CliqueClack TV
TV SHOWS COLUMNS FEATURES CHATS QUESTIONS

The White House gets crunk up in this joint

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a massive political dork.  In fact, I am such a political dork I have a blog using my dorkitude to explain politics to people that don’t share my — well, let’s just call it “passion.” Most people, for instance, upon being told that that Brian Williams (who timeshares being my favorite non-fake news anchor with Rachel Maddow) would be hosting a two hour special about life in the Obama White House would have, like the rest of my family, rolled their eyes and turned to the baseball game. And I? I set my DVR and eagerly awaited until no one was around to make fun of how excited I got while I watched it.

What I had hoped for is what every political nerd hopes for — a re-enactment of The West Wing that has the side benefit of being entirely real. I wanted to jump to meetings and perhaps see Rahm Emanuel cut a bitch. I wanted to watch meetings and see the process of how people worked while simultaneously ogling my two favorite White House hotties, Reggie Love and Jon Favreau. (Hey, either of you — I’m single and would be totally okay with your long hours. Call me?)

What I got was slightly different.

This is not to say it was bad — in fact, it was pretty much bordering on awesome. But it was different from what I was expecting. It certainly had West Wing moments, but it was sort of like The West Wing 2.0, and by 2.0 I mean “The lovechild of Aaron Sorkin and MTV Cribs.

There were the polarized, extremely over-colored “holy crap look how awesome this stuff is that costs a bazillion dollars!” shots, not to mention the absolutely hilarious music choices. (My personal favorite? Upon viewing the president we were treated to Gwen Stefani and Eve singing “Let Me Blow Ya Mind.” Now, my mind is regularly blown by this president for a lot of great reasons (unlike Bush, where it was for a lot of bad reasons).  Particularly lately, after his stellar speech from Cairo, I am beyond blown away. I am in love. I sort of watched the entire thing like I was some sort of anime character with my eyes in the shape of luminescent hearts. But still, Eve and Gwen Stefani? Really, Brian Williams? That is almost as disappointing as the fact that I thought Right Said Fred’s “I’m Too Sexy” was playing in the background for the Rahm Emanuel segment when it, in fact, was not.

As the music choices may suggest, Brian Williams spent a lot of the time oohing and ahing over the new administration and how hip and happening it was with all of it’s young hottie staffers, not to mention how he seems similarly afflicted with what I will, from here on out, refer to as “hearty eyes syndrome.”

That’s not to say he didn’t point out a whole bunch of inevitable ridiculousness (Obama is long winded, Rahm is kind of a douchebag, sometimes Robert Gibbs’ press conference talking points backfire, the sky is blue, the grass is green, etc., etc.), but it’s pretty clear that he, like a majority of the country, has fallen victim to how delightfully charming this president (and his entire staff/family) are. I mean, the main snacks of the west wing are apples and M&Ms. How adorably five years old is that? It’s like they’re in kindergarten. Only it’s totally awesome political kindergarten.

But the star of the show was not the president, or first lady, or Rahm Emanuel. No, easily the hugest star of this entire two hour special was the new first puppy, Bo.  And Brian Williams was utterly infatuated with him and not even doing a good job of hiding it. I mean I don’t blame him, because that dog is freaking adorable. But my suggestion to Brian Williams is that, if you are interviewing the first lady or president, perhaps you shouldn’t be so obvious that what you’re really doing is scratching their dog behind the ears. I mean, that’s what I would do, but this is why I’m me, not NBC’s star news anchor.

After these two hours (which re-airs tonight at 8 on NBC with “added footage”, apparently), were this administration any other administration, I would have been bored. I would have shaken my head, sighed, and wondered why I had foregone watching, say, a Daisy of Love or Clean House re-run. But thanks to this administration, with all the lovely people and stories (and puppies) that it has to offer, I find myself running to NBC’s site and watcing exclusive web content and re-watching the entire thing from beginning to end. I even find myself sort of appreciating the music. For Bush or Clinton, it might have been a little much. But the underlying message, I think, is that this is now a modern, dope-ass White House, to which I say — word.

Photo Credit: NBC News

Categories: | Clack | The West Wing |

19 Responses to “The White House gets crunk up in this joint”

June 5, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Too bad this isn’t online anywhere. After they made fun about it on Conan and The Daily Show I really want to see it, but it hasn’t popped up anywhere.

Hey and it’s not fair disclosing you’re single. Now I have to fight the urge to sound cute in my comments and not sprinkle them with smileys *sigh*

June 5, 2009 at 7:16 PM

1. This is online and I linked it in the article, but just in case, have it again.
2. International dating never works, dude. Has James Bond taught you nothing?

June 5, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Don’t tell me if George Clooney was commenting on this from his villa at lake Como that you wouldn’t start getting all nervous and giggly and wouldn’t start adding smileys to everything. Pffft.

*must resist adding smileys*

And I’m already watching it so shush ;-)

Dammit!

June 5, 2009 at 7:35 PM

The Cloonster has always creeped me out, to be honest. I’ve never really gotten the fuss.

June 5, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Maybe it’s just me then… on the other hand you’d most likely be unable to guess which celebrity would make me all nervous too *snicker*

Interestingly enough you bring up 007. Maybe all it would take is for you to be a better spy than Vesper ;-)

And maybe Daniel Craig would never use winking smileys…

June 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM

I was pissed off the whole time that the oval office was yellow because of Bush. The West Wing is now so dated! :)

Yeah the music was HORRIBLE, I felt like I was watching something produced by high school students. Oh yeah… it’s on NBC.

June 5, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Yikes… it’s NOT blocked for me on nbc.com

There you go… wow… woooow… thanks a ton Julia.

June 5, 2009 at 8:49 PM

So I’m watching this now, and I’m wondering how the heck did Clinton have the time, or the privacy, to get some nookie in the oval office?

June 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM

The question I have is how George W. managed to choke on a pretzel. I guess they both indeed had time left unattended. Or maybe Bush had someone just like Clinton to take care of “pretzel problems”…

June 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM

I think it would be interesting to compare this look to the one NBC did early in the Bush administration… “Inside the Real West Wing.”

From a organizational standpoint, and not a political one (because I wouldn’t want it to degenerate into a political fist fight). I think the concept of how the West Wing reinvents itself with each new administration. On one hand, you’d think that there is some ultimately efficient set up, but on the other than an organizational structure is organic to the people within it. Ok, nerd-speak off.

June 6, 2009 at 6:49 AM

I didn’t understand your second-to-last sentence, I guess you meant “on the other hand”?

First of all is the other video about the George W. Bush Administration (I think you mean that one, right?) available online somewhere? I’d love to compare.

Second, I think you’d have to consider one huge factor: Cheney. And the other: Chuckles.

I’m sorry but I’d expect the Bush Administration to be a little more like a daycare center. I mean seriously the guy came to germany and couldn’t stop talking about the pig roast. Talk about priorities. Compare that to the visit by Obama to KZ Buchenwald and the speech he gave (also available in full online at the msnbc.com website). I mean do you think George W. can do such a visit without the possibility of making a fool of himself?

But what really scares me is how close it all came to having Sarah Palin in the White House. “Idiocracy” isn’t that far away I guess… I can’t express how happy I am Obama won.

June 6, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Yes, it was a typo.

I also think its a good idea to steer clear of actual political issues on a Television Commentary website.

The comparison I was making was simply of the organizational structure of the West Wing. While some positions are the same from Administration to Administration, responsibilities and scope change. As a Government Major in college with a strong emphasis on the Executive Branch, I nerd out about things like that.

June 6, 2009 at 8:30 PM

I’m not versed enough anyway. I guess I understand what you’re getting. You mean in some administrations some people manage more than in other administrations – most likely because of their capabilities or because some Presidents like to only hand certain responsibilities to certain people to keep a level of trust among all of his staff – or control. I mean I don’t have a ton of insight but “The West Wing” as a TV show explained a lot to me as a german – I guess I understand your government better when it comes to that than my own since we didn’t have such a TV show (or at least we didn’t have one that was that elaborate, we had a knockoff that wasn’t that good).

And in the end you most likely just were talking shop and geeking out on it which I completely understand. It’s fun talking about stuff you know about. To be honest I’d love to hear about what you know about it but that’s a face to face conversation we’ll most likely never manage to get around to :-)

June 7, 2009 at 2:15 AM

I wholly agree, Ivey, this is a television commentary site and it would be nice to keep the discussion to television. With the exception of Sebastion getting into commentary that really ISN’T pertinent to a discussion about television, the only other form of political commentary here was Julia’s brief gushing over Obama and unnecessary dig at Bush. Both were out of place, off-topic and ripe to incite a “discussion” ready to devolve into a flame war.

I enjoy CliqueClack *because* it has, until this article, remained out of the political fray. Admittedly, this was only a toe in the water, but I’m hoping that’s the only political ripple we’ll see here. I rarely visit TVSquad any more because of that and today it’s really a shadow of what it once was and I believe that’s in no small part because of the overly-frequent political commentary found there. I would hate to see CliqueClack slowly morph into TVSquad 2.0, with nothing differentiating other than the design of the sites.

Discussing politics these days I think is far more inflammatory than discussing religion. Really nothing good is going to come from it, online at least. And for the record I don’t care for either of the 2 presidents mentioned here. That’s as far as I’m going to go with that.

Now I think I’ll go watch some Bugs Bunny. Cartoons and politics are both often ridiculous, but cartoons always make me feel better!

June 7, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I agree and disagree. As I said, I think you’ve got to keep it separate. At the same time though, its hard not to let some of your opinions seep out when you’re reviewing a show like this. As an example, if the West Wing (GREATEST SHOW EVER… Sorry, that slips out from time to time) had still been on the air, it would be difficult to talk about without some politics slipping into the discussion. I also know Julia just well enough to know that this is her version of keeping politics out of it :)

Now, if we start busting out posts like, “Bush = Bad, Obama RULZ!!!!” or “I heart Rush” then I’d start running for the hills.

June 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Guys, read the motto on the HUB page for CliqueClack. We publish posts from regulars and guests with minimal censorship, no boundaries. If someone wants to do a post about TV and relate it to their love of being a Republican, Democrat, Catholic, Jew, Scientologist … whatever, go for it. It confused me over at TV Squad why people got so overly sensitive about it, and it’s confusing me here. Maybe Julia has an agenda, but the site does not. So stop reading Julia if you have a disagreement or hate, but don’t take it out on all of us. Seriously, you’d “run for the hills” if one of our writers says something that offends you? Seriously, man, come on.

And I’m serious about the guest post thing — you want to do a post about the brilliant coverage of your favorite political party on TV, stop whining and submit a guest post to us! If it’s well written, we’ll probably post it!

I will warn you now that our coverage of things TV can be pretty broad here, so don’t be surprised to see things that are borderline.

June 8, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Keith,

How were any of the comments above yours “whining” in any way? I think everyone, for the most part, expressed their opinions in a thoughtful, honest and respectful way. If anyone seemed irritated or whiny in their comments, it would by you. Perhaps, knowing you were at TV Squad, the irritation and whininess I read into your comment was more that of exasperation than anything, but to be honest it does come across as whiny.

The only purpose of my comment was to express a concern that we might see things get more, um, “squadish” here and that concern was only born out of an honest affection for this site. It’s not my place to speak for Ivey, he can certainly articulate far better than I, but I think his comments were meant to express a similar concern and *not* to infer that a single disagreement would have him leave, never to return.

June 8, 2009 at 3:19 PM

I’m sorry, but in the same comment you tell your readers that the posts will have “minimal censorship, no boundaries” then go on to complain about the content of comments as if you expect boundaries there. If the posts are going to come from a wide range of topics and points of view, don’t expect the comments to be limited to a narrow range based on your own arbitrary expectations.

You can’t have it both ways, and believe me, I’ve exercised great restraint in expressing my opinions about this post and some of the comments. Maybe you could try and do the same or you could try a wacky move and give the customers what they want. Crazy, I know, but it’s been done before.

I do fully expect you’ll have a problem with my comment if you’ve gone all bitchy about what’s come before.

June 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM

All I’m saying is I’m sick of people assuming the site as a whole shares the opinion of one person, at least in the political sense. And then they threaten to leave because of, essentially, one person’s opinion.

I was sick of it before and I’m sick of it now. I can still say “stop it” and allow you to keep going on about it.

Powered By OneLink