2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7240
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#26

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:32 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:28 pm
And now, 99% of the country yawns and switches the channel (or site) after going "who the hell is Wolf?"

The now hate-fest dinner used to be something to look forward to but humor has devolved into politically-correct vitriol that only amplifies the intensity of the media's blood lust against anything conservative.

For most of America, the 'don't care light' has been on and will stay on. :bored:
22A97D5E-1326-498D-B8BB-AFAF8153C1D8.jpeg
But it was all chuckles when Limbaugh called us Libtards and Feminazis, yes? And when right-wingers shared pictures of watermelons growing on the White House lawn, and hunting licenses for liberals?

Suck it up, buttercup. We’re just getting started.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#27

Post by Addie » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:04 am

WaPo OpEd - Molly Roberts
Michelle Wolf got it just right ...

All the same, countless journalists rallied behind Sanders, the same woman who spends her days lying to them. And that says a lot more about them than it does about Wolf’s routine. Everyone who told Wolf to read the room is missing the point: The room, and the misplaced notion of a “special” night to celebrate the “special” relationship between the press and the presidency that brought everyone to it on Saturday, is precisely the problem.

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.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9513
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#28

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:32 am

1: Like lots of us here, I've spent decades watching conservative media figures calling liberals "traitors" and mentally ill." So, yeah, I've got no time for the delicate sensibilities of anyone who thinks the mainstream media has a "blood lust" for conservatives.

2: It seems like a stretch to claim that she went after Sanders' looks. The Handmaid's Tale joke clearly wasn't a looks joke. And "she uses the ash of the facts she burns as eye-shadow" thing doesn't seem like it was meant to be a looks thing, either.

3: But they also weren't that funny.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Mr Brolin
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:03 am

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#29

Post by Mr Brolin » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:24 am

One felt that a wee bit of time spent in self flagellation was required :blackeye: , as penance for general well being and financial uptick.

As such pinning ones eyes open a-la Clockwork Orange :eek2: and watching the entirety of the WHCD seemed to fill the bill appropriately.... :brickwallsmall:

I feel comfortable now that my karmic rebalancing has, if anything firmly moved into the black.

I have difficulty in remembering the last time I witnessed such a self satisfied, oleaginous, carping and harping, exclusionary, whining and crapulous exhibition.

Yes, Ms Wolf's joke were a touch crass, the main points at issue however being that

A. She simply is not funny as a stand up comedienne
B. Her delivery and timing left, at best, a lot to be desired
C. The content was m'ehhh at best

For the WHCD organisers and particpants to have such an attack of the vapours, hand wringing and "Oh woe is me" strikes me as posturing at best and abject, craven cowardice that they may lose "access" more likely.

God alone knows the reaction if someone akin to a George Carlin or Lenny Bruce had had the mike instead....Spontaneous human combustion...? :explode:



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7296
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#30

Post by RVInit » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:19 am

Shut up about Michelle Wolf if you’ve been silent on Trump’s offenses
By Jonathan Capehart

:snippity:
The criticism of Wolf by Republicans, the press and the public was inevitable. Comes with the job, and some of it I agree with. What makes it galling is that those screaming the loudest about Wolf are mute when it comes to Trump. The former is a comedian hired to tell jokes at a dinner where jokes are traditionally told. The latter is the president of the United States. His words, even the jokes, carry weight. They have real consequences and affect real lives. But we’ve become so used to the garbage that sloshes from his Twitter feed and his presidency that we have grown numb to how it sluices over our collective national psyche.

So, until some of this righteous indignation and moral outrage at Wolf is directed at Trump for his inattention to the Flint water crisis and the devastation in Puerto Rico; his silence on the heroism of James Shaw Jr. and the demands for gun control; his disrespect for the rule of law and his inability to effectively govern without striking fear in the hearts of American families, folks need to shut up about Michelle Wolf.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po ... b1b674f20a


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7240
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#31

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:25 am

Trump's butt-hurt is pretty amusing considering his presidential rhetoric is plagiarized from Don Rickles.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#32

Post by Kendra » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:46 am

Mr Brolin wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:24 am
One felt that a wee bit of time spent in self flagellation was required :blackeye: , as penance for general well being and financial uptick.

As such pinning ones eyes open a-la Clockwork Orange :eek2: and watching the entirety of the WHCD seemed to fill the bill appropriately.... :brickwallsmall:

I feel comfortable now that my karmic rebalancing has, if anything firmly moved into the black.

I have difficulty in remembering the last time I witnessed such a self satisfied, oleaginous, carping and harping, exclusionary, whining and crapulous exhibition.

Yes, Ms Wolf's joke were a touch crass, the main points at issue however being that

A. She simply is not funny as a stand up comedienne
B. Her delivery and timing left, at best, a lot to be desired
C. The content was m'ehhh at best

For the WHCD organisers and particpants to have such an attack of the vapours, hand wringing and "Oh woe is me" strikes me as posturing at best and abject, craven cowardice that they may lose "access" more likely.

God alone knows the reaction if someone akin to a George Carlin or Lenny Bruce had had the mike instead....Spontaneous human combustion...? :explode:
:yeah:

I have still not watched the entire thing, but what I did see was not funny (to me). YMMV.

:?: to all. Is this Wolf's typical style of comedy? If yes, didn't the person in charge of picking her stop and think that style might not suit the event?

Either way, considering how DOTUS slams people and name calling and worse, he really has no basis to complain.



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7296
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#33

Post by RVInit » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:57 am

What I have seen of her outside of the WHCD is that she is hilarious and very well received by audiences. Holding a mirror up is her normal style, but she's usually not holding the mirror up to people who are so singularly hypocritical. They probably should have considered the particular audience if they were going to get all butt hurt about a comedian that has a reputation for mirroring. She took no prisoners, including the media itself. And yeah, I agree it wasn't ha-ha hilarious funny. It was sick joke funny - exactly a mirror of this administration AND the way it has been covered since the say the jackass announced he was running. It was genius.


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#34

Post by bob » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:02 am

Kendra wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:46 am
Is this Wolf's typical style of comedy? If yes, didn't the person in charge of picking her stop and think that style might not suit the event?
Wolf even joked that the WHCD should have done more research before inviting her.

In this routine, Wolf made fun of Clinton -- weeks after she lost the election. Followed by a high-minded discourse about ... testicles:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15036
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#35

Post by Reality Check » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:03 am

If you didn't find Wolf's monologue funny it was because she was doing documentary more than comedy.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#36

Post by Kendra » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:18 am

:cantlook:

At work, so I have an excuse to miss watching for now, but thanks Bob.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5142
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#37

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:43 pm

Funny is relative. Whether you loved it or hated it, if the GOP hadnt had a massive collective stroke over her, it would already been forgotten. Now she has a truckload of new fans.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5142
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#38

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:53 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:02 am


In this routine, Wolf made fun of Clinton -- weeks after she lost the election. Followed by a high-minded discourse about ... testicles:
I wouldn’t be surprised if she was chosen on the basis of that Clinton clip alone. Remember when they chose Stephen Colbert to host thinking he was an actual conservative comedian? To avoid the same embarrassment, the following year, they chose Rich Little to host and it was so boring nobody remembers a thing about it.

Somebody isn’t very good at organizing these things.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7240
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#39

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:02 pm

Au contraire.

Rich Little was so boring I remember it to this day.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15920
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#40

Post by Suranis » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:08 pm

https://wonkette.com/633244/the-shaming ... 3879257462
David Surname's Musings

Crying Wolf

As the new week begins and the furore of the weekend stretches on predictably into the news cycle, I thought it was worthwhile to throw into the mix my own take, as a somewhat well regarded opinion columnist, on the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Unlike a lot of the voices piping up on either side of the supposed debate, I have the advantage of having been there- as one might expect a well regarded opinion columnist to have been. I sat between drinks and various members of the White House staff and listened to the comedienne- I await with eagerness the shrieks of the left for having used such an insensitive term, but as a very well regarded opinion columnist I am aware words have meaning and I use them precisely. They are my weapons, and as one cannot legislate against guns without knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip so one cannot cast stones into the kitchen of public discourse, overcrowded with cooks already, without knowing precisely how to use each blade vorpally. The kitchen is glass as well.

So, with that necessary throat clearing aside, what are my thoughts? Am I on the side literally baying for the head of a comedian who dared do her job, and do it well, or am I on the side of those celebrating the first amendment in all its rough hewn, earthy, fungoid glory? Reader, I shall spare you the effort of reasoning this out yourself.

The storm in a teacup currently raging is illustration, if one were needed (and one definitely disputes that such a thing were though that it is is evidenced by that it has- one will come back to one, too) of the vital service the WHCD performs. It is the semi-permeable cell wall across which the osmosis of that second most noble of journalistic endeavours- access journalism- occurs. The reporters and opinion columnists, some well regarded, others less so, are the salt, the politicians the water, and the WHCD is the potato in which one is transferred with one to the other ones. I am a writer, not a
scientist, though my columns on science should be considered in many more public debates than they currently are. The WHCD performs a function that literally nothing else can or will- it allows the influential to prod the mighty, with service that varies between average and terrible. As such, the invited speaker- normally a satirist- should be allowed to say anything. There is no purer expression of the first amendment. Period.

The set by Michelle Wolf was remarkable. It was sharp, yet pungent. Hard, but yielding. Powerful, yet damp. It was squalid, but ennobling. Within it was contained multitudes. Without it were the multitudes more watching on TV, and it is no exaggeration to say several of them might have had newspaper subscriptions. Lewd, crude, rude, shrewd, Freud. It was all these things and some others. One thing it was not, though, was prude. It reminded us, and the President, what it means to have complete free speech at an expensive private dinner. This is something unique to America. I can only imagine the envy the rest of the world has for such an event, where poor working stiffs like me get to don evening wear to rub shoulders with the most powerful people in the world whom we normally only meet in office casual.

The President herself very clearly did not want to be at the event. It was obvious to me, in the corner reserved for extremely well regarded opinion columnists near the kitchen where they can be sure to be served first, that her laughter- that shrill, horrid, harpy laughter- was like so much else in her persona a mere masque. One has to give Hillary Clinton credit- she did an almost flawless performance of a woman enjoying herself. You had to really want to see through the pretence to realise this. Sadly for her she was surrounded by exactly the sort of gimlet eyed scrutineers under whom her race to authoritarianism has been continually thwarted. People who know that when she smiles it physically hurts her and probably indicates a wasting disease of some sort. People like me, for instance, earthy, honest types who can spot a Washington phoney from a verst away. Though she "laughed" it was clear to all she hated it, and soon would collapse from the tropical illness she's trying to hide from the American people, all porridge skinned necrosis, exploding organs and constitutional crises, likely starting an epidemic in which millions will die.

Did Wolf's jokes hit the mark? Yes. Resolutely, one hundred percent yes. Every point she made about the President hit the mark with the accuracy of a William Tell-shot arrow. She was called out for her emails, a scandal it's still hard to believe she weathered, and though many are criticising Wolf for joking about Clinton's age this is an important point we should not overlook. Personally I think Wolf went a little too easy- there was nothing in her set about Clinton's laugh, or her health, or her laugh, or how horrible her smile is, or her laugh, or about how she should smile more, or about her laugh, or about her husband's infidelity twenty years ago. Being able to mock all of these things are important for the functioning of a healthy democracy, and in many ways Wolf let herself and all of us down by not including them in her bit. One wonders if this was because she is herself a woman, though her very appearance is angering the left as it clearly illustrates one need not support a woman simply because one is one. It is difficult to imagine Trump's supporters reacting in this way had roles been reversed. The divisive rhetoric of identity politics was another victim of
Wolf's big, sharp teeth, and rightly so.

Did all the jokes work? Not really. Personally I found her jibes at the press in poor taste and poorly delivered. She resorted to a mocking tone when addressing what is the collective bastion of the first amendment, humbly including myself, without seeming to realise that we were there to be feted. In addition, the rude, crude, lewdness sadly veered into swearing for which there is no place in civil discourse- as a satirist performing a roast must realise they are a tessera in the shimmering mosaic of celebrating. The rest of that mosaic, of course, is the press. And it is Byzantine in its splendour.

I can take a joke as well as the next well regarded opinion columnist- though I don't know who is the next well regarded opinion columnist, the table by the kitchen is a less than ideal place to network- but to hear Wolf outright insult the media by saying we were aggressive and needlessly hostile to Clinton was, I think, to miss the point entirely. It is our vocation and our triumph to be the thorn in the side of the powerful, however ill suited the skin of that powerful to taking a thorn may be. To hold to the fire of public scrutiny the feet of women in pant suits and power is not an easy task, and we deserve all the praise our lavish dinners suggest. It is our calling, nay even our duty, to hold the powerful to account. To paraphrase the Bard, if she lies to us shall we not loudly call it out? If she staggers, shall we not urgently declare her dying? If she coughs, shall we not do the same? If she laughs- and oh God how I hope she never does again- shall we not get to call it fake and shrill? If she refuses to laugh, oh happy day, shall we not get to call her sour and joyless? She may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but she has the bossiness and shrillness of an utter bitch. If you want to call this needless hostility, I suppose you are merely another PC thug trying to close down rational discourse.

At this point I was a few drinks in and getting hungrier, but had I had the strength from sustenance I had thought I would have been provided earlier what with sitting right next to the kitchen I would have stood up and emulated Zola- J'accuse! in the name of all the salt of the earth folks from whence came I and whence I should return were my opinion columns not so well regarded. It is to them I owe allegiance. It is to them, the forgotten several, the powerless right left without representation whom my
paper covers in extensive interviews most days to hear their otherwise unheard
complaints about Clinton which were not voiced during their own hero's unsuccessful bid for the White House, that I dedicate my work. It is to them, my muse, I sing. And I will not sit waiting in tipsy hunger to be harangued by someone who probably thinks a feuilleton is a fold-out sofa.

I shall leave you with one question: can anyone imagine this same sort of angry response had this set been directed at President Trump?

Reader, I contend they would not. And my opinions are very well regarded.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#41

Post by Res Ipsa » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:42 pm

There were a couple of laughs, but I just didn't think much of her material was very funny.

On the "offensive" stuff, I really can't recall a single act at the WHCD that didn't come in for someone's ox being gored.

The Southwest airline engine one - in which a passenger died - would have been a good one to leave out.

But, good golly, it's an entertainer hired for a dinner. She's not making policy that is going to affect anyone's lives, and she doesn't make a career out of blatantly lying to people either.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15099
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#42

Post by kate520 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:53 pm

...(and one definitely disputes that such a thing were though that it is is evidenced by that it has- one will come back to one, too)...
Oh, that wonkette thing is hi-larious, Suranis!


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7207
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#43

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:57 pm

Slim Cognito wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:43 pm
Funny is relative. Whether you loved it or hated it, if the GOP hadnt had a massive collective stroke over her, it would already been forgotten. Now she has a truckload of new fans.
Count me in!


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7207
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#44

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:03 pm

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/you-c ... 648283/amp
You Can't Bully These Motherfuckers

When I write that CNN politics writer Chris Cillizza is the rankest assbrain in the Western Hemisphere, I am not being nice to him. When I write that God clowned Chris Cillizza before he was born by making him Chris Cillizza instead of a shit-eating maggot, I am being unkind. When I say that Chris Cillizza himself is the punchline to the cruelest work of absurdist comedy in the history of the fucking universe, and that the title of that work is On the Origin of Species, I am being mean. Likewise it probably is downright nasty for me to write that on the whole American society would benefit greatly by Chris Cillizza being fired out of a large cannon into an even larger cliff face. But I am not bullying Chris Cillizza. Categorically, I cannot do that.

“Wolf’s treatment of Sanders was bullying,” Cillizza wrote on CNN’s website yesterday, because he is an obsequious slimeball even more slovenly with language than his forebears were in the dispensation of their chromosomes. He’s referring to the standup set Michelle Wolf, a comedian, performed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night, somewhat at the expense of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a brazen, knowing, and hugely powerful enemy of the free press and deceiver of the public by trade. As you’ve surely read by now, Wolf joked that Sanders’s makeup—her “perfect smoky eye”—is made of the ashes of the facts she burns.

That’s about as gentle a way as anyone could come up with to lampoon the single most relevant fact about Sanders and what brought her to a station in life that would make her a reasonable subject of lines in a White House Correspondents’ Dinner monologue in the first place. A frank and honest description of who she is and what she does would be much more harsh: Every day, Sarah Huckabee Sanders plants herself, by choice, between the public and the facts of what’s being done at the very highest levels of American executive power, and does her damnedest to break and delegitimize the means by which the two are brought together. She is one of the most visible and powerful people in American civic life, and she uses her visibility and power—she chooses to use her visibility and power—to confuse the public and degrade its grasp on the truth, rather than to inform or empower or serve it. Her willingness to do this on behalf of Donald Trump, day after day, and the unmistakable teeth-gnashing relish with which she does it, are the substance of her power, and the reason why anybody knows who the fuck she is at all. What history will remember about Sanders is that she is the scum of the fucking earth, and not the jokey means by which one comedian pointed out this inarguable fact—and that’s only if the senile rageaholic pissbaby moron on whose behalf she shames herself on television every day doesn’t annihilate the human race, first.

Bullying happens along a gradient of existing power and reiterates it. That’s the difference between bullying and a fair fight: The bully is bigger and stronger and safer, and wields those advantages over someone smaller and weaker and more vulnerable. Michelle Wolf got off some zingers at Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s expense at an ultra-exclusive social event entirely filled by people whose livelihoods Sanders holds in her hands. Beyond that, as a basic function of her job, Sanders enjoys access to the water main of American political consciousness unmatched by pretty much any living person not named Donald Trump—a privilege she uses only and entirely for the purpose of pumping poison into it, aided by a healthy plurality of the people in that room but not by Michelle Wolf. I doubt there is a forum in existence in which Wolf could do anything that would qualify as “bullying” the press secretary of the President of the United States, but even if there is, the fucking White House Correspondents’ Dinner isn’t it.

You can’t bully these people. It’s simply not possible. You can only smash and annihilate every trace of the structures that empower them.
I included the last line especially for Kate520 and Rvinit! :-D


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#45

Post by bob » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:03 pm



I would say, "Don't quit your day job," but DJTJ he doesn't have one.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7296
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#46

Post by RVInit » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:16 pm

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:03 pm
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/you-c ... 648283/amp
You Can't Bully These Motherfuckers

:snippity:
Bullying happens along a gradient of existing power and reiterates it. That’s the difference between bullying and a fair fight: The bully is bigger and stronger and safer, and wields those advantages over someone smaller and weaker and more vulnerable. Michelle Wolf got off some zingers at Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s expense at an ultra-exclusive social event entirely filled by people whose livelihoods Sanders holds in her hands. Beyond that, as a basic function of her job, Sanders enjoys access to the water main of American political consciousness unmatched by pretty much any living person not named Donald Trump—a privilege she uses only and entirely for the purpose of pumping poison into it, aided by a healthy plurality of the people in that room but not by Michelle Wolf. I doubt there is a forum in existence in which Wolf could do anything that would qualify as “bullying” the press secretary of the President of the United States, but even if there is, the fucking White House Correspondents’ Dinner isn’t it.

You can’t bully these people. It’s simply not possible. You can only smash and annihilate every trace of the structures that empower them.
I included the last line especially for Kate520 and Rvinit! :-D
:bighug: :cheer1: :cheer:


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#47

Post by bob » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:40 pm

He still cares:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#48

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:05 pm

Poor 45, his feelings were hurt by that quip, "he's not that rich".

I thought she was exactly what that room needed, particularly her comments on the relationship between the press and Donald Trump.

Her accent did not help. When she was talking about Sarah Huckabee Sanders, she said "facts", but it sounded like "fat".



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17573
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#49

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 pm

Did the dinner party get the higher viewer numbers than his offsite rally?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

#50

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:26 pm

You know who they should have hired?
► Show Spoiler
Thanks, Obama.



Post Reply

Return to “President & Executive Branch”