Who's the Hotter Silver Fox?

I'm watching Democratic commentator/strategist super cool lady Donna Brazile host CNN's "After Party," a bipartisan, but friendly chatfest featuring the likes of conservatives and Liberals hacks, including my favorite curly haired conservative bandit, Amy Holmes. Who, on Sunday, is talking all kinds of sense right now and scaring me. (I really like the dark brown hair and glasses on her. How does she know how to dress to keep me from hating her. HOW???) But while watching it I was amazed at how lovely Brazile's halo of silver hair is looking then thought ... who's hotter of CNN's "Silver Foxes" -- Donna "You're Not My Boo" Brazille, Wolf "This is as high as my voice goes" Blitzer or the original sexy Silver Fox, Anderson "Nothing gets between me and my Vanderbilts" Cooper?

Fight among yourselves, but remember, hotness isn't just about sex appeal (Anderson!), a lot of it is about attitude and I have a feeling that Brazile was a MACK in her day. You gotta watch that one. She's too sharp and will cut you. As for Blitzer, um ... I have issues with the lack of emotional inflection in his voice. I've already admitted that I like my anchors one part dashing, three parts completely insane (but not Rick "Rob Riggle" Sanchez insane. More like CBS's Scott Pelley/former CBS anchor Gunga Dan Rather insane. War correspondents Michael Ware, Lara Logan, "what helmet?" insane. Or Ann Curry and Hotb Kota's rambling, sexy, I don't know what she's on but I want to smoke it hawt.)

Blitzer just isn't CRAZY enough for me. But I have a feeling Brazile and Coop-A-Doop can bring it.

Check this one from the crates!

David Alan Grier and DL Hughley Have New Comedy/News Shows, Should We Be Frightened?

I guess it would be too much to ask Dave Chappelle to come back.

This doesn't mean that I don't think comedians David Alan Grier and DL Hughley deserve their own shows ...

What am I saying? They're the last two black comics who should have their own shows. Katt Williams should have his own show before these two and I'm not even a fan, so ... seriously cable networks -- Grier and Hughley?

It's not that I didn't think they could pull off a good show. I know they can't pull off a good show. I watched most of Grier's Chocolate News and Hughley's DL Hughley Breaks the News through my fingers.

Both have the ability to be funny in their moments, but I don't think Grier's been funny since he stop directly working with someone for "Wayans" as a last name. And Hughley, to me, has never been funny. I've always found his comedy mean spirited, petty and unimaginative. (But he was really nice that one time I interviewed him for work!) But Comedy Central and CNN did not ask me which black comics would be good at a politically-based comedy show.

(Aisha Tyler, anyone? She's smart and funny. Anyone! Did they even bother calling her? Chris Rock? Steve Harvey? Wanda Sykes? -- Non sequitor: God, I'd LOVE to watch Wanda Sykes do a political comedy show with Aisha Tyler. They could invite Monique and do an all black girl parody of The View. Jasmine Guy could play the Barbara Walters character! Wait ... no one steal my show idea! I have to make some phone calls! -- Marlon Wayans could do a show. Hell, even Sinbad or Arsenio Hall would have been good and both those guys need a second bite at the apple.)

But nope, no one asked me. So this is what we have:

A recent skit from Grier's "Chocolate News" on "Thugs Against High Gas Prices."

A clip of DL Hughley talking to Freddie Mac, not the mortgage giant, but "Ashy Larry" as Freddie the Mac Daddy of Federal Loan Financing.

Both shows are "edgy," and by edgy I mean profane because, really, that's appears to be the only kind of edgy that matters. Grier, while not exactly Eddie Murphy, manages to pull off playing a multitude of characters, but seeing him still makes me think of In Living Color and thinking of In Living Color only makes me wonder if Chocolate News would be more palatable to me if it was Damon and Keenan running the show again? Wouldn't it be better to see seven black performers with a job rather than two? Or to just see all those Wayanses hire themselves to put on a show again? Yeah, "Little Man" was an embarrassment, but I say, c'mon, TV, give them another chance! They can be good again!

As for Hughley's show I was amazed by the "shut your mouth bitches" line from Ashy Larry, if only because I'm watching CNN. It's one thing to be wild and raunchy on Comedy Central, home of everything raunchy in comedy, they have no morals. They show Sarah Silverman with a potty mouth and a bed-wetting problem, South Park and that gross Kenny Versus Spenny thing that I hope to dear God was canceled.

Seeing Grier play a transsexual whose boob keeps popping out is actually at home in that environment. But Hughley is his own island on a network that is primarily about straight news. And it is surreal and painful to watch actual reporters interact with Hughley as opposed to joke reporters like the ones on Chocolate News and The Daily Show. Real reporters are not funny and I image the ones who showed up for Hughley's premiere episode were wondering why CNN was wasting their news gathering time? You work hard, you pound the pavement, you pester sources and you beg your producer for camera time and this is what they give you?

Hughley seems out of place on the network, even if he did get a newsworthy nugget out of yet another defecting Republican, this time former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan who said last week that he is voting for Barack Obama on Hughley's show. I hate to say this, but ... Glen Beck's show made more sense. Now, I don't like Glen Beck and Beck has run off to FOX News, leaving his old gig at CNN Headline News, but Beck was/is supposed to be funny and did a political/news-of-the-day interview show that didn't make me want to drink Drano. It would have made more sense for CNN to find someone not necessarily like Beck, but someone with his basic skills set, like Whoopi Goldberg, Dennis Miller or Lewis Black, heck, Eddie Murphy might do it if you ask nice enough, but someone who has the ability to be funny and can also pull off a decent interview.

Naturally, I wasn't the only person "amazed" by Hughley's show. Dr. Boyce Watkins (and many other critics, primarily black) are pretty much ready to grab the pitchforks and torches and send DL back to the comedy plantation from wince he came.

In the following clip, Watkins shouts out every black comedian as being cool-to-great with the exception of Hughley who he says he's never been impressed by.

"You don't bring a gun to a baby shower. You don't put a liquor sign in a church," Watkins gripes, before getting into the flip side of it, that CNN has had many black commentators and journalists, yet the first African American to get their own show on CNN is DL, a comedian. Watkins name drops Roland Martin, mentioning that he's been on a regular on CNN for a while yet has no show.

Um ... yeah. I noticed that too.

Here's Watkins' rant in full where he declares DL America's latest "nappy headed ho" in reference to statements DL made during the infamous Don Imus/Rutgers Women's Basketball team scandal. (Fast-forward to 1:52 minutes in to skip Watkins rambling about his recent trips around the country.)

Officially, as a lover of the First Amendment and a believer in our often messed up free market economy, I am all for Grier and Hughley getting the same opportunities to humiliate themselves and other black people on television just as countless individuals have done before. Their shows might get better. It might pave the way to Aisha Tyler eventually having her own show, but I'm probably not going to make the point to pencil in Hughley and Chocolate News as must-see-TV unless something revolutionary happens in the writing of the shows. These shows were not made for me.

Which takes me to Watkins' other concern about DL -- that this show, much like CNN's "Black In America" and DL's statements about Don Imus, aren't for or about black people -- that this is humor insulting black Americans to delight a non-black audience. Is Watkins right? Whereas I, the women at What About Our Daughters and Watkins saw something of concern, David Zurawik, a critic with The Baltimore Sun, thought the premiere showed promise.

(I)t looks like CNN could have a winner in its new comedy show, D.L. Hughley Breaks the News. And more important, Saturday night television and its audience could be enriched by Hughley's engaging and non-conventional take on American life -- if the cable channel gives the production time to mature and find its voice.

Is this a case of black Snobs like myself and Watkins being too hard on a pair of successful black comedians or is this yet another case of great for the performer, bad for all of blackness played out in front of a live studio audience yet again?

The Riggle Sanchez Gets A Goat By the Throat

Normally I can't stand Rick Sanchez's 2 p.m. show on CNN because it is all over the place, no one talks for longer than 30 seconds on any given subject and it gives me seizures to see him bounce from "Twitter" board to "Facebook" page, all which seem too informal in a news setting. But even CNN's own personal Latino Rob Riggle does something Snob-worthy once-in-a-while and this, sir and/or ma'am, is it.

That McCain flack didn't know whose show he just stepped into, just making shizz up in front of Rob ... I mean, Rick Riggle ... I mean ... Rob Sanchez, I mean ... The Riggle Sanchez don't PLAY that! You start naming names when you slander, Mr. McCainiac. NAME NAMES! No we don't know who you are referring to! (Via The Huffington Post)

CNN Asks Can Michelle Close the Deal? Snob Asks Can Geraldine Ferraro Get Over Herself?

*If you can't view the video, click here.

We all know the question by now. Can Michelle Obama get women to vote for her historic hubby? I have an answer for that -- yes, to a certain extent.

Let's be honest. If you are serious about the issues that have been the hallmarks of the feminist movement -- equal pay for equal work; family leave; reproductive rights; Affirmative Action; issues that affect women and children; etc. -- you're suicidal if you're not voting Obama-Biden. Yet I constantly see Geraldine "Gerry" Ferraro on FOX News, usually on Hannity & Colmes, and I often wonder what the hell is going on with her? Every renowned feminist and former Hillary Clinton supporter has come around to Barack Obama, seeing him as their best bet to push these issues.

But Gerry's still on H&C, empathetic towards Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's "plight," battling sexism. Every now and then she'll mention that Palin is the antithesis to everything she ever stood for, but that doesn't stop her from relishing in her nomination and reliving her own failed attempt to be the first female veep.

Ferraro wrote the following for the FOX Forum blog late August:

It’s going to be a very interesting campaign. I must say that several months ago I said that it would be great if there was a woman on the ticket — that I felt that John McCain would have to pick someone, especially if Hillary was the nominee. But without Hillary being the nominee it’s really quite equally as important because people are looking for a smart campaign and I think this might do it.

There are a lot of women who are disaffected by how Hillary was treated by the media, by how she was treated by the Obama campaign, by how she was treated by the Democratic National Committee — [Democratic party chairman] Howard Dean not speaking up when sexism raised its ugly head in the media. They’ll be looking to see what happens now.

She's still bringing up those Operation Chaos agitators, PUMA, and it's September. They've been all but neutralized as a petty stunt. Yet I still remember her words from May when she was talking like a broken arrow, a rogue, Joe Lieberman in a dress.

But Gerry isn't the woman CNN is talking about. They're talking about Jane Doe, women who don't call themselves feminists but sure seem to like Title IX and "Well Woman's Check Ups" and birth control covered by the insurance. These are women who care about their children, health care and education. Single moms and working mothers -- those are the women Michelle is supposed to charm.

CNN argues that Michelle is not a counter-weight to Palin. But I'd argue that Palin is the counterweight to Michelle. Michelle's been on the trail almost as long as her husband, almost two years now, growing as a speaker and persuader. Like the lawyer she is, she takes to her husband's case for the presidency like a prosecutor, then reinforces that she's down-to-earth, that her family is solid and normal.

That she and her husband understand the needs of women.

This is the opposite of the dish Palin serves. She's all "grrrl" power and no substance. The resume on women is thin, with her hometown charging victims for rape kits when she was mayor. She's not arguing for womens' rights. She's arguing for the ovary crowd to do one for the "team" and vote McCain-Palin.

In some ways, Palin would be better off running as a candidate's spouse instead of the number two. While she has the attack dog in "maybe is real, maybe it's Maybelline" act down pat, she is mostly McCain's cheerleader, doing what is difficult for the more reserved Cindy McCain.

Palin is the rallier, the booster, the energizer. She's also the circus, sideshow and main event on the Republican ticket, over shadowing a presidential candidate few Republicans were enthused about (but will vote for him anyway). Captivating a media who only desires her more as they watch her fumble through even in the softest of softball interviews.

She's so good at distracting the press they've hardly noticed the fact that Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee Joe Biden sometimes sounds like a mad man.

But through the work of Michelle reaching out to women, Biden reaching out to blue collar and rural voters and Barack energizing the base, the young, the brown, the educated and the hopeful, the trio should have a shot at steering some of these wayward, former Democrats home.

And thousands of volunteers and staff working on the ground doesn't hurt either.

But nothing's going to be closed until November.

Maybe by then Gerry Ferraro will start thinking with her brain and not her furious gut. Barack has picked up the feminist flag and is flying it. We all have to make compromises.

So Who Won?

There was nothing definitive as far as I could tell.

John McCain was grumpy but effective. Barack Obama proved detractors that he did know his stuff on foreign policy and despite McCain's attempts to say he didn't understand every word out of Obama's mouth on tactics, strategy, history and diplomacy in the foreign policy arena was polished. There were no major gaffes. No major missteps. Obama was laid back and relaxed, but firm. McCain, as opined by MSNBC's Chris Matthews over and over again in his post-debate coverage -- McCain wouldn't look his opponent in the eye.

It was interesting to watch. Because of the relative draw in the debate, every pundit and pontificator saw it a different way. On CNN the roundtable thought it was Obama who was on edge and looked annoyed, saying he spent most of the debate on the defensive. But then they were bewildered by their own early poll of viewers which showed that 51 percent thought Obama "did better" than McCain who was at 38 percent.

Obama winning was a trend in a lot of early polling.

CBS had Obama as the winner 39 percent to McCain's 25. (Thirty-six percent saw a draw). And the Insider Advantage poll had Obama winning with 42 percent to McCain's 41, with 17 percent undecided.

CNN's pundits reviews were mixed. Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez tried to argue that Obama disrespected McCain by calling him by his first name during the debate, although others defending Obama saying he only did that when trying to get McCain's attention to point out some perceived misrepresentation of his record.

Some concluded that the stalemate counted as a win on style for Obama because foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's strongest subject, yet he could not knock out his opponent. The biased, but blunt Paul Begala declared that McCain needed a knock out after the horrific week he had.

A draw was simply not good enough.

MSNBC was another planet. Whereas CNN was more critical of Obama, Hardball's Chris Matthews couldn't get over the perceived slight of McCain not looking at Obama, something I didn't even notice. But he pestered every guest and pundit about it. He also couldn't understand why Obama didn't go on the attack over the economy. But both were tepid on the issues because no one knew what the final product would look like when it came to the Wall Street bailout bill that both would have to vote on.

Matthews did point out that some news was made that evening when moderator Jim Lehrer got McCain to admit that he would vote for the bailout. Although, he said it so low and curtly a viewer could have easily missed it.

At MSNBC, many made the same points as CNN, saying that Obama was sidetracked by McCain and was stuck playing defense. Despite said Obama still held his own. But things were still vague.

Matthews admitted even he didn't know who won and was surprised by their early polling which showed Obama as the clear winner by more than 20 points.

Obama was willing to admit when he agreed with John McCain. (MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said he agreed 13 times.) Some argued it showed how diplomatic and gracious he was. Others thought he just created an attack ad for his opponent. Good strategy? Bad strategy?

McCain wouldn't segue ground on anything, making him look either tough or like a "troll," as Matthews repeated. He was belligerent and even dismissive at times, not wanting to acknowledge Obama in the same way he wanted to not acknowledge the president of Iran. He seemed annoyed by Obama's very existence. Good strategy? Bad strategy?

McCain's theme: He's not ready. Obama's theme: He's Bush II. Good strategy? Bad strategy? What worked? What didn't?

But the ultimate question is, who won?

Some say because we can't answer that question, Obama won by default. He passed the foreign policy test and proved he wasn't a lightweight. Other say McCain showed real assertiveness and command of his statements after a rought week. He was solid even if a few details were fudged, like his declaration that he killed the Boeing refueling tanker deal.*

Here's a round up of others' take on the first great debate:

"My scorecard says that McCain won the night 7-1, which frankly surprises me. On paper that looks like a rout, but McCain didn't seem that dominant as it was happening. Certainly there was nothing in the debate that Obama will worry about as having been a big blow. I saw McCain winning the debate pretty handily, but I doubt he scored any larger strategic victory," Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard

"I thought it was largely a tie. But McCain's whole campaign is based on his supposed superior knowledge and judgment on foreign policy. So I think that's a problem for McCain ... McCain didn't have any freak-out moments. But he did have that sneer and there did seem to be this thing where he was so contemptuous and angry at Obama that he couldn't get himself to make eye contact. I think we'll hear more about that. Angry, angry, angry. Part of the key here is that McCain is clearly miffed that he even has to debate or run against Obama. He thinks it's an insult," Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo

"Deep down, I know what appeals to me in a debate isn't necessarily what appeals to the country as a whole. But it's really hard to say McCain had a bad night, and I think Obama seemed a little shaky at times tonight - his performance didn't boldly and clearly say, 'I know I'm new on the scene, but you can trust me; I am ready to succeed in the hardest job in the world,'" Jim Geraghty, The National Review Online

"(C)ount me impressed by both candidates. I know it may sound a bit pollyannish, but I thought one would not bring their "A" game or that one would get complacent and that didn't happen. There are some who believe a "draw" is better for the candidate perceived to be ahead. If that's the case, then the polls will continue their Obama drift. But I wouldn't be surprised if the polls don't move much in either direction because neither candidate gave a reason why voters ought to stop listening and make their decision now. There are two more debates and this one was good enough that they may see audiences build on this one," Chuck Todd, MSNBC.com

"I'd guess the CW will be that McCain won on points, with nothing close to a knockout, and I'd echo that judgment. McCain had Obama on the defensive over earmark requests and his $800 billion in new spending, then later on the surge and those rogue-leader meetings. Obama did do a decent job shifting the focus back to the original invasion of Iraq and was effective at highlighting Bush's serial foreign-policy failures (North Korean nukes, Iranian centrifuges, growing Chinese influence), but was generally less punchy and more reactive," Noam Scheiber, The New Republic

"McCain won tonight’s first debate. He appeared strong, seasoned, and resolute. But he was supposed to win. This was his strong suit. Obama didn’t press McCain as hard as he could have. Let me make one thing clear: Obama did not bomb it. Some might say by holding his own it’s a win for Obama, McCain simply seemed much more solid. This solidity comes from years of experience because when you have been through as much as Senator McCain has, adversity never leaves one where it finds them," Andrea Tantaros, FOX News

"There were no campaign shattering gaffes or super killer sound-bytes, which leads me to believe that tonight's debate wasn't much of a game changer. McCain may benefit a bit in the short term, but tomorrow morning he's also going to have to return to talking about the economic crisis - a subject that has given him fits all week," Tom Brevan, Real Clear Politics

"I'd say: small, Pyrrhic victory for McCain. McCain wanted to make Obama seem naive and inexperienced. He did about 40% of that. Obama wanted to make McCain seem dangerously ambitious, bellicose and hotheaded. He did 0% of that. But a) the foreign policy stuff came after a long period on the economy, where McCain seemed a bit frenetic and Obama had the upper hand; and b) Obama didn't seem non-credible, which may be enough to carry him through given all the other advantages he has," Mickey Kaus, Slate.com

"If minds are made up based on tonight's debate, voter priorities seem to favor Obama. But McCain's most important accomplishment, sewing doubt about Obama's readiness to lead, could reap rewards in the two remaining meetings between the nominees," Reid Wilson, Real Clear Politics

"Partisans on both sides saw bright spots and ultimate success for their candidate. But it's likely that this race will continue as it has. Both accomplished much of what they hoped to do, without any serious mistakes. Voters likely saw attractive qualities in each of them. So round one will give way to round two and perhaps a clearer outcome. But as with much of the rest of this presidential race, these are two well-matched candidates, and each has something to say," Dan Balz, The Washington Post

"Obama came out ahead. … He didn’t have a knock out moment. This was a draw. [But] it gets out of the way a potential liability. I’d be surprised if McCain had a bounce from this," Charles Krauthammer, FOX News

"In the closing minutes, Sen. McCain said his foe doesn't have the 'knowledge or experience' to run national-security policy. Sen. Obama said his opponent doesn't seem to understand that it has been a mistake to focus so much American time and treasure on Iraq when, 'In the meantime, [Osama] bin Laden is still out there.' The differences are real, and weren't hidden on the Mississippi stage Friday night," Gerald F. Seib, The Wall Street Journal

"Ultimately, sadly, these debates are won, or lost, on style and perceptions of character—not substance. Those are matters of taste. We'll see if McCain seemed too old or Obama too young. Obama did speak in a stronger, firmer voice. He was clear, straightforward and not at all professorial. He looked directly into the camera; McCain rarely, if ever, did. But McCain put his experience—his frequent travels overseas—to good use in this debate, although his standard laugh lines like "Miss Congeniality" seemed to bomb," Joe Klein, Time.com

"McCain is closer to the political middle on spending, energy, and the conduct of the Iraq war. McCain had better emotion, and better historical anecdotes and perspective. But Obama looked good, spoke smoothly, and showed a savvy willingness to copycat popular Republican positions, on such issues as energy and missile defense," James Pinkerton, FOX News

"Both avoided their negative stereotypes: Obama did not seem aloof or condescending. McCain did not seem erratic or wild. You could imagine either one of them in the Oval Office, but only one is going to get there ... “I don’t need any on-the-job training,” McCain said. “I am ready to go at it right now.” He certainly seemed like it Friday night," Roger Simon, Politico.com

"McCain repeatedly asserted that on foreign-policy issues Obama "didn't understand." But Obama didn't look like a man who didn't understand. McCain was essentially calling Obama a Sarah Palin—but Obama didn't look like one. He walked back his position on meeting with rogue leaders as far as he credibly could, and he was clear about when he would use military force, which balanced out his talk about diplomacy," John Dickerson, Slate.com

"I did not learn much new about either candidate tonight. I thought Senator McCain made some points that made him look presidential in the area of foreign affairs. But Senator Obama had more detail on many of the issues. Obama warmed up towards the end of the debate. Obama was first out of the gate with the words Usama bin Laden which was a definite point for him," Ellen Ratner, FOX News

"Winning isn't enough. To gain from a presidential debate, there must be sound bites that appear on TV day after day and show your opponent in an unfavorable or embarrassing light. John McCain was better than Barack Obama in their first presidential debate last night. But the debate produced no knockout sound bites--none I noticed anyway--that might harm Obama's campaign. So McCain's win isn't likely to affect the presidential race," Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard

"A dead heat for the most part — but John McCain ends weaker when attacking Obama. And Obama ends stronger by staying positive. But final conclusion: no game changing moment," Lanny Davis, FOX News

"Friday night was not a transformational moment like the first Kennedy-Nixon debate. Some swing voters may have found McCain mean or Obama green. But most voters -- and this is an impressionistic guess -- may have regarded the Oxford debate merely as the slow-starting first act of a potentially gripping three-act drama, one likely to end with fireworks and fisticuffs at Hofstra University on Oct. 15," Walter Shapiro, Salon.com

"If the night was a tie, the tie went to Obama. That was certainly how the Obama people tried to frame it - that the debate was on foreign policy, which McCain has stressed as his strength. McCain has the resume. More than that, he has the frequent flier miles. McCain mentioned that he'd been in Georgia, that he'd been in the wild provinces of Pakistan, that he'd been in Afghanistan and Iraq and everywhere but Osama bin Laden's personal cave. But if McCain says Obama got the surge wrong, Obama says that McCain got the entire war wrong," Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News

"There will be plenty of spin about what was said in the first presidential debate. But the focus on the war in Iraq, a war that most Americans think was a mistake and want to see finished, means that -- while the night saw no knockout blows -- it was Obama who got the debate he wanted and needed," John Nichols, The Nation

"It was a general election win for Senator Obama in so far as he demonstrated an ability to articulate foreign policy positions. Republicans will now have more difficulty challenging his grasp of foreign affairs. Still, Obama did not flaunt his keen oratorical skills tonight. Perhaps it was the format, or the arid nature of the discussion, but he did not seem as sharp as usual. This is a loss for a man who relies so heavily on rhetorical inspiration to win votes," Christopher Coffey, Republican consultant, FOX News

*McCain's assertion that the deal was dead was a flat out lie. Boeing sued and won a new review of the project so they still have a shot of winning it. Boeing argued that the contract was written unfairly to give European company Airbus an advantage in winning the bid. It would have been heavenly if Obama had pointed out McCain was for a European company over Boeing, based here in the US. And I know this because I'm a St. Louisan. Boeing is one the largest employers in St. Louis and we want that damn tanker deal. Perhaps I should write a note to the Obama campaign to slap McCain with this at the next debate which is on the economy.

Obama a no show, but Tina "Palin" Fey appears on SNL; Anderson Cooper loves tight black shirts and more

Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin's ultimate doppelganger popped up on Saturday Night Live Saturday and she was even better than I could have ever imagined.

Tina Fey, I take back anything bad I've ever said about you and I salute you. Good show, madame. Good show.

I couldn’t have been more pleased.

So many of us who saw this were right. Fey and Sarah Palin could be long lost siblings. With the stupid bouffant hair and the right pair of glasses, she was the epitome of Palin perfection, even her northern Midwestern accent was on point and Chicago Tribune writer Maureen Ryan concurred.

As the program came on, there was Fey in a bright red blazer. She was the spitting image of Palin (or wait, is Palin the spitting image of Fey?). Even Fey's flat Palin-esque accent was perfect; Fey had obviously closely studied the interviews that Palin gave to ABC on Thursday and Friday ...

As (Amy Poehler as Clinton) spoke, Fey-as-Palin struck sexy poses and pretended to fire a shotgun. "What an amazing time we live in," she said. "To think that just two years ago, I was a small town mayor of Alaska's crystal meth capitol."

I loved the route SNL took with it, contrasting Palin’s relative newness, inexperience and fraudulent yet “Manchurian Candidate” feeling with a scorned Hillary Clinton who viewed as an undeserving profiteer of her tough loss in the Democratic Primaries. (A pregnant Amy Poheler looked way more like Clinton than usual because of her puffy face and additional poundage.)

My favorite part was when they compared their battles with sexism, where Hillary had to deal with a lot of negativity and vilifying because of who she was and what she represented (I believe the terms “bitch” and “grating” were thrown around a lot), while Palin is being objectified for her sexuality and good looks, with the bulk of her criticism coming from tangible, suspect issues demonstrating she was not vetted by the McCain campaign.

As for Barack Obama’s scheduled appearance, it was canceled at the last minute due to the campaign’s sensitivity over the Galveston/Houston area being battered by Hurricane Ike. And was that a freaky hurricane to watch? I mostly watched CNN’s coverage reporters getting beat up by wind, rain and the ocean and, oddly, of Anderson Cooper removing, then putting back on then removing then putting back on his red CNN parka.

Per usual, Andy was wearing a fitted-to-obscenely-tight black shirt.

And it was surreal with Houston being a ghost town with the exception of crazy folk who showed up in a chicken costume or pretending to swim behind Anderson as he attempted to report the news.

The way CNN and Cooper himself handle his causal, metrosexual, withholding, but nervous newsman style, I have to say, Anderson seems to be the only anchor on TV who actually displays sex appeal overtly on television. (Rick Sanchez tries, but he’s the Rob Riggle of CNN.) This critique doesn’t mean Cooper’s the only sexy person. Gosh, no. As readers may have noticed, I dubbed Sir TJ Holmes of CNN Weekend the sexiest teleprompter reader, but TJ never wears a muscle shirt when he’s covering some flood or tornado in northern Arkansas.

Although I wouldn’t mind that. Not at all.

Seeing Anderson Cooper in a black muscle shirt is almost the equivalent of a hot news woman baring cleavage or wearing tighter, more alluring outfits while reporting, like the women who do the news on Univision and Telemundo. The Spanish speaking airwaves are filled with voluptuous figures with huge chi-chis, sometimes baring cleavage and oozing sex appeal. FOX News does a lesser, slightly more buttoned up version of this, but CNN and MSNBC are all complicit in hiring young hot people to deliver the news (as chronicled in one of my favorite “The Daily Show” sketches of 2008, “NILF: News I’d Like to Fuck.”)

If those shirts get any tighter during natural disasters I fear CNN will start playing Scorpions' "Rock You Like A Hurricane" when AC360 comes on.

The weirdness was further contrasted when Dan Rather was brought on via satellite for an interview about storm coverage (since Rather pioneered live hurricane reporting). Rather, of whom I’ve never seen as “sexy,” still has that perfect anchor man voice and devil-may-care panache. Despite being the crappiest of the three major network anchors in the 80s and 90s (he was always coming in third to Peter Jennings and the iconic Tom Brokaw), I love Rather, largely because of his “Ratherisms,” notoriety for spitting out some crazy Texas turn of phrase and his occasional loss of composure, often like he was breaking the “fourth wall” of reporting by going into something bizarre, like ending his newscasts with the word “courage” or saying “somewhere in the Bible it says … keep hope alive” when the Coast Guard was out trying to find John F. Kennedy Jr. after he flew off and got himself killed, further fueling my speculation that his uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, is the highlander.

Well … it’s either him or West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, newsman Mike Wallace, news satirist and columnist Andy Rooney or talk show host Larry King.

I’m still betting it’s either Byrd or Wallace.

There can only be one!

CNN Plays the Veepstakes

Since this morning CNN has ruled out Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh as Obama's prime picks. Joe Biden's house is a flurry of activity and James Carville and Paul Begala are a little harrumpfffed that Barack Obama's people didn't even bother to ask Hillary Clinton her opinion on the veepstakes, let alone offer her the chance to turn the job down.

Bayh is apparently taking it like a man since Maury Povich stopped by the house just to say, "Evan Bayh! You ARE NOT the vice presidential candidate for the Democratic Party!"

A source close to Evan Bayh expressed disappointment with the decision. "We are all sad," the source tells CNN. "But Evan was cool with this, whatever happened. He understands what he's got — a family, and a life he's very happy in."

It's like the Oscars. It was an honor just to be almost nominated.

As for the Clinton snubbing, it amazes me that people are surprised by this. The presidency only has enough room for one ego at a time. That's why George let Dick do all the serious conjuring. Besides, at this point they probably can barely stand each other. Do we need to repeat Kerry-Edwards where they both hated each other but gave it the college try anyway? I'm for it if everyone can bury the hatchets in other places but their backs, but the amount of aerodynamics required to pull a Clinton veep off would take the theorems of quantum physics to come to fruition.

All respect to Carville and Begala, but the Obama people were probably annoyed with the whole notion that they should have to placate anyone who was trying to beat the tar out of them a few months ago. The Clinton people are probably still mad over ... um ... probably everything. Pick something. Mark Penn. How the shizz went down. Sexism. Vanity Fair Magazine. MSNBC. Losing to the newbie. YouTube. Half their friends joining the Obama camp. Having black folks call them racists. Chris Matthews enjoying a fine meal of Hillary Hate night after night. And I'm sure she's mad at Bill for something, he was a double-edge sword. Once again. Lots of reasons to be mad.

But hey, it could still happen. Politics makes strange bedfellows, but I'd be wary of doing anything that could cause Chris Matthews to OD on reading the Starr Report for old times sake. Getting high off all that grossnesss.

Google Stalking TJ Holmes: TJ on Racism

How anyone could ever discriminate against my little Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of TV News is beyond me. I mean, look at that face? So sweet. So pretty. How could anyone find him threatening? But alas, TJ, like all black men, has to deal with the crap that comes with being "Black In America."

As part of the CNN series (reported by Soledad O'Brien), TJ gave his account and opinions on racism on Anderson Cooper's 360 blog Thursday.

What I loved about his snippet was that he included some personal, "TJ facts" along with his story about racial ignorance at a Bay Area car wash. For instance, the winner of BlackSnob's 2008 Ed Bradley Award for Journalistic Hotness is 5'11" and 165 lbs (he's thin but fit!)

Here's a taste of TJ's views on racism:

I haven’t come in contact with a lot of blatant racism in my life. Yes, I’ve been called the N-word. To be honest, it never really upset me because as soon as that word comes out of someone’s mouth, I’m pretty sure that I’ve won the argument. That person has just confirmed how ignorant they are.

I don’t necessarily consider most people racist. I have, however, seen a lot of racial bias. What I mean by that is people don’t hate me because of the color of my skin, but they simply don’t see me as an equal. Some may say that by not seeing me as an equal, that’s the very definition of racism. Rather, I believe people have so many misconceptions and preconceived notions about black people. They make assumptions based on the color of my skin.

And about that Bay Area car wash?

One of the clearest examples of what I’m talking about is a simple incident at a car wash. I was a news anchor for three years at a station in the Bay Area in California. And when I lived there, I drove a big, white SUV. It had 22″ chrome wheels, dark-tinted windows, and a few personalized touches. It was hot! I would always wash my truck myself at one of those car washes with the pressurized hoses where you spray your vehicle down yourself.

Of course, when I go wash my car, I don’t necessarily look like a news anchor. I look like a guy who’s washing his car. I wear sweats or shorts or jeans with holes, I wear tank tops or t-shirts, I might have on a bandanna or be wearing a baseball cap backwards.

One day a man came over to me as I was washing my truck and said, “Man, I just gotta know. What do you guys do to have nice cars like that?”

He was a nice enough guy and wasn’t really nasty when he asked the question. He truly seemed puzzled about how a young, black man could be driving such a nice car. He went on to ask me if I played for the San Francisco 49ers. Again, I’m 5′11″ and 165 lbs. No, I don’t play for the 49ers.

The guy’s first thought at seeing a young, black man in a nice car was not that I could have gotten it through education and hard work. That is what I mean by bias.

It didn’t cross his mind that maybe this young, black man went to college on an academic, not athletic, scholarship.

If he couldn’t imagine that then he couldn’t imagine that maybe this young, black man graduated from college in four years with a degree.

If he couldn’t imagine that, then he certainly couldn’t imagine that maybe I used my college degree to start a successful career.

And, if he couldn’t imagine that, he certainly couldn’t imagine that maybe, just maybe this young, black man was making more money than him.

Well said, my little sugar loaf. Well said, indeed. West Memphis, Ark., represent! What! What!

Can't get enough TJ? Check out the "Google Stalking" archives! For pictures, checkout Black Snob's TJ Flickr gallery here.