Obama Jokes

[Taem]

It would have monstrous appeal. The only problem I see is getting two such egos to work together. Their downfall would be the pride of Franken-Stein.

Are you sure your name isn't pun-pun?

[roguebanshee]

Are you sure your name isn't pun-pun?

Pun-Pun?

[Alram]

PunPunPun
Obama and Obiden

A new study of late-night political jokes finds the network comedians have clearly avoided humor about Obama, while piling the jokes on President Bush and Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

The study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs finds that only cable's Comedy Central -- whose primary comedians, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, more closely follow daily headlines, which lately have been dominated by Obama -- has slightly more jokes about the freshman Illinois senator.

The study covered all jokes between Jan. 1 and July 31 in late-night monologues by Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, Stewart and Colbert. Apparently, Jimmy Kimmel was not deemed funny enough to be included, which should give his writers some ammo for their show.

The center found that the network shows broadcast 169 jokes about Obama, compared with 428 about Bush. McCain drew 328 jokes. Clinton, who dropped out of the presidential race amid much political news in early June, still drew more than twice as many attempted yuk lines -- 382 -- as Obama.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,4661245.story
Apparently Obama followers have a lesser sense of humor.

[Quark]

Apparently Obama followers have a lesser sense of humor.

Or maybe McCain and Bush leave more openings?

[RTM]

It would have monstrous appeal. The only problem I see is getting two such egos to work together. Their downfall would be the pride of Franken-Stein.

<3

[Mordekhuul]

It would have monstrous appeal. The only problem I see is getting two such egos to work together. Their downfall would be the pride of Franken-Stein.

The endless debate over pronunciation among the talking heads in the media would get tiresome as well.

It's Fr-AUN-ken/Stein, people, not Frank-en/Stein.

[Jester]

Apparently Obama followers have a lesser sense of humor.

I take it that's the punchline to your joke? That one's actually pretty good.

-Jester

[Alram]

Folks at work liked this one.

In a small boat, far out at sea, are a Christian, a Jew and Barack Obama. Obama says, "This joke isn't going to work. There's no Muslim in the boat."

[Nastie_Bowie]

Sarah Palin Facts

:lol:

"Sarah Palin is the reason compasses point North."

[Alram]

@kurtluidhardt - Glasses sales up 150 percent since Sarah palin became nominee.

Sarah Palin's glasses spark a new fashion craze


I wonder how lipstick sales are going. I hear hog farmers are buying it up.

[Occhidiangela]

Sarah Palin's glasses spark a new fashion craze
I wonder how lipstick sales are going. I hear hog farmers are buying it up.

Since I can't attach a picture, I'm not going to share my favorite Palin Joke.

My favorite Obama Joke is my own.

Barack Obama might be more ready to be a president that the average Republican will admit. He has already mastered the Reagan Memory Method. His memory about Rev Wright is a beautiful re-creation of Reagan's "I don't recall" memory style vis a vis Iran Contra, repackaged for his own style and idiom.

Other Obama jokes: sorry, I can't top Joe Biden as VP for high comedy. Even he admits Hillary Clinton is as, or more, qualified than he to be VP.

What the hell were the Dems thinking? I am still puzzled at how Hillary and her campaign blew a winning hand from a year ago.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

What the hell were the Dems thinking? I am still puzzled at how Hillary and her campaign blew a winning hand from a year ago.

Just another example of the Dem circular firing squad.;)

Even if the Democrats win the White House, the ability to turn a landslide into a close race is an amazing display of ineptitude. And should they "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory", we should be thankful that that kind of clown is not in charge.

Bah. I had hopes for this election. Shows, again, how foolish optimism is.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Just another example of the Dem circular firing squad.;)

Even if the Democrats win the White House, the ability to turn a landslide into a close race is an amazing display of ineptitude. And should they "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory", we should be thankful that that kind of clown is not in charge.

Bah. I had hopes for this election. Shows, again, how foolish optimism is.

--Pete

Yes.

As I see it, Palin and Obama have no business in this race, either of them. Each of those wine casks coulduse some aging.

They are both being presented as symbols, rather than as valid choices for leadership. ( I give Obama the nod on pure brain power, however. That counts for something. )

McCain and Biden, for all of their imperfections and shortcomings, are both career politicians at the national level and are at least modestly well connected within their parties, and the circles of power. They also, as career legislators, do grasp the art of the deal. Not convinced Obama and Palin have a clue in that regard, though Eskimo Nell is even more worrisome to my eye than Obama.

Much was made of Obama as a blank slate upon which various of his supporters write their own hopes and fantasies. Double that for Palin. A cynical choice, from this rogue's viewing angle.

If this nation ever needed a valid third party, this year is it. Bull Moose party, where the hell are you?

Too damned bad the system weeds them out. Ross Perot, your timing sucks.

Occhi

[Alram]

My son just called to tell me this one:

What is the major advantage for the Republicans to have Sarah Palin on the ticket?
Since she is a proficient hunter, she probably won't shoot anyone in the face.

[Thecla]

Just another example of the Dem circular firing squad.;)

Even if the Democrats win the White House, the ability to turn a landslide into a close race is an amazing display of ineptitude.

True, the Democrats have done this habitually. Gore lost in significant part because of Bill Clinton's self-destruction (I guess a case example of small things affecting large ones -- we'd all be so much better off now had Gore won). And Kerry's campaign was not the best (even if the damage caused by Bush at that point was irreparable, and the contrast between Kerry's swift-boating and McCain's war-hero status is not entirely consistent with circular fire).

But I'm not so sure this election is another example (not yet, anyway). A democratic landslide in the presidential race, unlike congress, has never been a forgone conclusion, and whether or not Clinton would've been a stronger candidate than Obama is pretty unclear.

Despite his relative inexperience, Obama is an impressive and thoughtful guy in my opinion. Palin, on the other hand, is a ridiculous vice-presidential candidate (not to mention one who presumably has a higher-than-average chance of becoming president should McCain get elected). I'm amazed at how fast the Republican talking points get networked ("Palin has executive experience. Obama doesn't"). Maybe some of the people here can clue me in on how it's done. Does the RNC slip little notes under your door in the middle of the night?

Anyway, it was fun to watch McCain run against his own party during the Republican Convention. It reminded me of the black sheriff in blazing saddles who escaped from the angry mob of white townsfolk by holding himself hostage and threatening to blow his own head off. It worked for the sheriff; and, who knows, it may work for McCain.

[Occhidiangela]

Anyway, it was fun to watch McCain run against his own party during the Republican Convention. It reminded me of the black sheriff in blazing saddles who escaped from the angry mob of white townsfolk by holding himself hostage and threatening to blow his own head off. It worked for the sheriff; and, who knows, it may work for McCain.

Crisp. :lol:

*golf clap*

Occhi

[Alram]

Harass Sarah is a Palindrome!

[Jester]

Harass Sarah is a Palindrome!

Sometimes, it's almost enough to convince one to believe in Intelligent Design.

-Jester

[eppie]

Hi,
Just another example of the Dem circular firing squad.;)

Even if the Democrats win the White House, the ability to turn a landslide into a close race is an amazing display of ineptitude. And should they "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory", we should be thankful that that kind of clown is not in charge.

Well at least the dems make sure they choose some serious candidates. Biden is not the most vibrant person (indeed necessary to get elected) but he is a serious politician that (also as least rich member of the senate) should give people (even when they are not agreeing with his opinions) a good feeling.
The dems know that even when you put a serious candidate against an incapable, inexperienced oil baron with a bought education you can very easily lose.

And indeed the reps choice of candidates is just ridiculous and an insult to the world seeing that the US president often has more to say in other countries than the local politicians have.

We have had some discussions here (also recently) about the republicans claiming religion etc.etc.
I agree with that but now I find that instead it is something else, something also visible in other countries.
Last week Bill Maher ended his show with saying that Americans (his words, I also think Europeans are like that.....hope this is enough not to be called eurotrash by occhi again:) )are so narcissistic that they want a candidate that is 'a normal average joe' like them....even though they themselves are herding cattle or flipping burgers at Burger King. And this is something what the republicans understand very good. They successfully make people believe that the democratic candidate is an elitist snob that doesn't like normal people. That they themselves are rich oil baron or industrialist that just care about themselves does not seem to bother people.


And coming to my last point as a reaction on Occhi's call for a big third party; of course that would be great, but I don' see it happen. The difference between the reps and dems for many Europeans seems very small (our political spectrum is much wider) but (and maybe because there are just 2 serious parties) the hostility between the parties and their hardcore supporters is greater. And what you will always see in such a case is that instead of voting for a party that you really agree with, you vote against the party that you don't want to win. If only a small percentage doesnot do this (and votes for what they really stand for) it goes wrong (as was the case when Nader ran against Bush and Gore). So an unofficial two party system can never turn back to be a multi-party system in my opinion.
And so you end up with a presidential election where the 'only' arguments are experience of the candidate, abortion, patriotism and various mud throwings.


edit. changed republican for democrat after Petes pointing out of the mistake

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well at least the dems make sure they choose some serious candidates.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but in general the party doesn't so much choose candidates as it supports (or sometimes does not support) the candidates that choose themselves. Which is why both parties start out with a bunch of candidates and narrow the field in a messy and archaic primary process. As to 'serious', depends on what you mean. The most important characteristic for a candidate is the ability to fund the race in spite of the fact that that ability has nothing to do with the executive or legislative duties involved in the office the candidate is running for.

And indeed the reps choice of candidates is just ridiculous and an insult to the world seeing that the US president often has more to say in other countries than the local politicians have.

The Republicans are not running in those other countries. And the population of those other countries have no votes in our elections. So, while 'the US president often has more to say in other countries than the local politicians have' is true, it is also moot to this discussion. And how ridiculous the Republican's choice is will be determined by the final results. This isn't an art show. It's an election. Opinions are fine, but it is votes that matters. And if the Republicans win this one, it is the Democrats who will have been shown to have had a ridiculous candidate. Especially if the final result is Democrats gaining in both houses but losing the White House. That *will* send a message, but a message of experience or one of race is not clear.

. . . Americans . . . are so narcissistic that they want a candidate that is 'a normal average joe' like them....even though they themselves are herding cattle or flipping burgers at Burger King.

Not sure what the point is here. In spite of intelligence, educational opportunities, economic status, race, religion, or gender, there is an underlying 'national' character in each nation. It is rooted in history and tradition and passed on in the attitudes and mores that the young observe about themselves as the go through their formative years. It is both natural and right that people should want their leaders to share their basic character. So, yeah, the *American* flipping burgers has every right to want an *American* in the White House.

And this is something what the republicans understand very good. They successfully make people believe that the republican candidate is an elitist snob that doesn't like normal people. That they themselves are rich oil baron or industrialist that just care about themselves does not seem to bother people.

I suspect that one of the occurrences of 'republican' in this paragraph should be changed. Also, I can't figure out the antecedent of the 'they themselves' in the last sentence. So, since I can't parse your statement, I don't know if I should endorse it or rebut it.

And coming to my last point as a reaction on Occhi's call for a big third party; of course that would be great, but I don' see it happen. The difference between the reps and dems for many Europeans seems very small (our political spectrum is much wider) but (and maybe because there are just 2 serious parties) the hostility between the parties and their hardcore supporters is greater.

The Europeans do, in general, have a greater spectrum in their parties. To a large extent this is true in countries where the government structure is such that representation is more proportional.

And what you will always see in such a case is that instead of voting for a party that you really agree with, you vote against the party that you don't want to win.

This is a stupid statement. If a party consists of more than one person, then there will be issues of disagreement within the party. Maybe not issues of position, but definitely issues of extent. So, nobody 'really agrees' with any party. Everybody votes for the party they agree with most and against all the other parties. That's because voting is a zero sum game.

So an unofficial two party system can never turn back to be a multi-party system in my opinion.

We (the USA) can hardly go back to a system we've never had. However, a third party emerging and replacing one of the two existing parties has happened at least three times in our history that I can think of, so I'll write your opinion off to ignorance. If you expect a one-trick-pony party, like the Greens, to compete against broad spectrum parties, then you don't understand our system.

Mind you, I am not defending our system. I think it is extremely flawed. While I could (and have in the past) write a big post about its drawbacks, I'll limit myself to two points. First, because of the division into districts (of many types, not just congressional) it is theoretically possible for the country to be completely ruled by one party even if the population is *almost* equally split. All it would take is for that split to be homogeneous. The main reason this does not happen is what I think of as the sheep effect. Most people think like their neighbors, so you get regions that support one party or the other and the representation, at least as to major parties, is split. But that brings up the second issue. Since our system is 'winner take all', the minor parties are greatly underrepresented. For instance, while Libertarians represent about ten percent of the registered voters, they are only represented (IIRC) by one member of the House and no Senators. So ten percent of the population is represented by two tenths of a percent of the lawmakers.

I'd dearly would love, and would support, changes to our laws to make the situation better. But that's the problem with being first, you don't have other's mistakes to learn from. Considering that, I'd say both that we're not doing too bad and most European nations aren't doing so good.

And so you end up with a presidential election where the 'only' arguments are experience of the candidate, abortion, patriotism and various mud throwings.

Funny, I watch a bit of CNN almost every morning. I've heard nothing from the candidates about abortion or patriotism. I've seen no real mud throwing. I'd think a rational person would consider the experience of the candidates an important issue -- or do you think presidents should be picked with a pin? And I have heard a lot of discussion of energy, the economy, our international involvement, and other matters of import. If you haven't heard them, it is because you haven't been listening. Perhaps a little information would make your opinions less hollow.

--Pete