WAPO: Michelle Wolf got it just right

[ehrnst]

Wolf, according to the commentariat, violated a sacred standard of decency that defines the correspondents’ dinner every year. The comedian should roast people, yes, but she should do it at a suitably low temperature for this town’s all-too-tender egos. Wolf broke protocol by turning on the broiler. Yet the figures she scorched have shattered norms that are far more important than an unspoken prohibition on vagina jokes.

The correspondents’ dinner supposedly celebrates the rapport that journalists have with the people they cover. This three-course fete of access journalism has always made some skeptics queasy, but after the Trump administration’s active attempts to undermine every organization in the room Saturday that doesn’t treat the president as an unassailable dear leader, it’s hard to pretend that the fourth estate and its subjects can carry on a relationship that’s adversarial and respectful all at once.

That Wolf’s performance was not “normal” for the correspondents’ dinner is a testament to its timeliness and necessity — nothing is “normal” right now, and pretending otherwise out of a false sense of the fourth estate’s friendship with the executive would have been the real disgrace. Wolf called the Trump administration out for tearing down democracy. Then, the people who are supposed to care most about holding autocrats to account called her out in turn for, essentially, not being chummy enough.

That persistent chumminess is why Wolf’s performance, in the end, wasn’t really for the press. It was about us. “You guys love breaking news, and you did it,” Wolf said to CNN. “You broke it.” To everyone else, she said: “You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him.” Instead of listening — to that or to Wolf’s final line, “Flint still doesn’t have clean water” — we got grumpy on Twitter. Which means Wolf did a better job of defending the First Amendment than those who say that’s our business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/04/29/michelle-wolf-got-it-just-right/?utm_term=.8ffc1ffb23d4

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Flint still doesnt have clean water ...

[Amimnoch]

34. AND, they're no longer being provided bottled water.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/07/us/flint-michigan-water-bottle-program-ends/index.html

disgusting.

[Fla Dem]

71. And Puerto Rico still doesn't have power.

[PaulX2]

84. 3,000 Towns Have Water Systems With More/The Same Amount Lead That Flint Has

But we gotta give them billionaires some tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[usaf-vet]

86. And Trump, Sanders and the majority of the folks Trump brought into the swamp STILL LIE

....everyday in every way. When they are not lying the are enriching themselves and their friends.

And yes Flint still doesn't have clean water and Puerto Rico doesn't have power.

[riversedge]

2. I like David Jolly's tweet about this issue......

David Jolly
‏Verified account @DavidJollyFL
8h8 hours ago

There are a lot of Americans who have found refuge in the steely strength of today's press corps who tonight are wondering what their witnessing as members of that same press corps cave in the wake of criticism of a professional comedian. @michelleisawolf

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Cha]

5. Thanks rivers!

[longship]

12. David, not "their witnessing", it's "they're witnessing" you idiot.

Otherwise, nice Tweet. Back to grammar school with you.
Or buy a copy of Strunk & White, and this time actually read the son of a bitch.

[lunatica]

58. If spell check doesn't cover it then it must be OK

It’s such a common mistake that writers with any experience have an automatic little mental test to make sure they get the right word. I know I do, and I’m not even a writer, though I try to use the correct words.

[Sophia4]

104. He probably dictated his statement into a computer.

Like "Siri" on an I-phone.

That's why that sort of mistake is made so often. I suggest this because I know someone who uses Siri a lot, and Siri makes that kind of mistake. There is also a feature on an I-phone that suggests a word when you write a text. If you press the wrong button, you get the wrong word.

I seriously doubt that Axelrod doesn't know the difference between "their" and "they're."

But in this computer age, we may see a change in our language that picks the word their for several words that sound the same when spoken. Spelling changes over time. It will change in the internet age. That's my prediction.

[longship]

121. Okay, but disagree about language changing in this case.

"Their" has no verb. "They're" does have a verb.

E.G., "Their stupid" isn't even a sentence. "They're stupid." is a sentence.

[Sophia4]

125. Spelling is a part of language.

We have words that serve as both a noun and a verb.

"Serve" is one of them.

Serve, the noun:
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/serve_2

Serve, the verb:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serve

[longship]

127. "Their" is in no sense a verb.

Unless one wishes to verb it.

OMFG! I just verbed "verb"... oh GAWD!!! I just did it again!!!!

Arrrrgh!!!



Nevertheless, I will stand by my claims.

"Their stupid" is just plain stupid, bad English.

[Sophia4]

128. Yah, well English itself is a really bad version of Latin and German all mixed up

together.

I speak a number of languages. Somewhere, centuries ago, the English language began to be formed when the Romans left their words and the Germanic tribes left their words. We now have only a few Anglo-Saxon words in our language. That was one of the original languages as far as we know of the British Isles.

Language is constantly changing. We hear their and they're. They are from the point of view of sound, interchangeable for most of us. Since people type words less and less often, it is likely that our language will become more a language in which the spelling reflects accepted transcription of sound.

Our language is changing now because of computers. It will continue to change. Expressions I learned as a child some 74 years ago are no longer used.

Our Founding Fathers spelled a number of words differently than we do. Amazing, isn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English

[longship]

130. You still cannot have a sentence without a fucking verb!!

And verbing "their" doesn't help any argument to the contrary. I will stand by my posts.

Sorry, friend.

[Sophia4]

134. What I am pointing out is that rules change.

We demand a verb in a sentence. Their is not a verb now, but if it is confused with and becomes merged in meaning with they're, it will be eventually viewed as being a verb.

Language changes over time. The confusion between they are, they're and their as well as there is becoming so common and using the various spellings for the same sound is incompatible with certain technical limitations of computers and phones.

[longship]

135. Well, let me just say that I am done here.

I've made my case. You've attempted to make yours.

I see no point in continuing this back and forth.

My best wishes to you.

[Iggo]

144. BUT THAT RULE HASN"T !!!!!

Jeezus.

[Sophia4]

145. True. But it is in the process of changing unless perhaps technology somehow

deals with the problem. More and more, people do not spell out words. They just speak them into a microphone and the computer or phone spells the words.

This is not something I particularly like. I'm just explaining the process of the development of language, and I think we are seeing changes in the way words are spelled right now, changes that are due to technological change.

I like my their, there and they're as I was taught them in school. But I notice that my husband relies on Siri for the spelling in his text messages. And it results in a lot of laughter at Siri's lack of English comprehension. We have a good time with it.

But language changes over time, and the differences between their, there and they're are like to disappear as computerese dominates the spelling of words in the English language.

The history of the development of the various European languages is fascinating. Language is always changing. Computers will change our current English. It is inevitable.

[xxqqqzme]

142. May be bad English

and many caught it. But we still know what he was communicating. We can forgive him.





Now if he starts using 'then' for 'than' (which is becoming to common) then he can be condemned.

[longship]

148. So is substituting "to" for "too"

[chwaliszewski]

146. The solution is to lose the apostrophe

instead of writing 'they're' is should just be 'they are'.

[longship]

147. That may be.

However, I suspect that would be difficult to do.

[chwaliszewski]

149. You mean 'too' difficult.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. It was as abrasive and raspy as the Trump administration has been to everything American

'nuff said.

[ollie10]

11. So we are now aspiring to be like Trump?

Two wrongs make it right?

I'm sorry. But we lose part of our high ground and ability to call out Trump when we try to justify our behavior by saying it is like Trump's.....

[longship]

15. Drumpf & Co. needs to be smacked down.

This battle isn't going to be won by who's the nicest. That should be apparent to just fucking everybody by now.

We need more people like Michelle Wolf, those who baldly tell the truth.

Remember George Carlin?

Stupid People:

Reagan's Gang, Church People, and American Values:

[ollie10]

17. People aren't talking about Trump as a result of her skit

They aren't talking about anything Trump has done.

They aren't even talking about Huckaby Sanders' lies....they are talking about her eyes.

Judged by how it damaged Trump, it was a miserable failure.

Judged by how it got people to talk about make up, and Michelle Wolf, it succeeded

[DinahMoeHum]

24. Your "concern" is noted.

[ollie10]

25. I hope so

[MontanaMama]

81. Good catch.

Lots of “concern” on this an other threads on this topic. 🙄

[C Moon]

132. :D

[ehrnst]

59. Do you understand that you give Wolf enormous power

more so than any comedian who has "gone low."

You compare it to violence in the streets, you say that she single-handedly, with one comedy routine, has set back the pro-choice cause.

And in case you care to even read the article in the OP, you will see that many, many, many are applauding her.

Give that a try, would you? Take a break from talking about how awful and "low" and catastrophic one single woman is with a blistering rebuke of the press and our president, and actually read what you are rebutting.

[ollie10]

61. Maybe you should try not putting words into other people's mouths

It would be refreshing change.....

[Sophia4]

106. Have you been watching Sarah Huckabee Sanders' press conferences?

She shows utter contempt for the correspondents who disagree with her political views as well as for the truth in many instances.

She should not complain considering that she is probably the rudest press secretary to hold the job so long. Just rude.

There is no reason to be that rude to the members of the press. Like the press secretary, they are trying to do a good job. She holds them in contempt.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders got a taste of what she dishes out every day to members of the press. It was kind of a relief to watch it.

[SWBTATTReg]

112. I agree w/ you on the description of SHS...she's a self-centered religious snob and a nut to boot...

Doesn't she realize that she's being broadcast daily, all of her temper fits and lies. So obvious to us, and they are still blind as a bat (SHS and her dad)...both nuts of the worst kind...

[7962]

141. Thats a different way of looking at it. Hadn't thought of that.

These days, people will do what it takes to get the spotlight. Wolff may be smarter than everyone!
I'd bet her calendar fills up rather fast for the upcoming months.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. That Ship Sailed, Long Ago

Please give me an example for when going high when they go low has achieved anything in the last quarter century.

[ollie10]

18. I think Michelle Obama's words were great

But if you want an example, I would refer you to Martin Luther King Jr...who preached non-violent resistance. He spoke against using violence, because he believed that it would hurt the cause for civil rights. So he advocated civil disobedience, but insisted that the temptation to do violent things would be counter-productive.

I think MLK was smart, too.

So, in answer to your question, the civil rights movement made quite a lot of progress as a result of MLK Jr and his words

Do you want more? I didn't think so.....

[woundedkarma]

28. did she kill someone when I wasn't looking? n/t

[ollie10]

31. "Please give me an example for when going high when they go low has achieved anything...."

Was what I was responding to. Obviously

[ehrnst]

48. Please give me an example of where a female comedian did as much harm to civil rights

or progress as violence in the street.

[ollie10]

52. high ground vs low ground

low ground = Trump

Which side are you on?

[ehrnst]

60. Which side are you on that you compare a bistering, brilliant satire with violence in the streets?

I can see why you are avoiding answering my questions.

[ollie10]

64. Do you have a problem with me answering a question

about giving an example of high ground being more effective than low ground?

[ehrnst]

72. Here is the question again:

Please give me an example of where a female comedian did as much harm to civil rights as you say she is doing, and worthy of comparison to violence in the street.

And please tell me how you think it's somehow logical compare those who don't approve of her comedy routine up with MLK.

[ollie10]

75. No need to continue

Have a nice day. You want to misrepresent what I have to say, go ahead. I see no point in responding to someone who misrepresents what I have to say.

bye

[ehrnst]

77. Giving up?

I don't blame you.

When you don't know the topic on which you are lecturing people, their responses can be very tiring, can't they.

[ollie10]

80. If you were interested in civil conversation, that would be productive

When you lecture me about not knowing the topic......

I am sure you can find someone else who would benefit from your superior knowledge. Go find. Bye

[ehrnst]

117. Once again, you tell me you are not going to "continue to discuss this with me"

I guess that means that something I posted hit a nerve, and you needed to come back to remind me again about how you are not going to come back to lecture everyone.

I think what is uncivil is lecturing everyone on how "offensive" she is - to the point of implying that you yourself are representative of MLK's opinion of such things, despite the fact that your favorite male comedians, one of whom is your "hero" have said things equally "crude," if not more so, and you become outraged when someone points that out.

See you soon...

[Demit]

65. You missed the "in the last quarter century" part.

You had to go back 50 years for your example.

[ollie10]

68. So what?

[ehrnst]

74. You couldn't give an example, and tried to equate your position on a woman comic with MLK.

[ollie10]

85. there is no need to continue our discussion

find someone else to talk to

[ehrnst]

126. This is what, the 5th time you've said that you are "ending the discussion."

You know, every time you reply, you are continuing the discussion. Which really shows that you are trying to tell me to shut up, without using those words.

You can't stand the contradictions and self-comparisons with MLK being called out, can you?

But you keep on posting them.

May I suggest using the ignore feature, if my observations upset you that much?

Talk to you soon.

[Demit]

82. So you didn't answer the question as posed.

The world has changed since the late 60s. We have a president who never served in govt in any way. A president who is twice-divorced, cheated on his current wife, talks about grabbing pussy, mocked a disabled person on camera, defrauded people with his "university," and is profiting directly from the govt with his hotels.
Any one of these things would have been inconceivable in the 1960s, would have destroyed the career of any politician in the 1960s. These times are very, very, very different from the 1960s.

(Btw, I can think of an example that refutes your premise that taking the high road is effective: John Kerry. He stayed silent after having his valor in Vietnam questioned and mocked. No one admired him for taking the high road. Indeed, they thought it made him look weak.)

[ollie10]

83. I was asked to give one example of high ground being more prodictive than low ground

I gave the civil rights movement/MLK. You can nit pick if you want to, whether it was 25 years ago or whenever....but the fact remains taking the low road is often counter-productive....as MLK jr so aptly pointed out to us. These words are still true today unless you want to say MLK Jr is so yesterday....I don't think you want to say that, do you?

[ollie10]

91. You are so civil

[Sophia4]

108. Tell it to Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

She takes the low road over and over in her press conferences. That's the problem. And I seriously doubt that Trump would want a press secretary who takes the high road. It's a problem with this administration that is only indirectly linked to the political point of view.

Watch the videos of the Republican debates during the primary campaign. Trump insulted everyone. He isn't a comedian, but he insults everyone he can.

Trump's behavior toward the leaders of the countries that are our allies when he went to the NATO meeting and when he has attended other international meetings was just despicable. Yet his worshipers overlook his terrible conduct.

The roasting was well deserved and did not go beyond what the Trump administration dishes out to others on a regular basis.

Go back and watch the videos. Trump has lowered the tone of discourse in the entire United States.

[ollie10]

115. I agree

And I have previously said I don't like Huckabee Sanders at all. For similar reasons as you have described.

[ehrnst]

122. You changed the definition of "going low"

from a female comedian making a joke to confront conservatives with their own hippocrisy, to violence in the street.


Also known as moving the goalpost...

In a very laughable effort to try to make you look like you alone are on the side of MLK here, and anyone who disagrees with you on Michelle Wolf is also disagreeing with MLK on street violence.

[kwassa]

131. MLK's high ground could have never happened without the low ground.

The other side of the civil rights movement, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. And, the Black Panthers.

The alternative to peaceful protests was obvious. That and the race riots of the late 60s saw the results of inaction on civil rights. You take MLK out of context.

[DallasNE]

96. So Many Of These Issues Have Their Ancestry In Nixon

Nixon unleashed Spiro Agnes with his "nattering nabobs of negatisim", etc. And Trump admires Nixon very much. Going high has gotten a lot of people marching in the streets for common sense regulation on guns but we still had a Waffle House. We need more than a photo l.p..

[rzemanfl]

114. Indeed. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

87. MLK Jr Died in 1968

That's more than a quarter century ago.

[ollie10]

88. And his words are still true today

[ProfessorGAC]

90. Nobody Said Otherwise

But, since you are evading the question like an antelope evading a cheetah, this shipped has sailed as well.

[ollie10]

95. No, I answered the question with a good example

Now people are pooh poohing whether it was 25 years ago or what.

The point is historically sometimes taking the high road accomplishes more than taking the low road. I was asked for just one example. I could give a rat's arse whether it was more than 25 years ago!

OK....I will find another example....from a time period of less than 25 years ago. I will present Barack Obama, who has made lots of accomplishments in his life.

Here are some words from Michelle Obama from a graduation speech:

First Lady Michelle Obama gave a rare and impassioned defense of her husband's legacy Saturday, saying he's risen above personal attacks and taken the high road even as opponents have questioned his patriotism, his honesty, his citizenship and his faith.

"As I’ve walked this journey with Barack, I’ve gotten a pretty good look at what it means to rise above the fray, what it means to set your eyes on the horizon, to devote your life to making things better for those who will come after you," she told the graduating class of Jackson State University, a historically black college in Mississippi.

"I have seen how, no matter what kind of ugliness is going on at any particular moment, Barack always stays the course," she said.

The commencement address had echoes of a similar speech Mrs. Obama gave last year, at Tuskegee University in Alabama, when she confessed that criticism of her — often drenched in racial stereotypes — often caused her sleepless nights.

This year, her focus appeared to me more on President Obama's legacy. She recited a litany of accomplishments during the Obama presidency on the economy, health care, foreign policy, gay rights and climate change.

"Yet, too often, instead of acknowledging or celebrating this change, we have a tendency to focus on conflict and controversy. We pay endless attention to folks who are blocking action, blocking judges, blocking immigration, blocking a raise in the minimum wage — just blocking," she said. "We are consumed with the anger and vitriol that are bubbling up, with folks shouting at each other, using hateful and divisive language."

Michelle Obama urges JSU grads to vote, fight discrimination

The president has often been at the receiving end of that language, she said. "Charges that he doesn’t love our country. The time he was called a liar in front of a Joint Session of Congress. The nonstop questions about his birth certificate and his belief in God," she said.

Mrs. Obama's defense of her husband was in the context of a commencement address in which she told the 800 graduates that they, too, will face discrimination — in voting rights, criminal justice, education and housing — and have to make a choice of how to deal with it.

"Are you going to get angry or lash out?" she asked. "Or are you going to take a deep breath, straighten your shoulders, lift up your head, and do what Barack Obama has always done — as he says, 'When they go low, I go high"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/theoval/2016/04/24/first-lady-michelle-obama-lauds-husband-taking-high-road/83453920/

I can't speak for you....but I will unequivocably say I think Barack Obama accomplished a LOT and I agree with his own analysis that going high is more effective than going low.

Now if you want to use this forum to criticize Obama,, have at it. And, yes, this includes the time period of 25 years......

eyes roll.....

[ProfessorGAC]

97. A Asked For An Example In The LAST QUARTER CENTURY. . .

. . .where going high when they go low helped. You went to 1968 as if you were playing "gotcha".

Your point on Obama is fair enough, and despite your grotesque insult in your second to last line, i'll grant some points on that.

However, it is fair debate to wonder how much more could have been done if he had been willing to get into the ring for some full contact politics.

I would opine that he was TOO nice to the other side and that emboldened them to the point that we have what we now have, with PINO in the Oval Office.

With that, i'm out, because you keep changing the target and you resorted to insults.

[Sophia4]

109. Michelle Obama is not a comedian.

She was not asked to speak at the correspondent's dinner.

The WHCD is the right venue for serving back to the administration the kind of conduct it has served to the American people and the American press in particular.

Michelle Wolf's presentation was totally appropriate, and anyone who has watched Trump and now his administration since Trump announced his candidacy should recognize that fact.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders' press conferences are rife with hostility and ugliness. And she needs to change her ways.

Humor instructs us. Please read some Moliere. He put the powerful in French society of his time in their places. His humor was a factor that over a very long period of time eventually led to the French revolution -- just a small factor, but a freeing factor.

We did not need to subject ourselves as a nation to the crude, ugly behavior of Donald Trump and his entourage. Michelle Wolf merely met that crude, ugly behavior on its own level. Good for her. The powerful who look down on the poor and ordinary need to be ridiculed for their haughty disrespect for others.

And any American leader who disrespects the freedom of the press as Trump does is going to be ridiculed. Deservedly.

[ollie10]

110. high road sometimes gets better results than low results

Obama and MLK are only two examples

[ehrnst]

119. So Obama laughed and hugged Larry Wilmore used the N-word at the press dinner in 2016.

http://www.syracuse.com/celebrity-news/index.ssf/2016/05/larry_wilmore_n-word_joke_obama_white_house_correspondents_dinner.html

Do you think Michelle was slamming her husband, or Larry Wilmore with that description to college grads? Because by your defintion, neither of them "went high." And you are including what they did in your damning of Michelle Wolf as "going low."

I think that you don't really get what Michelle Obama was actually talking about.

Mrs. Obama's defense of her husband was in the context of a commencement address in which she told the 800 graduates that they, too, will face discrimination — in voting rights, criminal justice, education and housing — and have to make a choice of how to deal with it.

"Are you going to get angry or lash out?" she asked. "Or are you going to take a deep breath, straighten your shoulders, lift up your head, and do what Barack Obama has always done — as he says, 'When they go low, I go high"

It wasn't about comedians speaking truth to power.

It was about individuals when they are confronted with discrimination.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

118. And what words did he use that relate to Michelle Wolf?

Maybe this?

“The day we see the truth and cease to speak is the day we begin to die.”

or this?

“We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.”

Perhaps:

”Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

“We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try to persuade with our acts.”

“The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.”

of course:

“Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.”

Don't forget, he means "man" in the sense of "humankind" here...

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”

“When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. ”

“Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.”

“We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.”

And here's one for you, especially, to ponder on:

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”

[ehrnst]

120. Michelle Obama's words - do you mean that she said Barack always "went high" even

when he and she laughed at Larry Wilmore using the N word to address Obama, and shocked people at the 2016 Press corps dinner, then he got up and hugged Wilmore?

And implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you couldn't agree with MLK, or "think he was smart."

Yeah, we caught that, and yes, it's ridiculous.

As someone I love very much likes to say, "Get down offa that cross. Somebody could use the wood."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

129. I think that most people who look at what MLK accomplished acknowledge

that having Malcolm X in the background giving the "Ballot or the Bullet" speech helped a lot, too.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. When was the last time moral high ground worked for you?

A war's a war. Fight like it.

[ollie10]

29. MLK Jr advocated non-violent civil disobedience

He argued against the instinct to fight against injustice with violence. Because he thought that violence would set back the cause for civil rights.

He was right. He took the moral high ground and the other side damaged its own cause by using vioence against the resistance.

[bucolic_frolic]

33. No one is advocating violence here

Americans resist because they always resist oppression, no matter how important or stupid the source.

[ollie10]

38. The question/issue was taking the moral high ground vs

the low ground.

If Wolf did anything to help topple Trump or Sanders from power, that would be one thing. But she didn't do anything. All we are talking about is....er.....Wolf.

And there are countless issues that Wolf could have skewered in her roast. Late night comics do it every night.

She made it all about herself, knowing full well that is she said stuff shocking, she would be the talk of the town.

I wish we were talking about how bad Trump is as a result of her speech....but that is secondary, very secondary.....

[bucolic_frolic]

41. You're worried about taking the low ground against traitors????

It was serious caricature, satire, social commentary. In the long judgment of history and perspective, it will be judged for the piece of work it was. The in-yer-face schtick is very difficult to master, and to pull off in a high stakes environment in a friendly yet abrasive way and raspy screech is a very high achievement. She was mimicking the whole administration - approaches, policies, demeanor, class - and really took a bite out of it. This was a grand slam in a championship game.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10557848

[ollie10]

49. "friendly yet abrasive"

Friendly, huh?

[bucolic_frolic]

54. Certainly as friendly as you

[ehrnst]

55. Isn't that what DT's fans love about him?

And isn't that what would be ideal to throw back at those who have normalized DT?

[ehrnst]

42. So, what do you think about Steven Colbert's comedy?

Such as when he called DT "a cock holster for Putin."

Or are you more upset that it's a woman saying these things?

[ollie10]

46. I love Colbert

the cock holster thing, however, was a mistake on his part. It got a lot of criticism as being insensitive to gays. I believe he said he would not use those words again, if I am not mistaken.

[ehrnst]

51. He doubled down on it. He refused to apologize.

But he's your hero, and you scold a female comedian for "going low."

If you bothered to read the article, you would see that it points out that she threw the norms in the face of those in the press who made DT "normal."

However, you continue to denigrate a woman who speaks truth to power in a satirical way as "going low" and comparing it to violence in the street, and setting back women's rights.

What is the difference between the two comedians?

[ollie10]

57. you are not being fair

I think I made the point...when you were insinuating that I didn't like Colbert....that indeed I do like him. I also made the point that I thought the quote you referenced was a mistake on his part. I am not into hero worhip. People make mistakes. By and large, Colbert does a great job and is an excellent comic. He also does a much more skillful job of roasting Trump than what I saw in the Saturday Night Whine Fest.

Nobody is denigrating women. Has it come to the point when if someone doesn't like what Wolf said Saturday night, and agreed with LOTS of people including many journalists, that she crossed the line.....that this means it is sexism? OMG that is so lame!

[ehrnst]

67. I think I'm the one being fair in this discussion.

Did you say that Colbert was harming our cause by going low?

No.

Did you compare "Putin's cockholster" with violence in the streets?

No.

You are denigrating Wolf for doing what Colbert did in ways you don't denigrate Colbert.

Do the math.

[MontanaMama]

93. These are jokes we are talking about.

Not foreign or domestic policy, this wasn’t a press conference or a newcast. Michelle told jokes...hard hitting jokes. Sometimes jokes are insensitive and irreverent and that’s why we laugh. SHS lying her ass off every single day is WAY more offensive than anything Michelle Wolf had going on at the WHCD...an event, that is in fact, a roast. It’s supposed to be baudy and wild. Comedians are very often our truth tellers. If the jokes are tough it’s a likely reflection of our reality.

[ehrnst]

47. So women have more of a responsibility to maintain the moral high ground

than male comedians doing similar, and in front of the same event?

[ollie10]

50. Didn't say that

false equivalency on steroids

[ehrnst]

53. So why is Colbert your hero after he called DT "a cockholster for Putin"

But you decry Wolfe as setting back "the pro-choice movement?"

What is the difference between the two who "went low?"

You seem to be avoiding the different standards there.

[DallasNE]

99. You Are Talking About Wolf Because You Have Choosen To Talk About Wolf

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2018, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is exactly what Trump wants you to do. Did Wolf call Sanders chunky, for instance? No, she called her a liar and that upsets you. A roast by definition bangs people. It is not intended to be ha ha funny. Wolf banged a lot of people, including Sanders.

[ollie10]

100. No, I believe YOU brought up her weight

Nice.....

[JenniferJuniper]

101. THERE'S A TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!

[DallasNE]

102. You have no reading comprehension

I gave an example of what you are treating it like she said. The problem is yours and Trumps.

[ehrnst]

37. Who is advocating violence?

[ollie10]

40. the issue was high ground vs low ground

I was asked to provide an historical example.

I did.

Next?

[ehrnst]

44. A bit hyperbolic, don't you think

Comparing a female comedian confronting conservatives with their own ridiculousness with violence in the streets.

Is it because she's a woman?

[JenniferJuniper]

56. Beginning to think you are a right wing talking point peddler.

I note you haven't been around long, but it's not a good thing to do here.

[Oppaloopa]

92. Really? You don't think it was the fear of the Black Panther Party?

[ehrnst]

150. Comparing those who support Wolf with those who opposed MLK.

Rich.

[ehrnst]

39. You sound very much like the Right Wingers who are clutching their pearls over this.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge satire....

You would also be upset at Colbert for doing something similar in the Colbert Report.

[ollie10]

43. Colbert is my hero

Too bad Wolf wasn't anything like Colbert's skill

I am not a right winger. And I know what satire is.

I also know that we are talking about ....not trump....but Wolf. Which is exactly what she had in mind.

[ehrnst]

45. OK, so Colbert calling DT "a cock holster for Putin"

Is OK, but a female comedian confronting conservatives on their own ridiculousness is offensive?

[ehrnst]

63. You seem to be unfamiliar with satire.

You seem to think that because you don't get it, that no one else will.

You are clutching your pearls as much as any pro-lifer. You give a pass to men who use "cockholster for Putin" a pass, but OMG if a woman takes power in a comedy routine, and SHE mocks the abusers with their own vitriol, you suddenly act just like a Right Winger.

Whose side are you really on?

[ollie10]

66. Well, you got the flaming thing down pat!

I thought flaming was .....er.....a no-no here?

[ehrnst]

73. What are you talking about? "Flaming?"

Are you confused on which progressive here you are arguing with?

[Sophia4]

105. It was a comedy show.

Have you read your Moliere?

He made fun of the rich and mighty. That's what good comedy does.

The jibes against SHSanders were well deserved. She makes it almost impossible for the press to honestly cover the White House. She got back a tiny bit of the disrespect and condescension she dishes out to the press every day.

It was like a mirror for her. I wonder whether she will be quite as dismissive and rude in her future press conferences as she has been thus far.

She takes pride in doing her job, but does not want correspondents who she perceived to be of a different political view to also do their jobs well. She is haughty and mean, just like her boss. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' conduct is what is inappropriate in our democracy that relies on a free press to insure responsible government.

[haele]

111. I have a two year old and a six year old at home.

When they're doing something incorrectly and are so wrapped up in their own worlds they refuse to listen when I try to provide "nice" correction and warnings that they're going to break or lose something they desire, then they get correction they don't think is so nice - especially when reality takes a two by four to them. Hearing them cry over the mess that is the result of their own doing is understandable - they're two and six.

Pointing out the truth nicely doesn't work with these supposedly adult White House stenographers pretending to be journalists. And I feel no sympathy when they get told the bald faced truth in a not so nice way.
Especially since they're ignoring what their celebrity monster's justice department is doing shredding up the Constitution - "Freedom of the Press" is no longer in the Justice Department's mission statement?

So these well-heeled reality star wannabes that are so dazzled by ratings and "access" that they don't even notice the scaffolds for them being built up on the White House lawn are pissed at a "Sister" who tells them in no uncertain words that they're not doing their jobs are whining and making up excuses because their feelings were hurt - and they're misconstruing her words and calling her "not funny" (whether she is or isn't) to make themselves seem more important in their affront. (I also suspect some racism/sexism is involved with much of the "criticism" - would they do the same to Jon Stewart or even Larry Wilmore?)

In fact, the promoters of the event don't seem to have been doing their job by vetting what sort of comedian host would be acceptable to the attendees. Unless, of course, that's what they wanted to do - to rub the faces of the reporters in their own doo-doo reality because these so-called "journalists" have been spending the last two years cheerleading a monster for ratings - and refuse to admit they're providing the torches to their own civilization by pandering to the lowest common denominator excuses for a bunch of over-privileged, greedy children destroying democracy while play-acting at being "powerful grown-ups".

On edit - Time and Reality are two things that can't be denied. And the results of misuse of both can be painful to the fee-fees of the frivolous.

Haele

[njcpa1978]

7. Pro-life Republicans

Defenders of the first nine months and ignorers of the next 18 years.

[ollie10]

9. I am pro-choice

I know all the arguments the right uses to promote their cause.

They got a little help from Wolf, unfortunately.

[ehrnst]

35. You certainly don't have much faith in pro-choice intellect, do you?

If you think that anyone who is pro-choice is going to change to anti-choice because of Michelle Wolfe's comedy routine at the Press Club, you are are not really different from the anti-choicer who thinks that waving blown up graphic photos of questionable origin at women going into clinics will suddenly "educate her" on what she is doing.

They use The Onion to "promote their cause." They make stuff up about a "woman they heard had 12 abortions, because she liked it," to promote their cause.

Did that work on you? No? Why do you think that it will on anyone else who has a respect for facts?

[Duppers]

103. I agree with you and I'm

Very pro-choice. Abortion is no laughing matter! At all.
- just an old woman's opinion who's had one.

Otherwise, I think MW was funny and on the mark.

[ehrnst]

10. She knew exactly who her audience is. She was pulling a Steven Colbert with the abortion reference.

I don't think that it "set back the cause for choice," because anyone who is pro-choice would not be anti-choice after hearing that.

She is throwing the conservatives' own demonization of women who have abortions right back in their faces. I've done it online with anti-choicers who talk about women having abortions "for convenience" - I say, "Yeah, I wait until they go on sale. Then a friend and I go and get the buy one, get one free, and split the cost!

She's on the Daily Show, for pete's sake. I knew who she is, and so does anyone else who does political satire.

Colbert went in as his hyper conservative persona shtick to mock the Bush Administration, and Wolfe went in as "shamless, Godless, abortion regular liberal" persona.

She got a FANTASTIC reaction from the rest of the country, and yes, she knew exactly what she was doing.

[ollie10]

14. Yes, she set back the pro-choice movement

Because now the anti-choice folks can point to an example of being pro-abortion.

Also, haven't we forgotten about the women who are having the abortions? This is a painful decision at best. It is not a laughing matter at all. Wolf's was a cheap shot "joke" at their expense. Insensitve. And Trumplike.

[Squinch]

21. Do you hear yourself?

[ollie10]

23. yes

[woundedkarma]

32. No, you don't. You are setting back pro-choice...

By giving the right an example of a pro-choice crazy person.

[ehrnst]

27. Who is going to believe that other than someone who is already anti-choice?

Are you seriously saying that there are people who are pro-choice who will now be anti-choice because of what she said?

They make up horror stories about a women going into abortion clinics on a weekly basis to point at, and their people believe it.

They share satirical articles from The Onion with each other to make their case, and you think that Michelle Wolfe's comedy act is going to be the thing that "sets back the pro-choice movement?"

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/07/louisiana-congressman-mistakes-the-onions-planned-parenthood-story-for-factual-news/

Really?

You seem to have the same opinion of pro-choice intellect that anti-choicers do.

[bucolic_frolic]

30. Are you a troll here to gaslight?

Because you don't agree with anything and question every post. You can have your high ground. America is outraged because her sovereignty has been violated, her assets sold off to polluters, her weakest stripped of government support. And you're here to tell us we're too peeved about it.

[JenniferJuniper]

62. Definitely a troll.

[lunatica]

70. No. She didn't.

Get a grip. The dividing line didn’t change an iota.

[ehrnst]

116. OK, I'll bite -tell us how she "set back the pro-choice movement."

Did she pass legislation restricting it?

Is she closing abortion clinics?

Is she defunding Planned Parenthood?

Is she spreading misninformation on the effects of abortion on women - increases risk of breast cancer, etc?

Please tell us in what way the pro-choice movement has been altered.

Do you think all of the praise for her here on DU is also "setting back the Pro-choice movement?"

[maxrandb]

19. The HUGE BIGLEY difference is

Michelle Wolf is NOT PRETENDING THAT SHE ISN'T

[ehrnst]

76. You don't know that she's on the Daily Show, so "nobody has heard of her."

You have an incaccurately high opinion of your knowledge on any topic that involves Michelle Wolf, don't you.

That would explain the 'splaining you are doing.

[Cha]

6. Stupid Stockholm Syndrome WHPC

That Wolf’s performance was not “normal” for the correspondents’ dinner is a testament to its timeliness and necessity — nothing is “normal” right now, and pretending otherwise out of a false sense of the fourth estate’s friendship with the executive would have been the real disgrace. Wolf called the Trump administration out for tearing down democracy. Then, the people who are supposed to care most about holding autocrats to account called her out in turn for, essentially, not being chummy enough.

Mahalo, ehrnst

[tblue37]

8. K&R for visibility. nt

[HAB911]

13. K&R

[Javaman]

20. Which means Wolf did a better job of defending the First Amendment..."

'...than those who say that’s our business."

damn fucking right.

[bigtree]

22. k&r

[SidDithers]

36. DU rec...nt

Sid

[onlyadream]

78. They wanted a pussy but got a Wolf, lol nt

[MontanaMama]

94. Well played...

[dubyadiprecession]

79. The trumpets can dish it out, but they just can't take it.

Trump can't even show up to these dinners! What does that say about our great leader?
Maybe, that he is a coward?

[S.E. TN Liberal]

98. Michelle Wolf has her own show.

From the Daily Show to her own show is quite an accomplishment.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80239459

[SunSeeker]

124. Thanks for the link! nt

[Gothmog]

113. I liked and appreciated Ms. Wolf's jokes

[SunSeeker]

123. K & R

[Scurrilous]

133. K&R

[BobTheSubgenius]

136. Small wonder WAPO is off the WH Xmas card list.

That is neither chummy, nor falling in line. Not exactly obsequious, but more towards....what is the opposite of obsequious?

[Scurrilous]

137. Boink.

[Wiccan Priest]

138. If this were any other Administration, I'd say maybe Wolf went too far

but Trump's Trainwreck o' Treason? It (and Huckabee Sanders) got off light!

[BlueJac]

139. No shit

[orangecrush]

140. BRAVO

Truth.

[PatrickforO]

143. We must take back our republic.

Starting with awareness and involvement now, and with every single person who can vote voting in November.

Because you know what? If just 75% to 80% of the eligible voters turned out, Dems would sweep the field. We had a 58% turnout in 2016, with Clinton actually winning, but the GOP cheating to take power.