Sunday, January 27, 2008
Endorsement
Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK, has endorsed a candidate for the first time since her father died (read her op ed piece in Sunday's NY Times). It's a good piece from all kinds of points of view, but it's also amazing to read it on the heels of Obama's huge South Carolina win. She says two things, among others, that really amazed me:
It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.
and perhaps most significantly and movingly
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
My fingers remain crossed that the Billary machine and the party hacks won't wrest the power from the levers of the electorate. Billary is permitting her name to remain on the ballot in Florida, as she did in Michigan, despite the party denying both states any delegates to the convention because they defied the earliest-date requirement that the party set for primaries. Thus proving so many (not very good) things about her and many (much better) things about Edwards and Obama. But also giving her a voting-number bump in both states what with no one else being on the ballots and all. She's a team player?? By what warped definition?

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 2 comment(s) | posted by jau at 1:21 AM

Registering
Why is it that some states such as New York require you to register a full three weeks before the primary election, when states like Connecticut allow you to register up to one business day before a primary election? Isn't the idea to get everyone to vote who is eligible to raise a voice? Don't we want more people voting? In New York, by the way, you can register three weeks before an election but you can only change your party affiliation once a year, at the general election. Is that ridiculous or what? Why does New York, the "empire" state and the hub of so much business and culture, have so many backward restrictions on so many things?

Labels: , , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 1:12 AM

Saturday, January 26, 2008
Nothing could be finah . . .
. . . than to be in Carolina in the morning . . . if you're Barack Obama, don't you think? (And isn't it puzzling that none of the major networks used that little ditty to introduce their coverage today?!)

I'm not sure who I'll vote for in November, but I'm utterly delighted that Obama is doing so well in the primaries. It's a sign that the country's electorate really does want to get out of the usual mold (and moldiness) and support the excitement of a new vigorous person who (for whatever odd reason) really wants to see if he can effect positive change.

My father used to say that the major reason Reagan was such a good thing for the country was that he made many people feel that the country was in good shape and strong. I didn't entirely agree with him then but I'm sure we would all benefit from having Obama's upbeat assurance that young and old, rich and poor can unite and accomplish good things for all Americans take up residence as the Democrats' candidate.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:50 PM

Friday, January 25, 2008
Nancy Drew
I watched the Maggie Lawson Nancy Drew movie the other night. Written by Amy Mann, daughter of Michael Mann of smart and fabulously popular tv fame ("Miami Vice"), it was not even remotely as bad as some reviews led me to expect. Lawson's Nancy has vigor and charm in spades, and the mystery itself was certainly passably interesting, and that's really what she's all about. I loved the camera showing us her desk top piles of favorite books and photos - they were wonderful (Sherlock Holmes, Dorothy Sayers, her parents, and others), identifying the person those of us who love her know well. Now that I think of it, perhaps for a dyed-in-the-wool Drew fan, any telling of one of her stories is just fine. Which brings to mind that t2cgitw still have The Secret in the Old Clock ahead of them . . . lucky girls!!!

Labels: , , , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 1:37 AM

Thursday, January 24, 2008
Perhaps an answer
Thanks to Seablogger for pointing out this article at WorldNetDaily. It's a bit preachy and almost smug, but I think he's on to some of the answers especially when he points out that triumph and disaster are both impostors (Kipling's word) and need to be reacted to carefully.

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same …
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings – nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you …

Come to think of it, Obama should consider this, too.

Labels: , , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 4:31 PM

Names
Perhaps geophysical names are simply too much to bear (River Pheonix, Heath Ledger).

Labels: ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:19 AM

Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Young people who die
I have two questions about celebrities who take lots of drugs and drink lots of alcohol and are depressed.

The first is why does becoming fabulously wealthy and incredibly popular make someone depressed? I accept that it does, given the number of wealthy and famous people who have imploded, but I do not understand why. For Heath Ledger, being a red-carpet star apparently distressed him. Sure, it's foolish, but would he have been ostracized from all further film work if he didn't go? Anyway, according to what one reads, he had a fairly deliberate career plan and often turned down roles that were merely star vehicles, because he liked to get his teeth into more substantial character types of roles. But why wouldn't someone so intelligent and aware of himself not just stop doing films he found distasteful and do theater work or volunteer work or whatever made him feel okay about himself? Some actors do that and don't go all over nuts and suicidal. Why not him?? Does making a ton of money and being on the cover of "People" a bunch of times cause a lobotomy-like chemical change in brains and decision-making abilities? I mean, we all - and I mean all - make lousy decisions and do really stupid things lots and lots of times, so I'm not blaming young celebs for being human and fallible. Not even remotely. I just don't get it that it seems to be precisely the money and fame that irks them and causes them difficulties. Is it all just a matter of wanting the opposite of what you have? If you're rich and famous do you automatically want to be poor and anonymous? Or maybe it's just that a certain percentage of the population will be very unhappy and inevitably make bad choices - and celebrities are simply part of the population.

Anyway, my other question is why don't friends and families intervene if their rich and famous friends and/or offspring so obviously are freaking out? Name one ordinary citizen who could do even one iota of what Britney's done and still have access to their kids. One. You can't. Let me put it this way: if a good friend of mine was clearly depressed (not sad : depressed) and was shooting or smoking major drugs like heroin, not to mention paying less and less attention to his physical appearance and well-being (did you see recent pictures of Heath Ledger?), I'd be calling them every night and going to their house and calling their parents and maybe even dragging them to an emergency room. Wouldn't you?? I mean, with all the helpers and advisers and general factotums that these people employ, why didn't ANYone, not to mention family, think it made sense to refuse to leave him alone until he was helped?

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 1:40 PM

The education of Obama
All the tearing up and yelling by Billary supporters puts the Wall Street Journal in mind of Bob Dole's attempts to correct the record when they went after him. It also makes one fairly sure that unless the Republicans nominate someone unbelievably strong (who could be that strong?), the Clintons will reinvigorate their attack rollercoaster and manage to turn everything upside down and make the others have to defend themselves from things they never did or said. As the WSJ points out about the Nevada casino voting arguments, it wasn't "the first time Mr. Clinton accused an opponent of doing something his own campaign was planning to do."

The excitement and idealism that Obama is attempting to bring to voters is almost certainly doomed to the as-yet-unnumbered circle of hell where those are gathered whom the Clintons have chosen to blitzkrieg. I'm fairly sure that Obama does want to stay above the fray but the Clinton hit machine will keeping whacking away and I doubt he has a chance. If he's lucky, the worst that will happen is that his spirit will be beaten down by the whole thing like the previously energetic and indefatigable Bob Dole. If he's not so lucky, his reputation will be trashed and his career wrecked. Their tactics are as dirty as it gets, yet somehow the Clintons have a lockhold on the Democratic party. Their behavior is completely apparent, it's happened over and over to many people, they've been sued and driven out of offices and careers, destroyed people's lives, and yet vast quantities of Democrats continue to support them. They're unimpeachable - heh - literally - unless somehow the voters are willing to stop them.

This WSJ article today includes well-elucidates points like the fact that the Clintons' callers to voters in Nevada "referred to Mr. Obama by his middle name, 'Hussein'" and that after Mr. Clinton's woe-mongering that people who wanted to vote for his wife were being "strong-armed by pro-Obama unions at casino voting sites," and although "Clinton campaign allies sued and lost on the matter," it nonetheless turned out that HRC won at seven of the disputed sites, leaving the Obama camp "asking if its vote had been suppressed." Read it and weep for us all.

Labels: , , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:07 AM

Friday, January 18, 2008
Last night's movie - Man of the Moment
TCM is premiering some 27 Warners' British films from the 1930's that were snubbed in previous years as being "lesser" because they were made quickly, often as the second feature when double features were the thing and people spent pennies to wile away Saturday afternoon at the movies; then again, they didn't have Tivo.

Man of the Moment is lots of fun and I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so here's just the setup: Mary (Laura La Plante who was a big musical comedy star) is a pretty young secretary in a London firm. She's infatuated with her boss but he, of course, is a cad. That sudden realization upsets Mary so much that she quits and decides to drown herself. Along comes a well-to-do young man, Tony (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. at his relaxed and dashing best before he became too self-conscious), who rather merrily rescues her and takes her home to prevent her jumping back into the water. Once there, antics ensue as we meet his dog (who can leave a room and close the door), his butler, his fiancée (Margaret Lockwood who went on to become a big star in Britain) and her father as well as loads of his pals who have come to regale him at his bachelor party.

Man of the Moment belongs on the same shelf with the stellar charming and delightful screwball comedies of the era, though this is a British version. P.G.Wodehouse of Bertie Wooster fame would be delighted, I am sure, his biscuit-tossing young men being well-matched by the musical chairs revelers and a nutcracking episode at the bachelor party. Also, because it's pre-Code, the unmarried hero and heroine take a hotel room with only one double bed (gasp) and she spends a fair amount of time in Tony's brother's clothes. It's great to see so many actors that one knows, early in their careers, expertly navigating this perky plot for whom we can thank Yves Mirande, a highly successful French playwright, and (among others) A.R. Rawlinson, one of 4 credited writers of the 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much (one of the best stories ever written, in my opinion). There's nothing at all salacious, just a whole lot of good fun, eye candy, and much clever verbal and visual repartee.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:24 AM

Thursday, January 17, 2008
V.P.?
I was pondering who would be matched up with whom for V.P. Will Obama ask Hillary to be his running mate? Will she ask him? Either would be crazy but would they do it? I remember that the chosen mate is reputed to be a way to balance the ticket geographically and ideologically, but do they still do that? (In which case, how about David Duke with Obama, then? Oh, I'm just kidding!!) I heard a suggestion the other day that Bill might be Hill's running mate. Does the Constitution permit former presidents to be vice-presidents? If so, I bet that's one of their plans, don't you? It's nuts but it's a less onerous way for Bill to get back in the W.H. than as an unofficial advisor. I wonder how the general electorate would take to that, though? And there's always the possibility / likelihood that Obama or Billary will ask Edwards but I'm not sure he'd accept.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 4 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:27 AM

Chill, Bill.
If Hillary was at all the genuine person those tears were meant to suggest she is, she'd jettison her other half quickly or at least tell him to chill. He flipped out at Chris Wallace a while ago, and then got livid at about the fairy tale that he said Obama was spinning, and yesterday he went ballistic at a reporter who asked him about proposals for Nevada casino employees to register and vote at work. He absolutely went off on the guy, turned pink, eyes flashed, spoke in that clipped way he has when he's just furious. Do we want such a loose canon as vice president first spouse??

Update. Demonstrating that some people seem to think you can fool some of the people all of the time, former president Clinton is suing the so-called casino caucuses and insisting it's all about one-person-one-vote and has nothing to do with his wife's campaign. In which case, I say with equal vehemence that I am 6' tall, blonde and thin.

Update. A judge threw out Clinton's suit. (For a moment of judiciary levity, let me point out that this judge is probably not in danger of being the recipient of a fifty-four million dollar lawsuit in retaliation, since the suit he threw out is a lawsuit not something in houndstooth.)

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:23 AM

Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Primary results
I'm going to post many details about this later tonight, but I need to say right now that I'm amazed and appalled but it's not possible to get factual results of the primaries. Many reasons. Partly it's that each state has its own often quirky way of tallying caucus and/or primary results. Partly it's that there are at least two zillion ways that whatever the percentage results are get translated into numbers of convention delegates. Partly it's that every news outlet has a story they want to tell as to who is or is not leading on either side. Partly it's that each news outlet "estimates" the delegate count and doesn't show that the numbers are estimates except in very tiny gray print. Reliable cold hard facts are nowhere to be found. It's nuts. There are no posted results that are simply straightforward numbers. Romney either has 27 or 36 or 42 or 47 or 52 delegates. Billary either has 24 or 25 or 190. Details anon, as I say, but no wonder there's confusion and craziness among the electorate. It's absolutely astonishing we ever elect anyone with anything even vaguely resembling the will of the people (remember them us?).

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 2:12 PM

Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Michigan results
Michigan's Democrats awarded no delegates from tonight's primary results because of the party's edict about a rule of order. They're withholding convention delegates because the party said Michigan couldn't move their primary this early (I don't remember why) but Michigan Democrats decided to hold it the same day as the Republicans anyway, so the party sanctioned them by forbidding awarding delegates. Obama and Edwards decided to honor the party's injunction and withdrew from the ballot. But guess who didn't. Guess who won a pyrrhic victory tonight because she won no delegates and "undeclared" got tons of votes. Go ahead, guess.

I wonder when/if Edwards will join Obama? as his v.p.? It sure would make Edwards the king (oops, I mean president) maker which I'm guessing he'd like. It would also send a message that voters are not interested in watching Billary play their various and multi-faceted nasty games. And might assure Obama of victory in November.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, not weighed down by parliamentary rules (hey, can a two-house system of representative government even have parliamentary rules?!) According to USA Today, Romney got 23 delegates and McCain got 6 from Michigan's results, and Huckabee 1. (CNN has a different allocation but it's hard to plow through their charts and find actual facts, not "estimates" (read: their hoped-for projections), anything is possible.)

It's not clear that Romney is the eventual winner of the Republican nomination because numbers are still small and big states' delegate counts are yet to be awarded. It is clear that McCain is not the anointed one despite the pundits. And it's clear that Huckabee is going after the cute vote as well as the religious minister vote - he and his wife threw snowballs at each other today in Michigan which has exactly nothing to do with convincing people to elect him into the presidency. Our election process puts way too much stock in seeming likeable.

It is also clear that Thompson has not yet fully assumed the energetic and assertive self that he displayed earlier this week, or at least that he hasn't convinced everyone of it, or that voters have jumped on the Thompson bandwagon.

Rudy gamed it wrong, putting all his eggs in one Floridian delegate basket (to mix a couple of metaphors) but I don't think he can win the national election and since his famously weird personality quirks have been more and more evident, it may be just as well. Thompson gamed it wrong, too, particularly the timing of his perking up. Fortune favors the bold, as Virgil said, so he should have plunged in stronger and earlier. Even he, characteristically straightforward, acknowledges that he must do well Saturday in South Carolina but I fear Republicans will relegate themselves to familiar suspects, each of whom makes me uncomfortable to varying degrees and for different reasons.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:58 PM

Michigan
Wouldn't it be nice if Fred has made enough of an impact on the Michigan voters to come in second today? It would be terrific if he were one of the serious possibilities on the Republican side since, as Laura points out, he speaks so straightforwardly and clearly. In Rhode Island the other day, apparently a woman in the audience asked him whether "as a Christian, as a conservative" he would continue President Bush’s programs to combat global AIDS. (I'm not sure what intricate point she was getting at but, then, I often don't understand what audiences are asking.) Anyway, Thompson answered that
Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it.
(My emphasis.) You gotta like someone who's attitude is so pragmatic and clear. Do the darn thing and stop talking about it. Don't get more government people and money in on it, just do it. As I say at least once a day, I wish/hope he makes in onto the radar screens soon and vividly.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:29 AM

Monday, January 14, 2008
Publicists
A campaign manager can make a campaign (Jim Carville) or be irrelevant - who even remembers most victors' managers' names? In light of which, I wonder why anyone thinks viewers (i.e., potential voters) should take anything Susan Estrich says seriously? In case the name is unfamiliar, she ran Michael Dukasis' campaign.

Remember Michael Dukasis? You don't remember him, if you're fairly young, because he lost (i.e., didn't win) and was never heard from again on the national political scene. Which could all be because he was a dreadful candidate even though she was a brilliant strategist . . . or . . . it could be because the campaign was dreadfully run. It's kind of like distinguishing between the director and the script and the actors in terms of what makes a play flop or soar. In this case, however, although he wasn't the best candidate in the world by any means, it was also one of the worst-run campaigns you can imagine. There were fiascos after fiascos and ill-conceived photo-ops one after another and various publicity stunts galore. It was really bad. Plus, she's got a grating voice and conveys a smug, superior attitude. And yet, for some reason, various and sundry news shows on several channels seem to think viewers should take what she says with some seriousness given that they keep her front and center. Makes no sense to me.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 2 comment(s) | posted by jau at 12:54 PM

An "o" sign. . .
I've thought of a good gimic for Obama. Enthusiasts could put tips of index fingers to tips of thumbs and thus make an "O" sign. Remember the sixties' peace sign? Can't you just see subways full with people raising their arms, making "O signs? Or at Billary rallies? It would be very cool. I'm sure they'll use it one of these days - just remember I said it first!

I don't really mean to be lobbying for him, but Obama catches my interest more than anyone except Thompson - and Thompson has only risen to the level of real candidate in that debate last week.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:27 AM

Getting nasty
I knew it would get really really nasty eventually - especially if Obama was doing well - but it's happening even sooner than I expected. In this article, details are given of the most recent back and forth and I have to say I'm impressed with Obama's willingness to voice his reaction so straightforwardly and without equivocation. The fact that he is black gives him an ability to counter lies about race more clearly than most. Billary can pull the wool over some people's eyes some of the time but not over everyone's eyes all of the time. In case anyone still doesn't realize it, Billary are the masters of equivocating, prevaricating and simple distortions of truth and reality. I wish anyone who chooses to stand in their way all the luck in the world and hope he has very thick skin and doesn't get easily upset.

Here's what Obama said in reaction to Billary's white anger at what she said Obama said:
I didn’t make the statement [she says I made]. I haven’t remarked on it and she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous. I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong.
And I really hope this gets lots of air play:
I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected, but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party, and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.
I think that if Obama weathers the Billary onslaught, which will get appalling. Billary will lie, distort, bring loyalists out of closets or even coffins. She wants to be president more than most of us want to wake up in the morning.

If Obama gets through the campaign and succeeds in winning the nomination without getting so scarred or killed that he doesn't even want it any more, then there will be no doubt at all about his ability to handle Russian or Middle East problems. They'd be pieces of cake with icing and whipped cream, by comparison.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:24 AM

Friday, January 11, 2008
Reps
Apparently Fred Thompson knocked it out of the park at last night's debate (read Laura's post and check out her links). I saw him being interviewed afterwards, too, and he was still in full-throttle strong personality. I wonder why he thought it was a good idea to hang back and play the quiet newcomer Southern gentleman until now. I hope it works, because I think he'd be a good counter to any of the Democrats' candidates.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:14 AM

Thursday, January 10, 2008
Obama in '08?
John McWhorter, a NY Sun columnist, writes today about what he calls Obamamania (try writing or saying that quickly). I think the country really has changed in some good ways, on both sides of the so-called racial divide.
As recently as a month ago, "Obamamania" was being eulogized, with Mr. Obama dismissed as a mere symbolic step towards a successful black candidacy in some distant era. . . . However, [now] I welcome the prospect, and have indicated such in many columns and venues over the past year. . . .

One of many pluses about Barack Obama: An America where those insisting we remain a few steps past Jim Crow will have to grapple with the simple fact of a black man riding in Air Force One and making State of the Union addresses.

Under a President Obama, far too many black people would still be poor and need our help to change that. Yet there would be less room for the recreational angst behind claims that racism is what America is all about. Iowa and New Hampshire have already made an opening argument against such views.

As of this week, there is an air of "Dewey Defeats Truman" about the bedrock assumption that money and connections will inevitably make Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee, or that Mr. Obama, condemned by his black skin, would be hopelessly outmatched by any of the distinctly unexciting Republican candidates on deck today.

It's high time that we let go of studious defeatism and open up to the fact that change does happen and that it may be happening right now.

There is no doubt that if a black man is nominated as one of the major party's candidates for president, it would be important and exciting for all of us - blacks and whites - and for our image of ourselves to ourselves and to the world at large. Giving up old bad images would be good for all of us in so many ways. Even if Obama himself isn't particularly wonderful, the simple fact of nominating him would be a great big giant positive step. Besides, it would eliminate a possible 32-year juggernaut chain of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (24 was more than enough).

And what with Nevada's unions and Kerry's endorsement - no matter what one thinks of Kerry or unions - the horse race is well underway. If for no other reason than that it makes for an interesting race (and I didn't mean that as a pun but it's rather nice, actually), I'm rooting for him to win the democratic nomination.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:29 AM

Wednesday, January 9, 2008
NH2
Someone pointed out that there would have copious tears and anger to pay if Billary had lost in NH. She won, but only by 2 percentage points, whereas Obama won Iowa by 8.

Charts on CNN and other websites persist in showing their estimates of delegates (estimated by whom? with what credentials? with what degree of reliability, especially seeing the pollsters' success (uh, not) in New Hampshire?). In point of fact, the two leading democratic candidates got hold of the exact same number of delegates from the New Hampshire primaries (9) and Obama won 16 to Hillary's 15 in Iowa (one more than Edwards, btw, although he got 744 votes to her 737 - what's that about?? ). Incidentally, Edwards' large vote tally (ah, the beauty of math) gives him enormous influence as the convention approaches.
Obama -- 25 actual delegates
Clinton -- 24 actual delegates
Edwards -- 18 actual delegates

So it's hardly a done deal. But if Bill rants and raves when the polls show them behind (yes, "them" because in reality it's "they" who are running for president), and Hillary wells up when she's feeling unsteady because it's oh-so-hard to keep it together every day, I have two questions: one, what on earth would/will happen if she fails to get the nomination? (can you imagine the vitriol, the nastiness, the horribly racist and mean things they will say about Obama and the voters!); and two, what would happen if she won (can you imagine weeping and yelling at foreign leaders and voters - it would set women's equality back about two centuries).

BTW, the actual current Republican tally is also very different from what's being reported. Romney won 8 of Wyoming's delegates and Thompson won 3 - McCain won none - which hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I've seen (except USA Today, who knows why). For another, again demonstrating the importance of math and probability theory and all, Thompson and McCain are essentially neck-in-neck if they clobber the southern and midwest states, as predicted.
Romney -- 24 actual delegates
Huckabee -- 18 actual delegates
McCain -- 10 actual delegates
Thompson -- 6 actual delegates

Hey, no denying this is interesting. Scary, given the consequences, but definitely interesting. On to Michigan . . . .

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 1:10 PM

Today's birthday
Amusingly enough, today is the 95th anniversary of Richard Nixon's birth. If anyone had thought of it, or at least mentioned it, it might have explained a lot of yesterday's apparently unpredictable behavior in New Hampshire's voting booths.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:25 AM

NH
I can't believe the New Hampshire voters fell for Hillary's tears and coffee handing-out, or Bill's "I can't make her thinner or younger or a man" lament - easily the most offensive thing he's said, and he's said plenty of extremely offensive things. Does anyone notice that he's never left her side since the Obama bandwagon began getting jumped on? He wants back in the White House so bad he may just come out and say so one of these days. "Hiya, folks, she may not be tall or thin or blonde or male . . . or even me! . . . but a vote for her is a vote for me! . . . so come one, now, put the boy from Hope back in the White House!" I can see the bumper stickers now.

The good news is that even CNN only calls is a narrow victory, saying she "edged" Obama today, but it's still disappointing and a bit alarming. On the other hand, 2.5% is hardly a huge margin. I only hope this energizes Obama a lot and makes her over-confident again and fires up the next primaries' voters, especially the Super Tuesday bunch. I hope a lot of young people are voting for the next three weeks. Please tell me the Democrats won't nominate that manipulative, condenscending political machine.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 2:18 AM

Tuesday, January 8, 2008
P.S. re HRC tears
I suppose Hillary thought tears and vulnerability would appeal to some and make her look real and feminine. Perhaps she was right. But they lost her much more. And I can't believe they were real tears.

If the tears were real, she shouldn't be president. How could a president succeed who was so delicate that as to cry when asked about keeping a busy schedule?? How much would she sob, then, if told a foreign dignitary didn't like her? Or if a cabinet member disagreed with her policies? Or if another country's leader called the U.S. names and declared war? Or if a nuclear missile was en route to the U.S.?

Those tears, whether deliberate or not, are deeply scary. A president of any sex or color or size or any other attribute must be tough and rigorous enough to handle situations and people that/who are powerful, threatening and unsettling. It is not a good thing to be so emotionally delicate that tears result from a question about her endurance and energy (the question was about how she keeps her hair neat and tidy in the crazy fray of a political campaign). Can you imagine Romney welling up if asked how he keeps his hair so tidy? Or McCain if asked how he's kept in such good shape? And tears were what got Edmund Muskie the exit hook a few years ago although at least his resulted from Nixonian evildoing rather than a silly personal question. Hillary has molder herself into a robotic, calculating, unassailably political machine and calculator extraordinaire of voter reactions; she can't have it both ways, for one thing, but even more importantly she completely miscalculated this one.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:52 AM

Films, books and gossip
One of the best books in the world is Bernard Schlink's The Reader. It challenges tons of thoughts and attitudes about many things and, at minimum, makes you realize how difficult some moral and ethical choices can be, even for good people who have every intention of making good and correct choices and decisions. And it makes you see the tiny bits of frailty and vulnerability that we all have. It's an amazing book.

Not surprisingly, The Reader is being made into a film. Nicole Kidman was to play Hanna and Ralph Fiennes to play Michael. It is fundamental to the entire story that Michael was 15 when Hanna was 30 - it actually wouldn't make sense otherwise. As a result, in the "present" in the book, Michael is around 35ish and Hanna 50. Kidman would be hard pressed to look world-weary-though-appealing and 50 since she is actually 40 and doesn't appear at all world-weary. Fiennes could not possibly look innocent and sweet, except unctiously so, let alone 35, since he is actually nearing 50. It would utterly change (read: ruin) the story if they alter the ages, especially switching who's older and who's younger.

Anyway, it's all moot at the moment because Kidman has withdrawn from the project due to her pregnancy. (I'm happy for her though puzzled in a gossipy and completely rude way; it supposedly was she who couldn't have children with Tom Cruise and that's why they adopted and that was supposedly further backed up by the ever-so-viral proof that he and Katie had Suri so quickly but now Nicole is pregnant and rumors are afoot that Suri was in vitro from L.Ron Hubbard (of all people); can you say scientology is insane and maybe so is Cruise and maybe so am I for even thinking let alone writing about this . . . .) Well, in my perfect and completely unlikely fantasy world, they'll hold off on making the movie until Kidman can do it and that will mean Fiennes will go do something else and they'll have to sign a younger and more appropriate man in his place. My fingers are crossed.

Labels: , , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:13 AM

Acerbicity
Not sure if 'acerbicity' is a real word but nothing else will do to describe George Will's column this morning. (I've posted it on my articles page because reading it requires registration at the WaPo and many other outlets; also, it's slightly edited at a few places like the Hartford Courant; one wonders how they can get away with that.) It is an awesome summary of what's profoundly and deeply wrong with the so-called leading Republican contenders. He doesn't mince a single thought or word and I only wish I had written it myself. Read it.

I indeed have already said, although less compellingly, what Medved says in this article, especially the parts about Romney, McCain and Huckabee needing to be positive and upbeat or they're going to hand the Democrats a landslide. In fact, if Obama continues to hold even a little of the excitement he attracts at the moment, and continues to be adult and calm, I am quite sure he will win with enormous numbers.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:19 AM

Monday, January 7, 2008
Oh puh-leeze
There are several reports today of Mrs. C's eyes filling with tears when a woman in a diner asked her how she does it. Why on earth would that question pierce her armor? Do people so yearn to believe she's a real living person with spontaneous and un-canned reactions that they can make themselves believe these tears are real? When has she ever let her guard down enough to show a tear-filled eye? Not when her husband had piccadillos in front of the whole entire world. Not when her husband was impeached. Not when she was accused of murdering a former colleague. Not when she was almost convicted of fraud. Not even when her chocolate chip cookies lost a national taste test to Barbara Bush's, for goodness sake. Nope, she's had her poses layered on top of poses layered on poses for so long that there is no way anything could pierce through. Certainly there's no way a question about her endurance would be the one.

I'm not saying, by the way, that she doesn't have vulnerable feelings. Indeed, she may. But she clearly decided ages ago that publicly showing any vulnerability was counter to her goals.

This time, as always, she is acting. She's a terrific actress. Gives Elizabeth Taylor a serious run for a crown. HRC knows how to produce just a tiny bit of emotion in her face, to have tears well up just a little - think how ugly we look if we really cry, by the way. In exactly the same way that she gave that ridiculous answer to the moderator in the debate on Saturday (some people think you're not very nice . . . that makes me very sad), it's totally clear that she doesn't let herself show the emotions the rest of us feel. She's managed to train herself to show only what jibes with her idea of how she thinks she should look and sound. Keep in mind that she did not ever ever ever have a public woman-like response to her husband's behavior or her own legal difficulties, not even a flash of anger or a flash showing how betrayed she felt. This woman is not going to melt down, at long last, after all that, when someone simply asks how she keeps her hair in place day after day. Get real, people. She has chosen never to let any dangerous tripping-up emotions wrinkle her solid mask shell, but we must keep our grip on what really is real.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 4:02 PM

New Hampshire
Talked with some co-workers today about the results from Iowa and the prospective results from NH. Everyone seems either willing or even enthused - albeit cautiously - about Obama. I think the idea that a non-caucasian man can be winning so much backing from people in traditionally white parts of the country is simply fantastic. I've said that for quite a while I haven't thought Americans were particularly racist; we definitely are behaviorists in that we don't like loud and raucous but it just so happens that loud and raucous occurs in certain neighborhoods. It's not per se that any one type of person is loud and raucous.

Anyway, I'm really annoyed that the media have been touting McCain so heavily. Somehow and most mercifully they've let the democrats find their own water level by staying off the "black" and "woman" issues. But they've agreed to anoint McCain for some reason (do they think he's bound to lose to either Billary or Obama?) and they're pushing him like mad. That may possibly backfire just as much as their attempt to pre-nominate Billary.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 3:53 PM

Sunday, January 6, 2008
12th night
Today is 12 night (or the 12th day of Christmas, or Epiphany). The wise men are reputed to have kicked the whole gift-giving thing off today (which makes it a bit baffling that we've come to celebrate and exchange things 12 days earlier, but what the heck). Anyway, a friend kept saying "oh, yes! aha!" all day because he's always only thought of 'epiphany' as gaining insight. It was pretty funny. It's also the weekend of the half birthday of one of T2CGITW so it was a jolly day all around. My daughter whimsically and delightfully baked cupcakes and cut them in half and served them on paper plates she'd cut in half. (Photo to be downloaded tonight.) Fun was definitely had by all.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 2 comment(s) | posted by jau at 5:10 PM

Saturday, January 5, 2008
Nastiness
In case you don't think Huckabee is malicious, basically trying to appeal to liberal voters, unethical in his willingness to sling nasty insinuations, and not even remotely the Christian (i.e., loving his fellow man) person he claims to be, catch what he said on the Tonight Show (where he crossed picket lines to appear). Asked what he thought was behind his popularity, instead of calling it divine intervention, he said, "I think it's because people want to vote for someone who reminds them of the guy they work with rather than the guy who laid them off." Consider the possibility of a national campaign with vicious undercutting Billary facing off against this guy. I might have to lay in hundreds of movies and just stop watching the news altogether.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 1:23 PM

Winter
I have no problem with winter, per se, but it seems that the first week in January always always always brings me a cold (nothing more severe, usually, thank goodness) and incredibly itchy skin. I didn't make the "first week in January" connection until I was reviewing my last three years' time reports at work, but there it was: one or two days out before January 10th, every year. This year I have both inflictions (yeah, that's a bit melodramatic but it's fun to be melodramatic when you keep sneezing) again. Maybe next year I should take the week as a vacation week and see if I can skip the whole thing.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:13 AM

Friday, January 4, 2008
Puzzled
The media seem to be enmassing [sic] enthusiasm for McCain and it puzzles me. Over the last year, McCain lost quite a bit of ground by being loopy and even occasionally temperamental. Prior to that, he'd lost whatever appeal he held for me, anyway, partly because he was so unforthcoming about his illness and because he's a tax guy, and partly - okay, I have to admit it - because he just seems nutty. Let me say that I'm sure I'd be significantly nutty, too, if I'd been in solitary confinement for years, so I don't blame him one whit, it's just that I don't want to give the responsibility for running a country to someone who's probably slightly unhinged, no matter how logical the unhingedness nor how swell the person may be as a person. Perhaps I shouldn't base my electoral decisions on gut reactions, but it's not as if most of them really say what they think, voter whores that they are, so I have to go with something less concrete.

Another thing that struck me (as it did Laura) is the media's apparently deliberate refusal even to acknowledge Thompson. It can't be the actor thing, after all, since the hallowed Reagan was an actor and thereby presumably tossed that prejudice out the window. But in Iowa yesterday, Thompson came in 3rd and McCain 4th, yet the reports talk about how wondrous McCain's finish was and how possibly predictive of ultimate victory for the nomination. Why does 4th trump 3rd? I can only assume it's part of the not-news that the media reports in that somehow they really want McCain to run (why, by the way?) so with their wished-for conclusion in sight that he wins the nomination, they report his 4th place finish as terrific and they ignore Thompson altogether. Name recognition being what it is, perhaps they hope New Hampshire voters and all the rest of us are very very susceptible to such tactics. Perhaps they think we are all very very stupid. Perhaps they are very very wrong.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 5 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:25 AM

Iowa
Must admit - an interesting result from the first caucus, although I still think it's insanely early. I love that nothing is exactly as the pundits first predicted. I love that the anointed ones (Billary and Romney) didn't do well. I love that voters made up their own minds based on their own principles and ideas. Nothing is a foregone conclusion now.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:20 AM

Thursday, January 3, 2008
Misinformation
Ill-informed as we often are, we might leap to an assumption that religious people are often homeschoolers and therefore right-wingers and therefore supporters of Mike Huckabee. On the other hand, no one can know everything about everything (which is a perfectly good reason that we form mistaken opinions now and then) but that doesn't stop us from making incorrect assumptions based on thin evidence. Just as every one of the assumptions I voiced in the first sentence is false at least some of the time, it is also true that one vocal and influential homeschooling blogger adamantly opposes Huckabee, thus providing clear evidence that one should never jump from a to b to c.

If a person believes xyz and knows some people who believe xyz and also believe wxy, it is nevertheless wrong to assume that all people who believe xyz also believe wxy. Some examples come quickly to mind: New Yorkers are not all loud pushy and rude (although some are - but so are people from lots of other places), Southerners are not all religious lunatics (although some are - but so are people from lots of other places), Californians are not all touchy-feely hippies (although some are - but so are people from lots of other places), retired people do not all wear plaid and play golf (although some do - but so do people who just have strange taste even if they're employed and young), every girl does not like pink (although some do - as do (gasp!) some boys), etc., etc.

I'd love to know your own favorite bad assumptions; I'll write a longer post about this soon.

Labels: , , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 2:37 PM

SF Zoo
No kidding. After all, what do you suppose the slingshot found in Sousa's car was for?

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 2:28 PM

FDT
As the Anchoress says, Fred Thompson is
sly, wry and dry. He dares to mock and sneer at the absurd posturing and pretending that constitutes modern political campaigning which has become nothing more than spin and illusion, void of authenticity and substance. I don’t know if I am ready to say 'he’s my guy'. I think it’s too soon to say that about anyone.
Many of the blogs I read have made similar observations in the last few days. Thompson's somewhat rebellious attitude toward the election process is very appealing, as is his calm demeanor. It would be a pleasure to listen to him, from a listening standpoint. I'm not at all sure what his positions are, however, or if I like his way of approaching issues even when I disagree with his own stance. In my opinion, it's how a president governs and works with Congress and the general population that matters far more than his/her opinions.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 1:34 PM

Sarkozy
A friend of mine send me this article today from the Australian Jewish News (yes, virginia, there is a niche publication everywhere for everything). During the recent election in France, there was no fuss or even mention of it - that I saw, anyway - but France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, apparently has a Jewish heritage. His mother belongs to the Mallah family from Salonika (Greece) who, in the 15th century, escaped the Spanish Inquisition (good for them!) and emigrated to Provence, France before proceeding to Salonika. Many of the family members hid in Marcillac la Croisille in the Corrèze region, western France, during World War II but many Mallahs who stayed in Salonika or moved to France fare far worse. In fact, 57 family members were murdered in concentration camps including one, Buena Mallah, who was the subject of medical "experiments" in Birkenau. In any case, this makes Sarkozy's victory last Spring seem particularly beneficial for France. To have elected a Jewish man as president merely half a century after Vichy's (at best dubious and at worst complicitous) acquiescence to the Nazis is remarkable. Good for them. (And, by the way, if you are ever in Paris, be sure to go to the the Deportation / Holocaust Memorial behind Notre Dame, on the Ile de Cite. It's the simplest, quietest memorial or museum I've ever seen and, perhaps as a result, is deeply moving.)

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:11 AM

Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Iowa
It would be interesting and refreshing if this were true, wouldn't it?

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 6:10 PM

Firefox & I.E.
I fiddled a bit and now the banner and sidebar are readable in both browsers although they don't look identical. One hears moaning and groaning about I.E. from various people but my own issue usually is simply that something looks peachy in I.E. and cramped or differently positioned in Firefox. Anyway, for now they're both readable, at least. This time, just for variety, the Firefox display is closer to what I want.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:21 AM

Tuesday, January 1, 2008
2008


Happy New Year!
May all your blogs be interesting
and all your reading thought-provoking
or at least amusing
and all your politics at least a little hopeful
and everything else just splendid,
all year long.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 3 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:59 PM

Shoot
That's a pun - the title of this post. I got a wonderful new camera for Christmas from my son. He seems to have taken on the role of being my technical guardian angel, which is a lovely role, I must say (TiVo, printer, computer, camera . . .). So I bought a great big 2gb card for the camera yesterday and went to town this afternoon, shooting pictures of the slightly-more-than-one-hundred jewelry items that I've made in the last months. The pictures looked pretty good and I even cropped a few in camera (one of the Coolpix S51's nifty features). Then I came up to download them to my computer. Funny blippy noise ensued followed by "disk in drive h: needs to be formatted." I tried to copy the photos to the internal memory on the camera, but to no avail. Mind you - neither the camera nor the paperwork with the disk said ANYthing about needing to format the disk before using it - and the new 1gb that I used yesterday didn't require any formatting. Very frustrating. This is me pouting.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 3 comment(s) | posted by jau at 6:44 PM

Winter
Yup. Global warming sure is something. These snowy, cold folks must agree. Or maybe not.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 12:22 PM

Politics
Like Laura, although a bit more cautiously, I must say that I do like Fred Thompson. He speaks straightforwardly and without nutty machinations and manipulations. I don't always agree with him but I like knowing what he thinks on account of what he says seems to be what he means (and I do agree with much that he says). But is there any chance that he'd get the nomination?? Maybe if he waits until Romney slips and slides, Guiliani offends and Huckabee just falls apart . . . ?

Labels:

Permalink | 5 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:46 AM

Today
Nice touch that today is Edmund Burke's birthday.

Labels:

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:17 AM