SNL Parodies Presidential Debate No. 2

Saturday Night Live this week parodied the “second and worst ever” presidential debate, once again pitting Alec Baldwin’s Donald Trump against Kate McKinnon’s Hillary Clinton.

The eight-minute sketch began with an embellishment of Trump and Clinton’s refusal to shake hands. It also satirized the Republican candidate’s habit of hovering behind Clinton whenever it was her turn to speak.

Of course, a recreation of the debate wouldn’t have been complete without an appearance by undecided voter-turned-Internet phenomenon Ken Bone, who was played by none other than Bobby Moynihan. The cold open also alluded to the more recent string of sexual assault allegations made against Trump, with Trump saying that all of his accusers needed to “shut the hell up.”

What did you think of SNL‘s lampooning of Debate No. 2? Did you expect the show to open with Trump and Clinton’s latest face-off, or were you anticipating a sketch focused on the more recent assault accusations? Drop your thoughts in a comment below.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Chris says:

    I didn’t see the sketch, but was the allegations against Trump the only one mentioned? 3 women are accusing Bill Clinton of sexual assault and Hillary of intimidating them. I’m not a Trump fan, but it’s only fair to talk about both.

    • Just out of curiosity why is it “only fair”? One has been litigated by the national media for years, a congressional and independent investigation, and an impeachment, which thankfully ended it because I couldn’t stand another day of that darn beret. The other is a brand new set of accusations based on an admission of guilt by the someone who is actually running for president. Double jeopardy for one who isn’t even on the ballot to provide cover for someone who is isn’t “fair” in my mind, please explain.

      • Chris says:

        Because the accusers are saying Hillary intimidated them, that’s why its only fair.

        • So, unsubstantiated accusations of “Hillary was mean to me” (she shook my hand and it was terrifying) should be treated equivalently to sexual assault? Especially given how Trump is publicly–on camera, on Twitter, on TV–treating his accusers now and how he publicly, on camera, treated Bill Clinton’s accusers in the 90s?

          Are you that blind to the hypocrisy here? I know the bar is ridiculously low for Trump “don’t shoot someone on 5th Avenue,” but surely the cognitive dissonance can not be *that* pronounced.

        • Ken Starr found out they were lying says:

          And the accusers are proven liars. There is zero evidence that Hillary ever did anything to them. If they had any evidence, it would already be published, they’ve had 25 years, haven’t they?

          Back in 1998, Ken Starr investigated every rumor and charge against Bill Clinton and he interviewed all these women. He was looking for evidence to use against Clinton in his impeachment prosecution. You know what he found?

          He found that all these women had been lying. The sex was all consentual, they had no problem with hooking up with Bill. In fact, Juanita Brodderick signed a sworn affidavidt back then admitted that she had lied about being raped and that in fact, she willingly had sex with Clinton.

          She was married at the time, AND she was having an affair with a man named Dave who eventually became her second husband. And she decides to hook up with Bill Clinton. She goes back home and it’s obvious she’s had sex, but she can’t tell either her husband or her boyfriend what she’s done, so she made up the lie that she had been raped. She admitted all that to Ken Starr. None of these women have any legitimate claims. Not like the ones Trump assaulted.

    • That “i am not a Trump fan”is a lie!

      • Chris says:

        Oh yes, because I could only say that Hillary needs to be held accountable if I’m a Trump fan. I dared to criticize the great Hillary so I must be a Trump fan! Oh Karen, you see right through me.

        • Hmm says:

          Stop using Trump’s taking points if you want to continue the charade of being a Trump fan.
          You are entitled your opinion but that’s not a shield against the rest of us calling you out.

          • Chris says:

            Well I would stop, but I’m not exactly sure what a “taking” point is. I’m not trying to take points from anyone so I don’t know what you’re talking about . You aren’t calling me out, all you’re doing is saying I’m a Trump fan just based off the fact that I’m willing to criticize Hillary. But you’re just another typical Hillary supporter, acting like she has no faults so it’s pointless to continue this. Goodbye.

        • No, because only a Trump fan would be that far in the conspiracy theory weeds.

    • Mark22 says:

      Also Bill Clinton is NOT running for President, so how is that relevant?

      • Stephanie says:

        It goes to Hillary’s judgement and character. One might ask this — why did Hillary stay with a man who is so vile and contemptible? Her desire for power? Her need to feed off of HIS power? It’s rather telling, don’t you think.

        I’ve always been a Bernie supporter. I will only be voting for CA propositions, no presidential voting for me. I refuse to support either clown.

        • pink says:

          how about because she took her marriage vows seriously, for better or worse. Unlike Trump who ran in the other direction and divorced twice.

        • You bought into 25 years of GOP propaganda says:

          And the answer might be that she’s a devout Christian who believes in forgiveness, redemption and honoring her marriage vows. What does power have to do with that? Bill Clinton was already President– what kind of additional power was she so desperate for in 1998? What did she think he was going to do when he got out of the White House? Run for Prime Minister of Great Britain?

          I can’t beleive you people who condemn her for holding her family together and keeping her daughter’s childhood intact.

          You’re not a Bernie supporter, you’re a self-rightous clown who thinks they are more important than the country. Anyone who isn’t voting for Hillary is helping to elect Trump. Even Bernie has said that, which proves you aren’t one of his supports. You have a blind hatred of Hillary due to reasons you have dreamed up in your own head, instead of looking at her for who she is, someone who has devoted her life to public service.

    • Katrinka says:

      It’s Saturday Night Live, not a court of law. “Fair & Balanced” is the Fox News motto, right? I think you’ve got your TV on the wrong channel.

    • Simon Jester says:

      Bill Clinton is not on the ballot. Trump is. It ain’t rocket science.

    • Sara says:

      Those 3 women aren’t making new claims. Those accusations by them are decades old and have been more or less debunked. Heck, one of them even testified under oath that nothing ever happened between her and Bill Clinton. But real talk, whatever Bill Clinton has or has not done has no bearing on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Millions of our tax dollars have been spent trying to tear her down and every time they have failed. So now we are back to Bill’s affairs? That is sexism at its finest. Donald Trump IS a candiate and he has admitted to assaulting women. Why is he now surprised that they are coming forward?!

      • Haz says:

        Sexism? Give me a break. Yes, Bill is not running but his accusers have stated Hillary has tried to intimidate and silence them, which means she should not be looked upon as some Saint

        • Anne says:

          I’m a Hillary supporter and I agree it’s problematic if she’s helped silence women who have accused Bill. That’s not cool. She should be held accountable for that. She shouldn’t be held accountable for of the accusations against Bill (and I’m open enough to admit there’s probably some truth to them). She’s not his keeper.
          She’s still the only qualified candidate running in this election though and she’ll do more to fight for women’s rights than Trump will.

        • Eli says:

          The woman who accused Hillary of intimidating her in 1978 stated that she met at a fundraiser for Bill (that the woman attended 3 weeks after the alleged attack)
          “[Hillary] came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.’ I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement — ‘Everything you do for Bill’. I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.” I think this was from her interview with Sean Hannity in 2003.
          As far as I can tell that was her only “threat” from Hillary.
          Hillary also said in a private letter about Monica L (before she knew that the affair was real) that she was a “narcissistic loony-toon”. Both of those were private communications. I haven’t been able to find any evidence online that she attacked them in any other way, much less publicly, so how she can be said to have repeatedly attacked the victims is hard for me to fathom.
          It’s been well documented that many crazy women have made claims about all presidents, Republican and Democrats, that were false, they are celebrities after all, so it’s possible that she thought Monica L was one of those delusional women, either way she has a right to vent in private.

          • Eli says:

            Oops, didn’t mean that only women have delusions about celebrities, men do too. That’s what makes it hard to sort out the differences between legit claims and those who think they know someone they’ve never met because they’re famous. I’m a feminist, but I’ve also studied human behavior and cog psychology, it makes it very hard to verify any claims of events from years ago, because human memory is a very complicated thing. While I’m sure every claim has some basis in fact I also believe everyone’s innocent until proven guilty so unproven claims must be met with some skepticism especially with other pressures like political issues. It does bother me that people believe Trump’s & the Republicans’ claims about Hillary without any basis in fact, and we have to suspect people coming forward now with old claims and no proof on either side.

            For example, there’s huge differences between the Clinton Foundation which has given hundreds of millions to charities and grants over the years vs Trump Foundation where there’s no evidence of actual giving outside of Trump business and small payments for memberships , but we still need third party journalists to sort it all out for us.

    • Hmm says:

      They talked about Bill’s scandals. That why Hillary said “I’m made of steel”.
      Stop pretending you are not a Trump supporter or that you actually believe a sketch show needs to be “fair and balanced”. It’s SNL, not Fox News.
      As for “fair and balanced”- one side needs to be weighted against the other to even out. It often happens at the expense of truth.

    • donna says:

      They did. “Trump” mentioned that the women Bill allegedly assaulted were in the audience.

    • Whatevah8 says:

      Oh for crying out loud it’s a comedy sketch. You must be lot’s of fun at parties. But just to make you feel okay about yourself, yes it was mentioned. Now don’t forget to vote on November 28th.

    • Sarah says:

      So maybe watch the sketch before posting a disingenuous “I’m not a Trump fan” pro-Trump diatribe, and you’d know that they did talk about both.
      Unfortunately for all you “not Trump fans,” his lame attempt to deflect attention from allegations against himself (of doing exactly what he, himself, bragged about doing) using allegations against someone NOT running for president, is just another thing to make fun of him about in this COMEDY sketch.

    • Benjamin says:

      Yes. The allegations against Bill were mentioned.

    • paula says:

      To answer your question, yes, both were mentioned. Baldwin said something about the Clinton accusers being in the audience. It was a pretty funny part of the skit, with Kate McKinnon pretending to be devastated to learn that Bill had mistresses, then saying something like, “Get real, I’m made of steel. Hi, girls!” Baldwin said Hillary was trying to silence them and they deserved to be heard. Strong then asked Baldwin about the women accusing Trump, and he said, “They should shut the hell up.”

      I enjoyed the skit. It didn’t hit everything spot on, but it was funny overall.

    • CK says:

      I’ve seen people accuse Hillary of intimidating those women multiple times, but no one ever brings up an allegation of “This is how Hillary intimidated me.” The only one was Juanita Broderick, who testified under oath that her allegations did not occur, and her form of being intimidated by Hillary was a handshake and a thank you at a rally, which is ridiculous and would mean that Hillary has intimidated many supporters over her long career in public service.

    • BadPenny says:

      First and foremost, in the US you are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty in a court of law or you acknowledge your guilt. I can accuse you of anything, but until I win in a court you are presumed innocent – unless you state you did such acts.

      So, those women accusing Bill Clinton from 25-30 years ago does not mean he was guilty; at least not unless they won in a court of law or he admitted doing said acts. On the other hand, it was Trump who went on Stern and stated he used to walk into the dressing rooms of his beauty pagents unannounced to catch and see the women nude. It was Trump saying he tried to seduce a married women; and how he could grab them, kiss, them, sexually assault them, etc and get away with it because he was famous. These were not women who accused him. These were his statements made before the women came forward with their accusations.
      Now I do not believe every women who has come forward is telling the truth – that is why we have courts to determine the truth – but I do need to believe the words which come out of his own mouth. It seems impossible to believe him when he states he will make your country better but not believe him when he states the acts he has done.

  2. Papandreou says:

    I simply can’t laugh knowing that this election means that two horrible choices is all we have.

    • Anne says:

      Except the world will keep moving if we elect Hillary. She knows how to run a country. Everything will stay up and running and we won’t be plunged into wars because of a mood swing.
      She isn’t perfect, but we can do a heck of a lot worse than having a rational, intelligent person at the helm. The world will accept a Hillary presidency. The world will not accept a Trump one…which will create a whole host of problems.

      • Papandreou says:

        I don’t think it’s as black or white as you make it sound.

        • Anne says:

          Except at this point it kinda is. It’s like having to decide who you would rather fly the airplane you’re in: a seasoned pilot with 30 years under his belt who could rebuild the plane if needbe. Or the chihuahua one of the passengers brought on board.

        • Wayne says:

          Papandreou- PUH-LEASE! Hillary could die while in office and correspond with her cabinet via a Oujia board and she would still be a better president than Donald.

      • Patrick says:

        Exactly. Hilary isn’t a “horrible” choice. She’s a highly qualified, highly intelligent, career politician. She isn’t the most charming, fun, or charismatic person. I doubt she passes the “I’d have a beer with her” test, which is the dumbest test for an elected official. She’s not fun. She’s qualified.
        I’ve been enthused about voting for her for 9 years now (I voted for her over Obama last time around, but I’ve been thrilled with how he did).

        • Anne says:

          Lol that ‘have a beer’ test is ridiculous. That’s not a quality needed for a president. Though I think it would actually be cool to go for a beer with Hillary. I love talking politics and she’s just so knowledgable about everytjing. It would be an interesting night.
          I’ve been looking forward to voting for her for years as well. I was happy Obama got the nom last time and now it’s her time.

    • TVLineCommentator says:

      you have Gary Johnson and Jill Stein…and if you live in UT, you have a Mormon candidate

  3. Anne says:

    The skit was HILARIOUS. Well done SNL

  4. Snazzy says:

    Some people said the skit fell flat. I don’t think the skit can compare with reality. The comments on drug testing recently made by a presidential candidate made me laugh far more than the best comic on TV. You cannot make this stuff up — this is “reality” TV.

  5. Peachy says:

    I think “SNL” and NBC still owe us an apology for having Trump on as host last season.

  6. Mari says:

    Yeah because she has scanned the American people 30 years she is the only qualified? Neither Trump or Hilary should be allowed to run

  7. TVLineCommentator says:

    what happened to the 500 million emails HRC deleted?

  8. Dan C says:

    They’ve been waiting for the right time to play the Home Alone 2 joke and it was just perfect.

  9. datdudemurphy says:

    I’ll be glad when this election is over…..hopefully TVline’s comment section go back to being non-political and safe.

    • Mary says:

      It is safe. Why do people complain when all you have to do is not click on the story. The headlines makes it perfectly clear what to expect. It is real simple scroll through like I do when I am not interested.

      • datdudemurphy says:

        That’s a cool story and all….but I am interested in SNL.
        Generally, enjoy reading people’s comments as well. However, currently the comment sections are overrun by everyone’s political commentary.
        I stand by my previous comment….thanks.

        • Rachel says:

          I am with you datdudemurphy. I would like to see honest discussion on what people thought of the SNL episode based on it’s merit of being a a comedy show that a lot times covers current issues. Instead people are sniping in the comments sections using the same arguments I could find under literally any yahoo news article as though they’re going to change one single person’s mind, or somehow “prove THEY’RE right.”

    • LT says:

      You know this article was about SNL…which is in fact a TV SHOW!!!!!! Thus…TV Line. SNL. TV Show. Do the math!

      • datdudemurphy says:

        Let me know which part of my comment confused you, and I’ll try to break it down into simpler terms for you.

        • JScout says:

          Your childish request for safe and non-political when discussing a political sketch confused me. Unless of course, you are a child – I guess that would explain it.

          • datdudemurphy says:

            Well, there you go…. You misread my post.
            I didn’t request anything.
            I simply stated that I’ll be glad when this election is over and it can return to being non-political in the comment sections.

            Happy to help clear that up.