An article in The New Republic raises an interesting, if peripheral, point: an Obama-McCain election would not be good for late-night comedy or satire programs like The Daily Show. It's pretty difficult to make fun of either candidate. In Obama's case, his stand-out traits include charisma, sincerity, and optimism--to mock such qualities could risk coming off as tacky or pessimistic. Also, due to his race, making fun may require caution; SNL players do not want to be accused of having poor taste. Similarly, McCain's history as a P.O.W. makes him relatively off-limits. True heroism isn't exactly a salient trait that lends itself to mockery.
When you consider such candidates as Al Gore, John Kerry, and George W. Bush, you realize how potent their public personas were to such comedy shows. The article points out that in this election, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and John Edwards would provide much more easy fodder for comedy writers.
Believe me, I enjoy televised skewerings of politicians immensely. However, I think the Obama-McCain scenario might present an interesting opportunity for the comedic focus to shift to other absurd aspects of the election besides the candidates themselves. For example, skits could highlight the often inane media coverage of the campaign, the confusion of the primary system (superdelegates are begging for a send-up), or the one-upping pattern of endorsements (i.e. Schwarzenegger will beat up Chuck Norris...and that's before any parody!). In this way, such sketches could provide searing commentary about our electoral system as a whole rather than making caricatures of our Commander in Chief. Since our nation seems primed for an era of unity, not trivializing the presidency--especially after 8 years of Bush bashing, and before that the Lewinsky bonanza--could be a helpful change of pace.
Do you think Obama and McCain are in fact immune to satire? Who will play them on SNL?
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1dcb1ebb-dd0f-4d5a-901b-5104f448e11d