I love Tina Fey.  I am amazed at her impression of Sarah Palin.  It is so accurate, right down to the Alaskan drawl.  She has proven again what a comedic genius she is.

Now, I happen to know that Tina Fey is an outspoken liberal.  Good for her (blaaah).  But I am often amazed how extremely talented entertainers, defining pop culture, align themselves with liberalism.  It has caused me to wonder why there seems to be a correlation between the two, between entertainment (art) and liberalism.

Long ago I have concluded an axiom that I am sure many would disagree with and might even find offensive.  Here it is; Liberalism, as I perceive it, makes sense in just two places, the entertainment industry (mainly comedy) and kindergarten.  The two arenas are the soil in which it grows.

It sounds harsh, but it might explain why I can laugh at the cleverness of a joke even though it makes no sense in real life (Jon Stewart comes to mind).

Ok, so why am I reacting to a silly SNL skit?  Well, there is a part of me that knows Tina Fey is politically motivated, thus some of the humor is removed for me.  It was a weird feeling to watch; Was it just not funny or was my political bias intervening?  On one hand I realize that SNL lampoons every national figure, so I can’t complain about “fairness” (though it is hard to imagine them going after Biden in a similar way.)  But on the other hand, some alarm was going off in my head indicating a political attack with the aim of getting Borat elected president (that’s my name for you know who). 

I was curious how much of the skit reflected the real interview by Katie Couric, so I watched it on YouTube.  It turns out that in some ways the skit closely resembled the real-life version.  This demonstrates the skit was a political statement by SNL.  In essence they were saying, “Let’s just recreate the interview and exaggerate Palin’s answers because they are so obviously inept.” 

Admittedly, looking at the real interview through the lens of the SNL skit, I did blush at some of Palin’s answers.  She has work to do.  She needs to not only demonstrate depth of understanding but also to articulate a course that makes sense from a conservative's viewpoint.

What really has liberal's tickled, though, is that Palin doesn't fit the stereotypical know-it-all politician, like, say, Al Gore.  This is unacceptable in today's political climate.  We have a culture that believes, falsely, that politicians should have a comprehensive plan for every issue in every corner of the world.  How else could we be happy?  Borat fits this bill.  He has demonstrated a capacity to articulate many sides of an issue.  Of course, he then promptly affirms a position on the worst one, but who's asking?

For a few moments I bought the liberal message that Palin is not qualified to be VP because, having been on the job for under a month – not campaigning for the last two years - she hasn’t yet crafted a federal answer for all of my problems. 

Palin is also clearly out of touch with the ongoings of D.C.  For example, she wasn't able to recall a policy that demonstrates McCain is a “maverick”.  Katie seemed to stump the VP candidate.  But one wonders, if Katie really wanted an answer to that question - seeking truth as opposed to stumping Palin - why not ask John McCain himself? 

Couric's question is old broadcaster’s trick.  “Name three things JFK did to change the world!  Go!”  One wonders if Katie would ask Biden to identify one change Borat has made that we can believe in?

It looks like the liberals have won this round.  Their message seems to have stuck.  Palin is not qualified to be Vice President because she doesn’t know what the capital of Uzbekistan is (and we all know that it is “U”).