How REALLY to talk about Sarah Palin - and why Canadians know more than you do with this one

So Sarah Palin's candidacy has been calling out to me lately. Actually that's not true - the story has been screaming at my head and brought on a serious headache. Just not in the way one might expect. With time on my hands, an economic meltdown in the offing and nothing better in the news than the presidential campaign - I feel I just have to say something.

Except, I feel, the good stuff has already been said. I give absolute credit to both Heather Mallick and Andrew Potter for saying it all in pointed and wonderfully honest pieces of writing. Bravo, regardless of what the chaps over at FOX News believe.

Then this week, Canada was able to pass the puck and assist on a point that the hockey mom from Alaska was making about her foreign policy experience. Amazing how we can go from zeros to heroes in this election isn't it?

All of this is contributing to the headache. So what to make of it all?

Here is my final word and testament on Palin...for now at least...

I believe I actually called it early that, although tactically brilliant, the nomination of Palin by McCain left much to be desired. Although, that move (tactically brilliant but with a whole lotta big dumb faults) has come to characterize the McCain campaign, one really has to wonder what is going through this man's mind.

Palin, as I also called early, on first appearance is an admirable woman - career driven, a great public speaker (counteracting a lot of Obama), good looking, committed mother, etc. - yet, calling upon all of my own knowledge of lost and forlorn places in the backwoods of Ontario, I sniffed out that hickism pretty darn early.

Let's be honest, with the hockey talk and that damn accent, the woman sounds more Canadian than anything Americans have seen en-masse since Michael Moore's dreadful Canadian Bacon (a lesson learned - stick to documentaries). Which is perhaps McCain's most stupid move of all - Palin's very legitimate leadership experience in Alaska can so easily be painted as far removed from the rest of the lower 48, so as to make her appear all but 'foreign' to the vast majority of Americans. Not the wisest shot at a VP in my opinion. Even if removed from the culture wars context (thanks to Potter) of liberal-Democrat lifestyles vs. the rest of the country mentality, she still comes off as removed from the political situation through geography alone.

As every good US political science major knows (thank you Robert Vipond and -ick- Beth Fisher), American presidential elections are not won on the basis of strong foreign policy EVER (witness the life and times of John Kerry). So concerns about her lack of a passport until very recently, are exaggerated. However, the fact that she appears foreign - well, there's the rub.

Which is perhaps why Canadians are so qualified to be her best examiners. Palin is all but one of us. And, as mentioned above, we know our hicks when we see one. What Mallick and Potter are kind enough to point out are not her foibles alone, but real problems with this woman and her policy positioning (of which Potter points out there is very little) for Americans. And in Canada's role as the God given critic of all things American, we ask you to trust us on this one.

What Canada really yearns for in American politics is something substantive. It's a big wish. We wish it every five years or so. We wish it to make our lives easier.

From my sources at DFAIT, I am told there are 5 (count 'em FIVE) disputed border territories between Canada and the US - STILL. One would like to think this had been hammered out, oh, I don't know, in the 1860s. This is not the case. Not a few of these disputes are over areas close to Alaska. All of them are, at their heart, about oil. Here's a snippet of US foreign policy insight from your friends to the north - much of US plans to rid themselves of dependence on foreign oil happens to include a plan to de-foreignize oil sources, like taking over and drilling bits of Canada or well into the Gulf of Mexico and calling it "American."

In times like this, a Canadian might think that someone with a knowledge of the border and oil would be the candidate for us. But, I fear, not so with Ms. Palin. She has her talents, unfortunately they seem not to resound in politics.

Besides she's too busy staring at Russia from her house to notice what's happening in her own backyard.

Where's the funny? What Political Satire Really Shows Us About Us

So Tina Fey is getting a lot of accolades for her portrayal of Sarah Palin, and (probably just as greatly) for her return to SNL last Saturday. Ink is being spilled in both the high end and the low end media about Tina getting her funny on. I'll be the first to admit Fey captured the look, many of the mannerisms and that I'm-a-bigger-hoser-than-you accent down to a "T." The media as well as the public had been calling for Fey, or any other number of comediennes, to enact the folly many see in the Palin character. Well done Tina - filling in the gap for female-oriented comedy in the US once again!

There is something odd about the skit though, if we take a closer look, and that's that for as much as the skit calls out for a satirical message on the current political situation in the US, there is nothing actually political about it (nor is there in Amy Poehler's Hillary Clinton). It does mock Palin and Clinton, but the content of the skit tells us very little about politics itself. There is no mockery of policy, clearly stated opinion about the candidate or troubling revelation through comedy about politics or society. Some may argue that's because Palin is so light on substance herself - but isn't that exactly the sort of thing a good political satire skit should be pointing out, not indulging in? It's actually political satire extremely light, and is almost non-existent.

That to my eyes isn't inconsistent with most political satire in the US (and yes, I do throw Jon Stewart's Daily Show as well as The Colbert Report into that bucket). What I'm not arguing here is that the comedy in these programs isn't funny - they are (or can be) hilarious. It's just that my version of political satire is 100% more biting than the US version.

All of the comedians and their respective shows listed above have received accolades for their contributions to societal dialoge on US politics. Yet, I don't know if a heaping of politics with a side of comedy is enough to really give them credit. In an era where our politicians seek out celebrity or celebrity associations (I hate George Clooney, and so should you), it seems more than inevitable that the comedy of politics and American entertainment would converge. Fey, Ferrell, Colbert and Stewart were simply in the right place at the right time and were smart enough to recognize a trend when they saw it.

In the Canadian tradition, which I am also not claiming is the best but is different, there is a lot more risk involved. Whether it be Rick Mercer's rant, impersonations on Double Exposure or (God help us all) Luba Goy on Air Farce, none of these guys are out to be liked in their presentation of political satire. In fact, they may well end up hated for expressing their political views through comedy - and express their view and point out political foibles they do!

That degree of risk, by expressing a bold political opinion, makes all the difference. American comedians are all together too concerned with their pocket book to be that bold, because for all of their political interest they do in fact want a large audience to buy their book, show up in the audience while they are on tour in your hometown or go to the movie they have coming out next week. American comedians seem to suffer because of their business interests - American audiences have to see them in wholly other spheres then through political comedy alone, so, well, you need to be liked to be successful.

Canadian comedians can make their living off their political comedy - in fact few are seen in roles other than as political satirists. That's not too say that they are making a killing on political satire - but they make a living. They will never be as well-off as their American cousins, but may have a better time at making a mockery of politics.

And Americans deserve better - they deserve to endeavor as their forefathers did among the barrels of good pork barrel politics. The way comedy has been done in the past represents an old way of thinking by the old guard of New York and LA. New ideas of political comedy from the borders and in the backwaters of the US must emerge. Change is in the air!

Or at least we can hope....