Hillary cringeworthy at the Grammys

January 29, 2018 • 12:00 pm

I didn’t watch the Grammys last night, as I’m not a big fan of award shows (I don’t watch the Oscars, either), and I don’t watch much t.v. anyway. From what I hear, it was highly politicized, with people wearing white roses to support the #MeToo movement, which is great, but also with a lot of political criticism. I’m always a bit dubious about the politicization of award shows, but it’s not something I want to rant about as I don’t care that much. But somehow this bit, when Hillary Clinton came on in a pre-recorded segment to read from the new anti-Trump book Fire and Fury, bothers me. As the Washington Post reports:

About two and a half hours into the Grammy Awards on Sunday night, the show was mostly politics-free — but that changed in a big way, as several music stars and Hillary Clinton joined in a prerecorded skit that mocked President Trump.

“Some people don’t know this, but you don’t always need to be a musician to win a Grammy. In fact, every year, the Recording Academy has honored the best spoken word album,” host James Corden informed viewers. “Over the years, the award has gone to some of the world’s most inspiring voices. Bill Clinton has won a Grammy. Barack Obama has won a Grammy. Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore — they all have Grammys.

“We know that our current president does love winning awards, and the good news for him is he may just be the subject of next year’s winner,” Corden continued. “The question I’ve got is: Who will be the narrator?”

Then Cher, Snoop Dogg, Cardi B, and John Legend read bits of Fire and Fury, followed by Clinton:

The whole premise was, of course, cooked up to give the show an excuse to display its TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). It’s bad enough that there’s a gratuitous slur at Trump at the Grammys, one that had nothing to do with music, but when his opponent in the election reads about his predilection for McDonald’s burgers, well, it’s not only not funny, but it’s unseemly. And it surely won’t make middle America like the Democratic Party any better. Perhaps the advance word that the show would be politicized accounts in part for the huge drop in viewership compared to last year.

Just to remind you, I voted for Clinton (after voting for Sanders in the primary), despise Trump, and think he and the Republicans are ruining the country. But these public displays of TDS make me cringe.

 

107 thoughts on “Hillary cringeworthy at the Grammys”

  1. Nor do you win over the people you need to convince by insultng them (and when I say “you”, it isn’t Jerry that I have in mind). We’re trolling ourselves.

    1. It could have been worse with Hilary doing the reading. At least she didn’t call anybody “deplorables” again!

  2. I agree, it’s not only inappropriate but counter-productive. It further entrenches Trump’s supporters and lends credence to Trump’s claim that the media treats him unfairly.

    1. Only insofar as people are unable to distinguish between the news media and entertainment media. Even in news media, there’s opinion pieces.

      If people are going to be put off by this kind of thing, that’s too bad, but not a very persuasive reason on whether or not to do it.

      1. Although I consider myself a liberal, I’m proud I did not vote for Hillary (or Trump for that matter)in the general election. Bernie got my vote in the primaries. If we must have joke of a president, I prefer mocking one who is Republican. Hillary should go for a hike; she and her flunkies are not helping things.

        1. Plus, let’s be clear here, the book is a shit-sack, full of false claims. Its author even admits as much. So how can reading from it have any serious purpose? It isn’t about his ideas or actions. It isn’t about the consequences of his acTions. It is just an empty form of signaling. “Look at us, how we hate Trump! Neener-neener, Big Macs! Oh did we burn him!” People are surprised that would turn anyone off?

          2. “People are surprised that would turn anyone off?”

            Who is surprised? No one expected that someone like you would change their mind anyway.

    1. I don’t know anything about Nikki Haley, but if it was a joke, it wasn’t funny.

      And your comment was not appreciated. “Ugh, come on man!” Seriously? I’m no fan of Nikki Haley. And don’t tell me what I should or should not write about.

      1. I never said you liked Haley, I said you sounded like her. My joke was bad, because all of my jokes are! It’s genetic.

        I do not see any problem with what the Grammys did. James Cordon is a commedian, so this stuff is completely expected, especially this year with the guy who is in office.

        I also don’t consider this a “slur” against Trump. The words all came from a book that was written with input from the Trump admin itself. Thus, there is backup to the claims about hamburgers and whatnot.

        I did not watch the Grammys, so perhaps there was some other slur you were talking about?

        1. Sure it’s intended as a slur against Trump. How could it be taken otherwise? As far as Nikki Haley is concerned, are you referring to the rumor that she slept with Trump? Assuming this has nothing to back it up, and I haven’t heard of anything, this was also disgusting and completely unproductive. She handled it well but she shouldn’t have had to.

          1. Haley emitted a bunch of peevish tweets complaining about injecting politics into music at the Grammy’s.

            Political messages are essential to a lot of popular music. No reason they shouldn’t be part of an awards show. Freedom of speech and all.

          2. I recall the honorable Governor Haley expatiating about something (certain education trends? The Common Core? I forget), to the effect that it/they did not conform to or meet the standards of “South Carolina values.” (I wonder if she thought that her predecessor so conformed, and whether she supported him in his congressional race.) I wonder if “South Carolina values” are all that head and shoulders above those of the 49 other states and territories. (It’s amazing how much politicians have to toady to and stroke the collective, self-absorbed ego of the human primates in their jurisdictions. George Carlin had some insightful sentiments on that subject.) I perceive such bloviation a sub-specie(s?) of “Amuricun Exceptionalism.” “USA! USA!” Amuricuh is great. Just ask ’em (us); they’ll (we’ll) tell you (re: Don Rickles).

          3. Nimrata “Nikki” Haley’s rather strategic conversion from Sikhism to Christian Methodism is acknowledging the values of South Carolina. You gotta blend! 🙂

            Politicians will debase themselves in every way to climb that greasy pole. We have numerous examples of this among our MPs over here in rainy UK.

          1. I just wanted to add that I would not try to tell you what to write about. My (joking) response was just my gut reaction.

  5. That’ll teach the Trump voters that Hollywood (entertainment in general) really respects their views, contrary to what they thought.

    Sheesh, are they ever going to do anything other than virtue signal to each other?

    Glen Davidson

      1. Because people deserve to have their concerns heard, something not generally done by Hollywood, not that much by the media.

        More to the point, why should anyone care what the entertainment industry thinks about the views of others? They’re not a particularly knowledgeable bunch, and far from egalitarian. So anyone watching that bit of shlock who doesn’t agree certainly has no reason to think that it’s anything but the usual virtue-signaling of a particularly privileged part of the upper classes.

        Glen Davidson

        1. You are contradicting yourself.

          1.) Trump voters deserve to have their concerns heard.
          2.) Entertainment industry types do not deserve to have their concerns heard.

          Which is it?

          1. Oh right, I’m contradicting myself when I say that the people ignored by the influential but largely clueless entetainment industry don’t have any reason to care about the latter’s virtue signaling.

            Well, you’d have to understand the differences between the situation of the privileged vs. the largely ignored. And clearly you don’t have the first clue.

            Glen Davidson

          2. No need to be insulting. You claim that “Hollywood” types are uninformed, and yet you don’t feel the same way about trump voters? I would expect that “Hollywood” types have vastly more experience with global issues than someone who is poor in Dayton Ohio, or somewhere like that. I am not saying the Hollywood type is superior, just probably has more experience.

            Add to that the fact that many Hollywood types were not born rich (though I grant some were, of course), so perhaps they could very well also have similar experiences as those trump voters who are not well-off.

            Hollywood types are ALWAYS out talking about how poor people are being oppressed and whatnot. I don’t understand why you think they somehow ignore the poor. Perhaps you think they are misguided in their charity activities?

          3. No need to be insulting. You claim that “Hollywood” types are uninformed, and yet you don’t feel the same way about trump voters?

            What a disingenuous question, based on nothing that I ever wrote.

            Your understanding of power dynamics is no better, and I don’t think I can change that, especially when you’d rather make up what I think than actually deal with what I wrote.

            Glen Davidson

          4. Now you are writing nonsense. You wrote: “They’re not a particularly knowledgeable bunch,” about Hollywood types. It’s right there. My response was that I doubt trump voters are any more knowledgeable. Either way, my point about Hollywood not having any duty to listen to trump voters stands: they don’t.

            As for “power dynamics”, are we discussing the same groups of people? Exactly what “power” does a Hollywood type have over me or anyone else?

          5. They may not be as well known but there have been conservatives in the entertainment industry. Famously Reagan but he flipped from Dem around the time of Goldwater running for POTUS. Bo Derek. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Stephen Baldwin (yes Alec’s brother). Kid Rock. Ted Nugent. I assume much of country music except Willie Nelson.

            Here’s a list with Selleck, Stallone, Willis and putative others:

            http://www.imdb.com/list/ls062675172

            So I am not sure how solid generalizations are about celebrities. Dennis Miller was a disappointment going from being subversive on SNL to part of the problem on Fox News.

          6. I believe Dennis Miller’s politics changed on 9/11/2001. He definitely bought into the fear-mongering, “they’re coming to get us” attitude that is continued to be pushed by many. I used to really enjoy his shows until that happened.

    2. I think there’s an argument to be made that award shows aren’t the place for political mockery, although I’m not convinced myself.

      That’s completely orthogonal to the question of whether Trump-supporters’ views deserve respect. The views that make them Trump-supporters do not deserve respect. Why should I respect the view that people born in shithole countries shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate? Why should I respect the view that bragging about sexual assault is no big deal? Why should I respect the view that people in dire financial straits are simply lazy moochers? Why should I respect the view that scamming people into doing work for no payment or scamming people into paying for a junk product is a good way to run one’s business?

      It should be completely uncontroversial to say that the views which separate Trump-supporters from Trump-detractors are not respectable.

      1. The views that make them Trump-supporters do not deserve respect. Why should I respect the view that people born in shithole countries shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate? Why should I respect the view that bragging about sexual assault is no big deal?

        Of course, conflate the views those who voted for factories to be re-opened (as doubtful as that is in general) with Trump himself and his many faults and prejudices.

        Can you see why they would not trust your type? Instead of actually listening to them, you just pretend that they’re the same as Trump. Why bother with the truth when you’re so righteous?

        Glen Davidson

        1. You’re right Glenn and that attitude is partly why Trump is president in the first place (Clinton clearly hasn’t learned her “Deplorables” lessons). But Musical Beef also has a point – turning a blind eye to the really bad impulses that drove most Trump voters isn’t going to get us out of this mess either.

          The problem for everyone is that the only party actually capable under our system of government of undoing this damage is incompetent to do so, as it is led by people like Clinton.

        2. Why bother with the truth?

          You deny that the truth is that, in general, Trump-supporters are ok with everything I mentioned? Why would someone call themselves a Trump-supporter if they disagreed with Trump’s positions on race-relations, immigration, feminism, social safety nets, good business practice, etc? Seems to me someone who disagrees with all that is not a Trump-supporter.

          1. This is a bit rich. You have distorted what Trump said, falsely attributed that distortion to his supporters, and yet ask why bother with truth.

            As for why such displays are unhelpful. They do not imply disrespect for the *views* of Trump supporters. They aren’t about *views* at all. They evince disrespect and contempt for Trump voters directly. It really should surprise no-one that showing contempt for people does not win them over.

          2. I don’t think the point was to try to “win them over,” which seems to impossible in the first place.

          3. The key phrase here is “what Trump said”. His supporters often use it to defend him. It’s just like those that think they aren’t racist because they never use the n-word. Trump plays this game in a very transparent way. His detractors react to what he really means while his supporters pretend to only hear what he actually says.

      3. Each Trump supporter has the same number of votes as you do. If you want them to cast those votes for somebody other than Trump, you have to listen to their views and come up with compelling counter arguments, not denounce them as racists and sexists, even if it is true for some of them.

        That’s what people mean when they say you have to respect the Trump supporters’ views.

        1. We shouldn’t denounce racists?

          Some views and behavior are actually bad and harmful. Part of the counter-argument *is* saying that they are bad and harmful. How do you propose we counter racism without saying it’s a reprehensible way to view and treat people of other races?

          1. You want them to stop being racist don’t you?

            Of course racist views are reprehensible, but you are not going to stop people from being racist by just saying that or telling them they are stupid or making fun of them.

        2. Perhaps Mr Pereira could tell us the kinds of arguments that might compel dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters to change their allegiance, or at least drop it.

          1. You mean you can’t think of any compelling arguments why people should not oppose immigration? Why Trump isn’t going to revive the coal industry and so on?

          2. That’s not what Tim asked though. He is asking for examples of arguments that you think would change the minds of “dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters.” I agree with what he is strongly implying with that question. No matter how good of an argument you come up with, backed up with reams of data to support them, you aren’t going to change their minds because it isn’t about good arguments or data that support them. It’s about tribalism.

            This line of argument seems nearly exactly like religious Accommodationism. Some people here argue that straight talk and ridicule won’t change the minds of a group of hardcore women Trump fans wearing “Donald Please Grab My Pussy” T-shirts, while some other people argue that wheedling them with good arguments, in a way that they will consider respectful of them, won’t work either whereas straight talk and ridicule might move spectators who are not as rabid or on the fence in the right direction. I agree with the latter.

          3. I agree. It is the ones that are Trump-adjacent that are the real targets for mind-changing.

            Also. many Trump supporters will defect if they perceive they are on the losing side. Another reason why Dems winning in the midterms is so important.

          7. If you* just hope and don’t try to do anything to change the voters’ minds, he will get re-elected.

            *”you” is meant in the general sense of “people who don’t want Trump”, not you personally.

  7. No one ever will say that the Clintons are high class. But then there are levels of low class as well with Trump on the bottom. Come to think of it, the world of politics these days kind of calls for low class.

  8. As for me… meh.

    It is hard for me to consider any slur against tRump “gratuitous” given the subject.

  9. This is sort of neener-neener ish, and probably beneath a woman of her serious accomplishments.

    But in all honesty, I do not care about the opinion of Trump or of his supporters at all.

  10. If you want to watch something really vomit inducing ,piers morgan interviewed the snatch snatcher on tv recently .

  12. I don’t watch shows like the Grammys because I care who gets an award. I record them and mostly watch some of the performances. They are often really fun, sometimes putting together interesting combinations of musicians who otherwise would never end up playing together.

    Plus, being an older guy now, a dip into the Grammy’s is a peek at what’s going on in pop culture/pop music.

  13. I was a Hillary voter, I am not a Hillary supporter. That being said I find her Grammy appearance childish. Between that and How I Lost, she’s displayed a lack of unawareness to rival tRump.

  14. I don’t get America’s fascination with Corden. In the U.K. he’s just considered annoying. He has a low-brow sport-themed quiz show on Sky and he’s not considered a social commentator of any sort.

    1. I agree – James Corden MBE[!] has one speed & one note. There’s not much there beyond the affable persona.

  15. Say what you will about Hillz, a coupla the other pieces in that same bit were laugh-my-ass-off funny — the wisps of smoke escaping from le nez Snoop were an especially nice touch.

      1. That was it? Kinda boring. My mind is warped by years of SNL, South Park and Daily Show (going back to Craig Kilborn) so it takes a lot to hit my radar. Maybe adding Hill-Dawg was inappropriate as an intended dig at the Dumpster Fire. And I gather that book had flaws anyway.

  16. The more Hillary remains in public view, the easier it will be for the Steak-Salesman to rehash the 2016 campaign: which is what he wants.

    Asteroid 2020

    2. I don’t get it, Ken. Are you just pointing out that politicians are hypocrites or is there something else to this story I’m missing? If it’s the former, well….water is wet and heat is hot. Film at eleven.

      1. Politicians being hypocrites is like dogs slobbering; it’s what’s to be expected. I’m bitchin’-&-moanin’ about the people who’re bitchin’-&-moanin’. They, at least, oughta be held to a consistent standard.

          1. I suppose (if I may make bold to mix metaphors), it all depends on whose red-herring is getting gored. 🙂

    5. A single individual expressing (I presume) a strongly held moral belief against a corporately promoted and sanctioned bit of party politicking. Hardly a great comparison.
      Christopher HITCHENS wasn’t the biggest supporter of abortion either, so it’s not an unheard of view in a rationalist.
      I know nothing of Ms VILLA.

        1. My point was comparing Corden et al to an individual is apples and oranges.
          Fox’s take is irrelevant.

  18. While enjoying the humour of Colbert, Kimmell, Fallon,O’Brien, and many other comics and their writers,I’d like to recommend reading One Nation After Trump by E.J. Dionne,JR., Norman J.Ornstein, & Thomas E.Mann.

  19. I haven’t cared about the Grammy Awards since Sir Mix-a-lot won one in 1993. This Hillary bit shows I haven’t missed much.

  20. I guess I don’t understand why anyone who despises Trump and voted for Hillary would care to characterize either a comedians or Hillary’s ridicule of Trump with a fake “derangement syndrome”.
    Thankfully in America we are free to ridicule our ridiculous leader without being arrested…so far.

  22. TDS is the mirror of what happened on the right when Obama was elected. Remember the Tea Party? The Birthers? Obama is a Muslim?

    The reality in ‘Merkka is that when one side of the bipartisan system drops out of power- (and these days it seems like a toggle switch) the other side goes nuts.

    I have a (probably not) novel observation. This has become a feature, not a bug. It is a effective, if not useful, aspect of our broken system. The Tea Party, etc. may have been counterproductive, but it served to galvanize the right and make Trump possible.

    On the flip side, does anyone think #meToo, etc. would have happened if Hillary had been elected?

    1. Though a few on the left are deranged when it comes to their opinion of Trump, I don’t see both sides as equivalent. Only the Republicans have (recently) taken huge advantage of gerrymandering, tried to block opposition voting through fake voter security measures, blocked the legitimate appointment of a Supreme Court justice. I realize that you are more talking about what regular folk think but I resist any kind of false equivalence when it comes to current US politics. One side is definitely trying harder (and succeeding in some cases) to game the system.

    2. Hunt, I’m confused by your comment:

      On the flip side, does anyone think #meToo, etc. would have happened if Hillary had been elected?

      By “etc” can you list the specific hashtags YOU mean – some similar tags long pre-date the election such as #WomensMarch & #BlackLivesMatter

      Are you saying #MeToo arose because of the slagging match across the aisle in the US two-party system? And it wouldn’t have arose if the needle had gone the other way in the election? Can you connect the dots & explain what you’re getting at? Be explicit.

      1. Blacklivesmatter, yes, womensmarch no. That was a direct result of Trump’s election. I noted a mass boost in the Left’s activism after the Trump election. Maybe it was just me. I know people who obsess over Trump, not that I blame them. That is “literally” (uh-oh) all they do.
        On the other hand, the rightwing hoi polloi seem remarkably mollified and quiescent. You haven’t noted this?

        1. #BLM & BlackLivesMatter date back to 2013 Obama administration & they’ll almost certainly still be relevant for a decade or two. Doesn’t matter who is or will be Prez – the time was right.

          Same for the hashtags relating to workplace harassment – they were long due.

          I’m a Brit so I don’t know who you mean by the “right wing” hoi polloi [masses, the common people]. I guess you might mean blue collar [employed & unemployed], white folks? If they’re being quiet right now then they’re doing themselves no favours – when the promises of manufacturing, mining etc jobs don’t materialise in their particular neck of the woods & the welfare net is further shredded.

          Off Topic slightly: From over here, all the scaremongering about welfare & cheap labour scroungers [both native & abroad types] from the Repubs was the most ignoble aspect of the election shitshow – same mechanism of “them & us” is alive & well over here in Europe.

          1. No doubt these movements are always in some kind of “prodromal” stage before they blossom full blown. But if you think about it, there’s always a precipitating factor, and for all we know when there are latent movements, there are (probably) specific factors that quell them. This part is speculation, kind of like Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”.

            For BLM the precipitating factor was the advance of digital technology, which made phone video nearly ubiquitous. Suddenly people had a glimpse of what police had been doing all along.

            For the “women’s movement”, and really it is that, a new women’s movement, the precipitating factor was the leaked Trump bus conversation. I think we all remember that one.

            Would it have happened if Trump had lost? Only the Guardian of Forever knows.

    3. “does anyone think #meToo, etc. would have happened if Hillary had been elected?”

      I do. I don’t think it had a lot to do with Trump, I think the time had come, there were too many fed up with Weinstein and the rest. Once it began there was no holding it back.

  23. I just find the whole thing exhausting. It used to be possible to watch TV just to be entertained. Now they feel like they need to more or less continuously lecture us politics. There are people who who have informed and nuanced views on political issues. Those people are not likely to be found on stage at the Grammys.
    Most of us go through a stage where we begin to hold very earnest but poorly informed political views. Sophomoric views, to be specific. and when we engaged our elders in political talk, they mostly humored us, because they had been young once as well. They were polite and probably a little bemused.
    What they did not do was announce that our newfound political views were unprecedented and brilliant, and that we should immediately be put in charge of National policy.
    Someone has apparently told these vapid celebrities that their views are very insightful. Probably other vapid celebrities.

    1. You found the views expressed to be sophomoric? Interesting. Of course, maybe that says more about you than about all those vapid celebrities.

      1. I do not find liberal politics or especially women’s rights issues to be sophomoric.
        I find the ways that celebrities tend to express those views to be so.

  24. A long time ago, I read someone say of Sarah Palin “She’s the sort of woman who’d snicker at your shoes.”

    I thought at the time it was the ultimate put-down.

    And now I see Hillary Clinton has something in common with Palin.

  25. I confess I think it rather difficult to slur Trump – he’s achieved a sort of place in life where slurs are no longer slurs since they have lost significance: a sort of slurry pit where nothing matters very much, if at all, and into whose murk no light nor truth nor serious criticism can penetrate. What disturbs me about Clinton’s little foray into show-biz is that it helps to further degrade politics and political discourse into show-biz, into the sort of endless twittering, tweeting and point-scoring by principals and surrogates that draws attention to itself because of its entertainment value for those who find such things entertaining rather than depressing(‘See Just About Everybody put down Jack Kingston!’; ‘Gorka Pulps Pelosi!’; ‘Huckabee Sanders Stings Top Democrat!’; ‘Watch Kellyanne Conway Lie Through Her False Teeth For The Two Millionth Time!; etc).

  26. I believe the beginning of the XXX-derangement syndrome meme dates to a piece by Chas. Krauthammer after the election of Geo. W. Bush, to describe the overly dramatized reactions of left-leaning celebrities. Then we had Obama-derangement syndrome, applied to some of the people who elected our current preznit, who inspires Trump-derangement syndrome, again an affliction of people on the left. It makes me dizzy.

Comments are closed.