You know things are bad when Joe the Plumber doesn’t show

Joe the Plumber: a staunch Republican? You might have thought so after he voiced his anger recently at Democrat Barack Obama’s proposed tax hit on those who earn over $250,000 a year.

However, it now seems Joe – who has become a leaning post for John McCain over recent weeks – has jumped ship…or missed the boat. I can't decide which.

Rallying today in Ohio, John McCain planned to bring out Joe for his supporters. The only problem was Joe wasn’t anywhere to be found. As the election draws nearer, what does that say about McCain’s presidential hopes?

Why boys are allowed to enjoy Gossip Girl

Published on the Guardian's TV and Radio Blog - September 10th 2008

I'm a man – and I like Gossip Girl. It's taken weeks for me to admit to this, a watershed comparable to coming out as gay. Well, maybe it wasn't that traumatic - but there was certainly a considerable element of doubt about making my disclosure.

But why? To my knowledge, there is no disclaimer that precedes the programme – which began its second series in America last week – stating that only women are allowed to watch. Nor are there any obvious injunctions, subliminal or otherwise, that crop up during the show itself. Yet, as each episode of the first series rolled by, I couldn't help but wonder whether I was the only man watching.

Gossip Girl, for those who aren't aware, tells the story of a group of American teenagers who reside in New York's posh upper east side. They spend their summers in the Hamptons, their weekends (and, if I'm honest, week nights as well) taking drugs in night clubs and, when the programme makers feel like it, they attend school. They do all this dressed in clothes that make Sex and the City look like an extended TV advert for Primark.

As one might naturally expect from that synopsis, there isn't a person on the show who isn't a hottie. Each character, from Serena van der Woodsen to Chuck Bass, boasts a savage sexual appeal. Thankfully, however, it's all tempered by the only person the viewer never sees: Gossip Girl. The ruthless narrator documents every last detail about the lives of "Manhattan's elite" via blogs and text messages like a sordid fusion of Perez Hilton and Robin Hood – only she steals from the rich to give to the even richer.

If you followed the first series, then you'll know it all made for rather impeccable viewing. So why then have I found it so hard to admit being a fan?

It could be that shows like the aforementioned Sex and the City, and other recent examples such as Ugly Betty and The OC (whose creator, Josh Schwartz, helped bring Gossip Girl to life) are still being packaged with a female audience in mind. After all, the name, Gossip Girl, doesn't exactly read like a call to arms for the male population. But there's no doubt that all of these shows appeal to both sexes. You only have to look at the number of males who crawled out of the woodwork because the movie adaptation of Sex and the City couldn't arrive via home delivery.

While I have no doubt that as the second (third, fourth and no doubt fifth… ) series of Gossip Girl hits the screens, more males will admit to being a fan of the show. I just wish we could do it earlier – at least then I'd have someone to talk to about Serena's infuriating relationship with Dan Humphrey. After all, they're meant to be together. Aren't they?

School's In: Why it's never been so good to be young at heart

They say your school days are the best days of your life. A period in time that you can never relive, just remember fondly (in some cases). They lied. In 2008, we're all cool enough for school again – or, at least, that's what the BBC think.

On Tuesday, the broadcaster unveiled Coming of Age - another programme to add to the growing list of school-based dramas that have graced our screens in recent years. But before we all go and dig out our yearbooks again, isn't it time someone asked just why we're subject to all this pre-adolescent TV? And more to the point, does anyone actually want to see what life is like from a teenager's perspective?

"Well actually, Yes sir, I do."

I have to admit, I was intrigued when it was revealed that Coming of Age had been commissioned for BBC3's autumn schedule. Not because the seal on the envelope containing Grange Hill's letter of expulsion had barely stuck, but because this is a school drama written by a teenager for teenagers, and, if its 10.30pm time slot suggests anything, the rest of us as well.

In the first episode we were introduced to our hapless and horrendously horny bunch as they prepared to embark on their final year of sixth form. Although a little rough around the edges – I'm not sure if the word "shagnificant" will make it into the dictionary anytime soon - 19-year-old Tim Dawson's writing provided a frivolous look at adolescence. At all times you could have cut the testosterone with a knife. Romances were kindled, re-kindled, consummated and debated – all of which left little time for actual learning. But isn't that the point?

You only need to take a look at the alternatives to see that the last thing we want our school dramas to do is actually teach us something. Waterloo Road, which has given Neil Morrissey's career a sort of rebirth, is really a study of teachers' relationships with their co-workers, as was Channel 4's Teachers. The Inbetweeners, meanwhile, like Coming of Age, is another show about teenagers' schoolyard hijinks. And a fabulous one, I might add. Just about every example from America – from Saved By The Bell to Boy Meets The World – also plays by the same textbook: a second wasted in the classroom is a potential chance of love spurned.

And that's exciting to watch. We all love TV when it exaggerates experiences we've all been through, especially memories from our childhood. Although it's the time when we form most of the foundations of our future, it's also when we live without inhibition. These programmes all magnify that.

Whether or not Coming of Age proves to be a winner for the BBC remains unclear. While it could turn out to be a shining star for the broadcaster, it could just as easily find itself sitting in the Headmasters office come the end of term. One thing is certain though; there will be another school drama waiting to take its place. Every year has one.

Paul Newman: The legacy will always be ours for the watching

22 years of my life had past before I watched ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’, arguably the late Paul Newman’s greatest film. Despite a ringing endorsement from my father, who won’t mind me saying that he’s not exactly the biggest movie buff, my mother, and just about everyone else I know, the 1969 film always eluded me. That changed on Sunday.

As I’m sure was the case for many, Saturday’s news that Newman had died following a lengthy battle with cancer came as a shock. Not only was the actor one of the few remaining Hollywood icons; he was a devout family man and self-effacing charity worker whose legacy off the screen will probably last as long, if not longer, than his work on it.

My first introduction to Newman came in the movie adaptation of Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. While the novel is a masterpiece in itself, I found Newman’s portrayal of Brick Pollitt nothing short of spellbinding - those blue eyes piercing through the tense narrative like a knife through butter. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a waterfall of Newman films followed. Cool Hand Luke, The Colour of Money, Road to Petition – but never Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

I finally decided to change that after listening to Robert Redford’s tribute to Newman on Saturday. Redford, Newman’s co-star in Butch Cassidy and also the 1973 film The Sting, told Entertainment Tonight he had “lost a real friend” on Friday. "My life - and this country - is better for his being in it,” he added. If there was ever a moment to watch the film then this was it. I’m not sure who was more excited to be watching the film as I put it in the DVD player on Sunday afternoon.

Both my parents - now extremely thankful that I visited them for the weekend – appeared during the opening credits. “Oh, I’ll just watch the first 15 minutes,” my Mum said. She never moved for the next 105.

Now I can understand why they were two of the people who recommended it so highly. Butch Cassidy is unlike any other Western I’ve ever seen – a genuine one off. The sinuous plot, based loosely on the true tales of the Hole in the Wall gang, feels secondary to the on screen relationship between Newman (Butch Cassidy) and Redford (The Sundance Kid). Both actors share the kind of chemistry that’s as rare as their individual talents. The shared glances, intrepid smiles and delicious one-liners are overwhelmingly refreshing and unnervingly natural. My only disappointment was that it took me so long to discover it.

Hollywood may have just lost one of its true greats, but Newman’s legacy will always be with us; it will always be ours for the watching, no matter how long it takes.

Are we ready for our Heroes to become Villains?

“In every hero there could be a villain.”

Fans of Heroes beware. As the above eight words suggest, our favourite gang of ordinary people with extraordinary abilities are about to turn nasty.

After a chapter of the good, Genesis (which saw them save the world), and a chapter of the bad, Generations (where they again scrambled to save the planet, this time from a highly contagious virus), things are about to turn ugly - our Heroes are set to become villains. But the question is: are we ready?

Like its two predecessors, the next chapter in the Heroes series, Villains, which begins on Wednesday (October 1st), arrives not without a hint of expectation. Like thousands of other fans who have followed the adventures of the Petrelli brothers and co since the show first began in America in 2006, I have spent much of the summer scouring the Internet for spoilers.

Our first clue about Villains came during the finale of Generations. In a dark alley, Sylar (Zachary Quinto), after a series of relative superhero impotence, regained his ability to absorb the powers of others. And soon after the chapter’s conclusion, the aforementioned strap line – “In every hero there could be a villain” – appeared in a short teaser for Chapter three which also projected the words “Hero” and “Villain” over various characters’ faces. Ever since, the Internet has been awash with rumours – aided largely by programme creator Tim Kring, who seems incapable of keeping stum – as to what Villains will have in store.

Some fans, for whom speculating about the show seems almost as invigorating as actually watching it, believe Villains will the making of the show, while for others it’s all become a bit too much already. “This is confusing,” wrote one anxious person of some leaked pictures apparently taken on the Heroes set. “I need to start staying away from the spoilers.”

Throughout this period, I’ve tended to maintain a degree of caution as well. I like my heroes - so why should I have to watch them turn against each other?

Well, as many of comic books that Heroes so skilfully re-imagines show, those blessed with special abilities more often than not develop an urge to experiment with them. Everyone from Batman to other, more merciless anti-heroes such as Marvel Comic’s Namor the Sub-Mariner possessed an irrefutable dark side. And the reality is that Villains has been bubbling under the surface since the beginning.

After experimenting with evil of Sylar in Genesis, Kring and his team of writers explored the notion that superheroes weren’t just a force for good in more detail in Generations. Although cut short due to the WGA Writer’s strike, the chapter focussed on the links between the Company - a secret organisation which tracks down and then studies those blessed with extra ordinary powers - and our heroes, many of whom grew restless with their abilities as the series progressed.

If the teaser is to be believed, in Chapter Three this agitation will see a number of the show’s main characters step over to the dark side. While that’s a tantalising thought for some, spare a thought for those who still believe that sparing the life of a cheerleader will save the world. Or is that just me?

This message is "totally hot"...

Paris Hilton responds to John McCain’s negative campaigning. Yes, PARIS HILTON.

Can't you just leave the jacket at Number 10, Gordon?

As we all know, there is something quite irritating about Gordon Brown at the best (and worst) of times. He’s a Prime Minister in charge of a country at a time when the cost of living is soaring, house prices are falling and global relations are, to say the least, tepid.

Yet, last week, at a press call during his family holiday, Mr Brown took his level of irritation and ratified it to new levels. He wore a blazer.

Now, I’m not saying that Mr Brown should have posed for the press in his Speedos (that’s presuming he owns a pair), but anything a little less formal than a cream blazer, unbuttoned white shirt and blue chinos would have done. He wouldn’t have to look far for inspiration either.

Let’s take a look at some examples:

His predecessor, Tony Blair, spent many of his summer holidays in pair of jeans.











Mr Brown’s current rival, David Cameron, could probably have lent him some of his shorts.










Barack Obama, the American president elect who Mr Brown just loves to (secretly) loath, can unbutton his shirt without, gasp, having to hide his neck with the lapels of an M&S jacket.












And that’s just a few.

The reality is, of course, that a person’s wardrobe, and what clothes they choose to take from it, is dependent heavily on their current state of mind. And, as we have established, Mr Brown’s is not in a good place.

With his position becoming more and more untenable, we have to face the fact that Gordon is going to want to keep that jacket on. After all, it’s a symbolic image of a man in control. But, and this is a BIG but, when Mr Brown adopted that image best, he was standing in the shadows of a Prime Minister who, from every now and again, knew when it was time to let his neck breathe more easily.