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]

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.

"Charlie Wilson's War": Remember in the 80's when we sent money and guns to help Afghanistan fight the Russians? That was sweet...Or was it?

In a lot of ways, Charlie Wilson's War is a mixed bag of a movie.

On the one hand, you have the really interesting, mostly-true story of how a liberal congressman from Texas, who had never really done much of anything besides party, managed -- with the help of a jilted CIA agent and a right-wing socialite -- to fund a covert war in Afghanistan that contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union (how much it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union is questionable but, for the movie's sake, we'll say it was a lot). You have Tom Hanks, as the sleazy-but-lovable Wilson, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the unlikable-but-hilarious Company man, Gust Avrokotos, trading the razor-sharp barbs that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols are famous for (one particular scene, in Wilson's office, is reminiscent of the best screwball comedies of the 1930's and 40's). And, if you're into that sort of thing, you have more cleavage than any film about Washington has any business displaying (Wilson's congressional staff was nicknamed "Charlie's Angels," so you can only imagine what that looks like translated to the big screen, although I think the ridiculously beautiful Amy Adams is underutilized in this regard).

On the other hand, you have a film that tries to be too many things at once -- political comedy, personal drama and uber-relevant statement on the failures of American foreign policy -- and winds up being somewhat uneven for its efforts. Sorkin's incessant concern with political details (the reason that "The West Wing" was sometimes dubbed "The West Wonk" by critics) shines through here, and there is a lot more discussion of the intricacies of congressional appropriations (and the specifications of Russian attack helicopters) than there needs to be. In fact, Sorkin and Nichols are so intent on proving their political credibility that they sometimes forget basic tenets of filmmaking like character development. For instance, the (let's call it "personal") relationship between Wilson and the aforementioned socialite, Joanne Herring (played satisfactorily by Julia Roberts), is often hinted at as being important for an understanding of Wilson's character, but it is largely an afterthought for the film. So that when Wilson ends up crying in his office because he "misses" the newly-married Joanne so much, it seems to come out of nowhere. Similarly, Amy Adams' aide (Wilson's right-hand woman) seems more than infatuated with her boss, fawning over him and giving Roberts the stink eye, but the thread is never really developed. At the end of the day, the characters verge on being three-dimensional, but are really little more than vehicles to propel the plot and recite Sorkin's zingers.

I don't want to disparage Charlie Wilson's War -- it's a film that manages to be entertaining and informative and that alone makes it worth seeing. Still, it was hard not to walk out of the theater a little disappointed. The American policy in the Middle East of providing support to fight our enemies and then bailing when it was time to build an infrastructure is a part of the reason that we are mired in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan today. It isn't necessarily Charlie Wilson's fault -- the film shows him fighting for money to build schools in Afghanistan post-war -- but his legacy as one of the players in the fall of the Soviet Union is problematic, nonetheless. Sorkin and Nichols try to make this point at the end of the film, but it is far too weak a statement after an hour of reveling in the machinations of the war. Some of that probably has to do with the script being changed at the request of the real Wilson and Herring (apparently, the film originally opened with a shot of the Pentagon in flames, circa 2001), but it doesn't do much for the film's impact that we have so little real connection to the characters, either.

When it comes down to it, the story of Charlie Wilson's war is a human one -- it was charm and humanity that made it possible, and it was human shortcoming that made it a failed policy in the long run. Despite the best efforts of Hanks and Co., this fact never really takes on the weight that it should, and that's where this film falls short -- it is just a good story told gracefully, rather than something more transcendent. All of which is to say that Charlie Wilson's War isn't bad, but it isn't especially memorable, either. And, as the saying goes, those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

Sources:
Socialite Joanne Herring wins 'War' [NY Daily News]

President Rudy? Fuhgedaboutit.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure I understand how Rudy Giuliani isn't sinking in the polls like the freaking Titanic right now. What's that? He is sinking like the Titanic? Oh. That makes more sense.

See, while Republican rival Mike Huckabee is subliminally reminding you that he and the baby J are best friends in his holiday ads, Giuliani is using the Christmas season as an opportunity to let you know that a) he is a loudmouth from Brooklyn and b) he's that asshole who gives everyone a fruitcake because he's too wrapped up in his own shit to get real presents. Good strategy.

Look, I know that he's just trying to be cute in these ads (and God bless him for it) but, the thing is, Rudy Giuliani isn't cute -- he's a nasty, negative little man. And I think I've made my policy on conservatives trying to be funny abundantly clear: They shouldn't. Because they aren't.

I know these are the new wild and crazy Republicans who have YouTube debates and make ads with Chuck Norris but, somehow, I just don't see the Grand Old Party nominating one of the Jerky Boys for president anytime soon.

P.S. When did Santa become such a douche? Guess he's been spending too much time around the Giuliani camp...

Oprah-bama! [Weekend Links] 12/9/07

-Mike Huckabee hates the gays. Well, nobody's perfect, I guess. [Wizbang Politics]
-Just like a liberal, NBC backs down on ad controversy. [Huffington Post]
-Turns out Democrats were cool with waterboarding in 2002. Guess they thought it was some sort of S&M thing. [Washington Post]
-Cryptkeeper Helen Thomas drives White House press secretary Dana Perino to the verge of a nervous breakdown. In related news, Dana Perino wishes Helen Thomas would just die already. [Crooks and Liars]
-Germany tries to make up for WWII by banning Scientology. Throw in a case of Heineken and we're even. [BBC]
-Clinton campaign counters Oprah-bama with the hotness. Mmm...Chelsea. [NYT]
-Charles in Charge got married. I give it a week. [People]

And Iran, Iran so far away... [Around the Internet] 12/3/07

-Who Wants to Marry a U.S. Citizen? Like Tila Tequila with green cards. [Wonkette]
-"Never give a gay general a microphone." Pure redneck genius. [QuizLaw]
-"If we're going to go out to the streets and share the love of Jesus, why not expect something crazy to happen?" With that, I give you the Holy Interstate. [A Special Way of Being Afraid]
-Army throws money at recruits. NCAA investigation pending. [Wonkette]
-Iran is much less of a threat to the United States than the Bush administration. [Think Progress]
-Holy shit, it's a toilet house! [CubeMe]
-The Clinton campaign goes all kindergarten on Obama's ass [Wizbang Politics]

Larry Craig might be gay

And the hits just keep on coming.

The Idaho Statesman, in the dirtiest newspaper article that I have ever read, has brought forward five men who are alleging homosexual encounters with embattled Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id.). The men, all of whom are homosexuals themselves, are apparently dismayed by what they see as Craig's "hypocritical" anti-gay attitude and voting record, and especially the emphatic denial he made on national television in August (shortly after the discovery that he had plead guilty in June to soliciting sex from an undercover police officer) that "I am not gay, I never have been gay."

The accounts are spread out over a roughly 25 year period, and range from being whisked away to a Capitol Hill house after meeting Craig in a gay strip club (and then being given $20 after sex and told "I can buy and sell your ass a thousand times over") to being propositioned in an airport bathroom in a manner similar to the one described by Craig's arresting officer. Perhaps the most damning allegation comes from Mike Jones, the former Colorado-based gay male escort most famous for destroying evangelical minister Ted Haggard's career, who claims that Craig paid him $200 for sex sometime between November 2004 and March 2005.

Now, Mike Jones must be the worst gay male escort ever because I'm pretty sure the first rule of prostitution is that you don't go around outing your clients (that being said, the dude is like gay-Republican kryptonite...) In all seriousness, though, this story is a lot of things (the word "disturbing" comes to mind quite often) but mostly it is sad, because even if some of these guys are lying, I think it's still pretty clear that Larry Craig is not a straight man. And there's nothing wrong with that, except for the deep-seated self-loathing that has caused him to be such an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and gay rights.

In fact, if he wasn't such a dick, I would feel bad for the guy. Like I said when a similar story came out earlier this week about Trent Lott (with whom Craig incidentally started a barbershop quartet called "The Singing Senators"), it's really unfortunate -- and we are all responsible for this -- that we live in a society so homophobic that some gay men still feel like they have to seek each other out in the anonymity of airport bathrooms. But, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets a 0 rating from the Human Rights Campaign and suggests -- as Craig did in 2005 -- that the flooded areas of New Orleans should be abandoned because "fraud...is in the culture of the state of Louisiana" deserves whatever he gets. And, if the last four months have been any indication, that's going to be a lot of negative press until he finally finishes out his term in shame.

I guess $20 doesn't buy what it used to.

Sources:
More gay men describe sexual encounters with U.S. Sen. Craig [Idaho Statesman]
Larry Craig [Wikipedia]

Murtha-f***er

After returning from a trip to Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) remarked on Thursday that the surge of troops in the region "is working," a decidedly far cry from his prior stance that the increase was a "failed policy wrapped in an illusion." Murtha's unexpected change of heart came as House Democrats battled with the Bush administration over attaching withdrawal deadlines to a $50 billion war funding bill, a struggle that continued through Friday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) -- no doubt beside herself with white, hot rage -- declined to comment.

As much as I hate to say it, this is a perfect example of how Democrats go out of their way to be unelectable. The Republicans maintained control of Congress for 12 years -- when their biggest accomplishments were impeaching Bill Clinton for getting a beej and miring us in an ill-advised war -- in large part because they stayed together and they stayed on message. Honestly, if you can't control your own party members, how can you be trusted to run an entire country?

Still, the Democrats can't let the Republicans put them on the defensive now. Because even if the surge is working, it doesn't change the fact that this war was based on false intelligence, or that it has catapulted this nation $9 trillion into debt and cost the lives of 4,000 soldiers. The truth is that this change in strategy should have come four years ago, when the White House was busy ignoring its top advisers. The idea that, just because they may have finally done something right, we're now supposed to stand up and cheer for the Bush administration is kind of ridiculous -- it's like tipping your waitress extra for going back to the kitchen when she screwed up your order.

Murtha's comments, which he has since tried to back away from, aren't exactly helpful but they'll probably be forgotten pretty quickly. In fact, according to a New York Times article published last Sunday, the Democratic presidential candidates had already begun to "shift their tone" on Iraq due to reports of decreased violence a week ago. What should not be forgotten, however, is that if the Democrats want to win in November, they're going to have do so as a united -- and organized -- front, a notion that is easily lost in the chaos of primary season.

After all, you don't win races by tripping over your own feet.


Sources:
As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts [NYT]
Murtha's comments on 'surge' are a problem for House Democrats [Politico]
Pelosi won't budge on troop pullback dates in war funding bill [CNN]

God bless Mike Gravel, that crazy bastard

Despite the fact that it is a Thursday night and I should probably be passed out drunk right now (I have to get my binge drinking in before I graduate and it becomes "alcoholism"), I just couldn't resist posting this video as soon as humanly possible because, frankly, its existence is probably the greatest thing that has ever happened to me, or to American politics. No joke.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at the staggering level of awesomeness here, given former Alaska senator and current presidential uber-longshot Mike Gravel's wonderful tendency to make completely whacked out declarations about how we should encourage homosexuality in the military (because soldiers will naturally fight harder for someone that they love in the Biblical sense) and legalize heroin (because it would effectively end the war on drugs. And, you know, get everyone high...), but I have to admit that I was not really prepared for how sublimely fucking crazy this video is. It's like "Schoolhouse Rock" on acid, only better, because it stars a man who, because he was low on campaign funds, apparently took public transportation to the announcement of his own candidacy last April (Wikipedia, bitches!). Do I even need to mention that this guy is my hero?

The video, which can also be found on the Gravel campaign's YouTube profile space, is literally titled "power to the people vs give peace a chance," written exactly like that, with no capital letters or punctuation. It would seem to be Gravel's response to being excluded from the Democratic Presidential debates, which is either a product of some sordid conspiracy on the part of the political establishment, or the fact that he is currently receiving like .5% of the vote (or both). There is nothing that I could possibly say to make watching it a funnier or more enjoyable experience but, in the interest of being an active blogger, here is a shot-by-shot breakdown of this psychedelic masterpiece. Feel free to follow along:

-Right off the bat, Gravel is wearing an old-man shirt and seems to be talking to no one in particular, which makes him my grandfather. I'm really curious as to what he's saying -- probably something crazy.

-I think this video just gave me epilepsy.

-I get why Gravel's mouth is taped shut (because the man is trying to keep him quiet and such) but why is he holding a 230 year old flag? Could they not find him a new one? Go with what you've got, I guess.

-I love that when Mike Gravel talks about "politicians" like Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, he does so with a sarcastic tone of voice, as if he's making perfect sense and it's everybody else who are out of their damn minds. There's something to think about next time you're high...it's like "The Matrix"!

-Nepotism: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship. (From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nepotism)

-Mike Gravel is really pissed off about jingoism. Me too.

-The Gravel campaign really went all out for this video, technology-wise. I think they may have shot it in an Apple store.

-I love how he says "Power to the peeeeeople." P.S. This song is mad catchy.

-Mike Gravel clearly did a lot of drugs in the 60's. Just saying.

-Could someone please explain to me what's up with the turtle and the monkey? I feel like it has something to do with war, but I was not under the impression that they were enemies...

-Am I high right now?

-"Why won't you let me say what I want to say?" Probably because you're a raging looney! Case in point, this video.

-Did he just say something about cheese?

-I'm going to have nightmares about that electric buffalo in the background for sure.

-Okay, America just turned into a sombrero and then fish started flying out of it. Just putting that out there.

-"Are they afraid of the truth?" Well...yeah. But who isn't? Put that in your pipe and smoke it (not literally...)

-For some reason, YouTube is not working properly and the video just cut off like 15 seconds early. Somehow, I'm okay with it.

Look, I know that Mike Gravel has no shot in hell of ever being president -- and, thank god, because he's a raving nutbag. But, still, isn't it kind of comforting to know that someone like this is out there, spreading his crazy brand of patriotism across the land like some loopy Johnny Appleseed? I say, let the man into the debates -- even if he doesn't get a single vote come primary-season, the American people deserve to have someone pushing the discourse, especially in an ever-blander, soundbyte-based political landscape.

God bless you, Mike Gravel. You are truly an American original. Now go seek help.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel
Also, big props to Ryan, who found this video.

White-on-White Violence: The YouTube Republican Presidential Debate

For anyone fortunate enough to have missed it, the CNN/YouTube Republican Presidential Debate was held tonight in St. Petersburg, Florida. Something like 5,000 video questions were submitted by YouTubers from across the country (at least one of whom, naturally, bore a striking resemblance to Hank Williams, Jr.) and 35 were chosen by CNN's producers to be shown on a big screen above the stage. Candidates were also given the opportunity to submit their own "YouTube-like" videos (most of which were just campaign ads, and not particularly good ones at that), which were interspersed with the questions.

You might imagine that any forum involving YouTube and Republicans would be a mess but, while it sometimes verged on shitshowiness, the debate was usually just about as dull as eight old white guys arguing about politics should be. The issues ranged from reducing crime in the inner city to the ethics of waterboarding, but the debate focused primarily on the war, immigration, abortion, government spending and gun control.

I will spare you the pain of a full-blown recap, but here are some observations (in no particular order):

-Anderson Cooper was the Worst. Moderator. Ever. Whenever a candidate went over his time limit -- which politicians are wont to do -- Cooper, rather than forcing (or even asking) them to finish, would simply repeat the word "time" over and over again until they were done, as if saying it enough would magically make them stop ignoring him. Also, I find him kind of funny looking.

-Republicans really don't like Hillary Clinton. I'm not exactly sure how she came to symbolize everything that is wrong with the world, but boy do they hate her. In fact, I think that every single candidate, at one point or another, referred to her in some derogatory manner, several of them more than once. It's a sad state of affairs when a United States senator draws more ire in a political debate than Osama Bin Laden, but I'm sure she loved every second of it. Also, it turns out that the Clinton campaign planted one of the more controversial questioners of the night, retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, an openly gay veteran who asked why American soldiers aren't professional enough to serve with homosexuals. Score one for the Ice Queen.

-Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney seem to hate each other almost as much as they hate Hillary. At one point, during a heated discussion about illegal immigration, I was pretty sure that the ostensible front-runners were going to break out into fisticuffs, and that was only five minutes into the debate! I say we just get it over with and make the next debate a steel-cage match between these two (maybe Hillary could guest-referee...)

-What the hell kind of a name is "Mitt," anyway?

-And who the hell is Duncan Hunter? After two hours, all I know about the guy is that he loves border fences. In fact, his greatest accomplishment seems to have been building a 30-foot fence between San Diego and Tijuana (probably after the infamous Marissa Cooper incident of 2004). I'm not sure whether he's more qualified to be president or manager of the Home Depot.

-Republicans shouldn't try to be funny -- it usually ends badly. I'm looking at you, Giuliani...

-I'm finding it really hard not to like Mike Huckabee. I know he doesn't believe in evolution and all, but he's just so damn friendly, and his response to a (remarkably stupid) question about believing the Bible word-for-word was by far the most eloquent and progressive of the bunch. One of my roommates remarked that he doesn't seem presidential because he's "too nice." Plus, he lost more weight than the Subway guy.

-Ron Paul kind of looks an elf, but he has some good ideas about the war. Namely, that we should end it.

-Why are Republicans so squinty all the time? Is it because they hate the light?

-John McCain probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning this nomination, but I think he had the best soundbyte of the night: "We came to power in 1994 looking to change the government, and government changed us." Also, it's a really bad idea to argue with him about torture, something Romney found out the hard way.

-Speaking of Romney, I couldn't help thinking that he was the most presidential of the group, probably because he's really good at not answering questions. Also, he's kind of dreamy, if you're into the stuck-up, rich, Mormon look. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this race came down to him and Huckabee.

-Fred Thompson was pretty much a non-factor and, thank god, because he thinks that overturning Roe v. Wade should be our "#1 focus" (not, you know, ending the war or paying down the massive, crippling debt that it has caused.) Good call, Fred.

-Republicans love Bill Cosby. He is like their one black friend.

-Tom Tancredo is an idiot. For more, read this.

All in all, it was pretty much a waste of two hours. At least now I know what we're dealing with, though, and it isn't pretty. I know that the Democratic candidates aren't exactly the Founding Fathers or anything, but if we can't get one of them elected against this bunch of weirdos, I'm leaving. For reals.

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NATION/111290095/1002

Trent Lott might have some skeletons in his closet

For anyone wondering why the esteemed Sen. Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) suddenly decided to announce his retirement yesterday, despite having been re-elected to a fourth term in 2006, there may be an answer on the horizon.

BigheadDC.com, a political blog based in the nation's capital, is reporting that the former majority leader -- who was widely criticized in 2002 for his comment that if renowned racist Strom Thurmond had been elected president, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" (like, you know, the Civil Rights Movement) and once compared homosexuality to kleptomania -- may have frequented a Seattle-based gay male escort.

Now, I've never heard of BigheadDC.com and I normally wouldn't spread such an unsubstantiated rumor. But, frankly, I don't like Trent Lott -- he strikes me as a bigot and a disgrace to the United States Senate. There's a decent chance that you'll never hear another word about this story because it just isn't true but, God help me, I hope that it is. While it's always sad to see someone who can't face his own identity, if anyone deserves to join the ranks of self-loathing hatemongers like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, it's this guy.

You can read the original story here

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_071127.htm
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/claremont.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37288-2002Dec10?language=printer

Al Gore + George Bush = Loserville

I was watching a story today on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews about the reception that Al Gore attended in the Oval Office for America's Nobel Prize winners. Needless to say, it was awkward for all involved, but at least we got a weird snapshot of the former presidential rivals side-by-side, complete with Gore's "I-may-have-lost-the-election-but-I'm-still-better-than-you" smirk, Bush's trademark shit-eating grin, and everyone else's visible discomfort at being in the middle of this clash of the titans.

Normally I'm not a big fan of shows like Matthews' but, as an example of what happens when these two get too close, he showed this clip from one of the 2000 presidential debates, for which I will be forever grateful:

Can you believe that these two losers were the best choices we had for the most important job in the free world??? Between Gore's constant, nerdy references to the Dingle-Norwood bill (just thinking about him saying the word "Dingle" makes me laugh!) and Bush's obvious lack of knowledge about what the Dingle-Norwood bill is (it's okay, though, because he can "get things done," whatever the hell that means), these guys make Bill Clinton look like Abraham Lincoln. I'm surprised we didn't just give up and elect the president from "The West Wing" as a write-in candidate -- he may not have been "real," but at least he didn't make America cringe every time he opened his mouth. My favorite moment, of course, is when Gore inexplicably gets all up in Bush's face (could you get any creepier?), and Bush gives him that cocky little head nod that so gracefully says "up yours." Classic.

Look, I like Al Gore -- I think he's done a lot for this country over the last 15 years, both in his capacity as vice president and as alarmist spokesman for global warming control. But for all of the people who run around saying he should run again because he would make such a fantastic president, I refer you to this video clip and suggest that we can do better. I'm not going to say that Hillary, or Huckabee, or even Obama is the right person for the job but, come on, he (or she) has to be out there somewhere, right?

If not, here's hoping that whichever two superstars we nominate give us more precious moments like this one that we can laugh about in eight years when we're all trying to sneak across the border into Canada.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/washington/27bush.html?hp