

I think it pretty obviously shows that sedition laws are enforced during wartime.

But then I knew I'd get this kind of dishonest response from you when I called you on your BS, so thank you for confirming my low expectations. Metafilter never fails.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:39 AM on May 14

posted by Blazecock Pileon I think [the Wikipedia entry on sedition] pretty obviously shows that sedition laws are enforced during wartime.

No, it doesn't. Once again, you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, but here's an opportunity for you to prove us wrong:

The other day, I spoke with a friend who works for the U.S. Attorney's office. Among other things, we discussed Rush Limbaugh's remarks, and your assertions they constitute sedition. I argued on your behalf, saying if someone like you with such a rudimentary and eighth-grade understanding of the law could be certain, surely the case could be easily made for bringing Rush Limbaugh the justice you feel he so richly deserves.

Interestingly, my friend feels successfully prosecuting Limbaugh for sedition would be a historic case--it would set all sorts of landmark precedents for the limits of free speech and FCC regulations, and it would almost certainly be a career-defining case.

So we made a bet based on your ability to prove Rush Limbaugh has committed sedition. The bet is this: if you can make a case that Rush Limbaugh has committed sedition, my friend buys me dinner and credits you when and if the case is presented to the U.S. Attorney. You will need to provide cites, casework, briefs, precedents, etc. (Wikipedia entries do not count.) If you fail, I buy my friend dinner.

If you can successfully make a case for prosecuting Rush Limbaugh for sedition, you'll gain enormous respect from the MetaFilter community since you will have proven yourself to have an understanding of U.S. law beyond that of most lawyers, despite the fact you've never been to law school. If you can't, I'm certain your presentation will be widely circulated as a snickerworthy email in law offices and will be enormously entertaining bathroom reading. Oh, and if you ignore, dismiss, or respond to this challenge by calling us jerks and telling us to "go away", we're counting that as a failure on your part. Either way, we're looking forward to reading your briefs. Don't fail me, BP! A dinner and much laughter depends on you! Good luck!
posted by mattdidthat at 1:06 PM on May 14

You asked for citations about the history of sedition and I gave you several. You then turn around and say that this "doesn't count". You're so dishonest, it wouldn't matter what anyone quoted or explained to you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:47 PM on May 14

[take it to email or metatalk fellas.]
posted by jessamyn at 1:58 PM on May 14 [1 favorite]