<![CDATA[Gawker: profiles in courage]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: profiles in courage]]> http://gawker.com/tag/profilesincourage http://gawker.com/tag/profilesincourage <![CDATA[Mood of The Right: Cautious Insanity]]> What's going on at The Corner, National Review's online peek into the id of the Conservative base? Jonah Goldberg, in his role as television-raised idiot manchild of The Right, has been posting weird movie clips all day. Kathryn Jean Lopez, Fairy Queen of NRO, has just been posting the crazier selections from her amazing inbox. Mark Hemingway doesn't really understand the laws surrounding "politcking" very well. And this is a particularly admirable example of "the polls are wrong" wishful thinking:

Tracking, Not Polling [Mark Steyn]

A non-poll-derived analysis:

I am not running for President. You, the gentle reader, are not running for President. The only two people who are running for President, Obama and McCain, are going to states and sending advertising money to other states that don’t even match the public polls. For example, Pennslyvania is colored a ‘dark blue’, yet both Obama and McCain are visiting the state. ‘Dark blue’ or ‘light blue’ is the color of Iowa, yet both Obama and McCain are there. Many polls say that Georgia is a ‘toss-up’, yet neither Obama or McCain are visiting that state. Since the only two people running for President are performing actions entirely differently than the public polling, one can either say that the presidential candidates are just running around states randomly and are dumb, or it is the possibility that the public polling is not accurate.

From my perspective, it has been sheer comedy watching pundits and observers attempt to ‘rationalize’ the candidates’ visits to states the public polls say are not in play. When McCain and Palin hip hop across Pennslyvania, is it because the public polls are wrong? NO! It is because McCain is doing a ‘hail mary’ strategy to launch all efforts on Pennslyvania in order to win it as a last ditch effort to save his campaign. What about Obama visiting Pennslyvania, is it a suggestion the public polls are wrong? NO! It is because Obama is only going there to respond to McCain and clean up whatever mess he makes. What about when McCain went to New Hampshire? Could it be the polls were not the reality on the ground? NO! It is because McCain is senile. So how does this explain Palin going to Iowa which is considered a ‘lock’ to Obama by polling? Could the polls be wrong and that it may be more competitive than we thought? NO! The only possible answer is that Palin had gone completly rouge* and is going to Iowa to jumpstart here 2012 presidential campaign... But why is Obama going to Iowa then? Could it, possibly, be the polls in that state are more competitive than we think? NOOOO...

(*I don't know what Palin going "completely rouge" means but I like the sound of it.)

Ha ha ha. Also, Jonah Goldberg took a break from posting '80s comedy YouTubes to suggest that an imminent Obama victory has angered the king of the sea.

(And Andy McCarthy is still going on about Khalidi and Ayers.)

Elsewhere: RedState is down.

Glenn Reynolds, the most intellectually dishonest "libertarian" on the Blogosphere, reports high turnout at polling places this morning, along with reader reports begging him to at least claim that "high turnout favors Republicans." He can't, so prays for someone "who knows more than I do" to look at the numbers and deliver a blatantly misleading piece of delusional nonsense Glenn can link to with minimal comment, preserving his at-this-point in-his-own-mind-only reputation as a serious-minded centrist. Then he talks about sex toys and lawsuits and black panthers and fungi for a while.

It's going to be a miserable four years everyone.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5076358&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[SAG Insurrection Introduces Brave New Levels of Seething Internecine Hatred]]> In a savage coup of upstart infidels, the Unite for Strength ticket outlasted incumbent Alan Rosenberg's MembershipFirst slate in Thursday's SAG board election, thus opening a new era of moderation, peace and progress in Hollywood's rancorous labor wars. Or... not. Maybe? It's too soon to tell, frankly, with new leadership including Amy Brenneman, Scott Bakula, Adam Arkin, '05 loser Morgan Fairchild and Assaf "Brother of Sacha Baron" Cohen making up only a theoretical majority at best; studio-friendly Variety says the SAG/AMPTP squabble's days are numbered, union flunky Nikki Finke says that's "simpleton" piffle, and here in the middle, we can't help but notice that SAG's contract-negotiating team isn't changing at all. Still, we look to the future with cautious optimism perhaps best evoked by Rosenberg's concession on Thursday:

In a statement, Rosenberg extended an olive branch of sorts. "I congratulate those members newly elected to our board of directors," he said, "and I look forward to working closely with each of them.

"Now it's time to work in tandem on behalf of SAG members throughout the country, to get a fair contract we can all be proud of. A union divided benefits only the employers, and SAG members deserve nothing less than unified, focused leadership," he said.

Indeed — focus on this, bitches, hinted MemFirst spokeswoman and board member Anne-Marie Johnson: The Rosenberg gang still controls Hollywood, 37-18. The victors are having none of it, though; expect newly designated U4S henchman Assaf Cohen to fire back with his brother's withering official response by the end of the day.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5052389&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA["First Dude" Todd Palin Is Kind Of Adorbs!]]> Greta Van Susteren scored an interview with Todd "First Dude" Palin last night — he actually came from a smaller town than Wasilla?! — that will give you a better idea of what everyone wants to know about Sarah Palin, which is to say "what she was like in high school." The answer is not Tracey Flick! Mysteries still remain: he claims she was "shy" but does that mean "shy" in an aloof popular way or "shy" in a "it is actually conceivable that she conceived Track the night she lost her virginity" way? Also: Sarah Palin looked exactly like a character on the cover of a Sweet Valley High book. Anyway, Todd seems generally sweet and if not exactly conveying of a towering intellect he at least seems to appreciate the value of diplomacy: when asked about his wife's high school basketball career he says: "She wasn't a player who you would see in all of the stats, but she was a valuable part of the team."

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5050668&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Britney Spears: 'I don't know who you think I am, bitch, but I'm not that person']]> Just when you thought you were tired of reading about Britney Spears, the next issue of Rolling Stone promises a DOOZY of a cover story that's sure to be one of the most explosive reads of this young year. The story reportedly includes boob job confessions (!), shopping mall sobfests (!!) and cameos from Justin Timberlake so "vulgar" that the NY Daily News refused to put them in print (!!!). While vulgarity has become a staple in virtually every Britney story these days, this disturbing excerpt in which Britney's Amex Black card gets declined at the mall pretty much redefines the word:

A wail emerges from the cubby — guttural, vile, the kind of base animalistic shriek only heard at a family member's deathbed. 'Fuck these bitches,' screams Britney, each word ringing out between sobs. She's spitting, growling ... 'Fuck you, fuck people, fuck, fuck, fuck.'"

All this in just an excerpt? Forgive us if our schadenfreude is showing, but we're waking up at 7am on Friday, hungover or not, to get our hands on this one.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=353390&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Just How "Close" Were Hillary's Right Hand Lady And John Cusack?]]> This month's Vogue—the one with not-so-reformed shoplifter Winona Ryder on the cover—profiles Hillary Clinton's traveling chief-of-staff Huma Abedin, in an article that both reveals more and says less about Abedin than the Observer's April profile of her. (The Observer piece, as Vogue helpfully points out, was done without Abedin's cooperation.) Abedin comes across as an incredibly effective, stylish, attractive, über-woman without whom her boss would be lost. (This is accurate!) And also a control freak. There's this telling bit when the writer, Rebecca Johnson, is allowed to look at Abedin's BlackBerry—but only if she agrees not to write who's in it. ("Some of the most famous names in America." Mmkay!) But then, why the non sequitur about John Cusack and Lance Armstrong?

Looking through Abedin's closet, you can see the progression from a young college graduate who wore Ann Taylor suits, thrilled to land a job as an intern in the White House, to, eleven years later, a Chanel-wearing, deeply confident 32-year-old woman whose BlackBerry contains some of the most famous names in America—she lets me look only if I agree not to say who. (I do manage to learn she has been close with actor John Cusack and Lance Armstrong.)
Uh, ok! Is "has been close" the new euphemism for, at least in Cusack's case, "dated for two years"? We're going with... yes.

Hillary's Secret Weapon [Vogue, not online]
Hillary's Mystery Woman: Who Is Huma? [NYO]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=281351&view=rss&microfeed=true