1) The White House Correspondents Association pretended to be surprised about comedian Michelle Wolf's performance. I say "pretended," because their press release announcing she'd do the dinner included the line that they liked the way she "speaks truth to power" and that she's no-nonsense. After the performance, the WHCA said that her performance did not fit the spirit of the dinner. This means one of two things: Either they didn't do their homework on Michelle Wolf's act (which is a bad sign for the people who are supposed to be doing their homework on the Administration) or they are being disingenuous now. I lean toward the latter, though I can't rule out the former.
2) The performance at the WHCA is traditionally a roast. The comedian of choice comes up and makes fun of the political powers-that-be, the media themselves, and whoever else is in the room. I have no idea why this didn't fit the spirit of the dinner, since it... exactly fits the spirit of the dinner. A quick scan of past hosts show that four of the last dozen have said/done something "controversial," no matter how benign.
3) I watched the whole performance. About 50 percent of her jokes landed as intended. About 30-40 percent weren't funny/didn't land. The remaining 10-20 percent were tasteless/bad jokes. That's not a bad ratio for any comedian. She's the sixth woman to host/perform at the event. She's the first female stand-up comedian of an opposite-party stance since... first female host Paula Poundstone in 1992. No offense to Cecily Strong or Aretha Franklin, but the nature of stand-up comedy is riskier. And most of the other women did so during liberal administrations. I don't know the reason for the reactions, because I'm not a psychiatrist. But I can't rule out her gender as a motivating factor here.
4) Most of her jokes were good. The best one was that Mike Pence looks like what would happen if Anderson Cooper wasn't gay. HILARIOUS. Some of the uproar has been Wolf's treatment of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. None of her jokes about Sarah Huckabee Sanders were about her appearance; they were about lying to the American public and that she is a woman that treats other women badly. She made some quite pointed Handmaid's Tale references, but they weren't about her looks. The jokes about lying should come as no surprise to SHS, as that's the nature of the job. Every press secretary obfuscates, diverts, blurs, confounds, hides, and mischaracterizes the truth. The worst joke of the night was a tasteless abortion joke. But in the end, is a tasteless abortion joke in a 20-minute routine really major news? If the whole controversy is "woman tells a few tasteless jokes," then what are we doing here? This wasn't bullying, as one bad CNN writer put it, because she didn't have any power. (Albert Burneko brilliantly takes that hot take down with a searing critique of his own.)
5) Alyson and I rewatched Stephen Colbert's famous WHCD performance in 2006, with George W. and Laura Bush on the dais. Several Bush aides walked out, and some said that Bush looked upset. After watching it again, Bush himself laughed at most of the jokes, particularly the one about Cheney shooting Colbert in the face. There were many jokes that didn't land, but it seemed everyone was willing to laugh at themselves a bit. Colbert also gave a "Sicilian hello" to Antonin Scalia, who guffawed and slapped his knee. That's the spirit of this event, and both Bushes notably shook Colbert's hand afterward.
6) I would make an argument that Michelle Wolf is a little less established than many of the other hosts have been. Maybe she didn't know how to read the room as well as the others? Maybe in 5 years, she will look back and maybe throw a few punches differently? I don't know. Just an observation.
7) Most people didn't know who Michelle Wolf was before the event. Most probably wouldn't have known who she was after the event. But by making a controversy out of it, you've only given her a greater platform for her comedy. Now, she's on the front pages of news sites because they drew attention to it.
8) Speaking of drawing attention to it, that's my whole problem with this "controversy." As an example, let me tell you a story about the kids. Often, they'll run into a wall or door or fall down or scratch their knee or bonk their head or... [list continues forever] and there will be a momentary pause. They're looking at us, the parents, to read our reaction. If we say "Are you hurt?", they'll start to sniffle and eventually cry. If we say "Ouchie! You're alright!", they pop back up and walk away. I think this was a case in which the media ran to the Administration and asked "Are you hurt?", and the Administration responded to the question.
9) Why do I say that? Because the first reactions to Wolf's comedy were not from the Trump administration or SHS. They were from the media itself. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, most notably, but others, too, joined in on the rudeness/vulgarity/insert-your-adjective-here aspect of the dinner. They didn't actually get administration reaction for a while after the event, but by then the "controversy" had already been percolating. I don't blame SHS and the Trump administration for responding to "Are you hurt?" with a few sniffles and "Yeah, that joke was no fun." But it's a controversy entirely drummed up by the media itself. Maybe that's to cozy up to the Administration as a "we really are the moral arbiters of right/wrong, and you're wronged this time." Maybe it's just pearl-clutching by the media. At any rate, this was a media event that drew media attention that didn't need a national audience. It was a bad joke or two at a trade association. It was not deserving of a national audience. The right response is "Ouchie! You're alright."
10) Which brings me to my larger point: What is the purpose of the WHCD anymore? These days, it seems like an opportunity to dress up and hobnob with celebrities and whichever politicians show up. I kind of feel like Trump is right to choose not to attend. Is the event to pat other journalists on the back for their work in covering the highest of high politics? There's a coziness with its subjects that big-J Journalism never really wrestled with post-Trump. It's a symbiosis and encouragement of news-making behavior that Journalism has fed on like a lamprey. Journalism didn't learn any lessons from the 2016 election, and has only grown more parasitic. The "controversy" of Michelle Wolf has only obscured that her sharpest jokes were about the media itself: "You guys love breaking news, and you did it! You broke it!" she joked about CNN. "You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off him." Amen.
Senate Midterms update
There have been a few changes in the Senate races that I think push it a little closer to a contest to flippable for the Democrats. While I still think it's unlikely that the Senate flips, a few new polls show some new battlegrounds for Democrats in an absolutely terrible map for them. Reminder: They have to win two more seats than they lose in order to flip the Senate.
First, the bad news for the Dems: Bill Nelson has a fight on his hands in Florida against incumbent Gov. Rick Scott. As much as Democrats have to hold on to their own battleground states in order to flip the Senate, I'd argue that this has suddenly become one of the two or three hardest to retain for the Dems, meaning they'd have to win three GOP seats to take control of the Senate.
The good news for the Dems is that things have changed in two states to make a Democratic flip feasible. In Texas, Beto O'Rourke is within a few points of Ted Cruz according to a Quinnipiac poll. Some of the better political pundits I read are skeptical that he could win, but if you're within single digits, it's not impossible, especially since O'Rourke's main handicap is the public doesn't know him well. O'Rourke is a charismatic guy and far more likeable than Cruz, so as people become more knowledgeable about him, the margin may narrow further. The other major pick-up would be the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Bob Corker in Tennessee, where polls show a lead for the Democrat, the former mayor of Nashville. This is surprising in a deep red state like Tennessee. Polls also indicate slim leads or ties for Democrats in battleground states, like Missouri's own Claire McCaskill and Arizona (Jeff Flake's old seat, would be flipped).
My current guess is Tennessee flips, Arizona flips, Florida/Missouri/North Dakota/West Virginia all barely stay blue, Texas stays red. That'd be +2 for Democrats, but Indiana and Nevada could go either way right now. I'm waffling on Florida and Missouri. If Democrats win Nevada, Indiana would be a moot point — they'd have control of the Senate. But if the GOP wins Nevada, the Dems would have to keep Indiana to take control of the Senate. Nevada — a 1-point GOP lead in the latest poll — is the key.
Name of the Year update
I'm feeling very good about my pick to win the Name of the Year. That's because it's in the finals, and my pick of Dr. Narwhals Mating (my pick) is in the finals against Jimbob Ghostkeeper. I'm really proud of my prognostication this year, as I picked 6 of the Elite Eight. I correctly called Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper emerging, and Miracle Crimes making a good run. I also called Makenlove Petit-Fard v. Rev. Dongo Pewee in the Fruithandler, where I also correctly picked the 14-seed upset by Obra Kernodle IV and tabbed Dr. Megha Panda to have a good charge. In the Dragonwagon, I had Quindarious Gooch making the Elite Eight and called the early exit of top seeds Ceejhay French-Love and La Royce Lobster-Gaines, but I didn't call Delicious Peters' march to the Final Four. Finally, I called Shaka Licorice's early exit and called 7 of 8 first-round matches in the Chrotchtangle. I didn't have Gandalf Hernandez going quite as far, but I did have he and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd duking it out in the Sweet 16. All in all, I'm incredibly proud of my prognostication skills, and I'll probably buy myself a Coke or something if I'm right and Dr. Narwhals Mating wins. (UPDATE: He's losing in voting... this is a travesty.) This has been "Andrew indulges in a little silliness."
Summary Judgments
In Japan, it's not Ronald McDonald, but Donald McDonald. This story explains why. • • • John Green had this quote in the excellent Vlogbrothers series that made me think: "I am attracted to information that is novel and surprising even though that kind of information is often not the most useful or accurate... Like any predator, I listen quietly to what is loud and look at what is bright, and that can make it easy to distract me or mislead me." That one hit me hard. • • • I can't read this story without feeling sympathy for Caster Semenya, whose track and field governing body is almost explicitly out to get her. • • • If you haven't read Kevin Wong's work on Peanuts, this is a great new article to start on. It's about how Lucy and Schroeder explored dysfunctional relationships. • • • This is a video of Future Roland. • • • I'm running again, but I've had a couple bad runs. I was kind of sick on Monday, so that might explain why I couldn't run hardly at all that day, but I'm simply not having the same results as I did last year. That's frustrating me. I mean, I'm up to 2.75 miles, but that's with a few walking breaks thrown in. The Warrior Dash is about a month from now, and I just don't feel like I'm where I want to be physically. :(
