Bloggers wonder if the writers’ strike is finally over, analyze the CPAC speeches of President Bush and John McCain, and react to Hillary Clinton’s self-described worst fashion mistakes in Us Weekly.
Strike through: Former Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner announced Thursday that media companies had reached a deal with the Writers Guild of America to end the lengthy strike. Bloggers alternate between celebrating the return of television and doubting whether the WGA will finalize the deal.
Entertainment blog Defamer is in the latter camp. “So there you have it: Hands have been shaken! Crucial Guild meetings have been dismissed as mere formalities!” snipes Mark, continuing, “Everyone should get ready to head back to work as soon as five minutes from now, undeterred by the inevitable WGA e-mail blast suggesting that Eisner should probably go back to keeping himself busy dreaming up new Prom Queen plotlines instead of trying to call off the picket lines.” MovieHawk also waxes skeptical: “After months of negotiation, reruns, and alternative programming, the writers’ strike is over, according to…Michael Eisner? Sure, why not?”
But Christine Y. Chen at Foreign Policy’s Passport cheers the news: “Not sure what I’m most excited about: no longer having to resort to watching ‘The Real Housewives of Orange County,’ or welcoming back my beloved writers from ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ or ‘The Colbert Report.’ ” John Scott Lewinski at Wired’s Underwire theorizes what the strike’s end will mean for the script market: “Many well-paid Hollywood writers had very little to do for the last three months besides carry a picket sign and write spec scripts. … Most big name writers don’t waste time with spec scripts. Their motto is ‘no money, no work,’ and they wait for studio or production company writing assignments that guarantee a payday. So, Hollywood buyers are intrigued to know there could be an unusually high number of scripts up for sale from name writers in the first weeks after the strike.”
“We don’t know why, and we don’t know how,” writes Mark Wilson at tech blog Gizmodo. “But the man assured us that this whole horrible travesty is finally coming to an end with writers returning to work soon.” Then he adds “Wait, we just remembered something…TV kinda sucked.”
Read more blogger response to Eisner’s announcement.
Maverick’s choice: President Bush gave an “implicit endorsement” of almost-Republican nominee John McCain’s conservative credentials when he spoke at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Friday. The president remarked that “soon we will have a nominee who will carry a conservative banner into this election and beyond.” McCain himself spoke to CPAC Thursday, in an appearance some speculated would be booed by the right-wing audience. Bloggers parse both Bush’s and McCain’s speeches to CPAC.
Righty Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters frames the choice facing conservatives: “Either we help set the table and join in public policy and use our influence to help shape a Republican administration, or we abandon McCain and get four or eight years of statist policy that could take a generation to undo. Even worse, the conservatives might watch McCain get elected without their assistance – and watch themselves get marginalized as a movement for a very, very long time.” Daily Conservative Patrick Britton puts the decision more bluntly: “It’s clear that McCain is far from the conservative choice. He has spent a lot of his career thumbing us in the eye and now that he is the only one that has a chance of winning we have to think about if we can trust him or not. We also must look at Hillary and the contrasting administration that she would run. What is worse, a liberal or a moderate?”
”[D]on’t be fooled by the rally-around-McCain mood sweeping some parts of the GOP: Several members have told me privately they would strongly consider sitting out the election if McCain wins the nomination,” warns Jim VandeHei at Politico’s congressional blog the Crypt, continuing, “The reasons are varied: Some are skeptical of his conservatism; others, worried about this temper.” But the Carpetbagger Report’s liberal Steve Benen sees a more unified GOP base, noting that in his CPAC speech, “[T]he Arizona senator told the far-right crowd most of what it wanted to hear. … [A]s it turns out, much of the virulently anti-McCain contingent could be won over after all. It took one speech, in which the senator reminded them that they agree with him more than they disagree with them.” And at WashingtonPost campaign blog the Trail, Peter Baker notes Bush’s support for McCain is significant “since the two battled fiercely for the Republican nomination in 2000 and have quarreled in the seven years since over issues such as taxes, torture and the execution of the Iraq war.”
Read more blogger response to McCain’s CPAC speech.
Hillary’s dos and don’ts: In this week’s issue of Us magazine, Hillary Clinton presents a fashion spread of her worst sartorial choices. Bloggers chuckle at the senator’s attempt at self-critique.
“Us Magazine dispatches the fashion police to ticket Hillary’s less fashionable moments, and Hillary cooperates(!)” crowsPolitico Ben Smith, awarding “best outfit excuse” to Hillary’s comment “‘It’s not my fault. It was the ‘60s.’”
Word Nerd Hugh Ryan writes that “it’s nice to see Hillary can retain her sense of humor about her clothes. … For someone who needs to shore up every female voter to get the nomination, and humanize herself to a public that is used to being told she’s a control-freak robot, the spread is politically brilliant.”
“She even makes fun of her wedding dress!” exclaimsGawker. “I don’t know if I fully believe the self deprecation, but it mostly seems silly and kind of fun. Or maybe it’s terrible. I can’t tell anymore.”
Read more of the blogosphere on Hillary’s Us magazine spread.