I’m sure this will bring a flurry of complaints (Sarah Palin is throwing a hissy on Twitter already), so let me try to head off some of the bigger complaints here at the start: every president, Republican or Democratic, goes to the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The president is required to make a speech, although they are not always required to be funny. In the past, the dinner sometimes fell right after a huge national tragedy, so the President would make a more somber speech and the event would be more low-key. But for the most part, in every administration, no matter the political party, this is an event where the president gets to give a funny speech and make jokes about himself, about Washington, about the media and about his political foes and friends. Pres. Obama has proven to be really, really good at this kind of thing. He has a comedian’s timing and the ability to land a good joke.

So last night was his fifth Correspondents’ dinner as president, and he had some really good jokes. One of his first was the “I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be…” And the part about taking tips from Michelle Obama to change the subject – that’s when they showed the “bangs photos”. I loved all of the Sheldon Adelson jokes! For my money, I think Obama was funnier than Conan O’Brien:

And here’s Conan’s speech – it took him a while to hit his groove, and when he got into his groove, he seemed like a hyperactive kid. But he had some good jokes:

By the way, Michelle Obama wore a black cap-sleeve gown by Monique Lhuillier – I actually liked it! I’m sorry we don’t have any photos of her in the gown – you can see it here.

UPDATE: Oh, I forgot to add this – a House of Cards spoof starring Kevin Spacey with pretty much every power player in Washington.

Screencaps from the WHCD.

Last week, Beyonce and Jay-Z flew to Cuba to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary. We didn’t have access to the photos, which is probably why I never wrote about their trip. When I first heard about it, I did have a moment of “Huh, I wonder if they had to route their trip through Canada to avoid some State Department regulations” but at the end of the day, I didn’t really care. Americans have been traveling to Cuba for a while, sometimes by exploiting loopholes in America’s completely FUBAR Cuba policies, and sometimes by just traveling there with approval from the government. As it stands right now, an American can’t just decide they want to fly to Cuba on a whim, just to be a tourist. If you are an American, you have to get a special license to travel to Cuba under the auspices of “academic, religious, journalistic or cultural exchange visits.”

But! Things are getting interesting, politically speaking. Two Cuban-American House members are throwing a FIT about Beyonce and Jay’s trip and wouldn’t you know, I think the GOP found their newest scandal! Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (both Floridians) are calling for an investigation as to what kind of travel visas and special permissions were granted to Bey and Jay for their Cuba trip. The representatives have already written a letter to the Treasury Department requesting information as to whether Bey and Jay broke any laws, or whether Pres. Obama pulled some strings for his BFFs (and fundraisers).

Now “sources” from the Treasury Department have gone to media outlets to insist that no rules or laws were broken. These sources insist (to Reuters, the NYDN, etc) that Beyonce and Jay were legally and properly credentialed and their license was in order and everything. So, is the scandal over? Probably not. I would imagine that there will be some kind of House committee or sub-committee hearing on this and the Cuban-American lobby will try to make some political hay.

Photos courtesy of Beyonce’s Tumblr.

Thank God!! Ashley Judd is NOT going to run for a Senate seat in 2014. Hallelujah! As you know, I’ve been keeping my eye on Ashley’s possible candidacy since the rumors began shortly after the 2012 election. Ashley, to her credit, seemed to be making all of the appropriate motions for a potential candidacy, meeting with the DNC, stopping short of forming an exploratory committee, and she was already being vetted by the party. Republicans seemed eager for Judd to run too – they were praying that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would have to run against a divorced Hollywood type who mainly lives in Tennessee. Personally, I didn’t want Ashley to be the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer in Kentucky because I think she has mental health issues and I think her candidacy would have been a hot mess. But no more worries, she’s not running!

Ashley Judd’s campaign for Senate is over before it began. After months of speculation about her political ambitions — during which time she met with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, D.C. — the Olympus Has Fallen actress took to Twitter on Wednesday, March 27, to officially announce that she would not, in fact, seek Republican Mitch McConnell’s seat in Kentucky next year.

“Dear Friends,” she wrote in the first of a series of tweets explaining her decision. “Thank you for these months of remarkable support & encouragement, for your voices, exhortations & prayers…Regretfully, I am currently unable to consider a campaign for the Senate.”

“I have spoken to many Kentuckians over these last few months who expressed their desire for a fighter for the people & new leader,” she went on. “While that won’t be me at this time, I will continue to work as hard as I can to ensure the needs of Kentucky families are met by returning this Senate seat to whom it rightfully belongs: the people & their needs, dreams, and great potential.”

The star — who ended her 10-year marriage to husband Dario Franchitti in January — suggested she had personal matters to tend to before she could devote herself completely to public concerns.

“After serious and thorough contemplation, I realize that my responsibilities & energy at this time need to be focused on my family,” she wrote.

Included in that family, of course, is sister Wynonna, who told Us Weekly recently that she would support Judd’s decision either way. “I’m going to love her and give her the love of a sister, which is what we all want. And give her the right to fail or succeed,” the singer said. “I’m going to support her and tell her if she needs shelter from the storm — oh, is she going to need shelter from the storm — I’m here.”

Wynonna even said she’d vote for her sister, even though she disagrees “with pretty much everything [Ashley] says.”

“I am for Ashley,” she told Us. “I am for Ashley because…I’ve seen enough movies to know that someday, we’re going to be 80 and 84 and I’m going to look back on our memories. And what am I going to remember the most? Whether she won or lost a campaign? Or am I going to remember that I was there in the wings applauding for her?”

[From Us Weekly]

See, now I’m actually excited about Ashley potentially being a power-broker behind-the-scenes. She can still raise a lot of money for the Democratic candidate, and she can do some events in Kentucky too, without getting the personal attacks she would have gotten if she was the candidate. Pundits were analyzing this last night on MSNBC, and the basic gist of the coverage is that Ashley’s withdrawal is no big deal for the Dems. Now the party gets to run someone who actually lives in Kentucky and they get to put the focus on McConnell, who isn’t even that popular in his state.

Photos courtesy of Adriana M. Barraza/WENN.com.

Soon after the 2012 election, the pundit class began discussing the election cycle for 2014. It happens every time and we fall for it every time! No one ever stops and takes a breath anymore. Anyway, Ashley Judd was quickly named as a possible candidate for a much-agonized-over Senate seat in Kentucky. The Senate seat is currently occupied by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader. Democrats see McConnell as an obstructionist and as a leader who is incapable of controlling his caucus. Republicans see McConnell as “too friendly” to the Democratic Party and “not conservative enough.” Which means that McConnell is probably going to have a Republican primary challenge, and then if he wins that (which isn’t a sure thing), then he’ll have to face Ashley Judd in a general election.

As of December, Ashley seemed to be weighing her options, considering what it would take to run for statewide office. A few months have passed, and people are STILL talking about Ashley and what a great candidate she would make, and I’m completely astonished that no one has even brought up the fact that she would be – to put it conservatively – an extremely flawed candidate for state-wide office in the South. It’s not just that she’s in the middle of a divorce. It’s not just that she’s seen as “Hollywood”. It’s that she’s flat-out cray. But Ashley has now met with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and OMG.

Ashley Judd 2014? The actress, 44, met this week with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, D.C., Politico reports. The DSCC helps support Democratic candidates running for Senate — furthering suspicions that the Double Jeopardy star may indeed be interested in running against Mitch McConnell, the current Republican Senator of her home state, who is up for re-election next year.

More clues? Judd also dined with prominent Kentucky Democrats on Thursday in Louisville, with local TV station WHAS 11 reporting that Judd is told Congressman John Yarmuth and other VIPs that she is “leaning toward” running for Senate, and may decide by Derby Day, May 6.

Judd is even targeted in an attack ad from McConnell, in which he mocks the lack of viable Democratic opponents for the Senatorial seat and characterizes Judd as a “radical.”

The buzz around Judd’s political aspiration began last November, immediately after President Barack Obama”s re-election. “I cherish Kentucky, heart and soul, and while I’m very honored by the consideration, we have just finished an election, so let’s focus on coming together to keep moving America’s families, and especially our kids, forward,” Judd told Us Weekly in a statement.

Either way, it’s a time of transition for the star. Late last month, she and race car driver husband Dario Franchitti announced the end of their 10-year marriage. “We’ll always be family and continue to cherish our relationship based on the special love, integrity, and respect we have always enjoyed,” a rep for the couple said.

[From Us Weekly]

I just don’t see how this is a good idea. At all. Too much baggage, she’s getting divorced, she can’t make it through a ten-minute interview without spouting out a jumble of nonsense words, and let’s face it – she IS “radical” for Kentucky. She’s a liberal Democrat by Hollywood standards, which makes her a communist in Kentucky. If the DSCC decides to push Judd for the Democratic primary, the GOP will be celebrating. Trust me.

And just so you don’t think it’s completely anti-woman or anti-strong-female-candidates… the Enquirer has an interesting story about Eva Longoria also considering a run for political office in her home state of Texas. Allegedly, Eva has already been in contact with the Texas Democratic Party about a possible run for a Congressional seat. And you know what? She should do it! She would be an amazing candidate and public servant.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Last year, I made a conscious choice to start going easy on Eva Longoria. Not that I flat-out hated her and not that I have strong feelings about her in any way. Eva has always been sort of an annoyance for me, someone to be ignored whenever possible, mostly because she seems so “LOOK AT ME” on red carpets. But last summer I found out that she had been named one of the national co-chairs for Pres. Obama’s re-election campaign. I’ll admit, that made me see her in a different light. Eva has been a huge Obama supporter for years (she was very active in his first presidential campaign as well), and she’s a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party, and she’s become a vocal (and surprisingly effective) advocate for immigration reform and Hispanic special interests. Of course Obama’s campaign was probably jazzed by the fact that she’s A) Hispanic and B) a woman, two demographics Obama really wanted to “win” (and he succeeded), but I saw Eva give a few political speeches, and she was a very effective spokesperson for Democratic Party politics. Anyway, Obama won re-election and Eva was very happy and she even signed on to be a co-chair for his inauguration too. So that’s how I changed my mind about Eva – I agree with her politically and I admire the way she focused her political energy.

Anyway, Eva covers the new issue of Cosmopolitan Latina, and one of Eva’s quotes really struck me. I thought y’all would want to talk about it:

Longoria on a piece of advice her mother gave her: “My mother gave me one piece of advice that’s always stuck with me. Don’t forget where you came from.”

Longoria on her newest philanthropy project, the Eva Longoria Foundation: “Latinas make up the largest labor pool in this economy. I want to invest directly in their success.”

Longoria on living in her West Hollywood home with girlfriends: “I grew up with three sisters and love a full house. I basically live in a sorority house now.”

Longoria on recently reading up on American democracy: “I’ve been studying the Constitution for myself but also as a way for me, as a Democrat, to comprehend the Right. I think it’s important that people who are politically active understand both sides. One of my biggest pet peeves is speaking out of ignorance.”

[From Cosmopolitan]

Is the Constitution quote weird? Like, is she saying that she’s reading the Constitution to “understand the Right” because the Right claims that they’re more rah-rah-Constitution? Because both parties have issues with the Constitution in various ways, from habeas corpus to freedom of religion to the electoral college to FISA and on and on. But I agree with “I think it’s important that people who are politically active understand both sides.” Know thy enemy! And studying the actual Constitution is always a good thing.

Incidentally, Eva might be back with Eduardo Cruz? They were photographed together a few days ago.

Photos courtesy of Cosmo Latina.

This is your Open Post for all things Obama inaugural today. The walk/parade begins at 11 am (-ish?) and the Obamas are due at Capitol Hill at 11:30. This should be the order of things – and FYI, I’m leaving out some of the musical acts, so these are just the major points. Senator Chuck Schumer will make the welcoming remarks, then the invocation by Myrlie Evers-Williams, the widow of the late Medgar Evers. Soon after that, Joe Biden will be sworn in by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then James Taylor will play “America the Beautiful”. Then Chief Justice John Roberts swears in Pres. Obama at 11:55 (if everything goes according to plan). Incidentally, the Chief Justice messed up the oath in 2009, and John Roberts had to come to the White House later that day for an oath mulligan with the president. It’s said that the Chief Justice will have his oath cheat sheet this time around so there will be no mistakes.

After Obama is sworn in (even though he took his constitutionally mandated oath yesterday – video below), he will give his second inaugural address, then Kelly Clarkson will sing “My Country Tis of Thee”, then a poem by Richard Blanco (he’s gay and Cuban!), then Beyonce will sing the National Anthem. Here’s the video of yesterday’s swearing in, which was done privately in the Blue Room of the White House. I like that both of the Obama daughters were basically like “Yay, you didn’t mess up!”

Incidentally, I bet all of what I’ve just discussed will get less ink than whatever Michelle Obama wears for the swearing in, and what she wears for the inaugural balls. I doubt she’ll repeat designers, so probably no Isabel Toledo or Jason Wu (she wore both in 2009), but Michelle will definitely wear American designers, and they’ll probably be fresh and new. Plus, everybody is already talking about her bangs (which I still dislike, even though I love her).

More White House videos:

Photos courtesy of the White House’s Flickr stream.

I feel like I’ve been name-dropping (film-dropping?) Zero Dark Thirty all week. I know I’ve mentioned it in like half a dozen posts already. In my defense, I just saw it over the weekend I think it’s a really, really good film. I don’t really understand the “generation-defining film” or “Best film of the decade” labels being given to ZDT, but it was a well-made, thought-provoking, bold, interesting film with great performances. I don’t think it’s the definitive “killing Bin Laden” movie (at least, I hope not), but I took it as more “This is what the CIA is like now, this is how CIA officers had to change and respond to the changing intelligence landscape, this is a microcosm of the successes and failures of modern intelligence work.”

So it’s sad to me, having seen ZDT, that the conversation about the film is dominated by the continuously nonsensical debate about torture and what constitutes torture and how we do and do not torture people. Once you see the film… I don’t know, I didn’t come out of it thinking “OMG, torture is awesome, torture always brings such great leads!” The point that’s made in ZDT is cold, cynical and brief: torture dehumanizes not just the tortured, but the torturers. No one “wins” and torture is either zero-sum gain or it causes more problems than it solves. As Jason Clarke’s character tells Maya (Jessica Chastain’s character), “Politics are changing and you don’t want to be the last one holding the dog collar when the oversight committee comes.”

But still, people are freaking out and they will continue to freak out and blame Kathryn Bigelow for daring to portray methods of “enhanced interrogation” which were debated on the floor of the Senate and publicly and legally pushed by President Bush, VP Dick Cheney and their team of revenge-seeking Washington sadists (see: John Yoo, John Bybee, David Addington). I believe that Kathryn Bigelow’s snub for a Best Director Oscar nomination was about this controversy in particular. So, at long last, Bigelow has written a defense of her film and her portrayal of torture. Here you go:

For a long time, measuring more years than I care to count, I thought the movie that became “Zero Dark Thirty” would never happen. The goal, to make a modern, rigorous film about counter-terrorism, centered on one of the most important and classified missions in American history, was exciting and worthy enough, or so it seemed. But there were too many obstacles, too many secrets, and politicians standing in the way of an easy path.

Somehow, though, thanks to the great persistence of my filmmaking team and an enormous dose of luck, we got the movie made and found studio partners with the courage to release it.

Then came the controversy.

Now that “Zero Dark Thirty” has appeared in cinemas nationwide, many people have asked me if I was surprised by the brouhaha that surrounded the film while it was still in limited release, when many thoughtful people were characterizing it in wildly contradictory ways.

The Times asked me to elaborate on recent statements I’ve made in response to these issues. I’m not sure I have anything new to add, but I can try to be concise and clear.

First of all: I support every American’s 1st Amendment right to create works of art and speak their conscience without government interference or harassment. As a lifelong pacifist, I support all protests against the use of torture, and, quite simply, inhumane treatment of any kind.

But I do wonder if some of the sentiments alternately expressed about the film might be more appropriately directed at those who instituted and ordered these U.S. policies, as opposed to a motion picture that brings the story to the screen.

Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time.

This is an important principle to stand up for, and it bears repeating. For confusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist’s ability and right to shine a light on dark deeds, especially when those deeds are cloaked in layers of secrecy and government obfuscation.

Indeed, I’m very proud to be part of a Hollywood community that has made searing war films part of its cinematic tradition. Clearly, none of those films would have been possible if directors from other eras had shied away from depicting the harsh realities of combat.

On a practical and political level, it does seem illogical to me to make a case against torture by ignoring or denying the role it played in U.S. counter-terrorism policy and practices.

Experts disagree sharply on the facts and particulars of the intelligence hunt, and doubtlessly that debate will continue. As for what I personally believe, which has been the subject of inquiries, accusations and speculation, I think Osama bin Laden was found due to ingenious detective work. Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt. That doesn’t mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden. It means it is a part of the story we couldn’t ignore. War, obviously, isn’t pretty, and we were not interested in portraying this military action as free of moral consequences.

In that vein, we should never discount and never forget the thousands of innocent lives lost on 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. We should never forget the brave work of those professionals in the military and intelligence communities who paid the ultimate price in the effort to combat a grave threat to this nation’s safety and security.

Bin Laden wasn’t defeated by superheroes zooming down from the sky; he was defeated by ordinary Americans who fought bravely even as they sometimes crossed moral lines, who labored greatly and intently, who gave all of themselves in both victory and defeat, in life and in death, for the defense of this nation.

[From the LA Times]

Yeah. Cosign. I completely agree that if you want to be angry about the portrayal of torture in a film, you should probably direct your anger at the men who wrote The Torture Memos and opened the door for “enhanced interrogations” rather than the artist who is struggling to accurately DEPICT NOT ENDORSE those methods. #TeamBigelow

Photos courtesy of WENN.

I’ve been following part of this story on the cable news shows – hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans are now in some kind of legal limbo because they were in the midst of the months- (sometimes years-) long process of adopting Russian children, and Pres. Vladimir Putin just ended foreign adoptions to the US. Putin has various reasons, but there are a lot of American couples who are really freaking out, and the State Department is getting involved and it’s a huge mess. So here comes Angelina Jolie to soothe the situation with her diplomacy and bartering, that is, if you believe the Enquirer. The Enquirer claims that Angelina has “reached out” to Pres. Putin to see if there’s anything she can do to get this adoption thing resolved. “Anything” being “convincing Brad to hold their wedding in Moscow.”

The Hollywood humanitarian has approached Russian President Vladimir Putin about repealing the nation’s recent ban on Americans adopting children from his country, sources say. And the powerful politician responded by asking Angie – the mother of three adopted kids – to tie the knot with Brad Pitt in Russia, insiders say.

“Instead of selling her wedding photos for millions and donating the money to charity, Angelina now has the chance to make a political statement with her walk down the aisle,” a source told The ENQUIRER. “After she asked President Putin to relax his country’s new adoption policy, he agreed to consider it – IF she agrees to marry Brad Pitt in a high-profile ceremony in the heart of Moscow or one of the famous palaces in St. Petersburg.”

On Dec. 28, Putin signed a bill that bans U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children, raising tensions with Washington.

“Angelina thinks the adoption ban is retaliation against a new U.S. law seeking to punish Russians accused of human-rights violations,” explained the source. “She went through diplomatic channels to extend an olive branch to Putin in an attempt to smooth over strained relations between the countries.”

The 37-year-old actress has promoted humanitarian causes around the globe for over a decade as a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

“In light of Angelina’s rank in the diplomatic community, it will be difficult for Putin to dismiss her out of hand,” noted the source.

More than 45,000 Russian orphans have been adopted by American parents since 1999, and Angelina herself once considered taking home a Russian toddler.

As The ENQUIRER reported in 2005, the “Tomb Raider” star lost her heart to a 15-month-old boy in a Moscow orphanage. In the end, she chose not to adopt him, saying her Cambodian-born son Maddox was not “quite ready” for a sibling. Since then, she’s adopted children from Vietnam and Ethiopia and had three biological kids with Brad.

The source concluded: “Getting Putin to change Russia’s policy would not only help numerous orphans, but also be a major coup for Angie.”

[From The National Enquirer]

I mean… it’s probably BS, right? But you never know with Angelina. The thing is, I could totally see her writing a letter to Pres. Putin or using her UN credentials to get a meeting with him. I wonder how that overture began? “Dear Vlad, You might not know me but I played a Russian spy in Salt. HUZZAH.” Also: I’ve always wanted to see St. Petersburg. I’ve always wanted to visit the Hermitage. Why wouldn’t Angelina and Brad want to marry in some beautiful Russian locale? That is, if they’re not already married.

Photos of Angelina & Putin (separately) in Russia, courtesy of WENN.

Ugh, this whole story has the whiff of BS, but let’s just get through it. In the mid-1990s, Brad Pitt was flirting with Buddhism, like all of the cool Hollywood kids (this was before Kabbalah). Tibetan Buddhism in particular was seen as religion and a cause du jour in particular amongst the Hollywood crowd, mostly because the religion came wrapped up in a political cause: “Free Tibet”. Just know that I’m not mocking the Tibetan independence movement or anything – Tibet SHOULD be a free and autonomous state. I’m mocking the idea that a centuries-old fight for independence and autonomy can be solved by a few Hollywood types putting ceramic Buddhas in their homes.

Anyway, Brad was kind of into Buddhism, and to show his support, he did a film called Seven Years in Tibet, which came out in 1997. In case you haven’t seen it, the film is based on a true story of a European man living in Tibet during and immediately following WWII. Brad played the European man. Apparently, the Chinese government was super-pissed about the way they were portrayed in this Hollywood film, and they banned Brad Pitt from ever entering China. I believe Richard Gere also has a similar ban, mostly because he’s still tight with the Dalai Lama and because he made that weird Red Corner film. As far as I know, Brad has never been to China.

So that’s where we are now. Yesterday, American outlets began to claim that Brad had joined the Chinese version of Twitter called Sina Weibo (apparently the account was verified?), and his first and only tweet (presumably to the country of China) was “It is the truth. Yup, I’m coming…” According to People, “The surprising statement is the actor’s only “Tweet” on the social network, but it generated more than 24,000 comments from his nearly 160,000 followers before being deleted later in the day.”

So, is Brad going to China? Eh. Hollywood is trying to get their foot in the door over there, trying to increase their market and sales by cozying up to Beijing. It could be for real and everything is above board and Brad is going to kiss some ass and maybe even apologize or something, just to visit his Chinese fans. Either that or some clever Chinese hacker/Sina Weibo publicist punk’d everybody and that wasn’t really Brad’s account.

Photos courtesy of WENN, film stills courtesy of Google Images.

Last night, Rachel Maddow was doing some analysis on why it was taking so long for Pres. Obama to announce his second-term Cabinet appointments. Maddow noted that in the most modern history of second-term presidencies, Obama is taking WAY longer than everybody before him, and she wondered why that was. I have a few theories! One, David Petraeus’s withdrawal from the DCI position stunned and surprised everyone, and Obama didn’t think he would have to be filling that position too. Two, I’m not sure if Obama is going to shuffling up his Cabinet as much as people think – we’re going to get a new Secretary of State, and maybe a new SecDef, and maybe a few others, but other than that, I think Obama’s cabinet will be the same for now. Three, I think Obama is pissed off that he can’t promote his first choice, Susan Rice, to State. She was with Obama from the beginning of his presidential run, and he stood by her even when GOP senators were trying to place the entirety of the Benghazi mess at her feet, but Rice ended up withdrawing her name anyway.

So… it’s looking more and more like Sen. John Kerry will be our new Secretary of State. I’m not sure how I feel about that, but I was queasy about Hilary Clinton in the beginning too, and she ended up being very effective, so maybe Kerry will work out well. As CB discussed yesterday, with Kerry’s Senate seat being as good as “up for grabs,” there is a lot of theorizing and maneuvering, and Ben Affleck’s name keeps coming up for some reason. Ben even sat down for an interview on Face the Nation (which will air on Sunday on CBS) in which he wouldn’t confirm or deny that he would run for the seat:

Ben Affleck has officially entered Alec Baldwin and George Clooney territory—he, too, is being asked if he has considered running for public office! In Washington, D.C,. to testify before Congress about the humanitarian crisis in the Congo, the Argo star and director sat down to talk politics with Bob Schieffer in an interview airing Sunday on Face the Nation.

And, like Clooney and Baldwin, Affleck appears quite comfortable playing the role of Hollywood-star-and-activist, no official title necessary.

“For one thing, the state of Massachusetts currently has two extraordinary senators, so there is no vacancy,” Affleck replied when Schieffer asked if he had thought about running for an empty seat in his home state if Sen. John Kerry was picked to be Hillary Clinton’s replacement as Secretary of State.

“There could be,” Schieffer pointed out.

“Well, one never knows,” Affleck continued. “I’m not one to get into conjecture. I have a great fondness and admiration for the political process in this country. It’s a big deal for me to come down here and be on your show…but I’m not going to get into speculation about my political future.”

“Right now,” he added, “I’m really happy being involved from the outside in government, advocating for the Congolese, taking this movie that I made, Argo, that’s really become a springboard for dialogue about our relationship with Iran, which, as Hillary Clinton said, is the most pressing foreign policy issue today, so…I got a lot on my plate.”

Not to mention, awards season is just heating up!

Argo is nominated for two Screen Actors Guild Awards and five Golden Globes, including best director for Affleck. Then the Oscar noms will be announced on Jan. 10—and we’ve got a feeling he’s going to have a different kind of campaign to think about.

[From E! News]

Ugh. I guess I might be the only one who found Ben’s side-step, not-really-a-denial thing pretty basic and annoying. Ben kind of reminds me of George Clooney, and I don’t necessarily mean that as a compliment. Like, I admire George’s work and Ben’s work, but when they start talking about presidential politics, I think they come across as “actors trying to be super-serious about politics.” Like, they’re just play-acting. And they both think they’re way smarter than they actually are. That being said, I like Clooney’s shtick more because Clooney doesn’t play games about running for office. Clooney comes right out and says that he’s done too much sh-t to run for office. Ben has done too much sh-t to run for office too, but Ben thinks he’s successfully whitewashed his past (and present?) enough and that we’re all buying it. We aren’t.

Now, if Matt Damon wanted to run for the Senate seat? I WOULD BE ALL OVER IT. Matt would be a much better candidate for higher office.

Photos courtesy of WENN.