Judging by the lagging book sales of the latest Clinton bio ("For Love Of Politics") the American people are growing tired of reading about the Clintons. But are they tired of voting them into the Oval Office? Hard to say! At this point, all that's clear is most – but not all! – avid Clinton aficionados' interest waned somewhere around the publication of the 39th or 40th book, or the 900th page of Bill Clinton's "My Life." (That, and Hillary Clinton's crazyeyes totally clash with her perky red pants-suit.)
Meanwhile, John McCain would have picked up the last few books on his arch-nemesis but he was rather tied up at the time (i.e. otherwise engaged in politely slamming his top political rival while reminding everyone of his venerable war service).
Wedding crashers, take heed! Anyone thinking of slipping into the upcoming Davison/Fox nuptials in D.C. will have to get past secret service first, owing to the fact that Chelsea Clinton (and her somewhat more famous parental units) will be in attendance.
THE anticipated presence of Chelsea Clinton and her parents at an Oct. 27 wedding in Washington, D.C., has the planners in a tizzy. Chelsea's childhood best friend, Nicole Davison, is marrying hedge-fund analyst Michael Fox. Chelsea, the maid of honor, will be there with her parents. Guests are being warned not to bother Bill and Hillary Clinton. When the ex-president hosted the couple's engagement party at his Chappaqua home, some guests were told to be on their "best behavior" and avoid talking to the family about inappropriate topics.
And, judging by the tone of this Page Six item, those calculating Clintons are already doing everything they can to avoid detracting attention from the bride and groom having to fraternize with the general public. Meanwhile, though they won't be able to have their pictures taken with the dynamic duo, fellow guests can still look forward to hearing Hillary's awkward, high-pitched fake laugh at all the appropriate moments in the wedding speeches.
Time goes by so fast! It's only Wednesday, and yet it seems already so much has happened. TMZ overlord Harvey Levin is arguably having the Best Week Ever, propelled by the continuing success of his rumor-mongering website and the (disconcerting) news that his new mudslinging tv series leads the ratings in syndication.
But who's having the worst? That would be senator Barack Obama, who's been dealt not one, but two difficult blows over the past 48 hours.
Sadly, Vanity Fair no longer has the monopoly on covers featuring megalomaniacal egotists clothed only in their overinflated sense of self-worth. [Folio]
Like Katie Couric before him, presidential hopeful Barack Obama admits to having zero interest in wearing an American flag on his lapel.
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest,” the Democratic presidential candidate told the reporter Tuesday in Iowa City, Iowa. “Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great. Hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
Ah, the youthful voice of inexperience…
Which former president (now married to another presidential hopeful) took a fairly obvious swipe at his wife's biggest Democratic rival by saying, "in terms of experience, [he] was closer to Senator Obama, I suppose, in 1988" when he decided not to run? [Stereohyped]
From WaPo: "Hillary Clinton's laugh is now being analyzed, scrutinized and, yes, mocked as if it were a sound barrier on her glide path to the Democratic presidential nomination: Is it real? Is it fake? Is it a diabolically clever attempt to portray her as a human being?" You be the judge.
CNBC's Maria Bartiromo and MSNBC's Chris Matthews to moderate the first Republican Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign that focuses on economic issues, reports TVNewser.
"The objective of the debate is to draw out the important differences on the candidates' positions on topics like taxes, trade, inequality and social security," said Bartiromo in a press release.
Topics that won't be discussed: (1) The Republican candidates' (save Mitt Romney) complete and utter inability to stay married to their original spousal partners and (2) what that says about their innate willingness to board a private jet and fly around the world with a certain high-profile CNBC anchorwoman in tow.
Apparently not every girl wants to grow up to be just like Paris Hilton. During a recent appearance on The Tyra Banks' Show, presidential hopeful Barack Obama revealed that his own daughter is taking a prepubescent stand against the heiress.
"This isn't a Hilton hotel, is it?" he said his 9-year-old daughter, Malia, will ask as the family tours the country – because the little one keeps up with the news and does not approve of Paris Hilton, he says.
Because, as Obama says, "parents have to realize, kids want limits, they want structure…If we had more parenting, then the kinds of influences we see on television don't matter."
For now, however, the kinds of influences we see on television do matter, so Malia (and, of course, American voters) should respectfully disregard the fact that all of this was said during an appearance on The Tyra Banks' Show. [People]
Earlier, we told you about Frank Rich's poignant editorial in Sunday's Times about the dangers inherent in the Democratic Party's seemingly unwavering confidence in Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. But for those of you who hate politics, generally find op-eds boring, and were far too hungover to buy the paper, SNL's gone ahead and summarized Hillary's political machinations and her assessment of the other candidates into one satirical disturbingly accurate opening sketch.
If you buy into the Washington logic that a flawless campaign is one that doesn't make gaffes, never goes off-message and never makes news, then this analysis makes sense. The Clinton machine runs as smoothly and efficiently as a Rolls. And like a fine car, it is just as likely to lull its driver into complacent coasting and its passengers to sleep. What I saw on television last Sunday was the incipient second coming of the can't-miss 2000 campaign of Al Gore.
–Excerpted from Frank Rich's Op-Ed column in Sunday's New York Times, entitled "Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?" [NYT]
Rudy Giuliani invokes the new testament in order to justify his adulterous affair-turned-third marriage to Judy Stish Nathan Giuliani and implore conservative Bible Belt states to reserve their judgment come voting time.
"I'm guided very, very often about, `Don't judge others, lest you be judged,"' Giuliani told CBN interviewer David Brody. "I'm guided a lot by the story of the woman that was going to be stoned, and Jesus put the stones down and said, 'He that hasn't sinned, cast the first stone,' and everybody disappeared.
Which totally explains why Giuliani's estranged children are off campaigning for Obama.
In yesterday's HuffPo, writer Sam Stein delved into the mystery behind the "missing" John Edwards webisodes that suddenly (and inexplicably!) disappeared from the net without a trace.
Unfortunately, the overambitious piece quickly turns into a conspiracy theory ("Innocuous Videos Suddenly Shrouded In Secrecy!") whereas an inside source tells is this is less an instance of "campaign stonewalling" and more a "boring copyright dispute."
All of which makes great reading for those who enjoy curling up by the fireplace and immersing themselves in a real-life unsolved mystery fairly uncomplicated legal matter.
Earlier, we made the astonishing discovery that personal politics and overall attractiveness are not always inextricably linked. As a result, many of us are willing to throw caution to the wind, tacitly avoid the Roe v. Wade debate or even look the other way on trivial issues like nuclear armament and mass genocide all in the name of sheer physical attraction. So we thought, why start looking at other foreign leaders when we've got some bona fide eye candy right here in the United States of America? And that's when we decided it was time to take a look at the real running mates: the prospective first ladies.
In that spirit, we humbly present to you the women most likely to relocate to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. come inauguration time. So, ignoring for a moment which one is married to pint-sized marionette Dennis Kucinich (Elizabeth!) which one has a tongue ring (Elizabeth, again!) which one loves her dog almost as much as her Louis Vuitton bag (Judith Stish Ross Nathan Giuliani!) please judge them all on a completely superficial looks-only basis.
The poll to follow, but be forewarned that we've eliminated Elizabeth Edwards and William Jefferson Clinton from contention because cancer jokes aren't very funny and we didn't trust ourselves to write about Bill without resorting to a "close, but no cigar" quip.
And today in tasteless news: "A supporter of Rudy Giuliani's [Abraham Sofaer] is throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican's presidential campaign."
'Great,' we thought, 'another transparent effort to milk a national tragedy for all its worth and garner Giuliani with undue praise and attention.' But apparently we were wrong.
Sofaer said he had nothing to do with the "$9.11 for Rudy" theme.
"There are some young people who came up with it," Sofaer said when reached by telephone Monday evening. He referred other questions to Giuliani's campaign.
"I'm just providing support for him. He's an old friend of mine," Sofaer said of Giuliani.
Bizarre! But what else could the $9.11 represent? Giuliani's "emergency" fund? A tribute to Reno: 911? Or, perhaps, $3.04 for each of Rudy's three marriages?
Sadly, nobody knows for sure. Well, except for that group of secretive "young people."
Although we can't seem to shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.
Yesterday, Ben Smith of Politico wrote a longish, somewhat confusing article (provocatively titled "Clinton Campaign Kills Negative Story") detailing a glorified pissing contest between Hillary Clinton and GQ magazine. In said piece, ostensibly written in critique of agenda-driven journalism, the Clintons are depicted as calculating, evil and—worse still—analogous to Tom Cruise while GQ is portrayed as a spineless jellyfish,* who values self-preservation more than the basic principles of the First Amendment.
In other words, it's a completely subjective take on the importance of objectivity.
After an atypically serious morning, we were fortunate enough to encounter this stunning example of unadulterated headline greatness.
Fred Thompson Fears Presidential Run Will Typecast Him As Politician.
Is it wrong that we're not sure if this is one of those times where The Onion is, uncharacteristically, playing it straight? [The Onion]
Mitt Romney's camp continues to deny knowing anything about www.phonyfred.org (a now-defunct website created ostensibly to slander fellow Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson) despite the fact that the site's founder apparently bears a tenuous connection to someone loosely affiliated with the campaign.
Fortunately, Thompson's communications director Todd Harris reacts with the appropriate amount of decorum and restraint, immediately classifying Romney's response as a "half-baked cover-up attempt [that] does not even pass the laugh test."
At least he got that last part right.
Two days after Barack Obama's $3 million fundraiser at Oprah Winfrey's home, his democratic rival John Edwards has announced that he'll be taking five supporters to New Orleans to work on rebuilding homes.
"Instead of offering you a fancy dinner or photo-ops with celebrities, we’re giving you the opportunity to create the change we need to see in this country,” said Edwards.
In response, a somewhat distracted Barack Obama fired back, "What? Sorry, I'm kind of busy counting my giant piles of money right now. Can this wait?" [CNN]
Editorial Director
