Friday, February 29, 2008
My makeshift radio studio.
Doing that radio show today, I had to use a wired land-line phone. That forced me to do the call in the kitchen, so here's how I set up in there:
The crafty Obama finds a way to look magnanimous while actually casting aspersions on McCain.
Noam Scheiber falls for an Obaman rhetorical trick. In a post titled, "Obama to McCain: You're Presidential Material in My Book," Scheiber notes what he calls "a very shrewd response by the Obama campaign to questions about McCain's 'natural-born' status." He links to this:
The argument that McCain isn't a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution is an obvious loser, both as a matter of constitutional interpretation and as something that an opposing candidate would want to say. But Obama, co-sponsoring the bill, is acting generous, as though he is forbearing making an attack. But since there is no attack to make, he's not actually being magnanimous. He's only putting on a show.
What is more, offering a statutory solution sends the message that there is a problem to be fixed. So in fact, it's a crafty way of saying that McCain is not now currently qualified!
Finally, if one believed the statute were needed to solve a problem of disqualification, there would be 2 reasons why it would not be effective:
1. A statute can't change the meaning of a constitutional term. Congress can no more re-define who is a "natural born citizen" than it can deem persons younger than 35 to be qualified for the presidency.
2. Even if a statute could successfully re-define who is a citizen at birth, McCain was born 71 years ago. Anyone who believed that this new statute conferred status as a natural-born citizen would be plunged into confusing questions about whether it could have a retroactive effect as it related to the constitutional clause.
Thus, fooling with this bill now is a way of creating phony doubts about McCain's qualification. That Obama can also receive plaudits for magnanimity should startle us awake. This is a man with amazing rhetorical skills, so we need to raise our game. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't be President. Indeed, I'd like to see skills like this wielded in our favor on the world stage. But pay attention and sharpen up so you can see what he's saying!
ADDED: In the email:
UPDATE: The Washington Post joins the gullibility club.
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a prominent backer of Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, introduced legislation Thursday that would define a "natural-born citizen" as anyone born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces. Obama's campaign announced late Thursday that he will co-sponsor the bill.Here's Scheiber's comment:
"Those who serve and sacrifice for their country, like John McCain and his father deserve every honor and privilege that our nation can possibly provide, and that includes the ability to run for the highest office in the land," Obama said in a statement.
There was just no way McCain was going to be denied the presidency on the grounds that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there for the military. You might as well take the high ground here, and Obama's done so pretty gracefully (and with some political savvy).Actually, Obama found the only possible low ground and made it look like high ground.
The argument that McCain isn't a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution is an obvious loser, both as a matter of constitutional interpretation and as something that an opposing candidate would want to say. But Obama, co-sponsoring the bill, is acting generous, as though he is forbearing making an attack. But since there is no attack to make, he's not actually being magnanimous. He's only putting on a show.
What is more, offering a statutory solution sends the message that there is a problem to be fixed. So in fact, it's a crafty way of saying that McCain is not now currently qualified!
Finally, if one believed the statute were needed to solve a problem of disqualification, there would be 2 reasons why it would not be effective:
1. A statute can't change the meaning of a constitutional term. Congress can no more re-define who is a "natural born citizen" than it can deem persons younger than 35 to be qualified for the presidency.
2. Even if a statute could successfully re-define who is a citizen at birth, McCain was born 71 years ago. Anyone who believed that this new statute conferred status as a natural-born citizen would be plunged into confusing questions about whether it could have a retroactive effect as it related to the constitutional clause.
Thus, fooling with this bill now is a way of creating phony doubts about McCain's qualification. That Obama can also receive plaudits for magnanimity should startle us awake. This is a man with amazing rhetorical skills, so we need to raise our game. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't be President. Indeed, I'd like to see skills like this wielded in our favor on the world stage. But pay attention and sharpen up so you can see what he's saying!
ADDED: In the email:
Are you sure you're not misoverestimating him? I think Bush played the lowered expectations games brilliantly [his strategery was to be misunderestimated] and the Bush/Rove jujitsu is legendary. Obama might be too smart by half.
UPDATE: The Washington Post joins the gullibility club.
"No one wants to miss 20 6-year-olds in red cowboy hats tapping to 'These Boots Are Made for Walkin'."
Says Michelle Obama, referring to the one dance recital of his daughter Sasha's that Barack Obama missed.
Here are the lyrics of that kinky dominatrix song. Which line do you consider least appropriate for 6-year-old girls to sing?
Here are the lyrics of that kinky dominatrix song. Which line do you consider least appropriate for 6-year-old girls to sing?
Radio alert.
I'm going to be on "At Issue with Ben Mehrens," a Wisconsin Public Radio show, from 4 to 6 PM Central Time today. This is one of those call-in shows where we talk about the news of the past week. You can stream the show or, later, listen to the show from the archive.
UPDATE: We're at the news break now, at 4:30 CT. If you're listening, you may notice a trend in many of the callers: antagonism to free markets.
UPDATE: We're at the news break now, at 4:30 CT. If you're listening, you may notice a trend in many of the callers: antagonism to free markets.
More blue.
Pre-Columbian art (seen with the fisheye at the Museum of Natural History):
The color is the museum's lighting, not my digital tweaking.
The color is the museum's lighting, not my digital tweaking.
Let's watch the YouTubed Hillary ad that the NYT has frontpaged right now.
A commenter at the NYT blog post (where a click on the front page picture takes you) compares this ad to the famous 1964 ad for LBJ:
The Clinton ad is much mellower, lacking the drama of the child's daisy petal counting becoming a nuclear countdown and explosion, but it makes the same connections between our love for children, our desire for security, and a purportedly reliable candidate. I thought Clinton's ad was quite effective, even though I knew I was watching a Clinton ad, and it's the kind of ad that is supposed to work by drawing you in and only at length revealing what is being promoted. I am entirely jaded and not susceptible to believing what the ad is trying to tell me, but I still experienced the emotional impact. When the candidate was shown in the end, looking earnest answering the phone at night, I cried a real sob, for a tiny fraction of a second (before laughing at myself).
ADDED: And score one point for feminism if you didn't have a sexist reaction in the end when you saw Hillary Clinton on the phone. In fact, I'm impressed that this image wasn't nixed on the ground that too many people will see a woman on the phone and think: Women! Always yakking on the phone!
AND: The Hillary campaign deserves credit for getting everyone talking about this. And from our own comments here, Palladian:
Amazing, the last image of Hillary on the phone produced in me a quick pang of positive feelings for her. A moment of love for her. Notice how the whole commercial up to that point is colored in blues, almost monochromatic. Then Hillary pops onto the screen, all warm tones, lit by a warm yellowish light. We connect with the only other warm tones in the commercial, those of the lights on the outside of the home that begin the commercial, the warm windows and porch lights of home. Hillary is a beacon in a shadowy world of blue, just like home.
And she's damn well put together at 3 o'clock in the morning, isn't she?!
AND: A lot of you are noting that she's wearing glasses, but this is a nice touch of realism. Hillary wears contact lenses, and at 3 AM, she'd probably have taken them out for sleeping and would quickly put on glasses. Now, that doesn't explain the perfect suit jacket, gold necklace, and neat coiffure, but wouldn't it be hilarious if they showed her wearing a granny nightgown and sitting on the edge of the bed to take that phone call?
"Well, there's something known as American conservatism, though it does not even call itself that."
"It's been calling itself 'voting Republican' or 'not liking the New Deal.' But it is a very American approach to life, and it has to do with knowing that the government is not your master, that America is good, that freedom is good and must be defended, and communism is very, very bad."
Peggy Noonan, paraphrasing William F. Buckley, Jr.
Peggy Noonan, paraphrasing William F. Buckley, Jr.
Blue glass art commerce.
I photographed the Apple Store on 5th Avenue and the sculpture garden at the Museum of Modern Art on the same day, and
AND: I've added a third photo (in the middle) because I didn't like the way the 2 photos leaned in the same direction. I needed to restore stability to the post. Speaking of distortions, you may be asking: Where are all the fisheye photographs? Hang on. I've got a few. You'll see.
Is it unacceptable for a white comic actor to impersonate Obama on SNL?
Wouldn't it be worse to use the black cast member who doesn't look at all like Obama?
Remember Eddie Murphy in the 1984 SNL sketch "White Like Me"? Could white America have laughed any harder? "I've got a lot of friends, and we've got a lot of makeup. So, the next time you're huggin' up with some really super, groovy white guy, or you met a really great, super keen white chick, don't be too sure. They might be black." Was there any outrage over that?
ADDED: To be fair to Professor Boyd, if the question is whether a black actor would ever get the part of playing a white person, the answer may be that there are always plenty of white actors around to fill the white roles. It's not about whether we find blackface less acceptable than whiteface, but just that black actors don't get the chance to play white. But it's at least as rare for a white actor to get the part of playing a black person. And, as I implied at the beginning of this post, it would be more racially offensive to give the role to a black actor who doesn't look at all like the black person he's supposed to portray. It would represent the view that all black people look alike.
[Lorne] Michaels said that the show auditioned "four to five" actors for the Obama role... "When it came down to it, I went with the person with the cleanest comedy 'take' on" Obama, Michaels said.Why did the professor of critical studies come up with an example of a large American black woman playing a skinny English white woman? Kind of stacking the deck there, Professor Boyd. Now, if Queen Latifah played Hillary — with a lot of hair and makeup work, I can picture it — the issue would be: Did she do it well and was it funny? Which is the test SNL applied to Arneson. In any case, what is Boyd talking about? We are much more sensitive about a white person wearing blackface than about a black person playing white!
Michaels said he liked how [Fred] Armisen caught the tilt of Obama's head, the rhythm of his speaking style, "the essence" of his look. "It's not about race," Michaels insisted via phone....
Todd Boyd, a professor of critical studies at the University of Southern California, says viewers might have a different reaction if the roles were reversed. What if, he says, "SNL" had cast a black woman to portray Hillary Clinton? "Do you think there's ever going to be a day when we start casting Queen Latifah to portray Princess Diana?" he asks. "We just don't have the same representations going in other direction."
Remember Eddie Murphy in the 1984 SNL sketch "White Like Me"? Could white America have laughed any harder? "I've got a lot of friends, and we've got a lot of makeup. So, the next time you're huggin' up with some really super, groovy white guy, or you met a really great, super keen white chick, don't be too sure. They might be black." Was there any outrage over that?
ADDED: To be fair to Professor Boyd, if the question is whether a black actor would ever get the part of playing a white person, the answer may be that there are always plenty of white actors around to fill the white roles. It's not about whether we find blackface less acceptable than whiteface, but just that black actors don't get the chance to play white. But it's at least as rare for a white actor to get the part of playing a black person. And, as I implied at the beginning of this post, it would be more racially offensive to give the role to a black actor who doesn't look at all like the black person he's supposed to portray. It would represent the view that all black people look alike.
The last-ditch effort to save the Clinton candidacy.
Adam Nagourney delivers the message: There is a reason Hillary Clinton has not been able to deliver the full attack against Barack Obama, but if he becomes the candidate, when it is too late, that attack will come. I expect to see this message everywhere over the weekend. Watch for it.
Leap Day.
Is there anything you're going to do about it?
I pity any journalist forced to cover the story. They must feel like the Bill Murray character in "Groundhog Day," stuck covering a tedious day that the public expects to see noted.
I pity any journalist forced to cover the story. They must feel like the Bill Murray character in "Groundhog Day," stuck covering a tedious day that the public expects to see noted.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
"The comment is a general, aimless and inane suggestion posted on a message board known for its aimless inanity..."
"AK47" fights disclosure of his name in the suit by 2 Yale law students over nasty things said on the AutoAdmit website. (PDF of motion, discussed on the WSJ law blog.)
The "aimless and inane" thing AK47 wrote was: "Women named Jill and [Doe II’s equally common first name] should be raped."
The "aimless and inane" thing AK47 wrote was: "Women named Jill and [Doe II’s equally common first name] should be raped."
Why is McCain appearing with a raving anti-Catholic?
I think Barack Obama didn't go far enough distancing himself from Louis Farrakhan, but McCain stood on a stage with John Hagee and openly accepted his endorsement.
Hagee in action:
Disgusting.
MORE: Here.
CORRECTION MADE: Hagee's first name is John, not Bill.
ADDED: Glenn Greenwald — posting the YouTube clip I found — writes:
Hagee in action:
Disgusting.
MORE: Here.
CORRECTION MADE: Hagee's first name is John, not Bill.
ADDED: Glenn Greenwald — posting the YouTube clip I found — writes:
Continuing with today's "politics/strange-bedfellows" theme, Ann Althouse called McCain's appearance with Hagee "disgusting" and posted the following You Tube in which Hagee shares some of his views on the Catholic Church.I'd intended "Disgusting" to refer to the video, not to the McCain-Hagee appearance, but I accept the extension of my judgment to what McCain did. And I don't quite know what Greenwald means with his "strange-bedfellows" remark. Does he mean it's strange of him to ally with me? (Click the "Greenwald" tag below to see my history with Greenwald.) Or does he think that I'm deserting McCain? I saw this from Mark Kleiman:
Ann Althouse becomes, I think, the first conservative blogger to get on John McCain's case about his accepting the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who holds somewhat ... primitive ... views about Catholicism. Kudos to her....This is big overestimation of my commitment to conservatives. I'm an independent blogger and I call them as I see them. The reason I appear allied with righties is that righties — as they say — look for converts and lefties look for heretics. I've gotten well-linked from the right, from bloggers who leave me alone when they disagree and give me positive reinforcement when they agree. This linkage makes me look like a traitor to my class (university professors) and I get punished from the left on a regular basis, with almost no positive reinforcement. For example, when I said I was voting for Obama in the Wisconsin primary, all I got from the left was the accusation that I was setting up a dramatic turn to McCain later in the year. It's just not like that for me. I'm not political the way those other bloggers are political.
How many Redbloggers will follow Althouse, and how many will simply button their lips.
If you want "American Idol" blogging on the girls' turn last night....
... go back to this old post and scroll way down to Trooper York's comments on each of the singers. Personally, I hated everything in last night's show and could barely tolerate the show passing through my brain once. I'm not giving it the extra time it would take to write about it. Man, I hate that kind of singing.
McCain versus Obama.
WaPo looks at the current McCain-Obama fighting:
... McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."Now, speculate about who will do better in a face-to-face debate in the fall.
"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."...
Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University on Wednesday, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own.
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, al-Qaeda is in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'Well, first of all, I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq; that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." The crowd roared its approval. "I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
"So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars."
Who will determine whether John McCain is a "natural-born citizen," qualified for the presidency?
There's been a lot of discussion of whether John McCain meets the constitutional requirement for the presidency. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was stationed as a military officer. The NYT covers the story today:
The real constitutional interpretation is taking place right now, as we decide whether to accept a man with this problem as the nominee, and later, as the candidate. I think we as a people have already answered the question as to McCain. None of his opponents are using disqualification as an argument and no one is concerned about it. Think of how different it would be if Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President. The issue would be debated and argued, and I think we'd see him as disqualified and, because of that, he'd never reach the point of nomination. Can you picture Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton trying to defeat McCain by making the argument that his birth in the Canal Zone disqualifies him? They'd only make themselves look bad. The argument is so unattractive that no one serious will make it, and therefore the question, for all realistic purposes, has already been answered.
ADDED: Jim Lindgren peruses the historical texts and concludes that the answer is obvious (and McCain is "natural-born").
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”...I love the contrast between the academic and the politician, and I think the politician's legal sensibility here says more about how the Supreme Court would ultimately decide the question than any academic inquiry into the text and the history of the constitutional clause. Graham, by the way, is a lawyer (with a law degree from the University of South Carolina) and more than 6 years of service as a lawyer in the Air Force. He still serves in the Air Force Reserves, where he is a colonel and a Senior Instructor at the Air Force JAG School. He knows law, and his interpretation of the clause is not just political instinct.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court....And this is the point: No one should be seen as having standing to sue. No one who might conceivably file a lawsuit has a concrete and particularized injury that would be redressed through the disqualification of McCain. So there will not be a Supreme Court case interpreting the clause. If the Electoral College ever selects someone who presents this problem, it will be theoretically possible for Congress to reject the choice on constitutional grounds, but, politically, that too is inconceivable.
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
The real constitutional interpretation is taking place right now, as we decide whether to accept a man with this problem as the nominee, and later, as the candidate. I think we as a people have already answered the question as to McCain. None of his opponents are using disqualification as an argument and no one is concerned about it. Think of how different it would be if Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President. The issue would be debated and argued, and I think we'd see him as disqualified and, because of that, he'd never reach the point of nomination. Can you picture Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton trying to defeat McCain by making the argument that his birth in the Canal Zone disqualifies him? They'd only make themselves look bad. The argument is so unattractive that no one serious will make it, and therefore the question, for all realistic purposes, has already been answered.
ADDED: Jim Lindgren peruses the historical texts and concludes that the answer is obvious (and McCain is "natural-born").
When is the organ transplant doctor committing murder?
In California, a doctor, Hootan C. Roozrokh, is charged with murder:
In brain-death donations, the donor is legally dead, but machines keep the organs viable by machines. In cardiac-death donations, after the patient’s ventilator is removed, the heart slows. Once it stops, brain function ceases. Most donor protocols call for a five-minute delay before the patient is declared dead. Transplant teams are not allowed in the room of the potential donor before that....
According to a police interview with Jennifer Endsley, a nurse, the transplant team, including Dr. Roozrokh, stayed in the room during the removal of the ventilator and gave orders for medication, something that would violate donation protocol. Ms. Endsley, who stayed to watch because she had never participated in this type of procedure, also told the police that Dr. Roozrokh asked an intensive care nurse to administer more “candy” — meaning drugs — after Mr. Navarro did not die immediately after his ventilator was removed.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
You're living in the monkey house.
Discuss the new "Project Runway."
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo writes:
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo writes:
The "monkey house" comment was hilarious. Any design that elicits a gag reflux from Mr. Gunn needs to be rethought.I loved the hair. First, it looked great. Second, it was a retro allusion to monkey fur, which was used in fashion — exactly the way Chris used it — in the 1920s and 1940s. I remember a glorious monkey fur dress that Eartha Kitt wore in the 1960s. I hope that Tim Gunn realized this before he riffed on the stink of a monkey house and that it was merely edited out, or he is not as great as we like to think he is. Third, using human hair as though it were monkey fur is both humorous and philosophical. If we react with disgust or outrage, we should progress to the next step and ask why? Why does it seem different from fur? Why is it worse? Fur entails the death of the animal, and the skin is still attached, making that obvious. No one imagines that a human being died to contribute the hair to Chris's project. So where does the disgust come from? Why didn't Nina Garcia accept the challenge and inquire into her own reaction? Could it be that we cling to our illusion that we are not one with the animals?
Human hair? Why human? Why mention the origin if the effect was solely the look itself? Because the desire was to shock, which is the last refuge of a hack. It's the fashion equivalent of Andres Serrano's Piss Christ ("It's repellent, so it must be good! Isn't urine pretty?"). It's a territory best left to 19-year-old rockers.
Chris is imaginative, but the hair idea was sophomoric. It made me think for the first time that he really does not understand people very well.
"For sale: private fantasyland of global megastar turned reclusive weirdo."
"Sprawling 2,800-acre grounds include 'artistic' statues of nude children, waxworks of old men handing out toffees, a miniature steam train and generous accommodation for elephants. Ferris wheel included (might need oiling)."
Do you need to be a rich weirdo to buy Neverland? Or could Neverland become a some sort of resort or Gracelandish tourist attraction?
Do you need to be a rich weirdo to buy Neverland? Or could Neverland become a some sort of resort or Gracelandish tourist attraction?
More fisheying the Museum of Natural History.
The grand entrance, with dinosaur:
The mammoth, sans wooliness:
The waterless room:
The mammoth, sans wooliness:
The waterless room:
"I would immediately have a trade timeout..."
Tigerhawk freaks out over the debate transcript: "So, National Mom, we are all going to take a 'time out' from 'trade' while you convene 500 experts to 'fix NAFTA' according to the interests of the unions and environmental activists."
"Your Shoes are a much more diverting Topick than the Wretches who would be your President."
Sir Archy, our beloved ghost commenter, has favored us with another visit to this Theatre of Topicks as he calls it.
Famous, mustachio'd...
... guess who?
Answer — and the reason for asking — here.
And the commenters are all: What DVD did he watch?
Answer — and the reason for asking — here.
And the commenters are all: What DVD did he watch?
TNR talks to David Duke about Obama.
So Andrew Sullivan said:
I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this. If David Duke called John McCain a good man, would McCain hesitate to say he'd rather Duke opposed him? If this is how Obama wants to tackle this emotive issue, he needs to get real.And now there's this from Michael Crowley at TNR. He's talking on the phone with David Duke. What does the famous racist think of the prospect of a black President?
...Duke seems almost nonchalant about it. Self-described white nationalists like himself, he explained cordially, "don't see much difference in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton--or, for that matter, John McCain." Sure, Duke considers Obama "a racist individual," citing his Afrocentric Chicago church. But soon the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People was critiquing Obama as overhyped and insubstantial in terms you might hear from, say, Clinton strategist Mark Penn. ...
[H]is mild tone is still a curious reaction to what white supremacists have long considered a sign of racial apocalypse. ...
"I don't think Obama will be any more negative for the United States than Hillary or John McCain," explains Duke. "In fact," he added, "we probably have less preference for a European like a John McCain or a Hillary who has betrayed our interests, our heritage, our rights."
Edward Sebesta, a Dallas-based expert on neo-Confederate groups, says that, in a match-up against Obama, McCain might wind up suffering the brunt of the hatred: "They really hate McCain," he says. "They're suffering from emotional exhaustion. They might not have the energy to be infuriated by two candidates at the same time." Amazingly, some commenters on racist websites are already debating the grim choice between Obama and McCain.
"How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton."
Sean Wilentz portrays a clever sleight of hand:
IN THE COMMENTS: I don't think anyone is buying Wilentz's argument (and his motives are impugned).
[T]he Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters — a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.Does Wilentz prove his point? Read the whole thing.
More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so.
IN THE COMMENTS: I don't think anyone is buying Wilentz's argument (and his motives are impugned).
William F. Buckley, Jr. has died.
The NYT obit:
I remember watching Buckley on "Firing Line" in the 1960s, before I went to college and learned that he was to be considered poison. What a great character with a great talk show. I should try to find some old video clips and add them to this post.
ADDED: Here he is interviewing Noam Chomsky in 1969: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. Now that's television!
AND: More video. What election commentary was like in 1969: "And yet always there is a strange seriousness, something in the system that warns us, warns us that America had better strike out on a different course, rather than face another 4 years of asphixiation by liberal premises.... No, Nixon won't bring paradise, but he could bring a little more air to breathe."
William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn....Lots of commentary at the National Review blog, The Corner.
Mr. Buckley’s winningly capricious personality, replete with ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare with an anteater’s, hosted one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine, National Review.....
The liberal advance had begun with the New Deal, and so accelerated in the next generation that Lionel Trilling, one of America’s leading intellectuals, wrote in 1950: “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”
Mr. Buckley declared war on this liberal order, beginning with his blistering assault on Yale as a traitorous den of atheistic collectivism immediately after his graduation (with honors) from the university.
“All great biblical stories begin with Genesis,” George Will wrote in the National Review in 1980. “And before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind, and the spark in 1980 has become a conflagration.”
I remember watching Buckley on "Firing Line" in the 1960s, before I went to college and learned that he was to be considered poison. What a great character with a great talk show. I should try to find some old video clips and add them to this post.
ADDED: Here he is interviewing Noam Chomsky in 1969: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. Now that's television!
AND: More video. What election commentary was like in 1969: "And yet always there is a strange seriousness, something in the system that warns us, warns us that America had better strike out on a different course, rather than face another 4 years of asphixiation by liberal premises.... No, Nixon won't bring paradise, but he could bring a little more air to breathe."
Obama, Farrakhan, and how Hillary Clinton took the opening and then squandered it.
What happened in the debate last night when Tim Russert confronted Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan? In real time, I thought that Obama failed to denounce Farrakhan and that Hillary Clinton caught it and confronted him. It was the single most impressive thing I've seen Hillary Clinton do in the debates. But then Obama managed to cloud things up and make her point seem silly, and she backed down.
Now, let's look at the transcript:
That implies, I think, that people should worry less about what second-rate leaders like Farrakhan and Wright have been doing in the past and think more hopefully about what a first-rate leader like him can do in the future. In this view, garishly severing ties to Farrakhan and Wright is either beside the point or counterproductive. Let those 2 characters operate at a distance, helping Obama achieve power, and, at that point, Obama will get everything right and then he can transform everyone and root out all traces of anti-Semitism.
***
Video:
ADDED: What others are saying. Andrew Sullivan, live-blogging:
Don Frederick at the LA Times: "He could have saved himself some potential grief if he had been less circular arriving at that point" (of equating "reject" and "denounce"). Oh, Don, don't you see? It's all about the circular. It only worked because of the circularity. I mean, it's the circularity that made you think it was only circular!
Sticking with the MSM blogs, here's Katharine Q. Seelye for the NYT:
Marc Ambinder:
MORE: Noam Scheiber brings up an incident from Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign relating to Suha Arafat: "I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade." Here's a 2000 NYT article that gives background on the Suha Arafat incident:
Now, let's look at the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.Russert challenges Obama to show what he's made of. Farrakhan offers his support: Do you have the courage to say no, I don't want your support, I reject it?
On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.Obama makes 2 significant rhetorical moves: 1. He reverts to the use of the past tense and 2. He refers to not to Farrakhan, the man, but to some of the things that Farrahkan has said in the past. This distances him from the question asked and leaves room for him to accept the support of the man.
I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.Clearly, this is a failure to reject Farrakhan. It's extremely clever, but don't be fooled by the cleverness, which was hard to catch in real time. He's creating the space for Farrakhan to operate separately, bringing him support. Farrahkan didn't coordinate with the campaign in any way. Fine. That wasn't the question. Farrakhan has said some good things about Obama, and Obama doesn't want to say I don't accept support from this man. He talks about the nonissue of censoring him. Of course, Obama can't make Farrakhan stop, but he can do what Russert asked him to do: Say that he rejects the support.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?Russert sees what is happening and asks the perfect follow-up.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments."Of him" here matters. This is the one place where there is a reference to the man — though perhaps only the man and his comments — the man if he continues to come attached to the kind of statements he's made in the past. And there is still a failure to say that he rejects the support. And he's still speaking in the past tense. He still won't say "I denounce Farrakhan" or "I reject his support." He must want the support for the good it can do him. That's understandable, but it is an opening for Hillary Clinton.
MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."Obama neatly packages the issue into the statements and the denunciations of the past.
OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it.
This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."Russert opens the matter back up with details and with the figure of Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama has not distanced himself.
He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."
RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.This too is a clever set of rhetorical moves. How can he reassure Jews? 1. Jews already support him. 2. Jews were historically great benefactors of black people. (I love Jews.) 3. He has the capacity to rebuild the connections between Jews and African-Americans. (Jews should love me.)
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
That implies, I think, that people should worry less about what second-rate leaders like Farrakhan and Wright have been doing in the past and think more hopefully about what a first-rate leader like him can do in the future. In this view, garishly severing ties to Farrakhan and Wright is either beside the point or counterproductive. Let those 2 characters operate at a distance, helping Obama achieve power, and, at that point, Obama will get everything right and then he can transform everyone and root out all traces of anti-Semitism.
[OBAMA:] You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.These 3 paragraphs filibuster the same point. Please forget the nasty things Tim Russert said so long ago.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
When I was -- just last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.
WILLIAMS: Senator...Great! She saw what just happened. She made the exact point that needed to be made. And she had a personal example of courage, doing precise thing that Russert invited Obama to do. Perfect.
CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.Perfect.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?In other words: Please, Hillary, explain, for those out there who might not have noticed what you said you did and which Obama just wriggled out of doing.
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.Make it clear! Don't let this look like a Clintonesque word game. This isn't "what the meaning of is is." There is a real difference. Say what it is so your best point isn't lost!
And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.From her best moment to her worst! She melted into near gibberish. Why? What was she afraid of? Did she lose her grip on the subject? "Sort of, you know"? "I just think"? The filler words pop up everywhere. Bland praise seeps in: Obama is "absolutely sincere." And the distinction she just made between him and her becomes a lame wish to become "even stronger." So then, he's already strong, so what are you quibbling about? What a lost opportunity!
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting.He doesn't miss the opportunities. He just drove in the knife, yet it sounded lighthearted and funny.
There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it.Huh? Clinton should be preparing her attack based on this nonsense. You can reject help that isn't formally offered!
But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.This is the part everyone notices. It's hilarious. We love him. And she now seems ridiculous. Come back up for air, Hillary! Fight it! He gave you an opening! Point out where he failed.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.Astounding! Hillary Clinton does not have the instinct for blood. She either gave up or she lacks the chops to keep up with him.
(APPLAUSE)Ah, see? They like you when you concede to him. Hopeless.
WILLIAMS: Rare audience outburst on the agreement over rejecting and renouncing.And the "moderator" Brian Williams scores a victory for Obama.
We're going to take advantage of this opportunity to take the second of our limited breaks. We'll be back live from Cleveland right after this.The referee stops the fight.
***
Video:
ADDED: What others are saying. Andrew Sullivan, live-blogging:
Does Obama understand that saying he has consistently denounced him is not the same as simply saying, "I denounce him"? A weak response - reminiscent of Dukakis. (By the way, why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans that Farrakhan is a fascist hate-monger? It's a question for all Americans.) Obama's Farrakhan response suggests to me he is reluctant to attack a black demagogue. Maybe he wants to avoid a racial melee. But he has one. He needs to get real on this. Weak, weak, weak. Clinton sees an opening and pounces. She wins this round. He is forced to adjust. His worst moment in any debate since this campaign started. I'm astounded he couldn't be more forceful. His inability to say by himself, unprompted, that Farrakhan's support repels him and he rejects it outright really unsettles me.Josh Marshall (referring to this segment of the debate as "Russert's run of shame"):
I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this. If David Duke called John McCain a good man, would McCain hesitate to say he'd rather Duke opposed him? If this is how Obama wants to tackle this emotive issue, he needs to get real.
I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it's getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.Wow, I thought Andrew Sullivan was the one who was blinded by love for Obama. What an interesting comparison between Andrew "why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans" Sullivan and Josh "as a Jew" Marshall!
That's not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan's vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn't believe that Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness".
As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.
Don Frederick at the LA Times: "He could have saved himself some potential grief if he had been less circular arriving at that point" (of equating "reject" and "denounce"). Oh, Don, don't you see? It's all about the circular. It only worked because of the circularity. I mean, it's the circularity that made you think it was only circular!
Sticking with the MSM blogs, here's Katharine Q. Seelye for the NYT:
One of the more revealing bits — and a new subject to these debates — was over Minister Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of Mr. Obama.Yes, isn't it nice that they're both good? He's better though. And she was, you know, right.
Asked if he rejected that support, Mr. Obama joked that he couldn’t really say that to someone who “thinks I’m a good guy,” but added, “I have been very clear in my denunciations of him.” Mrs. Clinton then said she had rejected the support of an anti-semitic party in New York and that it had been “important to stand on principle.” “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” she said. Whereupon Mr. Obama said he didn’t see a big difference but, “I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
The exchange showed both of them in a strong light — she spotted an opening, portrayed her own heroics and pushed him to her side, while he showed flexibility and good judgment in quickly agreeing with her and defusing the issue.
Marc Ambinder:
[T]here were was his weird language about the endorsement by Louis Farrakhan. There are some things you just don’t do in American politics: calling Farrakhan “minister Farrakhan” is one of them. He’s been declared persona non grata by everyone in the mainstream of our politics. It seemed to take badgering by Clinton for Obama to reject it explicitly (although he did not embrace it and had distanced himself from it before). I don't think Obama's at fault here... I think the circumstances conspired against him... but it just didn't sound right...Circumstances conspired against him? What's that supposed to mean? Didn't sound right? It wasn't right!
MORE: Noam Scheiber brings up an incident from Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign relating to Suha Arafat: "I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade." Here's a 2000 NYT article that gives background on the Suha Arafat incident:
On [a trip to the West Bank in 1999], Mrs. Clinton was photographed kissing the wife of Yasir Arafat, after Mrs. Arafat, speaking in Arabic, accused the Israeli government of employing toxic gas against Palestinian women and children. Mrs. Clinton condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks.So what's Scheiber's point?
She lectured Obama about how it's not sufficient to denounce anti-Semites; you have to actively reject their support. It was a sanctimonious turn, and Obama defused it with typical good humor.Taylor Marsh says "Obama Blows his 'Sister Soujah' Moment":
As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama's tepid response to Farrakhan, and was appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn't alone. That Obama had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our "special relationship" with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It's about moral courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven't earned and don't deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Okay, enough with the shoe shopping. Let's live-blog the big debate.
7:58 ET: I am so ready for this. It's do or die time for Hillary. And I'm watching the debate with a big Hillary supporter. I want to see some major action in the first 20 minutes. MSNBC is banging drums and hyping the debate (which starts in an hour). They show a picture of Jonah Goldberg and call him a "clown" who compared Obama to Hitler. I think the sensible people will switch over to "American Idol" and then return to MSNBC when this silliness is over.
9:01: "Oh, the debate."
9:04: Brian Williams plays Hillary the "I am absolutely honored" from the last debate followed by the "shame!" routine from the other day. What's with the mood swings? It's a "contested" campaign, she says and segues into a discussion of health insurance. The follow-up is about the "native garb" photo of Obama. Hillary doesn't know where it came from and doesn't condone it. Obama accepts her assertion about the "native garb" photo. Both of them derail Williams's plan and make this whole huge segment of the debate about the details of their rival health care programs. It's one filibuster after another.
9:19: Hillary seems to think that her getting the first question again is worthy of note, and she makes a clumsy reference to "Saturday Night Live," something about Barack Obama needing "another pillow." I don't like this infantalizing of Obama, and I don't her acting like people are picking on her. Tim Russert is struggling with her over NAFTA now, really trying to pin her down. Is she ready to opt out of NAFTA in 6 months? She says yes — unless it can be renegotiated on labor and environmental standards. This sounds harsh, but since Obama proceeds to agree with her entirely, it's not a point of distinction and should have no effect on anyone's decision.
9:35: Is anyone still watching? So far, it's been an annoying combination of wonky and angry.
9:48: Tim Russert seems angry too as he hypothesizes about how the Iraqis may react to a new President announcing a planned pullout.
9:53: "I think Senator Clinton showed some good humor there," Obama says after seeing the clip of Hillary being sarcastic about his speaking ("the heaven's will open," etc.). He nicely avoids the bait and gets back to talking policy (which is exactly what his strategy should be, since it's only Clinton who can benefit by shaking things up tonight). "I'm not interested in talk. I'm not interested in speeches," he says. Hillary offers that she was "having a little fun," and it's hard to have fun on the campaign trail.
10:08: Russert is raging. Hillary needs to release her tax returns! (She's too busy to do it before next Tuesday, she says, as if she'd personally get the papers together.) Obama should denounce Farrakhan! (He blusters.)
10:13: Hillary scores! When she ran for the Senate in 2000, she rejected the support of the anti-Semitic Independence Party. She "wouldn't be associated with people" like that. So far, Obama has only said that he gave a sermon denouncing anti-Semitism. Then there's some confusing byplay over whether "reject" is a stronger word than "denounce," and Obama gets away with resolving it by saying he would "reject and denounce." So her strong point got fuzzed over. He still hasn't denounced Farrakhan. She loses the moment and says "good, good." He beams. We go to commercial. Her moment is squandered. He got away with something there.
10:19: Obama is confronted with his "most liberal" ranking. I find his talking tiresome and will need to check the transcript to see if he said anything interesting.
10:33: In lieu of a closing statement, each is asked about the other, and many tedious words are blabbed. Arghhh! I hit the wall after that reject-and-denounce fiasco.
11:18: So what did you think of "American Idol"? Did David Cook deserved to be slammed for liking crossword puzzles when the other guys were about tennis and drag racing? Cook was the hardest rocker... yet somehow he's a pussy because he's — by his own admission — a "word nerd." Tonight was interesting because 2 guys who were unimpressive last week were really good: Chikezie and David Hernandez. I really liked Hernandez doing "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" — it was 70s night — what a great song. Now, I'm watching the adorable, scream-inducing David Archuleta singing "Imagine." Randy — who loves him — asks why he skipped the first verse. David does not say because it's against religion, just that he had to cut it shorter and he likes the last verse best, but I think he didn't want to disrespect religion. Now Paula says she wants to hang him from her rear view mirror, which I suppose means she thinks he's Jesus. Either that or she thinks he's air freshener. But the way she goes on to break down crying over how it was the most beautiful thing she's ever heard, I don't think it can just be that he's super-fresh. Simon says "Right now, you're the one to beat." Two guys who fell in my estimation this week were Michael Johns (why is the macho guy bleating Fleetwood Mac?) and Jason Castro (dull). And what are we to think of Luke Menard? He picked an incredibly complicated song — "Killer Queen" — and pulled it off decently (but couldn't be Mercury). Something I don't even want to think about: Robbie Carrico singing "Hot Blooded" (man, I hate that kind of song). Or Jason Yeager (what a cheeseball!). And then there's Danny Noriega. He's very sweet, and he sang a great song ("Superstar"), but he's just not good enough. (Here, listen to Karen Carpenter sing it.) He could be the Sanjaya this year, but the young girls are going crazy for the kid who's actually really good, li'l David Archuleta, so we won't be having a Sanjaya.
9:01: "Oh, the debate."
9:04: Brian Williams plays Hillary the "I am absolutely honored" from the last debate followed by the "shame!" routine from the other day. What's with the mood swings? It's a "contested" campaign, she says and segues into a discussion of health insurance. The follow-up is about the "native garb" photo of Obama. Hillary doesn't know where it came from and doesn't condone it. Obama accepts her assertion about the "native garb" photo. Both of them derail Williams's plan and make this whole huge segment of the debate about the details of their rival health care programs. It's one filibuster after another.
9:19: Hillary seems to think that her getting the first question again is worthy of note, and she makes a clumsy reference to "Saturday Night Live," something about Barack Obama needing "another pillow." I don't like this infantalizing of Obama, and I don't her acting like people are picking on her. Tim Russert is struggling with her over NAFTA now, really trying to pin her down. Is she ready to opt out of NAFTA in 6 months? She says yes — unless it can be renegotiated on labor and environmental standards. This sounds harsh, but since Obama proceeds to agree with her entirely, it's not a point of distinction and should have no effect on anyone's decision.
9:35: Is anyone still watching? So far, it's been an annoying combination of wonky and angry.
9:48: Tim Russert seems angry too as he hypothesizes about how the Iraqis may react to a new President announcing a planned pullout.
9:53: "I think Senator Clinton showed some good humor there," Obama says after seeing the clip of Hillary being sarcastic about his speaking ("the heaven's will open," etc.). He nicely avoids the bait and gets back to talking policy (which is exactly what his strategy should be, since it's only Clinton who can benefit by shaking things up tonight). "I'm not interested in talk. I'm not interested in speeches," he says. Hillary offers that she was "having a little fun," and it's hard to have fun on the campaign trail.
10:08: Russert is raging. Hillary needs to release her tax returns! (She's too busy to do it before next Tuesday, she says, as if she'd personally get the papers together.) Obama should denounce Farrakhan! (He blusters.)
10:13: Hillary scores! When she ran for the Senate in 2000, she rejected the support of the anti-Semitic Independence Party. She "wouldn't be associated with people" like that. So far, Obama has only said that he gave a sermon denouncing anti-Semitism. Then there's some confusing byplay over whether "reject" is a stronger word than "denounce," and Obama gets away with resolving it by saying he would "reject and denounce." So her strong point got fuzzed over. He still hasn't denounced Farrakhan. She loses the moment and says "good, good." He beams. We go to commercial. Her moment is squandered. He got away with something there.
10:19: Obama is confronted with his "most liberal" ranking. I find his talking tiresome and will need to check the transcript to see if he said anything interesting.
10:33: In lieu of a closing statement, each is asked about the other, and many tedious words are blabbed. Arghhh! I hit the wall after that reject-and-denounce fiasco.
11:18: So what did you think of "American Idol"? Did David Cook deserved to be slammed for liking crossword puzzles when the other guys were about tennis and drag racing? Cook was the hardest rocker... yet somehow he's a pussy because he's — by his own admission — a "word nerd." Tonight was interesting because 2 guys who were unimpressive last week were really good: Chikezie and David Hernandez. I really liked Hernandez doing "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" — it was 70s night — what a great song. Now, I'm watching the adorable, scream-inducing David Archuleta singing "Imagine." Randy — who loves him — asks why he skipped the first verse. David does not say because it's against religion, just that he had to cut it shorter and he likes the last verse best, but I think he didn't want to disrespect religion. Now Paula says she wants to hang him from her rear view mirror, which I suppose means she thinks he's Jesus. Either that or she thinks he's air freshener. But the way she goes on to break down crying over how it was the most beautiful thing she's ever heard, I don't think it can just be that he's super-fresh. Simon says "Right now, you're the one to beat." Two guys who fell in my estimation this week were Michael Johns (why is the macho guy bleating Fleetwood Mac?) and Jason Castro (dull). And what are we to think of Luke Menard? He picked an incredibly complicated song — "Killer Queen" — and pulled it off decently (but couldn't be Mercury). Something I don't even want to think about: Robbie Carrico singing "Hot Blooded" (man, I hate that kind of song). Or Jason Yeager (what a cheeseball!). And then there's Danny Noriega. He's very sweet, and he sang a great song ("Superstar"), but he's just not good enough. (Here, listen to Karen Carpenter sing it.) He could be the Sanjaya this year, but the young girls are going crazy for the kid who's actually really good, li'l David Archuleta, so we won't be having a Sanjaya.
A Madison Avenue shoe space.
"Okay, I'm putting my Nicorette back in."
You know, I like all of these individuals better in their off-camera stuff than what they do when they think a million people are looking.
The fisheye view of the Museum of Natural History.
Best seen through the fisheye: T Rex!
Most disconcerting is this confrontation with ourselves at the Hall of Human Origins (which is featured in the the end of the movie "Election").
Is this really what we are and, if so, is it horrifying or is it wonderful that we figured it out?
Most disconcerting is this confrontation with ourselves at the Hall of Human Origins (which is featured in the the end of the movie "Election").
Is this really what we are and, if so, is it horrifying or is it wonderful that we figured it out?
Glenn's back.
With 10 posts up before 9 a.m., so you won't fail to understand what it means for Glenn to be back. Why I remember how I felt yesterday at 8 a.m., thinking, damn, I need to make this thing look like it's going. What is worthy? What is pithy? What is pithy and worthy enough to tell 250,000 people?
But, of course, I'm immensely grateful for the opportunity to twirl around on the big stage for a week — and also for the nice feeling of being trusted with it. It's quite a responsibility and a complicated task: How can you be yourself but also fit into that other environment? It's not only that there it's a huge readership (and it doesn't exist because of interest in what I have to say). It's also that it involves group blogging, and — terrific as Megan McArdle and Michael Totten are — I'm used to controlling the whole structure of the front page.
So much as I love the chance to be Instapundit, which I've done a few times over the years, I'm also always happy to get back to being just Althouse. Among many benefits of things getting back to normal: I can read Glenn again.
But, of course, I'm immensely grateful for the opportunity to twirl around on the big stage for a week — and also for the nice feeling of being trusted with it. It's quite a responsibility and a complicated task: How can you be yourself but also fit into that other environment? It's not only that there it's a huge readership (and it doesn't exist because of interest in what I have to say). It's also that it involves group blogging, and — terrific as Megan McArdle and Michael Totten are — I'm used to controlling the whole structure of the front page.
So much as I love the chance to be Instapundit, which I've done a few times over the years, I'm also always happy to get back to being just Althouse. Among many benefits of things getting back to normal: I can read Glenn again.
"Roy Scheider here. You know who definitely need a bigger boat?"
"The montage of dead people, which I was most certainly not in. What's with the arbitrary cut-off date? I starred in two iconic movies; I played Bob Fosse; I just died. I didn't expect to beat Heath Ledger on the applause-o-meter or anything, but Jesus H., who does a guy have to fuck to make the 'In Memoriam' grade around here? …You know, if I thought I would still be apologizing for The Myth Of Fingerprints in the afterlife, I would have told my agent to shove that script sideways."
Television Without Pity does the Oscars show. (People seem to forget that the Oscars is a TV show.) Click on the little pics along the top to get all the snark.
Television Without Pity does the Oscars show. (People seem to forget that the Oscars is a TV show.) Click on the little pics along the top to get all the snark.
"I get rides and stuff, so I’m not worried about it. I’ll get around to it, maybe this summer sometime."
These days less than a third of 16-year-olds get their drivers licenses as soon as they can. Surprising. Is it that it's too much trouble? Are kids these days less interested in independence? Does driving no longer symbolize independence the way it did back in the golden age of driving? (Was there a golden age of driving?)
Many more theories about the decline listed at the link — fearfulness among parents and their kids, lack of driver education classes in school, the expenses of driving...
Not listed (though the article is in the NYT): Kids are concerned about the environment! Why can't it be considered a good thing?
Many more theories about the decline listed at the link — fearfulness among parents and their kids, lack of driver education classes in school, the expenses of driving...
Not listed (though the article is in the NYT): Kids are concerned about the environment! Why can't it be considered a good thing?
Monday, February 25, 2008
I'd be embarassed to talk about shame so much.
The Clinton campaign stooped so low circulating a picture of Barack Obama in African dress. The Obama camp responded with shaming: "On the very day that Sen. Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election." And then the Clinton side shamed them back: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed." This is the classic rhetorical device that is technically termed "I'm rubber, you're glue."
"He isn't seeking to perfect Swift-boating, he's seeking to end it."
John Kerry:
And Kerry is a man who doesn't understand that he was a terrible candidate.
"I believe Barack Obama has this moment of history to be able to change these politics and take the negative off, to take the politics of destruction away. He isn't seeking to perfect Swift-boating, he's seeking to end it. This is a man who understands we've got to talk to each other."
And Kerry is a man who doesn't understand that he was a terrible candidate.
Blogger(s) triumph.
JOSH MARSHALL WINS A POLK AWARD and gets a nice write-up in the NYT. (Am I supposed to punish the NYT for the dreadful McCain story? I've got to make an exception and link to this.) "[H]e operates a long way from the clichéd pajama-wearing, coffee-sipping commentator on the news." Dammit, where's my coffee? And enough with the pajamas cliché — which is a cliché even when you're calling it a cliché.
By the way, speaking of clichés: Have you noticed you never see MSM articles carping about bloggers anymore? Like this one from back in September 2006. Actually, I think that one was so dumb that no one ever wrote another one.
(Cross-posted on Instapundit.)
By the way, speaking of clichés: Have you noticed you never see MSM articles carping about bloggers anymore? Like this one from back in September 2006. Actually, I think that one was so dumb that no one ever wrote another one.
(Cross-posted on Instapundit.)
Sunday, February 24, 2008
"Thank you life, thank you love."
Beautiful thank-you speech from Marion Cotillard, who won the Best Actress Oscar tonight.
ADDED: Cotillard aside, what a sucky Oscar show this is!
AND: Daniel Day-Lewis! I love that guy! "This sprang like a mad sapling out of the beautiful head of Paul Thomas Anderson."
ADDED: Cotillard aside, what a sucky Oscar show this is!
AND: Daniel Day-Lewis! I love that guy! "This sprang like a mad sapling out of the beautiful head of Paul Thomas Anderson."
"I'm going to kill somebody."
I heard a man say that today. I was walking down the street. A man was standing there, and I heard him mutter that.
(We were just minding our own business. Afterwards, we went to the Museum of Modern Art.)
(We were just minding our own business. Afterwards, we went to the Museum of Modern Art.)
Dance, Music, Sex, Romance... Somebody call the doctor... Say ooh, yeah, yeah... Help me!...
"Crippled by years of sexy dancing," Prince needs hip replacement surgery.
Shame on Obama! Hillary is only going to make you buy insurance after she's given you enough money that she thinks you can afford it.
Hillary is shaming Obama for telling people she's going to force them to buy insurance whether they can afford it or not. It really is so unfair. She's going to force them to buy insurance only if she thinks they can afford it. There will be tax credits and subsidies to get them to the level where they will be told they can afford it. Surely, no one will think they can't afford it once they government has figured out that they can. How dare Obama hinge his argument on the notion that people will have ideas of their own about how to spend their money.
(Cross-posted at Instapundit.)
(Cross-posted at Instapundit.)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
"If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist..."
Clark Hoyt, the NYT public editor, examines the journalistic ethics of the McCain story published last Thursday:
Here's Jeff Jarvis on the subject:
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” [NYT executive editor Bill Keller said.] “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”"Ignores" is putting it way too mildly. It's a ludicrous argument. It would mean that editors could purvey all sorts of trash as long as it is embedded it in a larger story. And when we get outraged, they could look down their noses and insult us about our poor reading comprehension.
I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.
Here's Jeff Jarvis on the subject:
[Keller] tries to tell us that we’re concentrating on the wrong thing here, that we don’t see what the real story is....More at the link, but I've boiled it down to make it clear that Jarvis thinks Keller is dissembling.
Do they have no news judgment? The lede in this story was obvious to everyone but the Times...
That the editors of the Times don’t see that is incredible — that is to say, not credible.
Do you see him as a "heartless freak" while he sees you as an "overemotional troublemaker"?
Maybe he has Asperger's syndrome and understanding that can lead the two of you to work it out. But I'm thinking that we could go way too far in suspecting our partners of having Asperger's syndrome (or claiming to have it to excuse treating each other badly).
Miscellany.
Written by me on that other blog, cross-posted here for your commenting pleasure:
CONTACT LENSES WITH CIRCUITS AND LIGHTS. Is there something you'd like to see with your eyes other than what's really in front of you?
DIGG AND WIKIPEDIA WORK because the vibrant democracy we see on the surface is checked and balanced by a less conspicuous and more reliable elite group — Chris Wilson explains.
"THE KIDS BUYING MUSIC DON'T WANT immaculately-performed songs that remind them of their grandmothers; they want music that will help them get laid, which is exactly what AI's audition process doesn't test for."
ELMO AS KRUSTY. Didn't this happen on the "Treehouse of Horrors III"?
"Hillary just seems like Jerry Lee Lewis to me. And McCain just seems like a complete wackjob. And I guess Obama seems to have some sort of sense..."
Says Penn Jillette:
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t agree with him on anything, but he seems like a person that’s not about to just explode. And Hillary and McCain really seem that way to me. So that makes the election kind of fun.He's vlogging now.
"Indoctrinate U."
"Indoctrinate U" is now available to buy and download on line here. The film — which I watched the other day — uses that "Roger and Me" approach where the filmmaker confronts people who have not agreed to an interview, and you probably already know whether you love to laugh at people who are trapped into defending the bureaucracy they work for. I think the conflict between free speech on campus and dealing with racial and sexual harassment is quite a bit more subtle than Evan Coyne Maloney makes it out to be, but It's an amusing presentation of his point of view.
(Cross-posted on Instapundit.)
(Cross-posted on Instapundit.)
Breasts are not genitalia, and drivers don't gawk at the word "love" — a First Amendment problem.
Remember Ed (Gonzo) Stross, the artist who painted a Michelangelo-style Eve on an outdoor mural and got sentenced to 30 days in jail for depicting Eve's bare breasts? With the help of the ACLU, he won with a First Amendment argument.
I've read the opinion in Lexis, and I see the court — an intermediate appellate court in Michigan — agrees with me that the breasts Stross painted didn't violate the restrictions in the city's variance, because breasts are not "genitalia," but that he did transgress by painting the word "love." Nevertheless, the court held that the restriction on lettering was too broad in relation to the city's interest in not distracting drivers. So the breasts might distract you, but the city failed to proscribe them, and the word "love" — well, wouldn't it be funny if drivers collided as they rubbernecked to look at "love"?
I've read the opinion in Lexis, and I see the court — an intermediate appellate court in Michigan — agrees with me that the breasts Stross painted didn't violate the restrictions in the city's variance, because breasts are not "genitalia," but that he did transgress by painting the word "love." Nevertheless, the court held that the restriction on lettering was too broad in relation to the city's interest in not distracting drivers. So the breasts might distract you, but the city failed to proscribe them, and the word "love" — well, wouldn't it be funny if drivers collided as they rubbernecked to look at "love"?
"Mr. Obama’s approach is like 'a surgical bomb,' he said, while 'the Clintons are more like a carpet bomb.'"
Can we judge the candidates by the way they woo Bill Richardson?
Isn't it clear that the one he's falling for is Barack Obama? And not just because it makes more sense to back the winner. The Clinton people keep calling, and one — an unnamed female — really pissed — he says "ticked" — him off by acting like he owed Hillary his endorsement — in a voice mail. Meanwhile, Barack calls personally at nicely spaced intervals and:
Isn't it clear that the one he's falling for is Barack Obama? And not just because it makes more sense to back the winner. The Clinton people keep calling, and one — an unnamed female — really pissed — he says "ticked" — him off by acting like he owed Hillary his endorsement — in a voice mail. Meanwhile, Barack calls personally at nicely spaced intervals and:
“Barack’s a little looser” in his conversations, Mr. Richardson said. The two men developed a back-of-the-classroom rapport during the presidential debates, exchanging winks or eye rolls when one of the other candidates “would get outrageous or something,” Mr. Richardson said.And doesn't Richardson look much better in a beard? I'm not a big fan of beards, but Richardson is quite chubby, and the beard covers up his double chin and gives him a cuddly bear look. Too bad beards are verboten in a presidential campaign.
Michelle Obama's senior thesis.
(Cross-posted on Instapundit.)
"IT OFTEN SEEMS AS IF, TO THEM, I WILL ALWAYS BE BLACK FIRST and a student second." So reads Michelle Obama's senior thesis, written when she was a student at Princeton. You can read the whole thing, which I'm not going to do, but I did read the first few pages, and nothing I read troubles me. I should add that I attended her speech at Madison — the one where she said "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change" — and that line didn't jump out at me. But she's the wife of a presidential candidate, so her words will necessarily be raw material for attacks, especially what she's saying now. But what she wrote as a college student in 1985? She had much more reason to feel alienated than the average college student — and anyway, feeling alienated is a classic part of the young American experience. Amba has read much more of the thesis than I have, and she has some excellent observations:
"IT OFTEN SEEMS AS IF, TO THEM, I WILL ALWAYS BE BLACK FIRST and a student second." So reads Michelle Obama's senior thesis, written when she was a student at Princeton. You can read the whole thing, which I'm not going to do, but I did read the first few pages, and nothing I read troubles me. I should add that I attended her speech at Madison — the one where she said "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change" — and that line didn't jump out at me. But she's the wife of a presidential candidate, so her words will necessarily be raw material for attacks, especially what she's saying now. But what she wrote as a college student in 1985? She had much more reason to feel alienated than the average college student — and anyway, feeling alienated is a classic part of the young American experience. Amba has read much more of the thesis than I have, and she has some excellent observations:
What was being weighed here... was whether it was better to participate in the common life or to build up a separate community with its own resources and institutions, as "a necessary stage for the development of the Black community before this group integrates into the 'open society'." Before, not instead of. Ideas are always psychobiography, and you may feel here the young Michelle's sense that she needed to gain confidence in a context of people who were familiar and supportive before venturing forth into a more ambiguous, less embracing world that was harder to read and harder to trust.
Condoleezza Rice doesn't "see" herself as running for Vice President.
She doesn't "expect" to be a part of the campaign. So then, she's willing to do it. The real question is: Would it be a good move for McCain? Does it depend on whether Obama picks a woman for his VP nominee?
Imagine being robbed at gunpoint when you're sitting in a midtown Starbucks in the daytime...
... right after you took $149,000 in cash out of the bank.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Pictures from the pre-debate "visibility rally."
Here's a nice set of pictures taken by my son Christopher Althouse Cohen in Austin, Texas last night. (He's a longtime Hillary supporter.) I love this one:
And for you dog lovers... the Obama dog:
... and the Hillary dog:
I don't know. I'd say the Hillary dog looks more ready to lead on Day 1.
ADDED: My other son says that first dog should be called "Bark Obama."
And for you dog lovers... the Obama dog:
... and the Hillary dog:
I don't know. I'd say the Hillary dog looks more ready to lead on Day 1.
ADDED: My other son says that first dog should be called "Bark Obama."
It's New York, so the beautiful snow has devolved into rain.
But people here in Brooklyn Heights have their defense against the wetness and the dreariness:
Prop guns don't kill people. Theater kids pretend to kill people.
Another cross-posting from that blog that is dividing my bloggerly attention:
PUT DOWN THOSE STAGE PROP GUNS! Because you know if you want to avert campus shooting sprees, you want to start with the hard-working theater kids who rehearsed their hearts out to put on a big show. Yes, the show is about presidential assassins, but it's Sondheim. It's high class. The bright side of this is: Because it's high-class musical theater that's getting censored, even the usual prissy anti-gun types should get pissed off.
Via Nick Gillespie, who hates the musical "Assassins" ("godawful in its original conception and execution back in 1990 (and naturally, retardedly well-received in its 2004 Broadway revival)"). I've never seen the show, but I loved Sarah Vowell's description of it in her cool book "Assassination Vacation":"It's the Stephen Sondheim musical in which a bunch of presidential assassins and would-be assassins sing songs about how much better their lives would be if they could gun down a president."
"Oh," remarks Mr. Connecticut. "How was it?"
"Oh my god," I gush. "Even though the actors were mostly college kids, I thought it was great! The orange-haired guy who played the man who wanted to fly a plane into Nixon was hilarious. And I found myself strangely smitten with John Wilkes Booth; every time he looked in my direction I could feel myself blush." Apparently, talking about going to the Museum of Television and Radio is "too personal," but I seem to have no problem revealing my crush on the man who murdered Lincoln.
McCain's problems of his own making.
Posted by me on that other blog:
MCCAIN WANTS OUT OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM he's responsible for and finds it's not so easy. Amusingly, McCain is arguing that he has a constitutional right to get out.
MORE: "'We never claimed that the matching funds were collateral for the loan,' says McCain lawyer Trevor Potter. 'This was all a hypothetical future transaction.' (We wish we could get bank loans like that.)" The WSJ is aptly smirky: "We suppose we can't blame Mr. McCain for trying to make the finance rules work for him, but it'd be nice if he finally admitted their embarrassing folly."
"Eloquence is deep thought expressed in clear words. With Mr. Obama the deep thought part is missing."
Peggy Noonan — herself a writer of great speeches — doesn't think much of the text of Obama's speeches:
The man has attained the greatest heights through speechmaking, but to the speechwriter, what he really needs is a speechwriter.
[H]e doesn't dig down to explain how to become a greater nation, what specific path to take--more power to the state, for instance, or more power to the individual. He doesn't unpack his thoughts, as they say. He asserts and keeps on walking.
The man has attained the greatest heights through speechmaking, but to the speechwriter, what he really needs is a speechwriter.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
"I hope you die in an organza accident, you preening little cockatoo."
I love this dramatization of last night's episode of "Project Runway."
I haven't been blogging episodes of the show this season, but this has been a great season, with excellent work and incredibly amusing characters, especially the adorable — and fierce — Christian Siriano.
I haven't been blogging episodes of the show this season, but this has been a great season, with excellent work and incredibly amusing characters, especially the adorable — and fierce — Christian Siriano.
Live-blogging the big Hillary-Obama debate.
8:00 ET: Let's get started!
8:04: So get started already! How long can they stand there at attention in gray — hopefully not empty — suits?
8:05: No rules! But try to keep it short — and have real conversation. We see Obama taking careful notes — left-handed. The little desks in front of them make them look like oversized grammar school kids. Hillary is making her opening statement. She's done a lot and she has so much more to do.
8:08: Obama opens. He says he and Hillary are friends. She smiles a fixed smile at him. How hard this must be for her. He quickly glides from health care to NAFTA to Iraq. "What's lacking right now is not good ideas" — a jab at her emphasis on "solutions." The problem is that good ideas "go to Washington to die." So it's all about "bringing this country together." She's still gazing and smiling.
8:13: Jorge Ramos begins the first question in Spanish and switches to English: Will you meet with the new leader of Cuba? Hillary will be ready to "reach out" to the new government after it demonstrates that it is ready to change. She sounds very relaxed and articulate. Campbell Brown reminds Obama that he's already said he would meet the the leader of Cuba, so he has to say yes to this. He says he will meet without preconditions — but he does want "preparation" with some matters of rights on the agenda. He stresses that it's important for us to meet with our enemies. Clinton gets rebuttal time, and she distinguishes herself from him: She wants preconditions. Obama seems to be making a conscious effort to hold his chin up, which makes him look a tad arrogant as he looks down his nose at her.
8:22: What's the difference between the two of them on the economy? Obama says everyone knows the economy is "in trouble." "People have been struggling." We need to "restore balance" to the economy. He's against lead paint in toys. Hillary seems to plug in a prepared speech: "We need a President who works for you." She too comes out firmly against lead paint in toys. She wants a moratorium on foreclosures — and I can't even understand how someone would think that's a good idea. I wish Obama would say she's woefully misguided. Hillary seems a little manic with eyebrows grouchoing up and down as she exclaims about "innovation!"
8:31: Immigration: Hillary is passionately, desperately in favor of it. (They're in Texas.) Obama tells us "we're a nation of laws" and mentions border security and "cracking down" on employers (but in a way that doesn't burden workers with Spanish surnames). Illegal immigrants need to get to "the back of the line." I think I see Hillary glowing. Clearly, she came across as the more generous one.
8:36: About that fence. Hillary speaks clearly, elaborately, and incomprehensibly about the fence. The message is: I'm a sophisticated policy geek.
8:43: Is there any problem with the U.S. becoming bilingual? English must be our "common, unifying language," says Hillary. Obama too thinks everyone needs to learn English — to "bind us together." And let the English-speaking kids learn a foreign language. He segues into criticizing No Child Left Behind: It pushes out the study of foreign language.
8:50: Hillary is asked if she's saying that Obama is "all hat and no cattle." It's little awkward to invite her to call him a nothing while sitting right next to him. She refers to that famous video clip of the state senator who couldn't name any of Obama's accomplishments. That gets almost no response from the big University of Texas audience. Maybe people aren't watching YouTube that much. By contrast, Obama gets a huge cheer when he says every major newspaper in Texas has endorsed him. Score 1 for mainstream media. His point is: She has to be saying that everyone who supports him must be delusional.
8:57: About that "plagiarism." Obama defends his use of a couple lines given him by his associate Duval Patrick. "This is where we start getting into the silly season in politics." People want to hear about the real issues. "What I've been talking about in these speeches, and I've gotta admit: Some of 'em are pretty good..." Ha ha. We should be lifting the country up, he says, not tearing each other down. Now, it's Hillary's turn, and it gets a little ugly. "Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's a very simple, uh, proposition. And you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in. It's change you can Xerox." Cute, but obviously prepared. "And I just don't think..." Obama: "No, that's not..." Hillary: "No, but Barack, it is, because if you look..." [boos from the audience] "if you look at the YouTube of these videos, it does raise questions." It's fine to want to unite the country, but, she says we need to "unite it for a purpose around very specific goals." That sound silly at first, but it actually defines an important difference between them, though I think she's wrong. The presidential candidate doesn't need to be all that specific.
9:03: Obama's emphasizing discussing issues and he's parsing their competing health insurance plans.
9:10: Is Hillary saying that Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief? Her answer is that she's going to let the voters decide and she's going back to the subject of health insurance. What's that old Woody Allen movie where he's in a prison camp and the torture is being locked in a sweatbox with an insurance salesman? They're finally at the point where both of them are admitting they are going to force you to buy insurance. The difference is that Hillary is promising she will force everyone to buy insurance.
9:15: The Commander in Chief question is re-asked. Hillary falls back on asserting that she's ready to be Commander in Chief. She declines to attack him here. Obama's turn. Of course, he's ready too. He points to his opposition to the Iraq war.
9:21: Unless this campaign takes a "wacky, unpredictable turn," John King says, one of you is going to face John McCain. That's a none too subtle reference to today's NYT story. How are they going to look standing next to a war hero? Hillary tells a story of a mother grabbing her arm for the second time tonight. Both ramble on about war policy, and I don't think either of them talked about John McCain.
9:31: Ugh. I'm bored with this. I see Stephen Green is drunkblogging. I'm blogging on Get Some ZZZ's tea. ("Brew a pot of our caffeine-free herbal blend and breathe a sigh of sweet relief as the bouquet of organic rooibos, soothing chamomile, passionflower and the mellowing properties of valerian gently lulls you toward blissful effects.") Now there's some talk of the superdelegates, and Hillary says well, you know there are these rules, but she's confident that there will be a united party in the end. Barack smirks.
9:38: At what "moment" in life were you most "tested"? Obama plugs in his life story — born to a teenaged mother, etc. He doesn't come up with a specific moment, and that annoys me, and you know one charge against him is that he lacks specificity. Hillary says that we all know she's had some challenging moments, and that gets a big audience response. "But... people often ask me... how do you do it... how do you keep going?" What the hell! She's reliving the crying moment in New Hampshire!
9:42: "No matter what happens in this contest — and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama, I am absolutely honored," Hillary says, and I think we hear a tinge of farewell. Obama reaches over and shakes her hand and pats her on the shoulder. She takes a deep breath as she shakes her head and then says: "Whatever happens, we're gonna be fine." Big cheers. It's over. Obama stands up quickly, and he must feel confident. No slips. No shakeups. He pulls out Hillary's chair, which is an odd gesture when a person is sitting down. It seems like he is rushing her to get up. He strides over to the moderators' table, and Hillary wanders off in the other direction. She's off screen. I guess the camera people expected a thanking of the moderators ritual. Another camera catches her. She's with Chelsea. Hillary's eyes are cast down and Chelsea has an impenetrable smile. The two of them walk downstage in front of the desks, over toward the moderator, and Chelsea is holding her mother's hand and gripping her arm. Are we supposed to feel a stirring of emotion? Was this mother-daughter encounter planned? Hillary repeatedly referred to mothers throughout the night and at least twice told a story of a mother grabbing her arm, and now here is Chelsea grabbing her arm. Bill isn't there. Nor is Michelle. It's just a Chelsea moment.
10:16: So, to recap. Not much happened, therefore Obama won. Hillary did fine sitting there, saying rational-sounding things most of the time. The closest she came to making something happen was on the plagiarism question: "I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words.... Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in. It's change you can Xerox." But that's just a wisecrack, and when we're sitting here listening to Obama spout policy all night, the premise of the wisecrack — that his candidacy is "about words" — just doesn't fit. By the end, Hillary seemed to let it show that she knew her dream was over and that the important thing now was to glide to a graceful defeat. Or is that what they carefully planned to make us think, so we'd reengage emotionally with her? You know, Obama can be a rather cool character. Midway through the debate, I found myself practicing an impersonation of him. Not his speech, but his clasped hands on the table, his head turned sideways, chin up, lips pursed in a grin, his eyes looking down onto the hapless soul who imagines she could unsettle him in the slightest degree.
8:04: So get started already! How long can they stand there at attention in gray — hopefully not empty — suits?
8:05: No rules! But try to keep it short — and have real conversation. We see Obama taking careful notes — left-handed. The little desks in front of them make them look like oversized grammar school kids. Hillary is making her opening statement. She's done a lot and she has so much more to do.
8:08: Obama opens. He says he and Hillary are friends. She smiles a fixed smile at him. How hard this must be for her. He quickly glides from health care to NAFTA to Iraq. "What's lacking right now is not good ideas" — a jab at her emphasis on "solutions." The problem is that good ideas "go to Washington to die." So it's all about "bringing this country together." She's still gazing and smiling.
8:13: Jorge Ramos begins the first question in Spanish and switches to English: Will you meet with the new leader of Cuba? Hillary will be ready to "reach out" to the new government after it demonstrates that it is ready to change. She sounds very relaxed and articulate. Campbell Brown reminds Obama that he's already said he would meet the the leader of Cuba, so he has to say yes to this. He says he will meet without preconditions — but he does want "preparation" with some matters of rights on the agenda. He stresses that it's important for us to meet with our enemies. Clinton gets rebuttal time, and she distinguishes herself from him: She wants preconditions. Obama seems to be making a conscious effort to hold his chin up, which makes him look a tad arrogant as he looks down his nose at her.
8:22: What's the difference between the two of them on the economy? Obama says everyone knows the economy is "in trouble." "People have been struggling." We need to "restore balance" to the economy. He's against lead paint in toys. Hillary seems to plug in a prepared speech: "We need a President who works for you." She too comes out firmly against lead paint in toys. She wants a moratorium on foreclosures — and I can't even understand how someone would think that's a good idea. I wish Obama would say she's woefully misguided. Hillary seems a little manic with eyebrows grouchoing up and down as she exclaims about "innovation!"
8:31: Immigration: Hillary is passionately, desperately in favor of it. (They're in Texas.) Obama tells us "we're a nation of laws" and mentions border security and "cracking down" on employers (but in a way that doesn't burden workers with Spanish surnames). Illegal immigrants need to get to "the back of the line." I think I see Hillary glowing. Clearly, she came across as the more generous one.
8:36: About that fence. Hillary speaks clearly, elaborately, and incomprehensibly about the fence. The message is: I'm a sophisticated policy geek.
8:43: Is there any problem with the U.S. becoming bilingual? English must be our "common, unifying language," says Hillary. Obama too thinks everyone needs to learn English — to "bind us together." And let the English-speaking kids learn a foreign language. He segues into criticizing No Child Left Behind: It pushes out the study of foreign language.
8:50: Hillary is asked if she's saying that Obama is "all hat and no cattle." It's little awkward to invite her to call him a nothing while sitting right next to him. She refers to that famous video clip of the state senator who couldn't name any of Obama's accomplishments. That gets almost no response from the big University of Texas audience. Maybe people aren't watching YouTube that much. By contrast, Obama gets a huge cheer when he says every major newspaper in Texas has endorsed him. Score 1 for mainstream media. His point is: She has to be saying that everyone who supports him must be delusional.
8:57: About that "plagiarism." Obama defends his use of a couple lines given him by his associate Duval Patrick. "This is where we start getting into the silly season in politics." People want to hear about the real issues. "What I've been talking about in these speeches, and I've gotta admit: Some of 'em are pretty good..." Ha ha. We should be lifting the country up, he says, not tearing each other down. Now, it's Hillary's turn, and it gets a little ugly. "Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's a very simple, uh, proposition. And you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in. It's change you can Xerox." Cute, but obviously prepared. "And I just don't think..." Obama: "No, that's not..." Hillary: "No, but Barack, it is, because if you look..." [boos from the audience] "if you look at the YouTube of these videos, it does raise questions." It's fine to want to unite the country, but, she says we need to "unite it for a purpose around very specific goals." That sound silly at first, but it actually defines an important difference between them, though I think she's wrong. The presidential candidate doesn't need to be all that specific.
9:03: Obama's emphasizing discussing issues and he's parsing their competing health insurance plans.
9:10: Is Hillary saying that Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief? Her answer is that she's going to let the voters decide and she's going back to the subject of health insurance. What's that old Woody Allen movie where he's in a prison camp and the torture is being locked in a sweatbox with an insurance salesman? They're finally at the point where both of them are admitting they are going to force you to buy insurance. The difference is that Hillary is promising she will force everyone to buy insurance.
9:15: The Commander in Chief question is re-asked. Hillary falls back on asserting that she's ready to be Commander in Chief. She declines to attack him here. Obama's turn. Of course, he's ready too. He points to his opposition to the Iraq war.
9:21: Unless this campaign takes a "wacky, unpredictable turn," John King says, one of you is going to face John McCain. That's a none too subtle reference to today's NYT story. How are they going to look standing next to a war hero? Hillary tells a story of a mother grabbing her arm for the second time tonight. Both ramble on about war policy, and I don't think either of them talked about John McCain.
9:31: Ugh. I'm bored with this. I see Stephen Green is drunkblogging. I'm blogging on Get Some ZZZ's tea. ("Brew a pot of our caffeine-free herbal blend and breathe a sigh of sweet relief as the bouquet of organic rooibos, soothing chamomile, passionflower and the mellowing properties of valerian gently lulls you toward blissful effects.") Now there's some talk of the superdelegates, and Hillary says well, you know there are these rules, but she's confident that there will be a united party in the end. Barack smirks.
9:38: At what "moment" in life were you most "tested"? Obama plugs in his life story — born to a teenaged mother, etc. He doesn't come up with a specific moment, and that annoys me, and you know one charge against him is that he lacks specificity. Hillary says that we all know she's had some challenging moments, and that gets a big audience response. "But... people often ask me... how do you do it... how do you keep going?" What the hell! She's reliving the crying moment in New Hampshire!
9:42: "No matter what happens in this contest — and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama, I am absolutely honored," Hillary says, and I think we hear a tinge of farewell. Obama reaches over and shakes her hand and pats her on the shoulder. She takes a deep breath as she shakes her head and then says: "Whatever happens, we're gonna be fine." Big cheers. It's over. Obama stands up quickly, and he must feel confident. No slips. No shakeups. He pulls out Hillary's chair, which is an odd gesture when a person is sitting down. It seems like he is rushing her to get up. He strides over to the moderators' table, and Hillary wanders off in the other direction. She's off screen. I guess the camera people expected a thanking of the moderators ritual. Another camera catches her. She's with Chelsea. Hillary's eyes are cast down and Chelsea has an impenetrable smile. The two of them walk downstage in front of the desks, over toward the moderator, and Chelsea is holding her mother's hand and gripping her arm. Are we supposed to feel a stirring of emotion? Was this mother-daughter encounter planned? Hillary repeatedly referred to mothers throughout the night and at least twice told a story of a mother grabbing her arm, and now here is Chelsea grabbing her arm. Bill isn't there. Nor is Michelle. It's just a Chelsea moment.
10:16: So, to recap. Not much happened, therefore Obama won. Hillary did fine sitting there, saying rational-sounding things most of the time. The closest she came to making something happen was on the plagiarism question: "I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words.... Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in. It's change you can Xerox." But that's just a wisecrack, and when we're sitting here listening to Obama spout policy all night, the premise of the wisecrack — that his candidacy is "about words" — just doesn't fit. By the end, Hillary seemed to let it show that she knew her dream was over and that the important thing now was to glide to a graceful defeat. Or is that what they carefully planned to make us think, so we'd reengage emotionally with her? You know, Obama can be a rather cool character. Midway through the debate, I found myself practicing an impersonation of him. Not his speech, but his clasped hands on the table, his head turned sideways, chin up, lips pursed in a grin, his eyes looking down onto the hapless soul who imagines she could unsettle him in the slightest degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
