Nailin' Palin

The now-infamous Nailin' Palin, as read by Thandie Newton and Ricky Gervais on The Graham Norton Show. If you haven't seen Oliver Stone's W., this is pretty much exactly how Newton plays Condi Rice, suggesting either that she has tapped into the essence of neo-con femininity, or that she's not an especially versatile actress. You be the judge.

Fixing D.C.'s public schools?

Clay Risen has a great article in the November issue of the Atlantic Monthly profiling Michelle Rhee, the controversial chancellor of Washington, D.C.'s public school system. A graduate of Teach for America and its data-based approach to teaching, Rhee was pegged by newly-elected Mayor Adrian Fenty in 2007 to reform D.C.'s failing school system and immediately sparked controversy by firing 98 central-office employees, including 24 school principals. Of particular concern, both to the teachers' union and to many parents, is her support of merit-based compensation, which would eventually eliminate tenure based on seniority and introduce a pay-scale based on performance.

As someone who grew up in the area, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the District has become a flashpoint for educational reform. Generally, in D.C., if you can afford to go to private school, you do (I went to the very expensive Georgetown Day School for 14 years), or you move to the suburbs (Montgomery County, Maryland -- which borders D.C. -- has some of the best public schools in the country). The D.C. school system was always a bit of an elephant in the room -- everyone knew that it was a mess, and frequently a violent one, but what could we do?

Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, it's nice to see people willing to take on the challenges of rebuilding a failing school system. It makes you want to sign up for organizations like Teach For America...

The case for gun control

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/27/boy.shoots.himself.ap/index.html

Men in tights

This humdinger comes from Fox News' "Father Jonathan," by way of Real Clear Politics. After illuminating the fundamental differences between Obama and Robin Hood (beside the obvious fact that one is the next president of the United States, and the other is a 500-year old English legend), Father Jonathan goes on to warn against Comrade Obama's rampant socialism, citing a 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio in which the young state senator extolled the virtues of the "redistribution of wealth." Scandalous. Quoth the good Father:

It is hard to believe the leading United States presidential candidate suggested, just seven years ago, we should be seeking legislative and administrative avenues to effect “redistributive change,” since it is impractical now to get the courts to do it on their own. It’s even harder to believe the leading United States presidential candidate, just seven years ago, was talking about the importance of community organizers “putting together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
But then again, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. Seven years later, and just one month before Election Day, Senator Obama said to Joe the Plumber, word for word, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.”

The whole thing raised a few questions for me, like "why is a Fox News 'Religion Contributor' writing editorials about issues that have nothing to do with religion?" and "Where exactly does this strange comparison of Barack Obama to Robin Hood come from?" More importantly, though, how does taxing the richest 5% of Americans -- the people who can most afford it -- qualify as "beating down some to lift up others?" And why is that worse than beating down EVERYBODY with a costly war based on false premises and deregulation policies that severely destabilized the economy?

Father John is right -- Barack Obama isn't Robin Hood. He's the future president of the United States. And dumbing down the discourse with analogies to fairy tales doesn't make the right any less wrong.

Personality Disorder

Robert Draper's cover story from this weekend's New York Times Magazine, "The Making (And Remaking) of McCain," details the transformations that the McCain narrative has undergone in the last year. Given such an in-depth look at the abrupt shifts in policy and values that McCain and his advisers have hazarded in the run-up to the November 4th election, one gets a better sense for why his campaign has devolved into such a spectacular mess. Whereas George W. Bush won two elections largely on the strength of his conviction (no matter how wrong-minded or absurd it might have been), McCain has often seemed a candidate in search of an identity, caught between the rebellious instincts that once defined him as a "maverick" in the House and Senate, and the demands of a Republican base that spurned him in 2000. The result has been a palpable discomfort -- with his message, with his supporters (this lady, for instance) and, no doubt, with a last-minute, gimmicky vice-presidential choice who will likely prove to be the albatross that costs him the election.

The truth is, though, that with or without the disaster that is Sarah Palin (who is apparently already campaigning for 2012 -- how delusional can you be?!), John McCain -- or, at least, 2008 John McCain -- is simply the wrong candidate for this moment in history. The Obama campaign has been revolutionary not only in the way that it has raised money (shunning big donations from special interest groups in favor of smaller donations from individuals, what an idea!), but also in the way that it has branded its candidate with hip, iconic logos that make as much of a fashion statement as a political one. Hell, the guy even has his own presidential seal! And while that may seem blasphemous to traditionalists, it is perfectly tailored to an open-source culture that values nothing so much as appropriation (take, for example, Girl Talk, a musical artist whose songs consist entirely of samples, and who has found considerable success despite being virtually untouchable for mainstream radio). Obama speaks to our generation in much the same way that Bobby Kennedy spoke to his, and he has the following to prove it.

Still, it's hard not to wonder whether the John McCain of eight years ago -- the campaign finance-reformer who had an open and easy rapport with the press and younger voters -- would have fared differently in this election. Perhaps Obama's success in adopting the mantle of reform would have forced McCain to retreat from the middle ground no matter what, like an army withdrawing to the safety of fortress walls, albeit under a somewhat unfamiliar flag.

In any event, the McCain narrative is ultimately a tragic one. Even if he somehow miraculously wins the election (and I literally just knocked on my wooden bed frame in hopes that he doesn't), the victory will have come at a severe cost, not only to his ideals and party, but also to the country as a whole. This election, coupled with eight years of the Bush White House and its with-us-or-against-us rhetoric, has brought out the worst in people (see Michelle Bachmann) and opened up some very deep social divisions -- the last thing we need is someone trying to forge a new identity for this country who can't even get a handle on his own.

Note: For a fascinating portrait of the John McCain we used to know and love, I highly recommend Robert Timberg's The Nightingale's Song.

I defy you to watch this video and not get chills

This guy is a fucking rock star.

http://media.gatewayva.com/photos/rtd/slideshows/20081023rally/index.html

Source: Richmond, Virginia [Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish]

Are You Smarter Than a 3rd Grader?

If you're the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States the answer is apparently "no." On Monday, while fielding questions asked by Denver-area third graders on NBC affiliate WUSA, Sarah Palin suggested that the Vice President is "in charge of the Senate." Not exactly.

Palin was likely referring to the Vice President's Constitutionally-mandated role as "President of the Senate," which allows the VP to preside over the Senate and to cast a deciding vote in the case of a tie. While early VP's did, in fact, perform this duty on a regular basis, modern Vice Presidents rarely preside over the Senate except on special occasions.

Whatever level of nuance you care to attribute to her answer, the fact that Palin couldn't provide a more accurate description of the job she is so vigorously campaigning for is disheartening, to say the least. Even more mind boggling, though, is the fact that in the month and a half that she has been on the ticket, the McCain campaign hasn't bothered to prep their VP nominee on such a basic question. I guess they must have figured it was a no-brainer, sort of like the commonly accepted spelling of potato(e) was in 1992 1988 ...



Sources:
Me Fail Civics? That's unpossible! [Daily Kos]
Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate) [United States Senate]

George Bush is an idiot. Again.

For those of you who don't feel that the ability to speak eloquently is a vital quality in a presidential candidate (or just enjoy cringing), please watch this clip of President Bush thanking Pope Benedict for his "awesome" speech at the White House earlier this week, and keep in mind that this man-child has had his finger on the nuclear trigger for the past eight years.

Feel that icy shiver down your spine? That's the realization that the leader of the free world talks like an eighth grader. To the fucking Pope, no less. November can't come soon enough...



Source:
Bush To Pope Benedict: "Thank You, Your Holiness. Awesome Speech" [Huffington Post]

WTF, New Hampshire?

Oh, New Hampshire, you rebel, you.

The Granite State, ever the spoiler, gave Hillary Clinton a victory tonight that was as narrow (39% of votes to 37% with 96% of precincts reporting) as it was entirely unexpected.

Look, I know that everybody is reading all sorts of things into this but I think the answer to "what happened tonight?" is relatively simple: First of all, people don't trust the media, especially in fiercely independent New Hampshire. So the fact that political pundits have been gushing about Obama all week like he's the second coming of Christ ultimately hurt him. Furthermore, people don't like being told whom to vote for, and the fact that nearly every poll had Obama winning by double-digits made his victory seem like an inevitability that these voters decided to put an end to.

I think that the Obama campaign also bungled the lead-up to the primary, running around and predicting a win by a big margin. In fact, this is practically a case study in why it's a bad idea to predict a hearty victory: Because there is always the danger that your supporters, assuming that you already have the thing locked up, will figure that there is no need for them to trek all the way down to the polls. This is particularly important in a state like New Hampshire, where independent voters can choose which party's primary to vote in that same day and, indeed, it looks as if a lot of independent voters chose to vote for Republican John McCain instead of Obama. Additionally, raising expectations gives you nowhere to go but down: The fact is that, even if Obama had pulled out a win, unless it was by 5 points or more, it would have been a moral victory for Hillary (which makes her actually coming out on top a much bigger deal). If the Obama camp had lowered expectations, however, and said "this race is tighter than the polls show and we'll be lucky to come away with a victory," I think we'd be having a very different discussion right now.

None of that, of course, is to take away from a hell of a comeback for Hillary. As much as I may have a distaste for their methods, the Clinton campaign did a great job of mobilizing her supporters and getting them to vote. Apparently, the unseasonably warm weather meant that more elderly voters made it out to the polls, as did Hillary's traditional-Democrat base. And, of course, let's not forget the crying jag on Monday which, combined with what was perceived as Edwards and Obama "ganging up" on Hillary during Saturday's debate and the political punditry "ganging up" on Hillary over the last week (Talking Points Memo blames Chris Matthews, in particular), inspired female voters to stand up for their overwhelmed sister. In fact, Obama got beat among women about 57% to 34%, a far cry from Iowa, where he actually came out slightly ahead in that demographic. Most people (including myself) seemed to think that the whole crying business spelled the end for the Hillster -- and I still think it was total political bullshit -- but, hey, it worked, so more power to her.

Still, I think that this race is far from over. To crown a winner now would be just as short-sighted as it was last week. Obama handled the defeat with graciousness, and I thought that his concession speech was every bit as thrilling and inspiring as was his victory speech was in Iowa (meanwhile, I thought Hillary looked like an oriental rug and sounded like an egotist, but that's just me). We'll see what kind of bounce Hillary gets out of this victory heading into Nevada and then South Carolina, a much more diverse state where Obama leads heavily in the polls (although, after tonight, what does that mean?). There's also the prospect of John Edwards dropping out, particularly if he doesn't do well in South Carolina, and throwing his support behind Obama (which you have to assume he would do after their love-fest on Saturday night).

Obviously, this is a huge boost for Hillary, and it means that this is probably going to be as closely-contested a race as its Republican counterpart (where the tragically underfunded Sen. John McCain, all but left for dead a few months ago, triumphed over Mitt Romney, with Mike Huckabee happily coming in third and Rudy Giuiani just beating out Rep. Ron Paul, OB/GYN). What I do not think it represents, however, is a rejection of Obama's message of "change" and "hope," nor of the candidate himself. Rather, I get the feeling, from what I've heard and read, that this was an historically fickle electorate trying to slam the brakes on what it saw as a "coronation." Let's not forget that Super Tuesday is not for another month, and the general election is not for another year, so there's plenty of time for all sorts of crazy things to happen (like Dennis Kucinich being called back to his home planet, for instance, or Duncan Hunter building a fence around the White House, effectively barricading himself inside).

Should make for an interesting few months, at least.

Sources:
Hours-upon-hours of MSNBC coverage.
N.H. Picks HILLARY, Because OBAMA Is A Loser! [Wonkette]

The Clintons are dysfunctional. And full of it.

From the "I thought you said we had this locked up" department, yesterday's two most interesting stories from the campaign trail both involve Hillary Clinton's floundering bid for the presidency.

The first story comes from a round-table discussion in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where the former First Lady responded to a question about how she keeps up with the rigors of campaigning by almost breaking down in tears. You can watch the video of the incident above but, in case you're in a hurry, let me paraphrase what she said: "I just want what's best for the country [sob]...and Barack Obama sucks so badly [sob]...and I already know where everything in the White House is! [sob]"

While political observers spent much of the day trying to figure out whether those tears were genuine or not, fellow presidential hopeful John Edwards was quick to jump on Hillary's apparent moment of weakness, saying "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business." While I agree with those pundits who are quick to point out that Edwards himself is no stranger to so-called "sob stories," I also think he has a point.

For the last two years or so, Hillary has seemed the inevitable choice for the nomination -- the continuation, you might say, of the Clinton dynasty -- and she has more or less lorded it over her opponents. I think it speaks volumes about Sen. Clinton's character, and the character of those around her, that it has taken LESS THAN A WEEK to basically undo her candidacy. I'm not saying that Hillary is going to pull out if (or, you know, when) she loses today, but she might as well. First there was the flood of negativity towards Obama, then the almost-complete 180 on her message (now she's the candidate of experience AND the candidate of change. Wait, what?), and now this.

Despite not being a supporter of hers, I wouldn't begrudge Hillary the tears if I thought that they were real -- campaigns are arduous and it's been a particularly rough week -- but I don't. I don't believe that they are real because they were accompanied by yet another thinly veiled attack on Sen. Obama, yet another moment of her moral self-righteousness and sense of entitlement shining through. Not only did she suggest that an Obama win would represent a "fall backwards" for the country (and, frankly, how much further back could we possibly fall after eight years of Dubya?), but she also not-so-subtly declared that "some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough." It's basically the same speech she's been giving for the last month, only this time with the force of big old crocodile tears behind it.

I also found it strange the way that Sen. Clinton positioned herself as the candidate who has faced "difficult odds," considering that one of her chief opponents grew up the son of a mill-worker, and the other grew up on the south side of Chicago, and that she came into this race as the anointed frontrunner with what can only be described as a political machine behind her. Difficult odds, indeed.

The second story comes from the OTHER, more likable Clinton (former president Bill), who at a speech in Plymouth, New Hampshire said, and I quote, "we can't be a new story. I'm sorry. There's nothing I can do. I can't make her younger, taller, male. There's lots of things I can't do but, you know, if you want a president and you need one, she would be by far the best." Now, I'm sure that Bill Clinton would like to make Hillary younger, and taller (and male? Okay, that's kind of weird...), but my understanding of marriage is that you're not supposed to say those things out loud (I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that). In any event, he doesn't seem real enthusiastic about her chances -- frankly, he looks like he could use a drink (and I'm assuming that he subsequently went and got one, since I believe this speech took place in a bar).

The thing is, if 16 years ago, Hillary had been running around making wild statements about how she couldn't get her husband to keep it in his pants but we should vote for him, anyway, it would have been a huge liability. Right or wrong, people would have said, "How can we trust this guy to run the entire country when he can't even control his own family?" Well, it works both ways. The fact that Hillary's people can't keep Bill from running his mouth off doesn't really inspire confidence in their abilities to fix the free world.

What immediately emerges from these two incidents, I think, is that the Clinton camp is in disarray in the wake of Barack Obama's recent surge in the polls. After all the time spent preparing to win, they don't know what to do now that they're losing, and it shows. And, to be honest, what's really not presidential about the whole thing is not the crying, but the inability to respond to adversity. It's the equivalent of George Bush reading Dr. Seuss for 45 minutes after he learned that the World Trade Center had been attacked, and it's exactly what we don't need four more years of.

At the end of the day, though, all of this is kind of a moot point because I get the feeling that this race ended last week. At this point, Obama is less of a man than a movement, and one that is rapidly gaining momentum. Whether or not this turns out to be Hillary's "Howard Dean" moment, it's one more misstep in a campaign is going down in flames like the Hinderburg.

Oh, the humanity.

Sources:
Clinton chokes up, is applauded, at campaign stop [CNN.com]
Bill Clinton stresses Hillary's experience in Plymouth [Citizen.com]
Neener, Neener, "They" Made Hillary Cry [Wonkette]

The new "American Gladiators": Twice the flash, half the fun

If you're like me (a dork), you've been waiting anxiously for the return of "American Gladiators" ever since it went off the air in 1996. Sure, you've tried the alternatives -- pro-wrestling, the short-lived "Battle Dome," even MTV's reality knockoff "Road Rules" -- but nothing ever quite quenched the thirst for mullets and spandex that the original "AG" so wonderfully satisfied.

Well, that 12-year wait ended tonight. Sort of. While NBC's brand-spanking new incarnation of "American Gladiators" (regularly airing Monday at 8) does its best to update its predecessor with 21st-century flare (read: silver and black outfits, giant water tanks and rampant pyrotechnics), it does so at the expense of much of the tongue-in-cheek kitschiness that made the old show so great. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the new "Gladiators" (I was so psyched about the premiere that I would have been happy with a much worse show) or even that none of the updates are worthwhile -- the new and improved "Eliminator" is pretty sweet, for instance, and I love that they play "Another One Bites the Dust" when a contestant loses in The Joust -- but just that, overall, it felt like the magic was missing.

Some of that may be a result of my idealizing the show in its absence. This might sound stupid, but "American Gladiators" represents an important part of my childhood. In fact, the show hit its peak in basic-cable poularity during my formative years and, when I was 8 or 9, you couldn't change the channel at any given moment on a weekday afternoon without seeing it on USA Network, which meant that I spent many a summer day taking in episode after episode of "Gladiator" goodness. I watched through host changes (from Joe Thiesmann to Larry Csonka), Gladiator changes (from Laser to Turbo) and event changes (from the Atlasphere -- which needs to be brought back -- to the Sky Track). My buddy and I even used to play "American Gladiators" in his basement, chucking tennis balls at each other as we ducked behind couches. Cheesy as it may have been, the show was a piece of our culture that is probably irreplaceable.

It doesn't help that the new version is more style than substance. Right off the bat, using Hulk Hogan as one of the hosts, while I'm sure it ramps up the ratings, makes the competition seem fake. In their time, the unbeatable duo of Larry Csonka and Mike Adamle, both former NFL running backs, lent the original show a certain credibility without being distracting. You would probably never tune in to see those guys (unlike Hogan and partner Laila Ali), but you were always glad that they were there and you knew that, if it came down to it, they could run somebody over (well, at least Csonka -- I didn't even know that Adamle had played football until a few minutes ago. Wikipedia, bitches!) The real draws, though, were the Gladiators themselves, and the show was at its best when their carefully-crafted, ridiculously campy personalities shined through (see Malibu). This time around, the focus is almost entirely on the contestants, who are mostly boring (I almost barfed when I heard one of them say that she was "really feeding off of the Gladiators' synergy right now" -- lame!), and they don't even interview the big guys and gals, although I suspect that some of them -- like crazy-man Wolf, trash-talking Pacific islander Toa and Viking goddess Hellga -- are probably hilarious. I'm not saying that NBC should take out the reality TV flourishes altogether -- if harping on human-interest stories draws a broader audience, great -- but don't forget what made this show so great to begin with.

When it comes down to it, if nothing else, the success or failure of this new "American Gladiators" should present an interesting case study in how popular culture changes, and how the culture-makers adapt. Hopefully, this version will hit its stride and find the unapologetic giddiness that has been missing from my life for the last decade but, even if it doesn't, I'll still tune in, if only for the sake of sweet, sweet nostalgia.

See also:
American Gladiators [things i watch]

BONUS: Here's a picture of the smoking hot Hellga, my new Gladiator crush (don't worry Lace, no one will ever steal your place in my heart). Enjoy!

Hillary fights dirty

According to the Washington Post, Hillary Clinton literally tried to block rival Barack Obama from getting on a plane to New Hampshire after her shockingly big loss in the Iowa caucus on Thursday night. Arriving at the Des Moines airport just seconds before Obama, "the cars in Clinton's motorcade fanned out on the tarmac as she boarded her plane, making it impossible for Obama's motorcade to get to his airplane." Classy. Eventually, thanks to the diplomatic efforts of the two candidates' respective Secret Service agents, Obama did finally make it on the plane and to New Hampshire, where the final four Democratic candidates debated tonight.

I'm not sure what Hillary was thinking -- I guess she let her bitterness get to her -- but this story doesn't do much to dispel the perception that she is a ruthless, icy politician. I mean, seriously, how childish can you be? I suppose next she's going to start calling his hotel room in the middle of the night asking if his refrigerator is running ("It is? Then you better go catch it!" Zing!) The truth is that getting smoked in Iowa must have been pretty frustrating for someone who spent as much time and money there as she did, but she better get used to it because Obama is gaining momentum like nobody's business. The latest polls from New Hampshire either show Clinton and Obama tied or Obama slightly ahead, and I personally thought that the big guy came off looking pretty swell in tonight's debate (although there was one moment when I thought he and Edwards were going to suck face -- can you say "Vice President Pretty Boy"?) Speaking of which, have you noticed how EVERYONE -- including Mr. Reagan-Conservative Mitt Romney -- is now running around talking about how they're for "change"?

Good old Barry O is suddenly THE political trend-setter, and that can't bode well for the competition.

Source:
After a Win, No Time to Lose [Washington Post]

BONUS: Here's Obama's stirring victory speech from Iowa. I defy you not to fall in love with this man.