The penultimate scene of Oliver Stone's clever new biopic, "W.", shows the embattled president walking furiously through the White House, after having just bombed at a press conference. Asked if he had made any mistakes, the character Bush stumbles, sweats, and equivocates, before finally giving up. This scene would be brutally awkward, except that it actually happened. Check it out here.
This tension marks a lot of this film, which, for all of its short comings, proves to be one of the best of the year. As we follow an angry, aggressive Bush through his up-and-down life, we are so enraptured by the great performances that we forget that all of these things really happened! Its a testament to the filmmakers that they so gracefully executed an intriguing story while sticking to the fact; that they made history so romantic.
And by Romantic, I mean that this is a love story...but also that there is Livy in it, too. In fact, the best scenes of the film involve W and the love of his live, and the second best involve the title character and those Bruti and Cassiuses that drive to pull the strings. For all the President's shortcomings, no one can say that he was a bad husband or father, and and earnest and devoted son, and the film never loses this perspective. The historical tragedy, well, that needs more perspective, but its enough for this film to contemplate the early days of the war in Iraq, and ask how the personality of the president did, or didn't, affect those decisions.
As W., Josh Brolin turns in an oscar-worthy performance, at once hilarious and sympathetic, edgey and nuanced. It's a cinematic character, not a SNL rip-off. It seems that in every scene W stops just short of saying what he wants to -- to his father, to his political opponents, and allies -- but Brolin, with the help of his director, conveys so much without speaking, and we can't help but complete his sentences.
And then there's the elephant in the room. Yes, this movie is political. It's about the sitting president. And yes, Stone takes some pot-shots that let the latte-sippers have a good laugh at the President's expense. No, Republicans will probably not enjoy a trip to the theater for this one. But that doesn't mean this movie is polemic, or even satire. Each and every political swing is tempered by an appreciation for W the man, for W the historical figure.
This movie was filmed in forty-some odd days. It was an experiment. It had the budget and the cast of a hollywood movie, but the haste of a USC thesis film. As such, cut it some slack. This movie is entertaining in ways that so few films are. It speaks volumes. When the historians and essayists go back, they might very well see it differently. But for all the loose ends and hasty patchwork, Brolin and Stone have delved deep and made a very enjoyable 129 minute film. And in so doing, they have conceived of the President in a way lost on so many others, yet so undeniably true: that his was an American story. 7.9
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Lists
I love lists. They give people something to argue about, and there's always that great sense of smug satisfaction when you agree with the list maker. In honor of EWs's exhaustive list of lists, I thought I'd make one of my own.
Top Ten Movie Vietnam Vets
10. Herman Blume - Rushmore
9. Forrest Gump - Forrest Gump
8. Carson Wells- No Country for Old Men
7. Captain Koons - Pulp Fiction
6. Michael - The Deer Hunter
5. Travis Bickle - Taxi Driver
4. Llewelyn Moss - No Country for Old Men
3. Walter - The Big Lebowski
2. Rambo - First Blood
1. Ron Korvic - Born on the Fourth of July
Top Ten Movie Vietnam Vets
10. Herman Blume - Rushmore
9. Forrest Gump - Forrest Gump
8. Carson Wells- No Country for Old Men
7. Captain Koons - Pulp Fiction
6. Michael - The Deer Hunter
5. Travis Bickle - Taxi Driver
4. Llewelyn Moss - No Country for Old Men
3. Walter - The Big Lebowski
2. Rambo - First Blood
1. Ron Korvic - Born on the Fourth of July
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Dark Dark Night
Jonathan Nolan, 32, has been helping brother Christopher write movies for some years now. Together, the two of them have become one of the most energetic and daring storytelling duos out there. "The Dark Night" draws so many of its plot points, style elements and tonalities from the "Long Halloween" series of Batman comics, placing the caped crusader in a dark and semi-realistic world of underground crime, exploding public officials and very creepy villains. As director, Nolan (Christopher) pushes every stylistic element to the max, often successfully (like with the sleek new bat 'cave') and sometimes less so (like with his insistence that Christian Bale grunt whenever behind the mask), but all in all he calibrates each performance and set piece perfectly, creating a hellish cross between Law and Order and Escape from New York while staying true to the Batman creed.
This is also a movie about terrorists. It's filled with home-made hostage videos, enhanced interrogation techniques, fear and mayhem. The politics of the film are very vanilla, don't worry. Those 29% of Bush supporters, I'm sure, can find comfort in imagining their man as the Dark Night himself, perhaps bending the rules and taking the law into his own hands, but doing so because no one else can protect Gotham from the looneys; Markos Moulistas and his gang will understand that the true heroes are the guys on the boats who do the right thing, and that burning the forest down to catch the jewel thief is just as bad as letting the clowns over-run the city. But nevermind. Nolan doesn't overplay his hand, and instead presents just enough real life parallelisms to hook us viscerally without overdoing the think factor.
And the hooks are incredible, whether its the Hong Kong airlift or the Batmobile's eject mechanism, th Nolans have found some really fun ways to play with Batman. But what makes these scenes and others so impressive is the way they have been structured into the overall screenplay, how the stakes are always many and increasing, how they are presented with enough subtlety to feel, sort of, possible. The story of so many comic book movies is taken for granted -- see: Iron Man and Hellboy II -- and it is really breathtaking to be fascinated in a plot so deeply. There is so much conflict, so much pathos (so many pathos?), so much warrant and action that we aren't just waiting around for something to blow up, but we are legitimately concerned with how our heroes and villains will respond to their success and failures. This is especially exciting since we all know the lore anyway, and let ourselves be set up for what we know is coming, and then are shocked when and by how it does.
For all that has been made of Heath Ledger's performance-- and I don't think we'll stop hearing about it anytime soon-- I was blown away with what turned out to be the scene stealer: Aaaron Eckhart. Whether as idealistic DA Harvey Dent, killer two-face or Romantic Lead, Eckhart found so many ways to elevate this role and give the character shadows and highlights. OK, maybe the transformation happened a little two quick for comfort, but all in all I'd say this movie was mostly about him, even more so than Batman. If any Oscar nods go out for supporting actor in this movie, I say it should go to him.
The Dark Night was the kind of movie that's worth seeing twice in theaters, then twice on netflix, then ten more times on HBO. The Nolans' careers are already on the fast track, and it will be amazing to see what they think of next. With only one old black guy with white hair exception, the casting was perfect (think Katie Holmes would have elicited any sympathy the way Maggie Gyllenhal did when she met her fate?). I'm sure this movie had flaws, I'm sure some of the depth will wear thin on second viewing, and I'd hesitate to equate this movie with other thriller masterpieces like Minority Report or Terminator 2. But for its freshness, its poise and its precision, at this point at least, I'd have to say this was one of the best films of the year. 8.3
This is also a movie about terrorists. It's filled with home-made hostage videos, enhanced interrogation techniques, fear and mayhem. The politics of the film are very vanilla, don't worry. Those 29% of Bush supporters, I'm sure, can find comfort in imagining their man as the Dark Night himself, perhaps bending the rules and taking the law into his own hands, but doing so because no one else can protect Gotham from the looneys; Markos Moulistas and his gang will understand that the true heroes are the guys on the boats who do the right thing, and that burning the forest down to catch the jewel thief is just as bad as letting the clowns over-run the city. But nevermind. Nolan doesn't overplay his hand, and instead presents just enough real life parallelisms to hook us viscerally without overdoing the think factor.
And the hooks are incredible, whether its the Hong Kong airlift or the Batmobile's eject mechanism, th Nolans have found some really fun ways to play with Batman. But what makes these scenes and others so impressive is the way they have been structured into the overall screenplay, how the stakes are always many and increasing, how they are presented with enough subtlety to feel, sort of, possible. The story of so many comic book movies is taken for granted -- see: Iron Man and Hellboy II -- and it is really breathtaking to be fascinated in a plot so deeply. There is so much conflict, so much pathos (so many pathos?), so much warrant and action that we aren't just waiting around for something to blow up, but we are legitimately concerned with how our heroes and villains will respond to their success and failures. This is especially exciting since we all know the lore anyway, and let ourselves be set up for what we know is coming, and then are shocked when and by how it does.
For all that has been made of Heath Ledger's performance-- and I don't think we'll stop hearing about it anytime soon-- I was blown away with what turned out to be the scene stealer: Aaaron Eckhart. Whether as idealistic DA Harvey Dent, killer two-face or Romantic Lead, Eckhart found so many ways to elevate this role and give the character shadows and highlights. OK, maybe the transformation happened a little two quick for comfort, but all in all I'd say this movie was mostly about him, even more so than Batman. If any Oscar nods go out for supporting actor in this movie, I say it should go to him.
The Dark Night was the kind of movie that's worth seeing twice in theaters, then twice on netflix, then ten more times on HBO. The Nolans' careers are already on the fast track, and it will be amazing to see what they think of next. With only one old black guy with white hair exception, the casting was perfect (think Katie Holmes would have elicited any sympathy the way Maggie Gyllenhal did when she met her fate?). I'm sure this movie had flaws, I'm sure some of the depth will wear thin on second viewing, and I'd hesitate to equate this movie with other thriller masterpieces like Minority Report or Terminator 2. But for its freshness, its poise and its precision, at this point at least, I'd have to say this was one of the best films of the year. 8.3
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Summer Movie Report Card, Pre-DN
Iron Man.
Director Jon Favreau and Leading Man Robert Downey have done the seemingly impossible: made more money than Indiana Jones. And in the process, they have offered a glimpse of Generation 2.0 of comic book movies: more mature, funny and relevant. What a good idea to have so many scenes take place in the middle east, dealing with real-life threats like terrorist and WMD's, even if only obliquely. This movie hit so many marks, but with lackluster special effects and a brutal, might-as-well have two robots fighting each other finale, plenty of room is left for improvement in Iron Man 2. 6.9
Wall E.
Pros: An apocalyptic kids movie; a homage to Golden Age Hollywood; the summer's most taciturn hero.
Cons: shtick walks a thin line between Charlie Chaplin and Darkwing Duck; feel-good bioler-plate pervades more than just the climax. 6.0
Wanted
Neither Angelina Jolie nor James McAvoy can save this clunky amalgam of genre action, sloppy storytelling and inexplicable Morgan Freeman villainy. For all the loud music, swooshing cameras and wham-bam cuts, Kazakh-director Timur Bekmambetov's American debut is stolid and dull. Save your money. Stay home and watch Monk. 2.1
HellBoy II
There's a scene where Hellboy is taking a shower, steam clouding out his nether-regions, rosary beads tied around the same hand that clutches a can of Tecate. With creatures big and small, Guillermo del Toro builds a comic book world unlike that of Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, one where superhero's aren't made by inherited fortunes and just-beyond-the-pale trinkets, but by gods and monsters. There are at least four legitimate action scenes here that range from squeamish to frightening to surprising, so we can forgive some of the less interesting filler, and hope for part III. 6.4
Director Jon Favreau and Leading Man Robert Downey have done the seemingly impossible: made more money than Indiana Jones. And in the process, they have offered a glimpse of Generation 2.0 of comic book movies: more mature, funny and relevant. What a good idea to have so many scenes take place in the middle east, dealing with real-life threats like terrorist and WMD's, even if only obliquely. This movie hit so many marks, but with lackluster special effects and a brutal, might-as-well have two robots fighting each other finale, plenty of room is left for improvement in Iron Man 2. 6.9
Wall E.
Pros: An apocalyptic kids movie; a homage to Golden Age Hollywood; the summer's most taciturn hero.
Cons: shtick walks a thin line between Charlie Chaplin and Darkwing Duck; feel-good bioler-plate pervades more than just the climax. 6.0
Wanted
Neither Angelina Jolie nor James McAvoy can save this clunky amalgam of genre action, sloppy storytelling and inexplicable Morgan Freeman villainy. For all the loud music, swooshing cameras and wham-bam cuts, Kazakh-director Timur Bekmambetov's American debut is stolid and dull. Save your money. Stay home and watch Monk. 2.1
HellBoy II
There's a scene where Hellboy is taking a shower, steam clouding out his nether-regions, rosary beads tied around the same hand that clutches a can of Tecate. With creatures big and small, Guillermo del Toro builds a comic book world unlike that of Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, one where superhero's aren't made by inherited fortunes and just-beyond-the-pale trinkets, but by gods and monsters. There are at least four legitimate action scenes here that range from squeamish to frightening to surprising, so we can forgive some of the less interesting filler, and hope for part III. 6.4
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Conditions on the Ground
So, it begins. "Flip-Flopping," "Stay the Course," "Voted with George W. Bush 95% of the time." It's as if Presidential Elections are an elaborate game of Uno, with each candidate being dealt a hand of cards and carefully playing them one by one. As the surrogates get disowned and the melodramatic music gets played over deceptively presented voting records between innings of baseball games, we are beginning to see that even the two most unconventional candidates presidential politics have ever seen will still be running fairly conventional campaigns. I miss Hillary.
But before opinions really start to be formed about these two candidates, summer provides a testing ground to experiment with nuanced messages, to reposition, to venture into hostile waters, to present bios. But before the dreams of Montana and Michigan fade and tens of millions of dollars worth of media buys are made in Cleveland, the summer duldrums really do present some fascinating twists and turns, leading up to the late-August conventions, when the independents will finally start to sway.
And the candidates have been busy. Today John McCain addressed the NAACP, while Obama spoke at Purdue University about the threats of the 21st century. First McCain.
McCain, of course, has guts. No one has any illusions about how hard it will be to sway black voters. But by going to the NAACP -- an invitation he snubbed last year -- McCain showed some grace. Quoting MLK and addressing education and small business issues, McCain made a reasonable argument for why the Republican domestic agenda -- at least with the maverick at the helm -- may be better for the struggling economy than what he labels as Democratic tax hikes. And Obama will hike taxes. While income taxes for most Americans (about 99%) would go down, McCain rightfully points out that under the Obama plan, the 100's of millions of Americans who hold stocks and bonds would see their taxes go up under Obama's capital-gains regime, while estate taxes could change by a margin of 30%. Those are big differences. As McCain says, when people are struggling with gas and food prices, the last thing they want to do is pay higher taxes. Obama says that if McCain wants to have a debate on taxes, he looks forward to it. But can he really win?
Obama, introduced by possible-VP (and UVA law grad) Evan Bayh, spoke about the fascinating issues of cyber-security and nonproliferation. Obama has developed this really interesting two-tone personality. At night, he grandstands, but his day job is that of weary warrior. He speaks in dulcet tones about global annihilation, but not with the sweeping grandeur we're usually expecting. Often times, he talks with his head down, as if pleading, and instead of delving into specifics, stresses that the details will come so long as there is confident and inspired leadership at top--his leadership. Its an interesting argument, and not one that's lost on the electorate. Hardly a wonk, Obama can get bogged down when talking about important but non-principled issues, and he rightly avoids explaining how exactly America can prevent cyper-espionage and limit the creation of fissile material, and instead stresses that what is important is vision and boldness to conquer the new problems facing the country, to work with allies, to make the hard choices.
At this point, most prognosticators have their money on Obama, and for good reason. The political situation is bad for Republicans, McCain has failed to rally his base, Bob Barr may get 4%, and the state-by-state make up seems to have Obama playing offense all across the country. But I don't underestimate McCain. His biography is remarkably compelling, his manner of speaking comforting and convincing, his stance on domestic policy more in line with mainstream (read: heartland) American opinion and his foreign policy, if a liability in itself, at least principled and knowledgeable. Can McCain steal a mid-western state? or PA? He has the money, and somewhere in there he's got the message. The debates will be key here. Summer is just too far away from November.
But before opinions really start to be formed about these two candidates, summer provides a testing ground to experiment with nuanced messages, to reposition, to venture into hostile waters, to present bios. But before the dreams of Montana and Michigan fade and tens of millions of dollars worth of media buys are made in Cleveland, the summer duldrums really do present some fascinating twists and turns, leading up to the late-August conventions, when the independents will finally start to sway.
And the candidates have been busy. Today John McCain addressed the NAACP, while Obama spoke at Purdue University about the threats of the 21st century. First McCain.
McCain, of course, has guts. No one has any illusions about how hard it will be to sway black voters. But by going to the NAACP -- an invitation he snubbed last year -- McCain showed some grace. Quoting MLK and addressing education and small business issues, McCain made a reasonable argument for why the Republican domestic agenda -- at least with the maverick at the helm -- may be better for the struggling economy than what he labels as Democratic tax hikes. And Obama will hike taxes. While income taxes for most Americans (about 99%) would go down, McCain rightfully points out that under the Obama plan, the 100's of millions of Americans who hold stocks and bonds would see their taxes go up under Obama's capital-gains regime, while estate taxes could change by a margin of 30%. Those are big differences. As McCain says, when people are struggling with gas and food prices, the last thing they want to do is pay higher taxes. Obama says that if McCain wants to have a debate on taxes, he looks forward to it. But can he really win?
Obama, introduced by possible-VP (and UVA law grad) Evan Bayh, spoke about the fascinating issues of cyber-security and nonproliferation. Obama has developed this really interesting two-tone personality. At night, he grandstands, but his day job is that of weary warrior. He speaks in dulcet tones about global annihilation, but not with the sweeping grandeur we're usually expecting. Often times, he talks with his head down, as if pleading, and instead of delving into specifics, stresses that the details will come so long as there is confident and inspired leadership at top--his leadership. Its an interesting argument, and not one that's lost on the electorate. Hardly a wonk, Obama can get bogged down when talking about important but non-principled issues, and he rightly avoids explaining how exactly America can prevent cyper-espionage and limit the creation of fissile material, and instead stresses that what is important is vision and boldness to conquer the new problems facing the country, to work with allies, to make the hard choices.
At this point, most prognosticators have their money on Obama, and for good reason. The political situation is bad for Republicans, McCain has failed to rally his base, Bob Barr may get 4%, and the state-by-state make up seems to have Obama playing offense all across the country. But I don't underestimate McCain. His biography is remarkably compelling, his manner of speaking comforting and convincing, his stance on domestic policy more in line with mainstream (read: heartland) American opinion and his foreign policy, if a liability in itself, at least principled and knowledgeable. Can McCain steal a mid-western state? or PA? He has the money, and somewhere in there he's got the message. The debates will be key here. Summer is just too far away from November.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Barack the Nominee, Barack the Author
"Out of his story, he has also drawn the central promise of his campaign: if a biracial son of a Kenyan and a Kansan could reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable in himself, a divided country could do the same."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18memoirs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18memoirs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Friday, May 09, 2008
Legend or Loser, or both
To commemorate the Seinfeld series finale's tenth anniversary, Newsweek ran two pieces this week discussing the relative merits, and lasting appeal, of the entire series. I thought I'd weigh in.
On the pro side, David Noonan points out much of the obvious: the way Jerry and the gang elevated the minutia of everyday life into high comedy, the way the cast of supporting characters reinforce the sense of complete lunacy that defines Jerry's world, the way Seinfeld and co-author Larry David play off one another to create "the tension that gives the show its unique character." He also loves the sets.
But Marc Peyser, having drawn the short stick, I assume, has the more difficult job of cutting the behemoth down to size....and, what do you know, he raised some good points. "The problem is, we've changed, and the Seinfeld gang hasn't." Instead of penetrating with serious character study, or using comedy to make colorful social (or political) commentary, Seinfeld was content to fill its episodes with "an awful lot of clothes jokes. And food jokes. And car jokes."
The change critique, here, is essential. Change is not only the essence of all good characters, its the essence of all good drama, of all good entertainment. The careful TV and film-makers construct stories that are essentially always of a trifold nature: the introduction of a character and an obstacle; the increasingly escalating stakes of the conflict between the character and his or her enemies; and finally the resolution of said conflict, often resulting in a lesson learned for the character, the audience, or both. But even within that blueprint, TV and film must break down their characters and their worlds even further, often constructing each of those three dramatic elements into scenes that follow the same pattern, and breaking those scenes into beats that do the same, and then breaking those beats down further into three separate pieces in which an element is introduced, challenged, and changed. The best TV shows and films can change character in three simple lines of dialogue. Or in two lines and an action. Or in a line, an action, and a music cue.
Anyway, the point is that drama -- and comedy, in different ways -- is focused on conflict, and conflict necessitates change. But thats what the Seinfeld gang never did, and although their hijinks were always hilarious, it is interesting and informative to evaluate their impact on current TV. Take, for example, my two favorite shows: 30 Rock and The Office. Now both shows have the zaniness of Seinfeld, so in that respect Seinfeld is influential, but both shows allow their characters a level of humanization that make Seinfeld's look like caricatures. In just about every episode, Liz and/or Michael are forced to rise to some occasion, and their success or failure teaches them something about theirselves, or their coworkers, or the Source Awards ("Oprah was right: people just want to love each other and get free stuff."
I don't think, therefore, that it's ridiculous to both love Seinfeld and question its methods, to wonder if its influence is not as far ranging as it could have been. And that's my two cents.
On the pro side, David Noonan points out much of the obvious: the way Jerry and the gang elevated the minutia of everyday life into high comedy, the way the cast of supporting characters reinforce the sense of complete lunacy that defines Jerry's world, the way Seinfeld and co-author Larry David play off one another to create "the tension that gives the show its unique character." He also loves the sets.
But Marc Peyser, having drawn the short stick, I assume, has the more difficult job of cutting the behemoth down to size....and, what do you know, he raised some good points. "The problem is, we've changed, and the Seinfeld gang hasn't." Instead of penetrating with serious character study, or using comedy to make colorful social (or political) commentary, Seinfeld was content to fill its episodes with "an awful lot of clothes jokes. And food jokes. And car jokes."
The change critique, here, is essential. Change is not only the essence of all good characters, its the essence of all good drama, of all good entertainment. The careful TV and film-makers construct stories that are essentially always of a trifold nature: the introduction of a character and an obstacle; the increasingly escalating stakes of the conflict between the character and his or her enemies; and finally the resolution of said conflict, often resulting in a lesson learned for the character, the audience, or both. But even within that blueprint, TV and film must break down their characters and their worlds even further, often constructing each of those three dramatic elements into scenes that follow the same pattern, and breaking those scenes into beats that do the same, and then breaking those beats down further into three separate pieces in which an element is introduced, challenged, and changed. The best TV shows and films can change character in three simple lines of dialogue. Or in two lines and an action. Or in a line, an action, and a music cue.
Anyway, the point is that drama -- and comedy, in different ways -- is focused on conflict, and conflict necessitates change. But thats what the Seinfeld gang never did, and although their hijinks were always hilarious, it is interesting and informative to evaluate their impact on current TV. Take, for example, my two favorite shows: 30 Rock and The Office. Now both shows have the zaniness of Seinfeld, so in that respect Seinfeld is influential, but both shows allow their characters a level of humanization that make Seinfeld's look like caricatures. In just about every episode, Liz and/or Michael are forced to rise to some occasion, and their success or failure teaches them something about theirselves, or their coworkers, or the Source Awards ("Oprah was right: people just want to love each other and get free stuff."
I don't think, therefore, that it's ridiculous to both love Seinfeld and question its methods, to wonder if its influence is not as far ranging as it could have been. And that's my two cents.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Monday, May 05, 2008
Presidents and would be's, in ars
First off, how 'bout that John Adams. What a jerk. Disowning his son like that. HBO's recently concluded mini-series seemed intent on driving the point home that, guess what, the founding fathers were fallible. Did you know Jefferson raped slaves and, on top of that, had a prickly personality? And that Ben Franklin could be domineering and philandering? And Hamilton...woa boy, don't even get me started. Not only did these people have ideas, it turns out, but they also had lives, wifes and sons, teeth and farms. Well, what do you know?
It seems, though, that HBO, for a change, got it just right. The highlight of this impeccable mini-series, I think, was the use of oblique camera angles, mostly for establishing shots but also when the drama got most intense or otherwise warped. The slant mirrored the oddness we felt, playing voyeur to our most famous Americans' lives, and it set the tone for the high drama, and melodrama, that became the focus of these stories. But Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney--who last played house in the 'oh my god I'm flying to Los Angeles I'll watch anything' Nanny Diaries-- will both surely be adding Emmys (Emmies?) to their already crowded mantles. But I also suspect that Stephen Dillane will have many doors opened to him on the basis of his portrayal of Thomas Jefferson, having stolen every scene every time.
These episodes served as interesting contrast to two other presidential depictions I've seen in the past few days. The first was a painted portrait of Hillary Clinton, which displayed the Senator and former first lady bare-shouldered, sitting in a bathtub, staring straight at us, while the artist, in self-portrait, sat equally naked next to her, but in profile, looking at the candidate with inquisitive wonder. A friend's friend had purchased the painting from the painter for $1000. It was definitely a conversation piece.
The portrait of Barack Obama I saw under an overpass in Philadelphia, a spray-painted, half-reverse silhouette of the Senator in his true form: jacket off, sleeves rolled up, one hand clutching a microphone, another extended in explanation. His hands and face were black, but his white shirt was simply the color of the concrete, with only a slender black chord extending from the ground to the microphone.
It seems odd that Mr. Arugala should be the one in spray-paint, tucked away at the place of least inspiration, offering quiet comfort to a crumbling city, whereas Ms. Gas-Tax-Holiday should be the one for whom an ivy-league artist would dedicate her summer holiday. It just goes to show how warped of a narrative we receive from the media, who, as far as I can tell, run cover stories based solely on how clever of a cover the graphics compartment can dream up. Is Barack Obama doing so well in cities not just because of upscale liberals and african-americans, or because his message really resonates with the urban poor and disenfranchised in a way that doesn't translate, yet, with rural voters? Is Hilary doing so well with older females not only because she is an older female herself but because she generates the most trust among a voting bloc that consistently views the issues of national security, economics, and environment as paramount? Can newsweek stop reprinting the same old polls?
It seems, though, that HBO, for a change, got it just right. The highlight of this impeccable mini-series, I think, was the use of oblique camera angles, mostly for establishing shots but also when the drama got most intense or otherwise warped. The slant mirrored the oddness we felt, playing voyeur to our most famous Americans' lives, and it set the tone for the high drama, and melodrama, that became the focus of these stories. But Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney--who last played house in the 'oh my god I'm flying to Los Angeles I'll watch anything' Nanny Diaries-- will both surely be adding Emmys (Emmies?) to their already crowded mantles. But I also suspect that Stephen Dillane will have many doors opened to him on the basis of his portrayal of Thomas Jefferson, having stolen every scene every time.
These episodes served as interesting contrast to two other presidential depictions I've seen in the past few days. The first was a painted portrait of Hillary Clinton, which displayed the Senator and former first lady bare-shouldered, sitting in a bathtub, staring straight at us, while the artist, in self-portrait, sat equally naked next to her, but in profile, looking at the candidate with inquisitive wonder. A friend's friend had purchased the painting from the painter for $1000. It was definitely a conversation piece.
The portrait of Barack Obama I saw under an overpass in Philadelphia, a spray-painted, half-reverse silhouette of the Senator in his true form: jacket off, sleeves rolled up, one hand clutching a microphone, another extended in explanation. His hands and face were black, but his white shirt was simply the color of the concrete, with only a slender black chord extending from the ground to the microphone.
It seems odd that Mr. Arugala should be the one in spray-paint, tucked away at the place of least inspiration, offering quiet comfort to a crumbling city, whereas Ms. Gas-Tax-Holiday should be the one for whom an ivy-league artist would dedicate her summer holiday. It just goes to show how warped of a narrative we receive from the media, who, as far as I can tell, run cover stories based solely on how clever of a cover the graphics compartment can dream up. Is Barack Obama doing so well in cities not just because of upscale liberals and african-americans, or because his message really resonates with the urban poor and disenfranchised in a way that doesn't translate, yet, with rural voters? Is Hilary doing so well with older females not only because she is an older female herself but because she generates the most trust among a voting bloc that consistently views the issues of national security, economics, and environment as paramount? Can newsweek stop reprinting the same old polls?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
I love it!
http://infiniteataraxia.blogspot.com/2008/04/may-they-beat-merth-out-of-her.html
Ok, all good points, I may have to retract my endorsement...has the NYT ever changed its mind?
I just want more meat and less potatoes from Obama, that's all....or more potatoes and less meat...I'm not good with animals...either way, its bad.
Cole Hamels is beautiful.
Ok, all good points, I may have to retract my endorsement...has the NYT ever changed its mind?
I just want more meat and less potatoes from Obama, that's all....or more potatoes and less meat...I'm not good with animals...either way, its bad.
Cole Hamels is beautiful.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Hilary Clinton for President
Ok, I was saving this, but I had to egg Linden on:
For her passionate, studied knowledge of policy issues, for her life long dedication to public service, for her insistence that Presidential campaigns address crime and poverty in a concrete fashion, for her determination to end the war in Iraq as responsibly and expediently (in that order) as possible, and for her proven desire and ability to work with the opposition when prudent and possible, this blog enthusiastically, though not unconditionally, endorses Sen. Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.
When was the last time the word "embarrassment" was used to talk about Democratic Presidential campaigns but was followed by "of riches?" There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama would make the kind of President that I would be proud of and, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think you should know that I did indeed pull his lever (thats what she said). But I did so less because I think he has run the better campaign and more because he has, in my mind, more actively courted the constituencies to whom I hold the greatest allegiance: namely, college youth.
Yet, ultimately, Obama's campaign to me represents an enormous contradiction that makes it difficult to imagine what his Presidency would look like. On the one hand, Obama has criticized not only Bush's policy decisions, but the mindset that informed them: namely, the elevation of the irrational and narrow-minded over the reasonable and progressive. In other words, Obama has chastised Bush for abandoning the long and important tradition of American Pragmatism. And yet, since Iowa, Obama has seemed to do the same, cultivating a Liberal (and yes, Obama is more Liberal than HRC) ideology, exploiting economic fears, and grandstanding on abstract principles that have ballooned far out of proportion.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has shown an intelligence and, yes, tenacity, that suggests that she is indeed the one to move the commas and build the coalitions that are going to be necessary to tackle these enormous policy problems. I agree whole-heartedly with Obama that political prudence is not enough to move Washington if it is not accompanied by a groundswell of support that starts at the grassroots level and filters up through the representative system and into the legislature. And it is for that reason I hope to see him on the ticket, and in the oval office come 2017. But, in my best estimation, HRC will produce the kind of government we have so sorely lacked for the last, oh, 60 years: one that is careful and conscientious, important and compassionate, smart and limited.
Now, short of winning NC and Indiana by significant margins, and somehow getting a legit revote in Michigan and Florida--and winning--I don't see how the convention can nominate Clinton without splintering the party (which I don't think is true of the reverse), and I also believe very strongly that Hilary should accept the bottom of the ticket should that be the best the party can do, and that she should spend eight years--as she has her last 40--serving the public, and will then be in a position to be elected the first female president of the united states at the age of 69 (too easy), and the Clinton's can retire at 78, old, accomplished, and remembered, and this union will be better for it.
For her passionate, studied knowledge of policy issues, for her life long dedication to public service, for her insistence that Presidential campaigns address crime and poverty in a concrete fashion, for her determination to end the war in Iraq as responsibly and expediently (in that order) as possible, and for her proven desire and ability to work with the opposition when prudent and possible, this blog enthusiastically, though not unconditionally, endorses Sen. Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.
When was the last time the word "embarrassment" was used to talk about Democratic Presidential campaigns but was followed by "of riches?" There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama would make the kind of President that I would be proud of and, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think you should know that I did indeed pull his lever (thats what she said). But I did so less because I think he has run the better campaign and more because he has, in my mind, more actively courted the constituencies to whom I hold the greatest allegiance: namely, college youth.
Yet, ultimately, Obama's campaign to me represents an enormous contradiction that makes it difficult to imagine what his Presidency would look like. On the one hand, Obama has criticized not only Bush's policy decisions, but the mindset that informed them: namely, the elevation of the irrational and narrow-minded over the reasonable and progressive. In other words, Obama has chastised Bush for abandoning the long and important tradition of American Pragmatism. And yet, since Iowa, Obama has seemed to do the same, cultivating a Liberal (and yes, Obama is more Liberal than HRC) ideology, exploiting economic fears, and grandstanding on abstract principles that have ballooned far out of proportion.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has shown an intelligence and, yes, tenacity, that suggests that she is indeed the one to move the commas and build the coalitions that are going to be necessary to tackle these enormous policy problems. I agree whole-heartedly with Obama that political prudence is not enough to move Washington if it is not accompanied by a groundswell of support that starts at the grassroots level and filters up through the representative system and into the legislature. And it is for that reason I hope to see him on the ticket, and in the oval office come 2017. But, in my best estimation, HRC will produce the kind of government we have so sorely lacked for the last, oh, 60 years: one that is careful and conscientious, important and compassionate, smart and limited.
Now, short of winning NC and Indiana by significant margins, and somehow getting a legit revote in Michigan and Florida--and winning--I don't see how the convention can nominate Clinton without splintering the party (which I don't think is true of the reverse), and I also believe very strongly that Hilary should accept the bottom of the ticket should that be the best the party can do, and that she should spend eight years--as she has her last 40--serving the public, and will then be in a position to be elected the first female president of the united states at the age of 69 (too easy), and the Clinton's can retire at 78, old, accomplished, and remembered, and this union will be better for it.
competitive blogging
is there anything better?
The blog-let has officially been thrown down: http://infiniteataraxia.blogspot.com/
First question: what is ataraxia?
Now, to respond:
What did I mean by "a hunger that was born of all things in this country that can... be better?" Good question, Linden. Here's my take. Let's leave Mac out of the equation for a while--because I do believe his bio will and should be a big selling point for the GOP. But look at GWB for a second, and I think its pretty clear. W was born into a rich family; obama and hil into the middle class. W spent college getting drunk and getting C's; Hil and Obama were both academic superstars. W spent his 20's drinking some more, doing coke, and glad-handing at HBS (which I can't imagine he was admitted into based solely on his GMATs) while Hil and Obama continued their academic success at the two most prestigious academic institutions in the world. W used his degree to drink more and run his daddies' companies into the ground; Hil and Obama--both of whom could have taken 200k+ jobs--worked for peanuts in public service.
Now, I for one think there is something to these differences (maybe not the first--theres nothing wrong with being rich, per se), and that they are not inconsequential to the types of presidents they would be. Now, Mac, for sure, believes too in the value of sacrifice, but I don't think that jives with his governing philosophy as well as he would have us believe (but more on that in coming days).
So yes, Obama smoked some pot, and Hil did alot of what she did in hopes of being president one day, but the fact is that they both gave up a tremendous amount to better their country (as too did McCain) whereas George Bush lived a life of privilege and entitlement that avoided the hard questions and, in this humble bloggers opinion, help gestate a seriously warped view of government within his mind that that of his minions.
The blog-let has officially been thrown down: http://infiniteataraxia.blogspot.com/
First question: what is ataraxia?
Now, to respond:
What did I mean by "a hunger that was born of all things in this country that can... be better?" Good question, Linden. Here's my take. Let's leave Mac out of the equation for a while--because I do believe his bio will and should be a big selling point for the GOP. But look at GWB for a second, and I think its pretty clear. W was born into a rich family; obama and hil into the middle class. W spent college getting drunk and getting C's; Hil and Obama were both academic superstars. W spent his 20's drinking some more, doing coke, and glad-handing at HBS (which I can't imagine he was admitted into based solely on his GMATs) while Hil and Obama continued their academic success at the two most prestigious academic institutions in the world. W used his degree to drink more and run his daddies' companies into the ground; Hil and Obama--both of whom could have taken 200k+ jobs--worked for peanuts in public service.
Now, I for one think there is something to these differences (maybe not the first--theres nothing wrong with being rich, per se), and that they are not inconsequential to the types of presidents they would be. Now, Mac, for sure, believes too in the value of sacrifice, but I don't think that jives with his governing philosophy as well as he would have us believe (but more on that in coming days).
So yes, Obama smoked some pot, and Hil did alot of what she did in hopes of being president one day, but the fact is that they both gave up a tremendous amount to better their country (as too did McCain) whereas George Bush lived a life of privilege and entitlement that avoided the hard questions and, in this humble bloggers opinion, help gestate a seriously warped view of government within his mind that that of his minions.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wrap-up....mmm, wrap-up
From Michael Cooper:
"I just checked your blog hoping for some cogent insider analysis of the PA primary (Pholitics?). Sadly, there was no post. Give me some procrastination material for finals studying man. "
Ok, Cooper, whatever you say...
So whats a Democratic Presidential candidate to do? Yesterday's Huffington Post declared the winner of the PA primaries to be...John McCain. ie, the dem race is officially going all the way to convention, with more bruising in store for both our wanna-be's.
The NYT declared that, despite her decisive win, HRC is still the underdog in the overall race, but I guess we have to see what Indiana has to say about that. (BTW, Indiana Jones is only 28 days away)
As for Barack, well, he outspent Hil dog 4-1 in this state. I mean, for three weeks, literally every show on TV, literally every single commercial break, he was like "I don't take money from lobbyists" this, and "I opposed the war from the start" that. My honest-to-god, I want to be the next mark penn prediction was that Hil was gonna win by 3.5, but in the end Barack doesn't appear to have made any inroads with PA voters, a fact that could be troubling to superdelegates who know that PA (or, likewise, OH) cannot, under any circumstances, go to JM. As Hil herself says, “It’s very hard to imagine a Democrat getting to the White House without winning those states.” The NYT deconstructs that argument here, and also points out the ways in which either candidate could put into play states that have been voting red since that last time we were in an unwinnable war, wages were stagnating, and the price of consumer goods was skyrocketing.
Speaking of deconstruction, Stanley Fish has added another section to his NYT feature: "French Theory in America", which is a great read for anyone looking to kill an hour, get a bunch of weird names confused, and learn nothing. As he sums it up: "the degree to which our conviction of a truth is firm or soft will depend on how massive and conclusive the relevant evidence is, and an account of truth that flies far above any set of facts on the ground will not be relevant." Sounds eerily Aristotilean, no? Maybe thats why Fish concludes that "Not only does deconstruction not threaten anything or deliver anything, it doesn’t change anything." But, don't worry, all you have to do is wikipedia Derrida to know that Fish probably means that as a good thing.
also from Michael cooper: "How's the law search going?" Well, it seems like its down to Duke or UVa. I like UVa's big class size. More variety of personalities, classes, extra-curriculars, profs, etc. Any suggestions?
And finally, from Linden: http://cbs3.com/topstories/officer.robert.melia.2.706410.html
Blogs and kisses,
jordan
P.S. With Carly Smithson's exit, and with no Michael Johns (or is it John Michaels) or Kristy Lee Cook (although for different reasons), AI is officially not worth watching anymore, and America is officially retarded. Ah, Carly, you were awesome.
"I just checked your blog hoping for some cogent insider analysis of the PA primary (Pholitics?). Sadly, there was no post. Give me some procrastination material for finals studying man. "
Ok, Cooper, whatever you say...
So whats a Democratic Presidential candidate to do? Yesterday's Huffington Post declared the winner of the PA primaries to be...John McCain. ie, the dem race is officially going all the way to convention, with more bruising in store for both our wanna-be's.
The NYT declared that, despite her decisive win, HRC is still the underdog in the overall race, but I guess we have to see what Indiana has to say about that. (BTW, Indiana Jones is only 28 days away)
As for Barack, well, he outspent Hil dog 4-1 in this state. I mean, for three weeks, literally every show on TV, literally every single commercial break, he was like "I don't take money from lobbyists" this, and "I opposed the war from the start" that. My honest-to-god, I want to be the next mark penn prediction was that Hil was gonna win by 3.5, but in the end Barack doesn't appear to have made any inroads with PA voters, a fact that could be troubling to superdelegates who know that PA (or, likewise, OH) cannot, under any circumstances, go to JM. As Hil herself says, “It’s very hard to imagine a Democrat getting to the White House without winning those states.” The NYT deconstructs that argument here, and also points out the ways in which either candidate could put into play states that have been voting red since that last time we were in an unwinnable war, wages were stagnating, and the price of consumer goods was skyrocketing.
Speaking of deconstruction, Stanley Fish has added another section to his NYT feature: "French Theory in America", which is a great read for anyone looking to kill an hour, get a bunch of weird names confused, and learn nothing. As he sums it up: "the degree to which our conviction of a truth is firm or soft will depend on how massive and conclusive the relevant evidence is, and an account of truth that flies far above any set of facts on the ground will not be relevant." Sounds eerily Aristotilean, no? Maybe thats why Fish concludes that "Not only does deconstruction not threaten anything or deliver anything, it doesn’t change anything." But, don't worry, all you have to do is wikipedia Derrida to know that Fish probably means that as a good thing.also from Michael cooper: "How's the law search going?" Well, it seems like its down to Duke or UVa. I like UVa's big class size. More variety of personalities, classes, extra-curriculars, profs, etc. Any suggestions?
And finally, from Linden: http://cbs3.com/topstories/officer.robert.melia.2.706410.html
Blogs and kisses,
jordan
P.S. With Carly Smithson's exit, and with no Michael Johns (or is it John Michaels) or Kristy Lee Cook (although for different reasons), AI is officially not worth watching anymore, and America is officially retarded. Ah, Carly, you were awesome.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Dispatches from the front part 4: Why should you be president? you have 10 seconds to respond
Well, after 15 months of blah blah blah, it all comes down to me! Well, it all comes down to them, really...
So, after that horrible debate the other night, what's a young primary voter to do? Maybe i should just call up my good friend Larry Farnese and ask him what i should do?
Well, lets try to summarize these bloated candidacies into one distinct message...here goes...
Barack Obama: Change we can believe in!
HRC: Ready for change on day one! And fuck you john mccain.
Barack's message (and google, is Barack really not in your spell check dictionary yet?) has remained fairly consistent When some headwind has tried to knock him off course, he has mostly just resorted to ignoring it, saying that the politics of the future is to stay on message, a message of hope and progress, not only despite politics, but because of it.
Now Hil-dog has had to make some adjustments. Her experience argument didn't quite do it (see: Iowa). But really all along she's been selling herself as a candidate, not only on policy but also on resume. Why is she prob gonna win PA? Is it because all those fat cheesesteak loving union blokes just can't deny a chick in a pantsuit? Is it because women will vote for her no matter what? Or is it because people in a state that has been disproportionately burdened by George W's failed economic and national security strategies, voters are genuinely timid to bet all the marbles on a guy who lacks the mettle to change the world (read: defeat John McCain)?
So Hilary's message seems to be two-pronged on this primary eve: first, that she is READY for CHANGE! and second, that she can beat mccain through coalition building (less attractive then grass, er I mean net, roots, but nonetheless effective) and can weather the storm that is the GOP attack machine.
Now, I think, when all is said and done, there will be a dream ticket, and I think, no matter what, Hil's career is far from over. But change is in the air, no matter what the reservations held by ed rendell. I don't think mccain has made gains these past weeks though, and the dems continue to party-build, so until the convention, I see nothing wrong with playing this thing out (which includes letting superdelegates vote counter to the popular vote, if they see fit).
In the end, I think dem primary voters will ultimately have voted for a personality, as the policy held by all the candidates have been fairly similar. And Barack and HIl do have remarkable stories. I see nothing wrong with selling and buying this bio-politics. I think if we'd considered the fight in the dog of candidates a little more we would've avoided some costly errors in the past. W was never hungry, not one day in his entire life. Barack and Hilary, on the other hand, have been starving since they knew how to talk, a hunger that was born of all the things in this country that can, and should, be better, and I think that makes them better candidates, and will make them better presidents.
As for me, I look forward to exercising my American right to a secret ballot, so while I can't tell you whose lever I will pull (thats what she said), I can tell you this: I expect April 22, 2008 to go down as one of the best days of my life, fo sure.
Blogs and kisses, jordan
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Dispatches from the front part 3: food for thought
From CNN:
"In projecting what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, there is the conundrum of her senatorial tenure and what had appeared to be a surcease in her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare: a period in which -– until the day drew near for her to announce her presidential candidacy –- she seemed (to her oldest friends, certainly) happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas."
From Newsweek:
"In 2006, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Indonesia, you spoke about America's overbearing foreign policy. How is America doing now? {sic} You [the United States] are white. You are Christian. You are rich. Your technology is superior. All of these countries are not … It's a phenomenon Americans cannot understand.
If you could vote as part of the American global polity, who would you vote for?
Right now? I would vote for Obama. I think he has this message of decency, of fairness, of transcending racial hatred, which cuts across all countries, all nations."
From Slate:
"if the white working class's interest in "guns or religion" indicates derangement or bitterness, then the white working class isn't very deranged or bitter. According to Bartels, there is no evidence that social issues outweigh economic ones among white voters lacking college degrees."
"In projecting what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, there is the conundrum of her senatorial tenure and what had appeared to be a surcease in her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare: a period in which -– until the day drew near for her to announce her presidential candidacy –- she seemed (to her oldest friends, certainly) happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas."
From Newsweek:
"In 2006, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Indonesia, you spoke about America's overbearing foreign policy. How is America doing now? {sic} You [the United States] are white. You are Christian. You are rich. Your technology is superior. All of these countries are not … It's a phenomenon Americans cannot understand.
If you could vote as part of the American global polity, who would you vote for?
Right now? I would vote for Obama. I think he has this message of decency, of fairness, of transcending racial hatred, which cuts across all countries, all nations."
From Slate:
"if the white working class's interest in "guns or religion" indicates derangement or bitterness, then the white working class isn't very deranged or bitter. According to Bartels, there is no evidence that social issues outweigh economic ones among white voters lacking college degrees."
Monday, March 24, 2008
Dispatches from the front, part 2: the superdelegates
blah blah blah, enough with these superdelegates already. with denver fast approaching, and as Obama tries to stem the tide in PA by advertising to every demographic except african americans, i thought it would be fun to find out who these SDs are.
1) (HRC) Bill clinton: eh, the 90's were ok, but obama doesn't love america? B
2) (BHO) Tom Daschle: crucified by w's gop, tom will always represent the dream. B+
3) (HRC) Jack Murtha: A hero, a patriot, and a genius. A
4) (BHO) Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd: Two important, experienced democrats, and possible running mates. A-
5) (HRC) Evan Bayh: the model of moderation in a winnable state. A
6) (BHO) Ted Kennedy, John Kerry: the liberal lion and the man who would be president, but are they part of the 'old' politics Obama wants to move away from? C
7) (HRC) Ed Rendell: popular governor of a big blue collar state, a barnstormer. B+
8) (BHO) Claire McCaskel: One of the big six who won it for the blue team in 06, she is passionate and eloquent and, um, a white woman? A-
9) (HRC) Rush Limbaugh. Wait a second... F
10) (???) John Edwards, Al Gore: Come on already!
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
interesting
"In fact, the show's mantra is that it's against "whoever is winning," said Poehler."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-snl13mar13,0,5294859.story
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-snl13mar13,0,5294859.story
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Spitzer? I hardly even know her.
"You want monogamy? Elect a swan."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barash12mar12,0,7173677.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barash12mar12,0,7173677.story
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Dispatches from the front, part 1
Well, seeing as I am now officially an all important, coveted primary voter, I thought it would be a good time to sketch out some thoughts on these two guys.
Now, when Obama first announced his candidacy, I, like so many other's with a dream in their heart and a paperback copy of his book in my backpack, was an instant supporter. And he hit the ground running. Message is everything in politics, and Obama was flawless in the extent to which he laid claim to the "change" mantra, defining himself as an anti-war candidate with serious plans for domestic progress and, of course, a side of inspiration.
But then Obama ran into a wall over the summer, and many commentators all but declared him dead. Simply put, he was getting mowed over by Hil's inevitability claim, and offered no legitimate rationale why he was better suited for--and more deserving of--the nomination.
Then, sometime around the J-J dinner, Obama started "acting presidential," allowing commentators and voters to imagine how, with a tidal wave of grassroots support, Obama could end the war and pass progressive legislation in a way no other candidate could. That's how he won Iowa.
Then after Iowa Obama made the single biggest gaffe of his political career. In a new hampshire debate, when hil was asked an odd question about her likability, Obama interjected to say, "You're likable enough," which David Brooks accurately labeled as Obama's most inhumane moment. Now, Hilary may be a little cold and calculating, but this is a woman who has spent her entire life with her nose to the ground, who has worked hard at every turn, and not for the sake of personal gain, but rather for the public good. This is a woman who has been instrumental to the building of our Democratic party and our country. It was wrong of obama to say something so demeaning and disrespectful.
In fact, since Iowa, Obama has, I think, for the first time, indicated the kind of president he would be, but it is not the young man from Dreams of my Father. After all this, after civil rights on one hand and george bush on the other, is this the type of manager we want in the oval office? Someone who smiles as he spews ad hominam attacks from the side of his mouth while standing behind a personality cult and a giant banner?
Meanwhile, Clinton has made pointed contrasts based either on policy or resume, but rarely have her attacks reeked of the old politics that Obama has so vigorously railed against.
And finally, I do not think that Obama's claim of electability holds much water. Indeed, Hil has a very clear path to winning, but also a clear path to building a working majority. Not only will she win every state Kerry won, but she will also barnstorm the states that showed their disaffection with the GOP in the 2006 election, including Ohio, Virginia, Montana, Missouri, New Mexico, Indiana, and Kansas. She will be a favorite in Arkansas, and have a good shot at all its neighbors. And then--mark my words--Hilary will have a monstrously strong chance of winning Texas, by building a coalition of hispanics (the biggest and fastest growing ethnic minority in america), city liberals, Reagan Democrats, white women, and low income voters, a pattern she can repeat in many other states as well. Barack Obama's candidacy seems propped up on a single idea, an idea that could very well grow, but one that could also deflate and leave his campaign floundering. Hilary has done the hard work that pays off in politics; Obama has relied on personality and abstractions. Those are important, but not vital.
Obama has 6 weeks to define himself and give us a greater sense of what he would do over the course of the campaign and his first term. As for now, Clinton has done the harder work better.
3/11
Hil: 65%
BHO: 35%
Now, when Obama first announced his candidacy, I, like so many other's with a dream in their heart and a paperback copy of his book in my backpack, was an instant supporter. And he hit the ground running. Message is everything in politics, and Obama was flawless in the extent to which he laid claim to the "change" mantra, defining himself as an anti-war candidate with serious plans for domestic progress and, of course, a side of inspiration.
But then Obama ran into a wall over the summer, and many commentators all but declared him dead. Simply put, he was getting mowed over by Hil's inevitability claim, and offered no legitimate rationale why he was better suited for--and more deserving of--the nomination.
Then, sometime around the J-J dinner, Obama started "acting presidential," allowing commentators and voters to imagine how, with a tidal wave of grassroots support, Obama could end the war and pass progressive legislation in a way no other candidate could. That's how he won Iowa.
Then after Iowa Obama made the single biggest gaffe of his political career. In a new hampshire debate, when hil was asked an odd question about her likability, Obama interjected to say, "You're likable enough," which David Brooks accurately labeled as Obama's most inhumane moment. Now, Hilary may be a little cold and calculating, but this is a woman who has spent her entire life with her nose to the ground, who has worked hard at every turn, and not for the sake of personal gain, but rather for the public good. This is a woman who has been instrumental to the building of our Democratic party and our country. It was wrong of obama to say something so demeaning and disrespectful.
In fact, since Iowa, Obama has, I think, for the first time, indicated the kind of president he would be, but it is not the young man from Dreams of my Father. After all this, after civil rights on one hand and george bush on the other, is this the type of manager we want in the oval office? Someone who smiles as he spews ad hominam attacks from the side of his mouth while standing behind a personality cult and a giant banner?
Meanwhile, Clinton has made pointed contrasts based either on policy or resume, but rarely have her attacks reeked of the old politics that Obama has so vigorously railed against.
And finally, I do not think that Obama's claim of electability holds much water. Indeed, Hil has a very clear path to winning, but also a clear path to building a working majority. Not only will she win every state Kerry won, but she will also barnstorm the states that showed their disaffection with the GOP in the 2006 election, including Ohio, Virginia, Montana, Missouri, New Mexico, Indiana, and Kansas. She will be a favorite in Arkansas, and have a good shot at all its neighbors. And then--mark my words--Hilary will have a monstrously strong chance of winning Texas, by building a coalition of hispanics (the biggest and fastest growing ethnic minority in america), city liberals, Reagan Democrats, white women, and low income voters, a pattern she can repeat in many other states as well. Barack Obama's candidacy seems propped up on a single idea, an idea that could very well grow, but one that could also deflate and leave his campaign floundering. Hilary has done the hard work that pays off in politics; Obama has relied on personality and abstractions. Those are important, but not vital.
Obama has 6 weeks to define himself and give us a greater sense of what he would do over the course of the campaign and his first term. As for now, Clinton has done the harder work better.
3/11
Hil: 65%
BHO: 35%
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
T minus thirty days
" This is a tale about the 2008 Phillies, a baseball team full of people whose brain waves can't ever be the same again."
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3271243
"I could rant and rave all day about how good Smash is, but it’s redundant at this point. Simply put, Smash is a must-have game, and every Wii console out there isn’t complete without it."
http://wii.ign.com/articles/856/856580p1.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3271243
"I could rant and rave all day about how good Smash is, but it’s redundant at this point. Simply put, Smash is a must-have game, and every Wii console out there isn’t complete without it."
http://wii.ign.com/articles/856/856580p1.html
Friday, February 29, 2008
Bachman-Hussein Overdrive
So, in an email the other night, my dad referred to a politician: BHO. I think that might have been the first time I've seen Barack's initials in writing like this. Can anyone find any info on when people started referring to TR, FDR, JFK or LBJ? BHO doesnt quite have the same ring to it; HRC kind of sounds catchy.
Heading up to Pico this afternoon to get my ride on.
Has anyone been more prolific in covering this election than Adam Nagourney? He writes, "Should Mr. Obama win the nomination, his candidacy could well be a test of whether [Republican] tactics still work or whether, used against a candidate who is trying to cultivate an appeal that transcends policy specifics, would fall flat this time."
Also, if you haven't seen it yet, check this out from last weekend's weekend update. Tina Fey, what do you really think?
Heading up to Pico this afternoon to get my ride on.
Has anyone been more prolific in covering this election than Adam Nagourney? He writes, "Should Mr. Obama win the nomination, his candidacy could well be a test of whether [Republican] tactics still work or whether, used against a candidate who is trying to cultivate an appeal that transcends policy specifics, would fall flat this time."
Also, if you haven't seen it yet, check this out from last weekend's weekend update. Tina Fey, what do you really think?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
NAFTA SHMAFTA
Ok, Democrats. Reality check time. Ohio is pissed, fine. You both want to win, we get it. But undoubtedly, the democrats have sunk to a new low.
As Brian Williams, George Stephanapolous, the NYT, and Michael Cooper have all pointed out, the democrats have been trying their darndest to out-pander one another by twisting economic reality in order to convince Ohio voters that things will get better if one of them is elected president. It is without a doubt the ugliest part of this entire 08 campaign (well, now that rudy is out).
Indeed, it is hard to argue with the fact that exploiting economic fears in this manner is in any way fundamentally different than the exploitation of national security fears that propelled both the 02 and 04 election cycles, to detrimental effects (or the ones that are propelling McCain's candidacy).
If 08 really turns into this, into a campaign in which the main question is which candidate can scare more people about these respective issues, then we will get a government with a mandate to take extreme, counter-productive measures; it will reignite the partisanship of the 20-aughts, and it will become just another chapter in the long history of the downfall of the American empire. So wake up Barack, and get back to work.
As Brian Williams, George Stephanapolous, the NYT, and Michael Cooper have all pointed out, the democrats have been trying their darndest to out-pander one another by twisting economic reality in order to convince Ohio voters that things will get better if one of them is elected president. It is without a doubt the ugliest part of this entire 08 campaign (well, now that rudy is out).
Indeed, it is hard to argue with the fact that exploiting economic fears in this manner is in any way fundamentally different than the exploitation of national security fears that propelled both the 02 and 04 election cycles, to detrimental effects (or the ones that are propelling McCain's candidacy).
If 08 really turns into this, into a campaign in which the main question is which candidate can scare more people about these respective issues, then we will get a government with a mandate to take extreme, counter-productive measures; it will reignite the partisanship of the 20-aughts, and it will become just another chapter in the long history of the downfall of the American empire. So wake up Barack, and get back to work.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Caution, and the Cautionary Whale
Okay. I get it, Juno. You are sassy. Geeze.
well, now that the 2007 movie season is officially over, I have two more cents to add. A few posts ago, I outlined my take on some of the better (read: bloodier) films of the year. conspicuously absent from that list was one of everyone's favorite pics, a movie I found to be bland beyond description.
Now, i'm certainly not saying that there is no room for lighter fare. I enjoy a good laugh. I know movies should present a fairy tale world every once in a while. And i definitely do not begrudge Diablo Cody her Oscar. She is a talented filmmaker in an industry that too often eschews female voices, and I very much look forward to her later work.
But Juno. What was Juno? Was it just a feminized version of the funnier Knocked up? Was it a Lost in Translation for Ameicans for whom being bored hanging out with movie stars in tokyo is not an overriding concern? Or was it, as many critics have wondered, a thinly veiled pro-life propaganda vehicle?
I think, more so than anything, Juno was the story of impossibility, about a girl who navigates her world in about the same way that a paper boat would navigate the Colorado, laughing and singing (a sad tune, but a song nonetheless) her way towards, well, I'm not sure what. In fact, the problem with Juno--a problem rooted in the screenplay, in the production, in the marketing--was the inability of any of the characters to make a single decision.
By my count, there were exactly two decisions made by all the characters in Juno. The first was fore-ordained: Juno's decision to keep the seamonkey growing inside her because, well, it had fingernails...and because how could she get herself into more shenanigans if she did otherwise? the second decision was when Jason Bateman's character backed out of his life, abandoned his wife and his unborn, surrogate child, and made off for the city. Now there's a movie! But, no, we go back to Juno and the Moldy Peaches.
Which is to say, I just didn't get it. Ebert, in calling Juno the best of 2007 , had this to say: "Strange, how during Juno's hip dialogue and cocky bravado, we begin to understand the young woman inside, and we want to hug her." But i guess my problem was exactly that: that I didn't understand Juno. I didn't understand where she got her strength from, I didn't understand why she found her situation funny and not painful, I didn't understand why she wasn't angry, how she toyed with Bleeker or why he let her get away with it. I thought all the emotions were sophmoric, not hidden behind the dialogue, but substituted out for it. There was no ticking clock, no wires that needed to be cut. Without genuine alternatives, how can we sympathize with the characters as they live their lives--their lives, and not others? how can we regard what they say as anything more than fortune cookie wisdom when they don't have a conflict from which to extricate themselves, or internal contradictions that need to be negotiated? Frankly, I was bored.
Now, Juno is certainly not another Napolean Dynomite, a movie with an indie spirit that caught on but was nonetheless genuinely bad. Indeed, fine, I'll say Juno was good, great even. But banal, indifferent, and, in some ways, lazy. I'd recommend Juno. I'll probably rent it on DVD. But the years best? Ebert, I think that stroke went to your head.
well, now that the 2007 movie season is officially over, I have two more cents to add. A few posts ago, I outlined my take on some of the better (read: bloodier) films of the year. conspicuously absent from that list was one of everyone's favorite pics, a movie I found to be bland beyond description.
Now, i'm certainly not saying that there is no room for lighter fare. I enjoy a good laugh. I know movies should present a fairy tale world every once in a while. And i definitely do not begrudge Diablo Cody her Oscar. She is a talented filmmaker in an industry that too often eschews female voices, and I very much look forward to her later work.
But Juno. What was Juno? Was it just a feminized version of the funnier Knocked up? Was it a Lost in Translation for Ameicans for whom being bored hanging out with movie stars in tokyo is not an overriding concern? Or was it, as many critics have wondered, a thinly veiled pro-life propaganda vehicle?
I think, more so than anything, Juno was the story of impossibility, about a girl who navigates her world in about the same way that a paper boat would navigate the Colorado, laughing and singing (a sad tune, but a song nonetheless) her way towards, well, I'm not sure what. In fact, the problem with Juno--a problem rooted in the screenplay, in the production, in the marketing--was the inability of any of the characters to make a single decision.
By my count, there were exactly two decisions made by all the characters in Juno. The first was fore-ordained: Juno's decision to keep the seamonkey growing inside her because, well, it had fingernails...and because how could she get herself into more shenanigans if she did otherwise? the second decision was when Jason Bateman's character backed out of his life, abandoned his wife and his unborn, surrogate child, and made off for the city. Now there's a movie! But, no, we go back to Juno and the Moldy Peaches.
Which is to say, I just didn't get it. Ebert, in calling Juno the best of 2007 , had this to say: "Strange, how during Juno's hip dialogue and cocky bravado, we begin to understand the young woman inside, and we want to hug her." But i guess my problem was exactly that: that I didn't understand Juno. I didn't understand where she got her strength from, I didn't understand why she found her situation funny and not painful, I didn't understand why she wasn't angry, how she toyed with Bleeker or why he let her get away with it. I thought all the emotions were sophmoric, not hidden behind the dialogue, but substituted out for it. There was no ticking clock, no wires that needed to be cut. Without genuine alternatives, how can we sympathize with the characters as they live their lives--their lives, and not others? how can we regard what they say as anything more than fortune cookie wisdom when they don't have a conflict from which to extricate themselves, or internal contradictions that need to be negotiated? Frankly, I was bored.
Now, Juno is certainly not another Napolean Dynomite, a movie with an indie spirit that caught on but was nonetheless genuinely bad. Indeed, fine, I'll say Juno was good, great even. But banal, indifferent, and, in some ways, lazy. I'd recommend Juno. I'll probably rent it on DVD. But the years best? Ebert, I think that stroke went to your head.
Friday, February 22, 2008
making a stand
"For many of us, their silent demonstration — one part human rights, one part black power — is an enduring symbol of resistance and righteous indignation. For others, the demonstration was disrespectful and even treasonous. This much is certain: no one has forgotten the image."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/sports/othersports/22rhoden.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/sports/othersports/22rhoden.html
Thursday, February 21, 2008
coen bro's, oscars thread
"While it clearly ranks alongside “Fargo” and “The Big Lebowski” as the brothers’ best work, “No Country” has an unusual place among their movies, in some ways perfectly typical of their style and in others an unexpected reinvention of it."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23240709/
"While “Pictures at a Revolution” is must reading for anyone who cares about Hollywood films and their place in the cultural context, it also raises an obvious question during this Oscar season: How do this year’s best picture nominees reflect what’s happening in the world — and in the world of show business — today?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23263333/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23240709/
"While “Pictures at a Revolution” is must reading for anyone who cares about Hollywood films and their place in the cultural context, it also raises an obvious question during this Oscar season: How do this year’s best picture nominees reflect what’s happening in the world — and in the world of show business — today?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23263333/
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Italian researchers waste state funding; eat pizza
"Ultrasound was used to measure the size and shape of the tissue beyond the "front" wall of the vagina, often suggested as the location of the G spot."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7254523.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7254523.stm
He knows the things you want to be...
...He's the smiling face on your TV.
"If you've never been to an Obama rally before, a word of advice: go early. Think Springsteen concert … but the tickets are free, first come, first served."
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/story?id=4313643&page=1
also, here's a cool pic:
Hey! I've been there!
"If you've never been to an Obama rally before, a word of advice: go early. Think Springsteen concert … but the tickets are free, first come, first served."
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/story?id=4313643&page=1
also, here's a cool pic:
Hey! I've been there!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Let's Rol
Well, it's officially started.
This is gonna be some season, but its also gonna be some pre-season. Phillies have to get Howard happy, they need to work in a new right fielder, third baseman, and closer. But most importantly, they have to prove that, indeed, the reigning NL-East champs are still the team to beat. Not that expectations really matter in baseball, but it will be nice to know that we started off the pre-season power rankings atop the mets--where we'll stay for 162 games.
All the way to the World Series, baby! Stay tuned as I dissect the starting rotation, the line-up, the bench, and even the new road uni's.
This is gonna be some season, but its also gonna be some pre-season. Phillies have to get Howard happy, they need to work in a new right fielder, third baseman, and closer. But most importantly, they have to prove that, indeed, the reigning NL-East champs are still the team to beat. Not that expectations really matter in baseball, but it will be nice to know that we started off the pre-season power rankings atop the mets--where we'll stay for 162 games.
All the way to the World Series, baby! Stay tuned as I dissect the starting rotation, the line-up, the bench, and even the new road uni's.
Monday, February 18, 2008
It's called Drainage!
2007 was, as they say, a bloody years in movies. Indeed, the three best of the year were drenched in blood, squirting and oozing and rotting. One even had the word “blood” in the title; another had it drenched across the billing on the promotional prints. And everyone has been quick to point out that, perhaps, the bloody outlook into which Hollywood tapped this year reflects the bleak worldview settling into a country beset by war and hardships. Whatever the case, these were some bad-ass movies.
The third best of the year was “Sweeny Todd.” After the whole idea of this movie settles in, which I think happens about the time Helena Bonham Carter belts out ‘The Worse Pies in London,” this movie flies along. With a wink and a nudge, Depp slices open throats with a merciless intensity, and we squirm, then let out a sound something like “ooouuughr,” then crack up. But we also begin to feel this feeling down in our guts, watching as the characters lose control and let their primal lusts—for revenge, for sex, for, I guess, happiness—overtake them. Is there a greater metaphor for the excess of violence than the unknowing cannibalism of nineteenth century Londoners singing in harmony? I can’t wait to get this on DVD.
The second best picture of the year used music to a devastating effect as well, although in a much different way. As Daniel Day-Lewis digs and grimaces in the great 21st century epic, the score slides through chromaticisms in a way that is, at the very least, unnerving. There Will Be Blood’s greatest achievements were the scenes in which, under the music, the action and movement took over: the incredible opening, for example, or the explosion at the oil rig. The third act here was challenging and, possibly, ineffective, but perhaps that is what we needed to understand the logical outcome of these character’s motivations: that there is simply no room for both a preacher and a capitalist in an American bowling ally. Or maybe it was just so that Daniel could belt out one of the many great lines in Anderson’s script. “I drink your milkshake!” Ok, a little much, but, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.
And then, well, what can I say about the soon-to-be Best Picture of the year, this wonderful addition to perhaps the most impressive oeuvre in American filmmaking? What can be said about a movie that, for all intents and purposes, was perfect? Well, I guess just that.
If Sweeney and Blood were about the surfeit of violence in our culture, about the decadence and the accompanying decay, then I think No Country for Old Men was about the emptiness of it all, the barren landscape of our new morality, of the desperate but futile search for justice, about the inevitability of death and bad haircuts. I think Tommy Lee Jones’ Sheriff Ed Tom Bell—invented last year for his masterful directorial debut, Three Burials for Melquiades Estrada, though resurrected perfectly here—was one of the most fully realized characters in cinematic history. Try as he might, Ed Tom, sheriff since he was 23, could never quite catch up with those Mexican dope-runners, the unhinged assassins, or even the two-bit hick corners-cutter who, with every bullet, make a mockery of his life and values.
Roger Deakons shot this desolate Texas landscape with such grace it doesn’t seem fair; Cormac McCarthy’s hilarious and troubling dialogue makes a smooth transition, to say the least; and Joel and Ethan stage so many heart-stopping chase scenes from start to finish. But the movie’s ending was where we got our nuts grabbed and our heads exploded, when all the best hopes for an easy life and a happy ending lay laced with bullets, deserving not even to be recounted. As much as we hoped he wouldn’t, there was no doubt that Llewellyn Moss would lose, something the filmmakers don’t let us forget or refute.
I believe that No Country is the kind of film that comes along once in a lifetime, a movie that, in fifty, a hundred years, will rank amongst the best ever made, perhaps the single best movie made in my lifetime. But even more so, I believe with this film, and with those that are sure to come, the Coen brothers have cemented their place not only as master auters, but also as great Americans. They will be remembered along with Franklin and Hawthorne, Hemingway and Edison, as names that represent monumental achievements, but even more importantly, as names that represent the very idea of America, that represent the potential for accomplishment itself. In other words, I drink their milkshake. I drink it all up.
Now, I recognize that no discussion of 2007 movies will suffice without a mention of Juno. So stay tuned...
The third best of the year was “Sweeny Todd.” After the whole idea of this movie settles in, which I think happens about the time Helena Bonham Carter belts out ‘The Worse Pies in London,” this movie flies along. With a wink and a nudge, Depp slices open throats with a merciless intensity, and we squirm, then let out a sound something like “ooouuughr,” then crack up. But we also begin to feel this feeling down in our guts, watching as the characters lose control and let their primal lusts—for revenge, for sex, for, I guess, happiness—overtake them. Is there a greater metaphor for the excess of violence than the unknowing cannibalism of nineteenth century Londoners singing in harmony? I can’t wait to get this on DVD.
The second best picture of the year used music to a devastating effect as well, although in a much different way. As Daniel Day-Lewis digs and grimaces in the great 21st century epic, the score slides through chromaticisms in a way that is, at the very least, unnerving. There Will Be Blood’s greatest achievements were the scenes in which, under the music, the action and movement took over: the incredible opening, for example, or the explosion at the oil rig. The third act here was challenging and, possibly, ineffective, but perhaps that is what we needed to understand the logical outcome of these character’s motivations: that there is simply no room for both a preacher and a capitalist in an American bowling ally. Or maybe it was just so that Daniel could belt out one of the many great lines in Anderson’s script. “I drink your milkshake!” Ok, a little much, but, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.
And then, well, what can I say about the soon-to-be Best Picture of the year, this wonderful addition to perhaps the most impressive oeuvre in American filmmaking? What can be said about a movie that, for all intents and purposes, was perfect? Well, I guess just that.
If Sweeney and Blood were about the surfeit of violence in our culture, about the decadence and the accompanying decay, then I think No Country for Old Men was about the emptiness of it all, the barren landscape of our new morality, of the desperate but futile search for justice, about the inevitability of death and bad haircuts. I think Tommy Lee Jones’ Sheriff Ed Tom Bell—invented last year for his masterful directorial debut, Three Burials for Melquiades Estrada, though resurrected perfectly here—was one of the most fully realized characters in cinematic history. Try as he might, Ed Tom, sheriff since he was 23, could never quite catch up with those Mexican dope-runners, the unhinged assassins, or even the two-bit hick corners-cutter who, with every bullet, make a mockery of his life and values.
Roger Deakons shot this desolate Texas landscape with such grace it doesn’t seem fair; Cormac McCarthy’s hilarious and troubling dialogue makes a smooth transition, to say the least; and Joel and Ethan stage so many heart-stopping chase scenes from start to finish. But the movie’s ending was where we got our nuts grabbed and our heads exploded, when all the best hopes for an easy life and a happy ending lay laced with bullets, deserving not even to be recounted. As much as we hoped he wouldn’t, there was no doubt that Llewellyn Moss would lose, something the filmmakers don’t let us forget or refute.
I believe that No Country is the kind of film that comes along once in a lifetime, a movie that, in fifty, a hundred years, will rank amongst the best ever made, perhaps the single best movie made in my lifetime. But even more so, I believe with this film, and with those that are sure to come, the Coen brothers have cemented their place not only as master auters, but also as great Americans. They will be remembered along with Franklin and Hawthorne, Hemingway and Edison, as names that represent monumental achievements, but even more importantly, as names that represent the very idea of America, that represent the potential for accomplishment itself. In other words, I drink their milkshake. I drink it all up.
Now, I recognize that no discussion of 2007 movies will suffice without a mention of Juno. So stay tuned...
Friday, February 15, 2008
Mitt out of luck
As i said in my last post, ive been trying to get on geezey for a while because, among other reasons, i wanted to weigh in and give my presidential endorsements before super tuesday. What a difference it could have made.
Had you asked me then who i support for the republican nomination for president, I would've said this:
Mitt Romney. Why, you might ask? Is it because you think he would be a weaker general election candidate than john mccain and make it that much easier for hilary clinton to turn the USA into the soviet union? Nooooooooooo.
In all honesty, I do believe that Mitt Romeny would have been better for this country. First of all, i think the idea that mitt is a panderer is bogus. isn't that the whole point of electoral politics? Who cares what mitt really thinks. isn't the question of interest what he would do once in office? and if the republican establishment wants someone who won't raise taxes or appoint baby-killing judges or let larry and jim buy monogramed bath towels, isnt that what they should get. and isn't mccain, mr. oh no its irresponsible to give rich people tax cuts when poor people are dying for freedom in a poorly planned and unjustified war, just as much of a panderer, now that he wants to make the bush tax cuts permanent. why the flip-flop, grandpa munster?
which brings us to out next issue, something obviously less important than whether people in the top 1% have to forfeit 37% or 41% of their annual income to the federal government: war and peace. Now, McCain is trying to position himself as a latter day winston churchill in this election, as the only man with enough clairvoyance to recognize the imminent threat of islamic fundamentalism, and the only man with enough guts and know-how to silence the appeasers and promote a policy of aggresive containment. now, to me, the implied argument seems to be that, just like the only way to stop hitler was total war, so too is it the only way to stop a bunch of poor, undersexed teenagers in the middle east from unhinging the political foundations of the modern world. I genuinely fear the way a president mccain would react to some incendiary news coming out of iran--like the successful enrichment of uranium (for energy purposes, of course)--or, god forbid, a catastrophic terrorist attack. Obama isn't doing his party justice when he says that mccain represent a continuation of the bush doctrine. mccain would be worse.
Now i have the utmost admiration for mccain. I really do. 1999 was about the time that i began to understand all that stuff in the newspaper, and john mccain was instantly attractive to me. it was his record, his independance, things that still attract voters to him. but most of all it was in the ways in which he was not like his rival, that swaggering, proud-to-be-ignorant governor from texas. That hug in 2004 just about did it for my relationship with mccain. And if every war hero were automatically better than every draft-dodger, then we'd have a president kerry right now, bob dole and george bush sr both wouldve beat clinton, and martin van beuran would never have had the opportunity to become some name that alot of people have heard of before.
so why mitt? well, i think the country could do alot worse than to be run effectively. i mean, politics is so drenched in ideologies and, well, politics, that sometimes we forget to look for that all important quality in our politicians: competence. Now, i'm obviously not one to blindly favor experience over change, but at the very least i could see mitt finding good, cost effective solutions to our recession and energy crisis. militarily, he strikes me alot as an eisenhower, eager to put american resources to work in making for more freedom and less danger around the world, but recognizing the extent to which military commanders don't have the vantage point from which to make reasonable assessments about things like troop levels, budget forecasts, or whether or not england would be pissed if america doesn't protect its sovereign rights over egyptian canals (well, you know what i mean).
But, all this for naught. mitt is out, and goiter-face is in. It will be fun watching him for the next 8 months trying to get republicans to vote for him. And, of course, his last day in the race, mitt couldn't help but make a fool of himself one last time, smiling that "i'm your boss, i'm on your side" smile and declaring that the reason he is getting out of the race is so that he won't help the democrats and thus contribute to a "surrender to terrorism." Ah, republicans. As hard as i try to be not partisan (and i do try hard), they always seem to remind me why i'm a democrat.
stay tuned for my democratic endorsement...that is, when voters (and/or superdelegates) have already decided.
Had you asked me then who i support for the republican nomination for president, I would've said this:
Mitt Romney. Why, you might ask? Is it because you think he would be a weaker general election candidate than john mccain and make it that much easier for hilary clinton to turn the USA into the soviet union? Nooooooooooo.
In all honesty, I do believe that Mitt Romeny would have been better for this country. First of all, i think the idea that mitt is a panderer is bogus. isn't that the whole point of electoral politics? Who cares what mitt really thinks. isn't the question of interest what he would do once in office? and if the republican establishment wants someone who won't raise taxes or appoint baby-killing judges or let larry and jim buy monogramed bath towels, isnt that what they should get. and isn't mccain, mr. oh no its irresponsible to give rich people tax cuts when poor people are dying for freedom in a poorly planned and unjustified war, just as much of a panderer, now that he wants to make the bush tax cuts permanent. why the flip-flop, grandpa munster?
which brings us to out next issue, something obviously less important than whether people in the top 1% have to forfeit 37% or 41% of their annual income to the federal government: war and peace. Now, McCain is trying to position himself as a latter day winston churchill in this election, as the only man with enough clairvoyance to recognize the imminent threat of islamic fundamentalism, and the only man with enough guts and know-how to silence the appeasers and promote a policy of aggresive containment. now, to me, the implied argument seems to be that, just like the only way to stop hitler was total war, so too is it the only way to stop a bunch of poor, undersexed teenagers in the middle east from unhinging the political foundations of the modern world. I genuinely fear the way a president mccain would react to some incendiary news coming out of iran--like the successful enrichment of uranium (for energy purposes, of course)--or, god forbid, a catastrophic terrorist attack. Obama isn't doing his party justice when he says that mccain represent a continuation of the bush doctrine. mccain would be worse.
Now i have the utmost admiration for mccain. I really do. 1999 was about the time that i began to understand all that stuff in the newspaper, and john mccain was instantly attractive to me. it was his record, his independance, things that still attract voters to him. but most of all it was in the ways in which he was not like his rival, that swaggering, proud-to-be-ignorant governor from texas. That hug in 2004 just about did it for my relationship with mccain. And if every war hero were automatically better than every draft-dodger, then we'd have a president kerry right now, bob dole and george bush sr both wouldve beat clinton, and martin van beuran would never have had the opportunity to become some name that alot of people have heard of before.
so why mitt? well, i think the country could do alot worse than to be run effectively. i mean, politics is so drenched in ideologies and, well, politics, that sometimes we forget to look for that all important quality in our politicians: competence. Now, i'm obviously not one to blindly favor experience over change, but at the very least i could see mitt finding good, cost effective solutions to our recession and energy crisis. militarily, he strikes me alot as an eisenhower, eager to put american resources to work in making for more freedom and less danger around the world, but recognizing the extent to which military commanders don't have the vantage point from which to make reasonable assessments about things like troop levels, budget forecasts, or whether or not england would be pissed if america doesn't protect its sovereign rights over egyptian canals (well, you know what i mean).
But, all this for naught. mitt is out, and goiter-face is in. It will be fun watching him for the next 8 months trying to get republicans to vote for him. And, of course, his last day in the race, mitt couldn't help but make a fool of himself one last time, smiling that "i'm your boss, i'm on your side" smile and declaring that the reason he is getting out of the race is so that he won't help the democrats and thus contribute to a "surrender to terrorism." Ah, republicans. As hard as i try to be not partisan (and i do try hard), they always seem to remind me why i'm a democrat.
stay tuned for my democratic endorsement...that is, when voters (and/or superdelegates) have already decided.
yeeeeea!
ive been trying to think of my password for blogger for like two months now, and then, like a prostitute i pay extra to get rough with, it hit me out of nowhere! the merth beaten worker is back! stay tuned for insightful yet irreverent commentary on this extraordinary voting cycle, in which our deepest desires and most strongly felt ideals are literally at stake, where history will be made, hearts broken, and the future of civilization determined: the oscars.
Also, that whole thing with that black teenager everyone's been talking about.
Also, that whole thing with that black teenager everyone's been talking about.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
