The Amazing Tina Fey and Amy Poehler

It remains to be seen what the 2008 will mean for women in politics, but it's been a boon for women in political comedy. Everyone agrees that Tina Fey and Amy Poehler created an instant classic on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, appearing together as Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.



I am so glad this dynamic duo got to do this scene before Amy Poehler had her baby! She hid her 8-months-pregnant belly behind the podium. (Of course, if Poehler were Sarah Palin, she'd deliver the baby and be back at work the next Saturday.)

Will the Fey-as-Palin storyline make it onto her show 30 Rock? Wouldn't Liz Lemon's ultra-conservative boss Jack Donaghy become irresistibly attracted to her because she's a dead-ringer for Palin? His ex-girlfriend is Condoleezza Rice, for gosh sakes. Here's how I see it: one day Liz wakes up and hastily puts her hair up in a scrunchie when she's on the subway, late for work, accidentally creating a mini-beehive look...and the rest is workplace-harassment comedy history.

Final thought, to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I love you guys, but it's really time to get some women on your show! Samantha Bee is great, but such a "token girl" in your roster.

The Oscars + my TiVO = pretty entertaining

The Academy Awards show would be unbearable without TiVO, but with extensive fast-forwarding the program was actually entertaining last night. I am willing to take the chance of missing something interesting to speed past the 80% of the show that is boring or redundant. I love Jon Stewart, so any time he hosts I am already having a good time.

With so much celebrity trash spewing from the media these days, it was wonderful to see everyone looking so classy. Here are a few thoughts on the show:

Stars I'd most like to meet: Cate Blanchett and George Clooney. And Harrison Ford, since I'd had a crush on him since 1980 (though now that he's actually dating someone my age that seems pretty odd.)

Star I'd most aspire to be like someday: Helen Mirren. She is the coolest ever.

Many of my thoughts about the show centered around the Best Song category, one I almost never care about. But last night was a big exception:

I loved the gospel choir from August Rush. Their performance was enough to make me want to rent the film, even though it's supposed to be sappy and cloying.

Enchanted was a cute movie that deserved one nomination for "That's How You Know," but why oh why oh why did Enchanted get three nominated songs when the far superior Hairspray received none? Hairspray suffered the biggest snub of the year, getting no nominations at all. John Travolta presented the award for this category, which I thought was ironic, and gracious of him considering that he had starred as Edna Turnblad in Hairspray.

Speaking of "That's How You Know," if the wonderful Amy Adams performed one song in the show, why didn't she get to sing the second? Kristin Chenoweth is a talented performer but she's not Giselle. It was weird seeing another actress sing her showstopper song when you knew that Amy Adams was in the house.

Given the nominees, the most important thing to me was that "Falling Slowly" from the Irish indie film Once actually won! This little gem deserved the recognition for its brilliance that stemmed from the music and performances by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova. If you haven't seen Once, and you like music, or independent films, or romance, or Ireland, you definitely need to watch the DVD.

But....then....the duo got up to accept their Oscars, and after Glen gave his short remarks, Marketa got totally dissed when she was immediately cut off by the orchestra!

Jon Stewart saved the day by bringing Marketa back out to give her eloquent thanks. As far as I can tell, this move was unprecedented in Oscar history, but well-deserved, and saved the Academy from one of the most insulting faux pas ever. This wasn't twelve people getting up and droning on...it was a songwriting, singing and acting duo standing up to take credit for their partnership. I don't know whether the producers or Stewart himself made the decision to bring Marketa back out, but, bottom line--you go, Marketa and Glen, and Jon Stewart, could I love you even more????

Finally, I'm going to bestow an award for the Ultimate Movie Mojo Mom of 2007. I've never even thought of doing that before, but there was one actress this year who played a mother so full of courage, joy, and mojo that she inspired a shout-out. The winner is....Queen Latifah, for her role as Motormouth Maybelle in Hairspray.

Congratulations, Queen Latifah! Stop by for lunch sometime and I'll find a gold statue to give you.

***

What did you think of the Oscars? A really big show, or a really big snooze? Which of the nominated films did you actually see? I'll add Michael Clayton to my list of must-see movies. I wanted George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson to win their categories. I enjoyed seeing all the Europeans win, but I have to admit there is a slim to none chance I'll go see There Will be Blood or No Country for Old Men unless I hear from you that they are worth wading through their darkness.

What's the storyline in South Carolina?

I know this is somewhat off-topic for Mojo Mom, but I have to write about the Democratic South Carolina primary today. (I had started a political blog last year but wasn't able to keep it up. Today I really need an outlet for that mojo!)

I am a Democrat, a big John Edwards fan, but I see good things in Obama and Clinton as well. I have been very frustrated by the mainstream media forcing storylines on a primary season that is just starting to unfold. The best analysis I have seen of the insistence on "horse race" coverage is "Why Campaign Coverage Sucks" by Jay Rosen, originally reported on TomDispatch.com, and reposted to Salon.com.

Today on CNN.com, as the primary is underway, the headline says, "Obama's legitimacy on line in South Carolina." Oh really? Who says? I am worried that the media has painted Obama into a racial box in South Carolina: on the one hand, Obama needs to show strong from African-American support. As CNN's Bill Schneider says, "Obama's support among African-American voters gives him more legitimacy. Obama has been doing well with young voters, independents and educated upper-middle-class liberals -- the NPR vote. Winning the black vote by a solid margin means Obama has standing with the Democratic Party's base."

But on the other hand, what if Obama wins South Carolina on the strength of the black vote, but lags behind in the white vote? Will the man who was once questioned for being "Black Enough" now become marginalized as "The Black Candidate," even though he won in lily-white Iowa and got 37% of the vote versus Clinton's 39% in New Hampshire? It seems to me that Hillary Clinton gets only beneficial bonus points for winning the black vote but obviously can't be marginalized as the White Candidate for scoring too many points in her demographic.

The gender card is its own mine-field. Of course Hillary Clinton faces the double-bind of being tough enough yet likeable and relatable. I am concerned about both of these fine candidates being pigeonholed unfairly, and I was really upset by the squabbling this week between Clinton and Obama. I did get the impression personally that Clinton's campaign has unleashed some unfair attacks against Obama, that Hillary has tried to appear to be rising above that fray yet sends her surrogates (Bill and others) to do the dirty work. Some call that politics, some call it hardball, I call it unfortunate. I will consider this election a failure if our unconscious racism and sexism are used as weapons by candidates against each other. I guess that brands me as a hopeless idealist, because of course this is already happening and will happen between parties [and memo to Broadsheet, a blog that I generally respect, your growing fascination with this drama is making it worse] but it crushes me to see candidates whom I like and respect going after each other that way.

As for the narrative of the Democratic Primary, Obama won Iowa, Clinton won New Hampshire, and although both "beat expectations" in each race, it's pretty close between the two of them. Why do we have to have this huge back-and-forth drama after each race? Both Clinton and Obama have more support in their party than any individual Republican has in his party. These are two viable candidates, and we should let the voters rather than the media decide who will end up on top.

What do you think? Am I on to something here, and am I also missing something? I am open to the possibility that I am adopting storylines without being conscious of them. My favorite political pundit is definitely Jon Stewart, who is not afraid to call the media out on its bullshit. He deftly skewered pollster John Zogby for the fact that all the predictions about the Democratic New Hampshire primary were just WRONG. Zogby didn't have a good answer for what went wrong, or Stewart's common-sense question about why can't we just wait a couple of days and see what the voters say?

Maybe because it would put the pundits out of business....? For a rare glimpse of sanity on CNN.com, read University of South Carolina School of Law Professor Danielle Holley-Walker's commentary, "Issues -- not gender or race -- on minds of voters," and stay tuned for the voice of the voters in South Carolina and beyond.

Living in North Carolina, I am happy to think that my vote in the Primary on May 6th could actually mean something.

For more background on this topic I recommend Drew Westen's book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. Race and gender touch deep buttons in all of us, and it would be a shame if we let manipulation of these frameworks determine the outcome of our election. In 2000 we seemed to pick based on the guy we'd rather have a beer with, and look where that got us. We need to really think things through this time and make sure we're guided by our better angels rather than our unconscious comfort zones or prejudices.