Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I think he was looking for an explanation why a presidential candidate would point to a parody show as evidence of anything. Although vansmack may wish to correct me.
Spot on. I saw the skit, I laughed aloud - it was funny.
I cringed when she cried about being asked the question first (which, some in a debate would welcome as the rebuttal usually gets the last word), but my jaw dropped when she referenced SNL as the justification for her complaint.
It reminded me a time in law school when I was arguing a point in my Law on Terrorism class and I couldn't think of a concrete example to share with the class that illustrated my point, so I cited a scene from either
In the Name of the Father or
Michael Collins (I can't remember which) and afterwards the professor busted my chops for citing such a reliable source as "Hollywood's version of History." I'll never forget it, but that what school's for. To site a parody show in a national debate nearly made my head explode.
I mean, if she was trying to be hip and funny, it flopped, because it came out looking like she really meant it. If she really meant it, it was dead before it came out of her mouth.