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.

Will Smith hearts Hitler. Wait, what?

From the moral outrage department, movie star (and former Fresh Prince) Will Smith has apparently been taking flak for the last couple of days for a remark he made to a Scottish newspaper that Hitler "didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' ... I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.'"

As of Monday, the Jewish Defamation league, according to TMZ, was "calling on Barack Obama [whom Smith has publicly supported] to repudiate Smith's comments, and [wanted] theaters to pull Smith's new flick 'I Am Legend' from their screens," saying that his words, "spit on the memory of every person murdered by the Nazis. His disgusting words stick a knife in the backs of every veteran who fought (and sometimes died) to save the world from the intentions of Adolf Hitler." For his part, Smith subsequently tried to defuse the situation, issuing a statement that said, "It is an awful and disgusting lie. It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation. Adolf Hitler was a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet."

Seriously, guys? Are we really that sensitive today that you can't even mention Hitler except to denounce him? I think we're all in agreement here that the Holocaust was a travesty (minus a few crazies, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ron Paul), and I'm pretty sure that Will "Get Jiggy With It" Smith is not a neo-Nazi, so what exactly are we getting so riled up about? Frankly, while I don't necessarily agree with Smith's comments -- personally, I'm more inclined to believe that Hitler's rhetoric was a calculated effort to gain power through hatemongering (kind of like President Bush's...) -- I don't think that they are particularly radical. He didn't say that Hitler was a fun guy to be around, or that the Jews had it coming, he just said that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. And...?

Of course, I'm not entirely sure what business Will Smith -- star of "Wild Wild West" and "I, Robot" -- has waxing philosophical about Hitler's motivations, but I don't think he should be crucified for it, either. On the bright side, maybe this will finally teach celebrities not to act like they're experts on everything under the sun just because they read a script about WWII once, or teach the rest of the world not to listen to them if they're talking about anything besides how they did their own stunts (probably not, though, on both counts).

On a deeper level, I think we need, as a society, to be able to discuss historical events like the Holocaust without having to fear this kind of unmitigated backlash, because all this ideological bullying does is to alienate anyone with a different point of view from our own. I know that these are sensitive subjects for a lot of people, but freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution in order to facilitate debate in this country -- are we really choosing, of our own accord, to undermine that?

At least if Will Smith thought that people were "basically good" before this shitstorm, he's probably nice and cynical like the rest of us now. What would Uncle Phil say?

Sources:
Will Smith angry over Hitler comment interpretation [CNN]
Will Smith -- Hitler, Schmitler; He Wasn't That Bad [TMZ]
Smith: 'Hitler was a good person' [Yahoo News]

"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]

Merry Christmas, bitches! [Weekend Links] 12/24/07

-Hollywood is run by big, faceless corporations. Kind of like everything else. [Variety]
-Ron Paul has white pride. [Wizbang Politics]
-Speaking of white pride, Alan Keyes is a bonafide crazy person. [Wonkette]
-The Hillary campaign isn't good with dates. [Politico]
-Remember when R. Kelly taped himself peeing on a teenage girl like seven years ago? So does the state of Illinois, apparently. [The Superficial]
-After getting dumped on basic cable, Bret Michaels is heading back to the stripper-filled well with Rock of Love 2. It's about time someone put Tila Tequila in her place. [Blonde Savant]
-Tom Tancredo drops out, endorses Romney for shared distaste of Mexicans. Classic asshole move. [Huffington Post]
-Matt Taibbi on why Barack Obama is the great white hope. Read it. [Rolling Stone]
-And, finally, drunk Santas! [The Sun]