If Britney Spears knocked on your door right now, dressed in a midriff-bearing top and holding her children upside down, and said, "'Scuse me, ya'll. You got any of them poppable pills?" would you indulge her?
No. Or at least I hope you wouldn't.
So why are we letting New Hampshire do a vote recount?
Don't get me wrong: I think a recount's a great idea, if it's done for the right reasons. Any second grader who's taken a math test can tell you it's good to double-check your work. But as a former resident of New Hampshire, I can tell you that the state isn't recounting the vote to be altruistic. The vote recount is a cry for help.
The situation is pretty classic. New Hampshire was a bright young state, innocent, filled with lilacs and ladybugs. As primary season approached, however, people suddenly started paying attention to her. Instead of hanging out with mill workers and loggers, New Hampshire was now hobnobbing with senators, governors, and former first ladies. Even Chuck Norris delivered a few loving round-house kicks in New Hampshire's direction.
They had a great time together, New Hampshire and the politicians. They posed for photos, traveled, ate at the Olive Garden. And the discussions! Instead of just gossiping about how pretentious Vermont is or that slut New Mexico, New Hampshire was talking about things that mattered for once! She was alive again!
But after primary day, it was over. New Hampshire's famous friends moved on, taking the paparazzi with them. And what was the state left with? Dirty snowbanks, useless lawn signs, and a quickly souring aftertaste of the good life.
So New Hampshire did what any past-prime star would do--she quickly and sloppily found a way to make herself newsworthy again. And we fell for it, the saps that we are. So I'm telling you now: New Hampshire doesn't need our attention; she needs time to heal. Popping pills...recounting votes...isn't it time we leave New Hampshire alone?