The Danifesto

Osama bin Laden is Dead

2011-05-02T01:18:00.003-04:00

"Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: 'to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.' Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people." -Robert F. Kennedy on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., April 1968.

As I watch the raucous celebration outside the gates of the White House, it seems like the only thing missing are Ewoks cheering and dancing and banging on the helmets of Imperial stormtroopers.

Anyway.

The news that Osama bin Laden is dead changes nothing, but it also changes everything. Soon al-Qaeda will undoubtedly rebuke the news, claiming it means little, as it is an open secret that bin Laden has essentially been sidelined as a leader for some time. Already there is word that U.S. embassies around the globe have been placed on high alert in the event that someone, somewhere wants to retaliate. And all over the world, including right here at home, people will go to bed tonight hungry, penniless and even hunted by terrorism of various kinds - be it in Sudan or Libya, or Syria or Yemen, or elsewhere in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But it would be wrong not to at least partially acknowledge that this momentous news is a cacophonous, cathartic victory for not just Americans, but for people who pray for peace and freedom all over the world.

September 11, 2001 - God, can it be almost ten years already? - changed everything in this country, and with it, the world. A decade later, our politics and policies have irreparably changed forever, as have the ways we go about our daily business. Going to a stadium, getting on an airplane - it will never go back to the way it was. Civil liberties in this country have been in peril seemingly ever since September 12th of that year, and the Democratic president Obama has been just as aggressive in that regard as was his Republican predecessor. And that should be taken into account - that Obama has in large part virtually followed Bush's exact course in counterterrorism policies, torture being the biggest (and a very important) difference.

But this is an amazing moment for the president, and for our country, and especially for all those who died on 9/11, their families and for all of us who lived through that awful day - and who are still living through its ramifications. Bin Laden's death makes it feel like all the endless suffering of the past ten years - the war in Afghanistan, the needless war in Iraq, "Mission Accomplished," all the huffing and puffing of the Bush years, the disappointment in some of Obama's Middle East policies - was all worth something. Oh, you can argue with how we got here, and I certainly have. And this doesn't vindicate Guantanamo Bay, for example. But take a moment to reflect this news. Osama bin Laden has been killed, by U.S. forces. According to the president, this is what our troops and intelligence personnel have been fighting for, at least since Obama's inauguration.

Part of me wants to take a step back, and tell myself this isn't a big deal, and I shouldn't get my hopes up, that this country itself has done and is capable of some questionable moral actions in its history. And all that is true. I am against the operation in Libya, as I am in Iraq, and I could talk your ear off about all the problems we have at home. But, after all the terror Osama bin Laden caused on and after 9/11, we deserve a night like this.

Sometimes, it's okay simply to celebrate someone or something evil getting its due. It doesn't make America perfect, or mean that we are above criticism. It doesn't end terrorism, nor does it even begin to put a dent in all the problems in the world. It certainly doesn't change my own personal life one bit. And, believe you me, there is something strange about celebrating someone's death. But I am filled with satisfaction that, at least for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, justice has been served.

And in spite of all the problems and hypocrisies apparent from time to time, America remains the place most associated with liberty in this world, as well as the country with the greatest capability for good. We have problems in this country, including politicians and citizens who peddle poisonous beliefs and even untruths to the masses. But overall, the heart of this country is good, our wishes are pure, and, always, we hope for the best.

An Inspiration for the Gay - and Straight - Communities

2011-01-27T15:15:00.004-05:00

I begin this post knowing that the Wyoming House of Representatives just passed a terrible bill outlawing gay marriages AND civil unions performed in other states. Don't Ask Don't Tell, while technically repealed, will not fully disappear from the books for about another year or so. And elsewhere around the world, gay people are routinely tormented - and sometimes murdered - simply for loving the way nature intended them to love.

Yet, in the midst of all this, I found this amazing clip of a young woman - a high school student, in fact - who bravely got up in front of her entire assembled student body and came out of the closet. I repeat: this girl is in high school. And she appears to have the wisdom and courage of someone twice or even three times her age:

For the record, her name is Kayla Kearney, and she attends Maria Carrillo High School in Santa Rosa, CA (northern California).

This is what it's going to take to achieve full LGBT equality in our country. This is what has to happen. In spite of all the tragic, terrible news that often permeates the airwaves - the suicides, the discrimination, states voting to take away people's rights - every now and then someone and something like this comes along. Someone comes along who is strong enough to say, loudly and proudly, "THIS IS WRONG - and, deep in your heart, those of you who are not gay or feel unaffected by this - you know it to be wrong, too."

Andrew Sullivan, a pioneer on gay rights and marriage in particular, has written eloquently that, until gay people as a whole are confident enough to be BOLD, and VOCAL, about their sexuality, full equality will not be attainable. It's not enough to be quiet about it - even if you're not being discriminated against. It takes being out to those around you, because that's the only way to put a human face on something that is often misunderstood. With even just one or two degrees of separation, everyone everywhere (for the most part) knows someone who is gay. They are brothers, sisters, parents, cousins, friends, co-workers, teachers, students, acquaintances - they are there, right in front of you. But until they know that these ordinary people in their lives are gay - until they can demystify and connect to it on a personal level - it will remain difficult to change minds for the better.

But - it takes bold, brave steps like this one. Brava to this young girl, indeed. What a fighter.

(Editor's Note: I wanted to embed this video directly into the post, but I first found this video at Towleroad via this link.)

State of the Union Quick Recap

2011-01-25T22:15:00.004-05:00

More to come later, but here's a recap for now:

I found the speech to be simultaneously predictable boilerplate but also quite effective. Obama seems to have grown into his role as president, or - as John King just put it on CNN - "the guy in the middle." He wants to be the reasonable guy in the center of the circle, surrounded by the screaming nincompoops on each side. Ever since November, with the crushing at the polls, he seems to have found somewhat of a stride - first with the lame duck, then with his speech in Tucson, and finally with tonight.

I got the sense that he relishes the coming congressional session. Two months ago, the conventional wisdom was that he would be bloodied and battered and terrified of legislative battles with an emboldened Republican Party. But I don't think that's the case. This has given him the opportunity to stretch his legs and, as one commentator put it, be the president he's always wanted to be.

On policy - yawn. No earth-shattering, New Frontier-like proposals or anything. But I applaud the focus on renewable energy, education and the economy. They are, of course, intertwined, and altogether represent the most important issue(s) facing our country.

I'll post a roundup of reactions and analysis later tonight and tomorrow. But for now, dinner!

State of the Union LIVE Blog

2011-01-25T20:53:00.037-05:00

7:11 PM. "The state of our union is strong" - told ya! An unusual but effective choice to CLOSE with this line, rather than open with it.

7:09 PM. The Chilean miners! Obama inspirational, Biden smiley, Boehner teary.

7:07 PM. Back to the American exceptionalism/"unity" thing. Vintage Obama. He seems really passionate about this theme tonight, and he did in Tucson as well. Mentions the American Dream and how that's the only way he, Biden and Boehner are up there tonight. Boehner getting a little glass-eyed again...

7:05 PM. Throwing in DADT reference. Standing ovation from the left; no clapping from the military. Maybe that's protocol? Also calls on opening college campuses to military recruiting and ROTC. That gets everybody up.

6:58 PM. Sticking with that July 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal date.

6:57 PM. Says the Iraq War - yeah, remember that? - is coming to an end. A bipartisan standing ovation. Time to get the fuck out of there. Also mentions that American Muslims "are part of our American family," accompanied by another standing ovation. Very nice to see.

6:54 PM. Says the Obama Administration is developing a proposal to "merge, consolidate and reorganize" the federal government within the next year. Pretty shrewd - and conservative.

6:50 PM. "IF WE TRULY CARE ABOUT OUR DEFICIT, WE SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD A PERMANENT TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHIEST 2% OF AMERICANS." YES!!!!

6:48 PM. Says we have to stop pretending that just cutting discretionary spending will be enough. Republicans always say, "Let's cut discretionary spending" - and that's it. Which is, of course, bullshit. Also brings up Bowles-Simpson, thankfully. He seems very serious on this issue, as he should be, and I commend him for it.

6:47 PM. Makes the point that the deficit began "a decade ago" - in other words, when Republicans were completely in charge. "Our government spends more than it takes in - that is not sustainable." Proposes freezing annual domestic spending for five years, and says it would reduce the deficit by $400 billion. Says it will require painful cuts. Sounded pretty moderate for a "big spending Democrat." Yet Boehner & Co. look permanently glum-faced.

6:45 PM. "Let's fix what needs fixing, and let's move forward." Still a lot of seated Republicans, though. How obstructionist can they be, seriously?

6:43 PM. Health care reform. There it is! The mixed seating makes it hard to see who's standing and who's not. "I have heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about our new health care law, so let me be the first to say: anything can be improved." Directly calls on Republicans to work with him on health care reform-reform.

6:39 PM. Can't help myself: Chuck Grassley, what on earth are you wearing?

6:38 PM. Wants more investment in infrastructure. Yes, great idea. "Pick projects based on what's good for the economy, not politicians." Wants 80% of Americans to have access to high-speed rail in 20 years. And flying without the pat down. Woo hoo!

6:36 PM. High-speed rail! Yeah! Obama says our infrastructure used to be the best in the world, but not anymore. Before the conservatives start whining about "hating" America, I have news for you - he's right!

6:35 PM. Obama seems to have seized on the theme of his Tucson speech, about using the Giffords tragedy to make a better America the way 9 year-old Christina Greene would have dreamt it. I'm sensing echoes of that theme in this speech tonight. He started with a reference to the little girl and just had a big section tying in education to - obviously - the hopes and dreams of young children.

6:32 PM. "If you want to make the difference in the life of a child, become a teacher - your country needs you." And another standing ovation. My mother, an English teacher, is LOVING this speech.

6:31 PM. "What is this, some Republican thing?" -the words of a 13 year-old

6:28 PM. I'm encouraged by the pivot from a clean energy economy to educating young people. Obama, rightfully so, is being frank about the declining education standards in this country. He asks if we, "as citizens or parents, are willing to do what is necessary to see every child succeed." Says it's start in the homes - "making sure the TV gets turned off... It's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrating, but the winner of the science fair." I love it. Pretty good stuff, especially coming from an obviously-disappointed Chicago Bears fan.

6:25 PM. Obama wants one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. It's a start, I guess, but in a nation of over 300 million people that is one damn small benchmark. But, like I said, at least it's a start. You'd never hear Bush or McCain talk about that.

6:24 PM. Renewable energy. Coulda seen that one coming. This really is the new frontier of the world's environment and economy, and it's time this country started getting serious about it. Obama included an investment in green infrastructure in the stimulus, but we need more of it - and not just because of the jobs it will create; our planet is in peril!

6:19 PM. For the knuckleheads on the right who say that Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, this opening section is proving them wrong (they were, of course, wrong already).

6:17 PM. Biden, on the other hand, has the "seriously concerned" look glued to his face.

6:16 PM. In her first State of the Union, Pelosi had an infamous blinking problem. Boehner occasionally looks like he's trying to motorboat the air.

6:14 PM. "The stake is whether new industries take root in this country, or somewhere else." First (indirect) reference to the economy, as well as to China kicking our collective asses.

6:12 PM. "There's a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause... Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are, or where we come from, each of us is part of something greater... we are part of the American family... we are still bound together as one people." Brings up "the dreams of a little girl in Tucson" - obviously Christina Greene.

6:10 PM. The obligatory Gabrielle Giffords acknowledgement. Obama has said two sentences and gotten two standing ovations.

6:10 PM. First prediction comes true: Obama acknowledges Boehner as the new Speaker. Should I drink?

6:08 PM. The President gets to the podium. Hey, whaddya know, there just so happened to be extra copies of the speech underneath the microphone! Who put THAT there?

6:07 PM. Obama thinks Hillary looks good too! OKAY SERIOUSLY I'LL STOP NOW

6:05 PM. In other news, I will try to refrain from commenting on clothing and appearances from here on out. Except to point out that hideously chartreuse suit worn by the woman who just kissed Obama.

6:04 PM. In comes Obama, in a dark periwinkle tie. It's gonna match with Boehner's!

5:58 PM. On the other hand, I like Hillary's hair - both color and style.

5:57 PM. I don't know how I feel about Michelle's dress per se, but I like the color.

5:55 PM. Who knew the ambassador of Djibouti was the "dean" of the diplomatic corps?

5:54 PM. Seeing Piers Morgan on the CNN panel is hilarious. If only he could judge the politicians tonight the way he judges the contestants on America's Got Talent!

5:51 PM (PST). CNN just showed Biden and Boehner speaking. I'll miss seeing Pelosi on that dais. However, the contrast between Boehner's purple tie and orange face is quite striking.

President Obama's 2nd State of the Union

2011-01-25T20:47:00.003-05:00

I've been in Oscar mode all day (and what a mode to be in, seriously) so I haven't been focusing as closely on tonight's State of the Union. Here are a few last-minute predictions:

Daniel Hernandez, the "hero intern" from the Giffords shooting, will get a standing ovation (he'll be sitting with Michelle Obama).
Obama will make a reference to Republicans and Democrats sitting together.
Obama will acknowledge Speaker Boehner in his new gig, and welcome the freshmen to Congress.
Somebody somewhere will say something about the economy.
The "state of our union" will either be "strong" or, as it was last year, "getting stronger every day" (or something along those lines).
If you're playing a drinking game that involves drinking on the words "economy," "come together" or "spending," you're gonna get wasted.

Snap Judgments Pt. II: 'The King's Speech' vs. 'The Social Network'

2011-01-25T09:27:00.004-05:00

STILL KINDA SLEEPY - but loving it. More snap judgments on why The King's Speech is perfectly positioned to upset The Social Network for Best Picture.

FYI - not saying that it WILL, but if it DOES, here's why:

Based on the fact that Social Network has won every single critics' award under the sun, it will - and probably should - still be considered the front-runner for Best Picture at the Oscars, even though it's tied for third (with Inception) in the nominations count with eight. Also, keep in mind that Inception was snubbed for two nods which I felt would be fairly obvious for it to grab: Director and Editing. But I digress.

Back to Social Network. Critics' prizes up the wazoo, as well as the Globe. But it got (relatively) little love from the Academy. Eight nominations is still a lot, but the real story this morning is how well True Grit did, along with the expected leader in the nominations count, The King's Speech. Meanwhile, Social Network has a not-insignificant snub to deal with in Andrew Garfield's lack of a Best Supporting Actor nomination. True, he didn't get a SAG nod, but most prognosticators felt he'd score an Oscar nod.

Much of the time, the film with the most nominations is the automatic front-runner. Not always the case, because sometimes big, bloated spectacle-style films can rack up a ton of nominations in technical categories but don't get nominated where it really counts (like in acting or writing). Think Avatar from last year: tied with eventual winner The Hurt Locker with nine nominations apiece, but it had no acting or writing nods - it was nominated for Picture, Director and a ton of technical awards, and that was it. It was dead on arrival.

This year, the film with the most nominations - The King's Speech - has a TON of love from the Academy, all across the board. It's nominated in every acting category but Best Actress (where it didn't have a nominee to push for a spot), plus writing, directing and lots of technical awards. True Grit, in a way, is almost King's Speech-lite as it's got double-digit nominations, and it's got 'em where it really counts. Social Network is a shoo-in for Aaron Sorkin's adapted screenplay, plus David Fincher's probably still got the Director prize in his back pocket and Jesse Eisenberg is nominated for Best Actor. But no Garfield is potentially worrisome. The film did get nods for Original Score and Editing, which always bode well for a Best Picture. But I think there's a real chance of an upset here.

Put simply, The King's Speech has the most nominations, strong support within the Academy, just won the Producer's Guild (PGA) top prize, is poised to win at the BAFTAs and possibly the SAG Awards - and everyone thinks the other film is a shoo-in to win.

My money is still on The Social Network, because I do think to some extent its relatively-small nomination total was unavoidable: it's a not a movie built to rack up the Oscar nods. Plus, it's the best-reviewed movie of the year, producer Scott Rudin will push it hard and it'd be a shame if the Academy didn't reward what is clearly the best American movie of the year. But there's a real path to an upset by The King's Speech, which might be the first 12-nomination, acting-writing-directing-editing nominated film in history that is still considered by many to be an underdog.

Oscar Nomination Snap Judgments

2011-01-25T08:47:00.006-05:00

It might not be safe to judge me on these come the day of the ceremony! The disclaimer, obviously, is that it's 6 A.M. here in Los Angeles and my brain is still trying to process being awake, let alone writing for all the Internets to see.

Not too many surprises this morning, but there were a few. Here they are, along with other snap judgments regarding today's Academy Award nominations:

True Grit back from the dead: After being snubbed at the Globes, and with indications that past winners the Coen Bros. probably would NOT be recognized for directing, the Coen Bros. WERE recognized for directing AND the movie had the second-most nominations, with 10
Andrew Garfield overlooked for Best Supporting Actor in the role that is the heart of the film that is supposed to be the front-runner. I'm not saying this is a death knell by any means for The Social Network, but I can't take it as GOOD news by any means.
The Academy just can't bring itself to dig Christopher Nolan. The whole reason we now have 10 Best Picture nominees is because, two years, the Academy made one of its biggest snubs ever and failed to nominate Nolan's film The Dark Knight. They've nominated Inception this time around, but snubbed the Brit of a Best Director slot, something that seemed like a foregone conclusion. The Coen Bros. presumably took that slot. So the moral of the story is, in the eyes of the Academy: Coens > Nolan
Javier Bardem! The former winner (for a Coen Bros. film), in a bit of an upset, won a Best Actor nomination for his role in Biutiful. It's the first time ever that a leading actor nominee's performance was entirely in Spanish.
Hailee Steinfeld's nom is Michelle Williams' gain. Not a surprise in the least that the 14 year-old heroine of True Grit was nominated, but there had been some thinking recently that she'd get nominated as Best Actress (since she drives the movie) and not Best Supporting Actress (which she was being pushed for, because she's 14). But in the end, Supporting it was - which kept open a spot for the much-loved indie queen Michelle Williams as a Best Actress nominee for Blue Valentine, but presumably kept Mila Kunis (Black Swan) out of the Supporting race.
John Hawkes for Best Supporting Actor: The Winter's Bone actor presumably grabbed Andrew Garfield's spot.
Jacki Weaver for Best Supporting Actress: The veteran Australian actress duplicated her Golden Globes nod by getting nominated for her chilling turn in Animal Kingdom. Largely expected in many quarters, but it's still somewhat of a coup considering her film is probably the least-seen of any nominee in a major category (acting, directing, writing, picture).

In the end, what I'm most interested in is the fact that The Social Network got "only" eight nominations, which puts it in third place behind The King's Speech with 12 and True Grit (!) with 10. Granted, Social Network is not a movie designed to get tons of Oscar nominations, whereas King's Speech or True Grit are - because they can rack up nods in the technical categories like art direction, costumes, etc. But I did get somewhat of a sense that, if Social Network is to cap off awards season with a Best Picture win, it will need to have a strong core of support within the Academy, because judging from the nominations alone the voters seem to be a bit ambivalent about it. Considering the fact that it's won almost everything up to this point, it's at least one of two front-runners (along with King's Speech; 10 nominations notwithstanding, I don't think True Grit is winning). But when you throw into the mix the fact that King's Speech got 12 nominations, just won the Producer's Guild prize for Best Picture, blew everyone out of the water at the BAFTAs (I know, they're British) AND the fact that Social Network is third among most-nominated films (with a not-insignificant snub in Andrew Garfield), you begin to get the feeling that Social Network's support within the Academy might be a little shakier than previously thought.

It's going to take a bit more than expected for the Academy to crown "the Facebook movie," especially when a heart-warming, old-fashioned piece of (British!) entertainment is sitting there for the taking - along with the Coen Bros., now firmly entrenched in the establishment, as a very dark horse.

Bill Maher vs. the Tea Party

2011-01-20T19:59:00.000-05:00

(Hat tip: Talking Points Memo)

Obama 2.0, or Obama 1.0's Clone, Or... Whatever

2011-01-20T18:12:00.003-05:00

Earlier this morning I made the assertion that one of the biggest problems with Obama's presidency so far has been its deficiencies in marketing. When you're a president who can claim a long list of impressive policy achievements - yet a lot of people seem to think you've been completely ineffective - you have a problem with your message. So this struck me as interesting news:

Like President George W. Bush but unlike President Bill Clinton, Obama's campaign reelection team will be made up of familiar faces. The fundamental authors of the president's narrative, strategy, and world view remain the same: Messina, Plouffe, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and Valerie Jarrett. They'll change geography, they'll change jobs, they'll change titles -- but they remain in charge.

This will either work out quite well or could be potentially problematic. The aforementioned people - particularly David Plouffe and David Axelrod - were the head honchos in charge of Obama's 2008 campaign (the "Hope" and "Change" people). But this is the same group - minus Plouffe, largely - that has also reigned over the enigmatic first two years of what should be perceived as a very accomplished presidency.

Maybe these guys are just better at campaigning than they are at governing. Plouffe and Axelrod are campaign guys, largely, and, prior to joining Obama's team, Jarrett had been in the private sector for a long time (though she did work in the Chicago mayor's office for a while). Gibbs has always seemed to me like your classic Washington insider kinda guy - which is neither an entirely good thing nor an entirely bad thing (though I would have gone with a different kind of energy for press secretary).

The good news, of course, is that the Republican field of potentials appears to be laughably lame, at least at the moment. In a tough economy with high unemployment, anything is possible, but these guys have already decisively beaten a well-known, well-liked, former war hero, so I don't think a Mama Grizzly, a Mormon or Chuck Norris's BFF are going to have them shaking in their boots.

Two Years In

2011-01-20T03:08:00.005-05:00

It's Toddler Time in our nation's capital. Barack Obama's presidency turns two years old at exactly 12 EST today. While those in the Tea Party would call it the "Terrible Twos," the reality of his presidency is, I think, a bit more complicated. What have we learned about President Obama & Co. in his first 24 months as commander-in-chief?

Guantanamo Bay is still open, and its closure is now a year behind schedule. I think the chances of Martian terrorists invading the U.S. are higher than Obama ever being able to close the Cuban detention center.
Health Care Reform - good or bad, yes or no, "socialist" or not, the issue - and the hyperbolic passions it inspires on both sides of the political spectrum - is the signature issue of this presidency, and it may remain that way for quite some time.
For all their successes during the 2008 campaign, the Obama marketing guys seem to have done a pretty poor job in the White House thus far. If you cute through the bullshit, this president can actually boast a string of accomplishments: he pulled the economy back from the abyss, saved the American auto industry, isolated a terrible regime in Iran, passed landmark health care legislation, repealed DADT, won a Nobel Peace Prize and has remarkably stayed roughly around 50% approval with the country mired in 10% unemployment for two years - yet until recently the prevailing narrative has been largely focused on how weak and ineffective Obama's presidency has been. Paging the "HOPE" and "CHANGE" people - where have you guys been the past two years? Time to get that mojo back for 2012.
In his own twisted, torturous way, Obama has proven himself to be a legitimate fighter for gay rights. He repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, and he did it legislatively - by far the most effective way in the long run. Despite all the bullshit leading up to it (and the bullshit that persists, like his Department of Justice continuing to defend DOMA in the courts), he deserves a lot of credit for this. As does, oddly enough, Joe Lieberman. But like, let's not get crazy or anything.
Obama the campaigner? Oratorically awesome and endlessly inspiring. Obama the president? Kinda professorial and boring at press junkets. BUT: Dude can still give a great speech. Whomever is the Republican nominee in 2012, you better watch yourself on the campaign trail.
Hillary Clinton: O's former rival for the presidency is doing a great job as Secretary of State.
John McCain: O's former rival for the presidency is a bitter, petty shell of his former self who has compromised everything he once stood for to settle political scores. In English, this type of person is known as a DOUCHEBAG.
March Madness is more fun with Obama as president because ESPN obsesses over his bracket.
Partly because of the economy, partly because of a black president, partly because they're crazy, Tea Party madness is in full swing and will make or break the next two years for Obama - it'll either totally sabotage his presidency or give him a chance to truly shine, rise above it all and be the kind of president he always wanted to be (I'm betting on the latter).
Dude ain't no socialist.

What a long, strange trip it's been. I'm proud to say that, even after voting for this man twice (first in the primary, then in the general) I have remained healthily skeptical of him as much as possible. I've applauded when appropriate, but I have disagreed with him on a great number of things. He has compromised on some promises, but delivered on others.

The general state of the country still isn't great, and in my most pessimistic moods I fear it never will be again. One man with two years on the job does not constitute a miracle maker by any means. But I'd rather this guy be president than anyone else. Just take a quick look at the political landscape and you can see all the losers, particularly amongst the Republicans, who would vie to take his place - Palin, Romney, Huckabee, etc. Barack Obama remains the guy for this job - even if "Hope" and "Change" often feels like a distant dream from way back when (which, of course, it is).

Will the "American Idol" Makeover Work?

2011-01-20T02:44:00.003-05:00

I can't believe I'm writing an American Idol post. My fingers are actually screaming in protest as I type this. Disclaimer - I only watched part of Idol tonight, but I agree with Nellie Andreeva's assessment:

Admittedly, night one of Idol 10.0 wasn’t its most thrilling installment of all-time ever, but the show’s increased emphasis on truly talented singers — and its decision not to belabor audition packages from the talentless, the deluded, and the attention-craving — made for a zippy, feel-good 120 minutes.

I was shocked when three out of the first four contestants were decent-to-good singers, and only one of them was a complete ass. Generally, the cattle call auditions at the beginning of each Idol season are centered around having a cheap laugh at the expense of completely delusional, attention-seeking nuts from Seattle to St. Petersburg. It's indicative of the growing trend in our culture where so much of entertainment seems to exist to degrade hapless, hopeless Regular Joes to make the average couch potatoes feel better about themselves.

But tonight, the show (and network) that helped weave overnight fame and trashy reality insta-stars into the pop culture fabric of America delivered a kinder, gentler Idol that actually seemed to deliver on its purported purpose: to catapult an undiscovered, truly talented young person to fame and fortune. No one that I saw screamed "Kelly Clarkson" just yet (hell, I'm not even sure if anyone screamed "Taylor Hicks"), but I did enjoy the tone of the show more than I have since... oh, well, let's face it - I've never really enjoyed the tone of the show.

So, perhaps it's lipstick on a pig, or the start of something legit. Either way, a night of solid television and a step in the right direction.

Scenes From "The West Wing"

2009-03-24T13:36:00.000-04:00

Meghan McCain: "I Believe in Gay Marriage"

2009-03-24T09:10:00.006-04:00

With the retirement of Chuck Hagel and the long-ago deaths of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, Meghan McCain (yes, daughter of John) is quickly becoming my favorite Republican.

Here's a little snippet of Ms. McCain's interview with Larry King last night:

McCain: I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party. And I have taken heat, but in fairness to me, I am a different generation than the people that are giving me heat. I'm 24 years old. I'm not in my 40s, I'm not in my 50s and older.
King: Therefore, you must, based on what you said, disagree with your father? ... Do you discuss it?
McCain: We have a very big generation gap between me and my father. Yes, we discuss them. He's very open-minded. I was raised in an open-minded home. I was raised a Christian, but I was raised open-minded Christian -- one to accept people, love people, not pass judgment. ...
I believe in gay marriage. ... I personally am pro-life, but I'm not going to judge someone that's pro-choice. It is not my place to judge other people and what they do with their body.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. See, one thing about the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that no reasonable person could ever seriously accuse the Democrats of stifling dissent; the Party is infamous for being historically disjointed and disagreeable. One recalls Will Rogers' famous quote "I'm not a member of an organized political party; I'm a Democrat."

The Republicans, on the other hand, have - at least in modern times - become a party of Yes Men that stifles any kind of dissent amongst its minority ranks. The result is that the party's standard-bearers have to adhere by very strict, sometimes ridiculous guidelines and positions (all in the name of "pleasing the base"). Just a few weeks ago, Michael Steele learned this the hard way when he went against Rush Limbaugh; not only did Steele had to retract his (sane) comments, but all the other GOP big shots then totally backed off of anything that could be perceived as remotely critical of what Limbaugh thought.

Anyway, to hear Meghan McCain promote a debate within the GOP - and to hear her declare her support for gay marriage (!) - is a breath of beautifully fresh air. She is correct in her assessment that the Republicans are not going to get anywhere by not changing anything. She should also be commended for her position that, while she personally is pro-life, she's not going to tell other women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. I believe Meghan's position on abortion to be very near the median position in the country: a personal pro-lifer comfortable living in a pro-choice nation. In other words, "I certainly won't be getting an abortion, but there's no need to ban it from everyone."

As I've said before, the GOP would do itself a lot of good to get off its "moral" high horse, start seriously looking inward at themselves and eventually figure out a way to join the healthy debate of reasonable people. We're all waiting for them. They can start by listening to Meghan McCain.

My NCAA WACK-et

2009-03-19T13:42:00.002-04:00

I'm watching the first batch of games of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, and I already have a queasy feeling.

Not a good sign.

For the record, I have North Carolina, Louisville, Pittsburgh and Memphis in the Final Four, with North Carolina beating Louisville in the championship game. Who else has this exact scenario? Why, President Barack Obama, of course.

Unlike the President, however, I will not be attending the NATO Summit the evening of the championship. I guess the comparisons only run so far.

Scenes From "The West Wing"

2009-02-25T14:25:00.000-05:00

The fiasco over LemonLyman.com:

WTF is Jindal Talking About?

2009-02-24T22:35:00.002-05:00

"Don't let anyone tell you we can't" overcome our challenges, is the jist of what Bobby Jindal is now saying his "rebuttal" to Obama's speech.

Um, hello? He does know that he's responding to the Hope President, right? Since when has Obama ever even remotely hinted that America "can't" overcome this crisis?!?

God, the Republicans are so out of touch it's insane.

UPDATE: "If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that's because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again." -Nate Silver.

Jindal's Rebuttal

2009-02-24T22:27:00.001-05:00

Bobby Jindal strikes me as weirdly over-the-top.

Does he know how ridiculous he sounds? Is he drunk?

Thoughts on the Non-State of the Union State of the Union

2009-02-24T22:11:00.006-05:00

What has always struck me about President Obama is that, regardless of the circumstances, he seems like he is the adult in the room. Whereas Bush was the drunk uncle at your cousin's wedding who was hogging the microphone for far too long, Obama is an almost grandfatherly figure - the elder statesman, the bridge-builder, the wise man (not a wise guy, like Bush). He is a leader capable of both sobriety and inspiration.

Tonight's address was classic Obama: a mix of cautious conservatism and some pretty lofty (liberal) goals. He is right in that, as we find ourselves in the midst of this great economic crisis, NOW is the time to tackle the problems that have dogged us for too long: health care and energy being chief among them. Our health care "system" - if you can call it that - and our importation of foreign oil is short-shrifting our citizens, poisoning our planet and putting a burden on our economy. Now is the time to tackle these problems, not shy away from them.

At 9:00 tonight, before the President's address, I found myself in my customarily pessimistic position as I reflected on the sorry state of our national economy and conscience. But as he has so many times, Obama somehow has managed to turn my frown upside down, and reframe this moment as a possibility for rebuilding and renewal, as opposed to a complete meltdown of the world as we know it. The job before him - and us - is extraordinarily difficult, if not mostly impossible, and none of what the President outlined tonight will be easy. But I have been reminded once again of the importance of having faith that we will get there. We will get there. And we will be better off when we do.

Bonnie & WHYde?

2009-02-04T10:08:00.003-05:00

NOTE: You are not dreaming. What I am about to write is totally, completely, 100% accurate.

Hillary Duff will star in the new indie feature The Story of Bonnie and Clyde, an adaptation of the tale that was made into the 1967 classic - and Danifesto favorite - Bonnie and Clyde.

In response to this, Faye Dunaway (who played Bonnie in the original) said, "Couldn't they have at least cast a real actress?" And then in response to THAT, Hillary Duff had the nerve to insult Faye Dunaway's looks!

I think Faye looks pretty good for 68. And she certainly looked fabulous in 1967. Of course, HillDuff wouldn't know anything about that.

The question here, though, is: WHY? WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER MAKE THIS?????

Though this movie is apparently not officially a "remake," everyone will compare it with the original. Why on earth do people bother to remake, or "update," classics? Nobody wants to see a new version of a classic (see: Psycho, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc.). This is just asking for trouble.

Who's gonna play Gene Hackman's role? One of the Jonas Brothers?

MSNBC Needlessly Stirring the Sexism Pot

2009-02-03T13:21:00.003-05:00

Earlier this morning, Norah O'Donnell and MSNBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie opined that Nancy Killefer, who was withdrawing her nomination to be performance director at the Office of Management and Budget, faced a double standard because she was a woman.

O'Donnell mused that Killefer, who failed to pay about $1,000 in taxes, was being forced to withdraw because of her gender, while Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle, two other Obama nominees who also had failed to pay taxes, got to stay because they were men.

Now that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination, O'Donnell's remarks seem even more ridiculous than they were when she first made them, even though they were pretty silly even then. Killefer withdrew her candidacy not because she was a woman, but because she was the THIRD Obama nominee who had failed to pay taxes! Had Killefer been the first presidential nominee whose tax problems had become public, she probably would have made it through. But this was about timing, not sexism. Three strikes and you're out, as they say.

Norah O'Donnell and Savannah Guthrie should know better than to cry sexism - which is a foul and reprehensible thing - when no such misbehavior exists, at least in this case.

Daschle Withdraws His Nomination

2009-02-03T13:09:00.002-05:00

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) will not be the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, as he has withdrawn his candidacy.

I haven't written anything on this saga - the saga being that Daschle failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes and was paid more than $200,000 by the health care industry he had been nominated to regulate - but I think Daschle did the right thing by withdrawing. Yes, he was an early ally of President Obama, the two are very close and Daschle has a lot of experience on Capitol Hill and with the behemoth of an issue that is health care. But it's queasy to expect that someone - anyone, even something with the reported integrity of Tom Daschle - could receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from someone and then be expected to regulate that very same someone. It just didn't smell right.

For the record, the tipping point for Daschle seemed to be this morning's New York Times editorial (which urged him to withdraw his nomination), which you can read here.

My Predictions (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

2009-01-22T11:39:00.003-05:00

I'll come up with a list fo' real closer to the actual ceremony, but here's how it looks to me so far:

Picture - Slumdog Millionaire
Director - Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
These two strike me as "in the bag," or as "in the bag" as a part-English/part-Hindi indie Bollywood film with no movie stars can be.

Actor - Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Benjamin Button has the most nominations, but Brad Pitt is not going to win. Richard Jenkins wins by beating out Clint to get nominated. Frank Langella could steal it, I suppose, but I don't think so. So it's between Mickey and Sean Penn. I don't buy the talk that "the Academy doesn't like Mickey Rourke, so they'll give it to Sean Penn." The Academy doesn't like Sean Penn, either. What they do like is a comeback.

Actress - Kate Winslet, Rev... excuse me, The Reader
Well, up until this morning, everyone thought Kate Winslet would win for Revolutionary Road. She didn't get nominated for that; instead, it's The Reader... which seems to have an awful lot of support from the Academy, so I would bet that Kate finally wins her long-overdue Oscar this year.

Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
I suppose Heath is still the front-runner here, but the lack of support for TDK in general strikes me as somewhat ominous. Also, there could be a backlash (maybe there already IS a backlash against TDK amongst the Academy) against giving it to him, for reasons I need not elaborate.

Supporting Actress - I Doubt that I have any idea what will happen here
Two Doubt chicks, the lovely Taraji P. Henson, a former nominee in Penelope Cruz and a former winner (in this category) in Marisa Tomei. My guess? A toss-up between Penelope Cruz and Amy Adams.

Rebellion Over "The Reader"

2009-01-22T11:34:00.002-05:00

And, to be fair, some of the other nominees and non-nominees as well.

There seems to be a surprising amount of disagreement among the Aint-It-Cool community as to whether or not TDK was worthy of a Best Picture nomination (for the record, I believe it was), but there seems to be a general consensus that this year's nominees flat-out stink ("uninteresting," "boring," etc.).

Just Remembered...

2009-01-22T11:25:00.003-05:00

In response to a commenter (Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous), as well as my own mistake, The Dark Knight was produced by Warner Bros., not The Weinstein Co.

So, I return again to my theory that The Reader's multiple nominations may have been due to the annual big ad blitz by The Weinstein Co... which is a shame, because a nomination for TDK would have been awesome and well-deserved - and would have (for once) lifted the Oscar ratings out of the cellar in which they currently dwell.

Open Question

2009-01-22T09:27:00.002-05:00

How much of The Reader's success today was due to the fact that it was a relatively typical Oscar movie (aka Holocaust), and how much was due to the fact that it had the wizardly Weinsteins behind its marketing operation?

For The Ages

2009-01-22T09:24:00.002-05:00

In the vein of How Green Was My Valley beating out Citizen Kane for Best Picture in 1941, the 81st Annual Academy Awards will always be remembered as the time The Reader pooped on The Dark Knight's chances to make history.

THE LIST (Finally)

2009-01-22T09:16:00.003-05:00

Thanks to Danlly, the complete list of Oscar nominees can be found here.

Benjamin Button - 13 nominations
Slumdog - 10 nominations
The Dark Knight - 8 nominations, but only one big one (Heath)

A Better List

2009-01-22T09:14:00.001-05:00

Can be found here. Courtesy of The Envelope. Still not complete though.

Oscar Noms: (The Beginnings of) A List

2009-01-22T09:06:00.003-05:00

Here's an incomplete list from Variety. The full list - with all the "other" awards outside of the big ones - should be up SOMEWHERE soon.

Benjamin Button leads the way with 13 nominations - though I'd actually be surprised if it WINS Best Picture.

Oscar Nominations (Update)

2009-01-22T08:55:00.002-05:00

All Things Fangirl tells me (since I was apparently too tired to notice) that Kate Winslet's nomination in the Best Actress category was for The Reader, and NOT for Revolutionary Road.

If you'll recall, Winslet was being pushed - hard - for The Reader, only in the Supporting category.

So, this morning, the Academy has unexpectedly taken everything we thought we knew about the Oscar nominations and shoved it back into our face with a note that says "If you do nothing else, watch The Reader."

Somewhere, Sid Ganis is cackling.

Oscar Nominations: Wha Happened???

2009-01-22T08:44:00.002-05:00

Well, this is probably the first time since 2003 (when Fernando Meirelles was nominated for City of God and Keisha Castle-Hughes got a nod for Whale Rider) that I can remember being this shocked at the Oscar nominations.

Quick thoughts:

Where the hell did The Reader come from? It got a lot of (relative) love from the Globes, but the HFPA has like 100 people in it. That it was nominated for Best Picture - over films like Doubt and The Dark Knight - is shocking.
Very disappointing - though not entirely surprising - that The Dark Knight got snubbed for Best Picture. In the end, the buzz faded away, and the Academy couldn't bring itself to nominate an action movie.
Lots of acting surprises - Melissa Leo for Best Actress, Michael Shannon in the Supporting category and, in what was the biggest surprise BY FAR, Richard Jenkins nabbing a Best Actor nomination for The Visitor.
How weird is it that The Reader got nominated for Picture and Director but not for Kate Winslet's performance?
The Academy apparently loved the performances in Doubt (all four of them got nominated). Can any of them win?
Milk made quite a comeback after being almost completely snubbed at the Globes - it got nods for Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Actor (Sean Penn) and Supporting Actor (Josh Brolin).
Big disappointment for Sally Hawkins, who did not get a nomination for her Globe-winning performance in Happy-Go-Lucky. Melissa Leo grabbed the spot that conceivably would have been hers.
Taraji P. Henson was amazing in Benjamin Button and I'm glad she was nominated.
With the severe lack of love for The Dark Knight, is Heath still the front-runner to win Supporting Actor?
This looks like this is shaping up to be another Oscars in which most of the general public hasn't seen - and, in some cases, hasn't even heard of - the major nominees.

He Was Sworn In Again

2009-01-21T20:20:00.002-05:00

President Obama was sworn in again by Chief Justice Roberts - this time in the Map Room of the White House, as well as error-free - after the mutual flubbing during the inauguration yesterday.

Excellent decision, in my view. White House Counsel Greg Craig says they redid the oath out of an "abundance of caution," which is exactly right. Obama won the election, was certified by the electoral college, and noon on January 20th has passed. But the Constitution is very exact in the wording of the presidential oath, and Obama did not speak those exact words yesterday. So they did it again, and conspiracy theorists and nutjobs will have one less thing on which to harp.

The Line To Remember

2009-01-20T20:26:00.003-05:00

If anything from Obama's inaugural speech is preserved by history, I would be willing to bet that it was this remarkable line directed toward Muslim extremists:

Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

I'd never heard it phrased quite so eloquently before, and it sums it up perfectly. Just perfectly.

Swear Him In Again!

2009-01-20T19:08:00.003-05:00

In case you just so happened to be watching the inauguration of President Obama this afternoon, you heard the dual oath-flubbing by the President and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Considering the President did not actually end up uttering the precise words needed for the swearing-in (as prescribed by the Constitution), there are bound to be some kooks who will claim that he is not actually president (a nutty proposition, of course, but a potentially annoying one - like those "he was born in Kenya/Indonesia/Mars rumors). My prescription to the problem? Swear him in again. It's actually happened before:

People will argue about what the failure to utter the words in the precise order required by the Constitution means. But it will be an academic argument. It is not clear who would have standing to raise the argument that Mr. Obama had not become president as a consequence, and it is hard to believe that any court – or other body – would want to adjudicate the question.

There is, in any event, no rule against a do-over. When questions were raised about whether Calvin Coolidge should have been sworn in by his father, a notary public, he took the oath again, this time from a Supreme Court justice.

For the record, this is the only part of the Obama presidency that I'd be comfortable modeling after Calvin Coolidge.

We Made It!

2009-01-19T21:22:00.003-05:00

Today feels like high school graduation day, only it's graduation from a high school in hell. After eight dark and terrible years, tonight is the last night of the George W. Bush administration. What never should have even happened to begin with somehow, someway turned into the absolute worst presidency in the history of this country - along the way, we've gotten bogged down by two wars, a crumbling economy, a collapse of the Constitution and diminishing (to almost non-existent) respect in the world.

BUT (and there's always a but) tomorrow marks the end, the long-awaited end, of our (inter)national nightmare. President Obama will take office at noon, and we'll finally be treated to the three most beautiful words in the English language: "former President Bush."

The campaign, election and impending inauguration of Barack Obama has been an incredibly exciting experience, and there is a lot of work to be done now. But for one final time, on this final night of the Bush presidency, let us GIVE THANKS that we have survived the Dubya Debacle, and perhaps even learned a thing or two along the way.

Thanks for the memories, George. And now, let us begin anew.

Scenes From "The West Wing"

2009-01-19T16:18:00.002-05:00

I found this to be particularly appropriate for today. From "Tomorrow," the final episode of The West Wing:

A Speech for the Ages

2009-01-16T14:34:00.005-05:00

Even Obama's daughters are expecting a great inauguration speech. Count me in with them.

It's become customary, obviously, for the President-elect to give great speeches. If I'm not mistaken, even before the election the campaign was selling a DVD of Barack Obama's most renowned pieces of oratory. So I am expecting something very grand on January 20.

I'd bet that it will be a combination of Kennedy's call to service ("Ask not what your country can do for you...") and the humility and dignity exemplified by Lincoln ("With malice toward none, with charity for all;" "we are not enemies, but friends"). Obama will soberly remind us of the challenges of our time, and call on each of us to do our part to meet those challenges, but will reassure once again that we will persevere (I'm sure there will be at least some kind of "yes we can" moment, even if he doesn't say it outright). And, in typical Obama fashion, he'll remind us that we are "one people, all pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes" ... or something like that.

Bush's Farewell

2009-01-15T21:02:00.002-05:00

Bush said goodbye to the nation tonight, after eight turbulent (to say the least) years as president. In watching the address, I was struck by how it seems like George W. Bush and I have lived, and continue to live, in totally opposite worlds. For years now, I've always felt like, "I can't believe he's the President," because in my world, he wouldn't be the President.

What we've heard from the White House these past eight years seems to stand in stunningly sharp contrast to what has actually been happening here in America and abroad. Bush says we're safer, and while it's true there hasn't been a terrorist attack here since 9/11, should that really be the barometer for safety? To me, it seems like there is more international turmoil than ever before. That's the world I live in - where everything seems to be falling apart, not the "time to pat myself on the back" land in which George W. Bush seems to reside.

If there's one thing I've learned from President Bush, it's the importance of having a leader who will talk straight with people, who can deliver bad news, who can admit mistakes. In my world, any normal person would be capable of these things. Bush came into office claiming that he, too, was a normal guy, someone you could have a beer with. As he leaves office eight years later, there's nothing normal about anything in which we find ourselves in. For all of our sakes, I hope Obama can level with us and talk to us like adults, maybe even show some regret or acknowledgment that things don't go always go as smoothly as planned. For me, that would be a true mission accomplished.

Thoughts on the Globes

2009-01-12T10:34:00.002-05:00

I know I haven't been writing very much lately, but here are some reactions to last night's Golden Globe Awards:

Kate Winslet has to be the front-runner for... something, right? She'll probably be nominated for both Revolutionary Road (Best Actress) and The Reader (Best Supporting Actress), though it's highly unlikely she'll WIN for both (no one has ever done that). But which one is she more likely to win come Oscar time? My bet would be on Revolutionary Road, but who knows?
Somehow, someway, Heath Ledger has to now be the favorite to win Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars. I think the only thing that could derail him at this point would be some kind of backlash if it's seen like he's only the front-runner because he died. This is, of course, ludicrous, because he's amazing - and that's not strong enough of a word - in the film, but there are definitely people who will think that.
I've gotta feel like Mickey Rourke is the favorite for Best Actor at the Oscars. Oscar loves a comeback, Frank Langella just doesn't seem to have the support and Sean Penn already won not too long ago.
I get the feeling that Benjamin Button (0-for-5) has lost some momentum.
I get the feeling that Slumdog Millionaire (4-for-4) has gained some momentum.
Having Blake Lively present Best Television Series (Drama) was really weird. I actually like Blake Lively (and Gossip Girl) a lot, but the 10:45 PM awards slot should be given to someone considerably more seasoned. Tom Cruise presenting Best Picture (Drama) was an excellent move; he was probably the biggest star in the room. Tom Hanks would have fit well in that vein. But Blake Lively on at 10:45? Doesn't gel.
I love Kate Winslet.
I looooooove Kate Winslet.
Since The Dark Knight and Wall-E weren't nominated, I'm glad Slumdog won Best Picture. I would have been happy with Benjamin Button too.
How much did NBC pay Tom Brokaw to make him shlep out there?

Proof That God Exists

2009-01-07T20:53:00.001-05:00

The Truth About Norm Coleman

2009-01-05T23:06:00.000-05:00

"Let's be frank: Norm Coleman doesn't have much of a future in electoral politics. Defeated Presidential candidates sometimes have nine lives, but defeated Senatorial candidates rarely do, and in his career running for statewide office, Coleman has lost to a professional wrestler, beaten a dead guy, and then tied a comedian." -Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight.

The Kreepy Kristol Skull

2008-12-29T02:11:00.002-05:00

Bill Kristol is disgusting:

Obama has selected Yale’s Elizabeth Alexander to compose and read a poem. I still remember watching Maya Angelou read “On the Pulse of Morning” at Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993 — and thinking that American culture really was in a state of irreversible decline, as she indulged in that multicultural cataloguing of “the Asian, the Hispanic, the Jew,/ The African and Native American, the Sioux, / The Catholic, the Muslim, the French, the Greek,/ The Irish, the Rabbi, the Priest, the Sheikh,/ The Gay, the Straight, the Preacher,/ The privileged, the homeless, the teacher.”

Oh yeah, "multicultural cataloguing" is a definitive sign that our culture is in "irreversible decline."

In the same article, he also manages to call the left "intolerant."

The left may be many things - even, as Kristol says, "hysterical," but intolerant? In comparison to the "Jesus Is My Homeboy"/"Barack the Magic Negro" Republican Party? Please.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T10:18:00.000-05:00

(Hat tip: Huffington Post)

Warren Peace

2008-12-19T11:46:00.002-05:00

Andrew Sullivan on the furor in some quarters over Obama's choice of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration:

One thing I'd say in defense of Obama. There were a few times in the campaign when my first reaction was that he had screwed up. In almost every case, he subsequently proved me wrong. And I think we need to take him seriously about a change in tone on these subjects. He's asking a lot from us. That doesn't mean we should not try to reciprocate.

I agree completely. Let's not spare all our energy on this - this is, I promise, part of a larger story that has yet to be written. And, in the end, it will favor gay equality.

Rick Warrin'

2008-12-18T12:33:00.004-05:00

A lot of supporters of gay marriage and gay civil rights in general are furious that Rick Warren, who has said that gays marrying somehow infringes upon his civil rights, will deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration next month. This comes on the heels of some gay rights groups believing that Obama didn't do enough (he didn't do anything, actually) to help prevent the passage of Prop 8 and that he is dragging his feet a bit when it comes to implementing a policy agenda that favors gay equality (no timetable on repealing DADT, etc.).

What seems to me to be obvious is that this is a classic case of Obama being Obama, and not letting himself be beholden to any particular group of people. Clearly he is in favor of progress on gay civil rights - civil unions, getting rid of DADT, et. al. - but the choice of Warren to take part in such an important moment in his career and our country's history is clearly a signal that, yeah, he will be the president of even bigots and homophobes as well as the rest of us:

In his short political career, Obama has deftly manipulated political symbols to his advantage, but he's never been one to pay homage to one of the most sacred regulations of identity politics, which is that one must take care of one's own kind before turning outward. His mind operates differently. Obama does believe, as many of his supporters do, that there are uncrossable demarcation lines between the reasonable and the profane. But he doesn't believe that Warren, someone he admires for reaching outside his (Warren's) comfort zone on AIDS, is all that different from himself. Obama is simultaneously capable of admiring Warren while disdaining Warren's oogedy boogedy appraoch to gay relationships and his uninformed response to torture. Warren's views might be hurtful to gays; Obama does not think they are harmful.

While somewhat hard to swallow, this incident should not come as a surprise. Again, it's classic Obama. His whole thing all along has been let's come together, let's embrace each other despite our differences, and he's probably right in that regard. How can we ever get to some kind of working majority or legislative consensus on gay rights without bringing the other side - the ones who are against it - into the tent? This doesn't mean that Obama secretly condones Rick Warren's disgusting views; it's just that he sees farther down the road than, frankly, many of us regular folks do. Obama recognizes the importance of having Warren participate in such a big moment, and figures that maybe he can score some political capital with it and use that capital down the road - say, in 2010, when he decides the time is right to do away with DADT.

Ethanol, Shmethanol

2008-12-17T19:21:00.004-05:00

If you like ethanol, you'll be pleased. The appointments have some high-profile ethanol opponents worried, while ethanol supporters appear optimistic:

“The worry is if the Cabinet gets too crowded with people who are drunk on ethanol, we won’t have the policy discussions we need,” said Ken Cook, the president of the Environmental Working Group. Cook’s group argues that the massive production of corn-based ethanol has damaged the environment, wasted tax dollars and contributed to high food prices earlier this year.

However, Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, said Obama “has put together the right group of people” to move the country toward the stage where it will be producing ethanol from more than just corn.
“Renewable fuels also play a central role in stimulating the economy and creating green jobs,” said Hartwig, whose organization has floated ethanol-friendly ideas to Obama’s transition team for an upcoming stimulus package. “The team he’s put in place understands that.”

As I've stated previously, I am cautiously optimistic, though less so than I was on November 4th. I just really want Obama to be super-aggressive when it comes to healing our planet and cleaning our environment. His picks don't really signal any kind of massive change, though he himself did on the campaign trail. Like with any Cabinet, the change will have to come from the top. I just hope he's serious about this grave, grave threat to our nation and world.

Merry (Early) Christmas

2008-12-17T11:15:00.001-05:00

University of Obama

2008-12-17T10:42:00.002-05:00

In its annual Person of the Year segment (which - duh - features Obama), TIME has some very cool long-lost photos of the President-elect during his college years. A must-see.

Where's The Line?

2008-12-16T13:50:00.004-05:00

The NYT explores whether or not the Blagojevich Senate seat scandal is really all that different from normal practices of political back-and-forth. It's perfectly legal, and common, for politicians to do things like "Well, I'll vote for your pet project, Bill A, if you vote for my pet project, Bill B. That way we both get one vote closer to passage." That kind of stuff happens all the time. The Blagojevich thing, however, seems to cut deeper. But where?

Ever since the country’s founding, prosecutors, defense lawyers and juries have been trying to define the difference between criminality and political deal-making. They have never established a clear-cut line between the offensive and the illegal, and the hours of wiretapped conversations involving Mr. Blagojevich, filled with crass, profane talk about benefiting from the Senate vacancy, may fall into a legal gray area.

Then there's this interesting quote:

“You have to wonder, How much of this guy’s problem was his language, rather than what he really did?”

Blago seemed so blatant, so open about it - while being wiretapped - that it seemed to cross the line into Unethical Land. Part of politics, though, is trading and favors. Coalitions would never be formed, and bills would never be signed into law, if there weren't some kind of deal-making taking place. So similar things to Blagogate happen pretty frequently.

I won't defend the insanely coiffed governor, but I do find it pretty disheartening that this incident appears to be not so much an isolated occurrence; it's just one of the few that gets caught. Just part of our politics, I guess.

Throw Your Own Shoe At Bush

2008-12-16T13:48:00.001-05:00

Oh my god. Click on this link to check out this game right now. You won't regret it.

113-0

2008-12-16T00:28:00.001-05:00

That was the vote in the Illinois legislature recommending impeachment proceedings begin against Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

113 yeas, zero nays.

Hey, you gotta admire the consistency!

Impeaches & Cream

2008-12-15T16:33:00.003-05:00

That wasn't too hard, was it?

Just like I begged them to last week, the Illinois legislature is forming an impeachment committee that will decide whether or not Gov. Rod Blagojevich will be forcibly removed from office.

Blago's impeachment or resignation, coupled with the standard senatorial appointment by Pat Quinn, his would-be replacement, is the only thing that makes sense for Illinois. The state has no money to pay for a costly special election, and Blago cannot simply be stripped of his appointment power but allowed to stay in office. So this is an encouraging development.

Illinois, though... yikes!

"Issues" Promo: It's Leslie!

2008-12-15T13:08:00.000-05:00

Played by yours truly...

Re: The Auto Bailout's Failure

2008-12-12T10:28:00.002-05:00

Based on what the Senate Republicans have done here, and the contempt they have shown for the United Autoworkers Union, I hope no working class person ever again votes for a Republican candidate. No matter what crap they spew otherwise, they are not the party of working people, never have been and never will be.

Karger's Take

2008-12-11T11:44:00.002-05:00

Is here. Always invaluable. He brings up a point I COMPLETELY overlooked:

Milk! No Best Picture nomination!! And no nomination for anyone other than Sean Penn in the absolute powerhouse Best Actor (Drama) category!!!

I imagine that Josh Brolin, with acclaimed performances in Milk and W., is feeling somewhat disappointed this morning.

He doesn't like the Tom Cruise nomination, because it's at the expense of more deserving guys from dramas, which is probably true, but he WAS very, very good. In a ridiculous-stupid-humor kinda way. But good.

Thoughts on the Globe Noms

2008-12-11T11:24:00.003-05:00

Still processing all the information:

Big blow for The Dark Knight's chances at building some buzz for a Best Picture nomination. Not like Globe success is a good barometer for the Oscars, but this is a very disappointing haul for them.
Doubt tied for the most nominations with five, but it got shut out of the Best Picture category. It appears that, as predicted, its best case for multiple Oscar noms lies in the acting and writing categories.
I guess the Weinsteins' strategy of nominating Kate Winslet as supporting actress for The Reader (so she doesn't split votes with her lead role in Revolutionary Road) paid off: she got nominated for both, in both categories.
Quite a coup for The Reader, grabbing noms for Picture, Director and Winslet's performance.
Revolutionary Road also, I think, performed slightly above expectations.
Tom Cruise for Tropic Thunder. Nice. He was hilarious.
Ralph Fiennes for The Duchess... that's weird. Even for the Globes.
Perhaps John Patrick Shanley is somewhat vindicated now that he got a nomination for his Doubt screenplay?
I'm somewhat surprised that, judging from its apparent broad support with the HFPA, Cate Blanchett couldn't wrangle a Best Actress nod for Benjamin Button.
Marisa Tomei lives!

I don't really care about the TV nominations, but here's one thought I had:

WHY DOES LOST NEVER GET NOMINATED FOR ANYTHING????????????????????????????

Golden Globe Nominations Announced

2008-12-11T11:16:00.003-05:00

And here they are:

BEST MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA
Leonardo DiCaprio, Revolutionary Road
Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn, Milk
Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA
Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie, Changeling
Meryl Streep, Doubt
Kristin Scott-Thomas, I've Loved You So Long
Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road

BEST MOTION PICTURE – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Burn After Reading
Happy-Go-Lucky
In Bruges
Mamma Mia!
Vicky Cristina Barcelona

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Javier Bardem, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Colin Farrell, In Bruges
James Franco, Pineapple Express
Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges
Dustin Hoffman, Last Chance Harvey

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Rebecca Hall, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky
Frances McDormand, Burn After Reading
Meryl Streep, Mamma Mia!
Emma Thompson, Last Chance Harvey

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
Tom Cruise, Tropic Thunder
Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder
Ralph Fiennes, The Duchess
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt
Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
Amy Adams, Doubt
Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis, Doubt
Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler
Kate Winslet, The Reader

BEST DIRECTOR – MOTION PICTURE
Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Stephen Daldry, The Reader
David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon
Sam Mendes, Revolutionary Road

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
WALL-E

BEST SCREENPLAY – MOTION PICTURE
Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
David Hare, The Reader
Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon
Eric Roth, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
John Patrick Shanley, Doubt

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE – MOTION PICTURE
Alexandre Desplat, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Clint Eastwood, Changeling
James Newton Howard, Defiance
A.R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire
Hans Zimmer, Frost/Nixon

BEST ORIGINAL SONG – MOTION PICTURE
"Down to Earth," WALL-E
"Gran Torino," Gran Torino
"I Thought I Lost You," Bolt
"Once in a Lifetime," Cadillac Records
"The Wrestler," The Wrestler

BEST TELEVISION SERIES – DRAMA
Dexter, Showtime
House, Fox
In Treatment, HBO
Mad Men, AMC
True Blood, HBO

BEST TELEVISION SERIES – COMEDY
30 Rock, NBC
Californication, Showtime
Entourage, HBO
The Office, NBC
Weeds, Showtime

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES – DRAMA
Gabriel Byrne, In Treatment
Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
Hugh Laurie, House
Jonathan Rhys Meyers, The Tudors

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES – DRAMA
Sally Field, Brothers & Sisters
Mariska Hargitay, Law & Order: SVU
January Jones, Mad Men
Anna Paquin, True Blood
Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock
Steve Carell, The Office
Kevin Connolly, Entourage
David Duchovny, Californication
Tony Shalhoub, Monk

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Christina Applegate, Samantha Who?
America Ferrera, Ugly Betty
Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Debra Messing, The Starter Wife
Mary Louise-Parker, Weeds

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
Eileen Atkins, Cranford
Laura Dern, Recount
Melissa George, In Treatment
Rachel Griffiths, Brothers & Sisters
Dianne Wiest, In Treatment

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother
Denis Leary, Recount
Jeremy Piven, Entourage
Blair Underwood, In Treatment
Tom Wilkinson, John Adams

Thoughts on "Slumdog Millionaire"

2008-12-11T00:18:00.002-05:00

I finally saw the film tonight, and here's my reaction to it:

I liked it, even though I missed the first half-hour (long story).
Danny Boyle knows what he's doing.
Not surprisingly, the part of Bombay that they show in the movie seems like an AWFUL place to live.
The Taj Mahal sequence was hilarious.
Best Picture? Really? Maybe I should see it again the whole thing through.

What do you guys think?

Awards Preview: "The Reader"

2008-12-10T23:58:00.004-05:00

Guys, like just about every other movie, I didn't see The Reader.

This is the 10th out of 10 films I have previewed for awards season, and I actually know nothing about it. Well, I saw the poster today in the movie theater, but other than that... nada.

The only thing I can say about The Reader is that it's possible Kate Winslet's performance takes away possible votes from her performance in Revolutionary Road, leaving her deprived of a nomination. Apparently, however, Weinstein Co. is pushing her as supporting actress for this film, a move which seems kinda silly, since she's the star of the movie.

Sorry for being a half-assed d-bag, but I'm in the process of making a midnight snack. Priorities, people.

Golden Globe Nominations Tomorrow

2008-12-10T11:24:00.002-05:00

Brooke Shields, Elizabeth Banks, Terrence Howard and Rainn Wilson will announce the nominations tomorrow morning. Quite an eclectic group!

Rejuvenate Recycling With ReJAVAnate

2008-12-10T00:17:00.003-05:00

So, as you know, I want to help fix our environment. In my travels and travails to somehow contribute to this cause, I came across an awesome new product a few days ago: ReJAVAnate reusable bags.

ReJAVAnate takes the burlap from coffee and makes bags out of it. This is great for several reasons. First off, burlap is liable to sit in a landfill for years and years, and this is a great way to recycle it for something useful. Second, the company primarily employs people from a program called The Arc, which is an organization that supports people with disabilities. (Translation: these people wouldn't normally have jobs, and ReJAVAnate is giving them jobs). And finally, of course, this is a WAY better alternative to plastic bags (ew) or even paper bags.

Re-use, re-use, re-use, people. Like I said a few days ago, stop using plastic bags.

Anyway, just wanted to pass the word along. Thought it might make a nice gift for the holidays (if, like me, you don't have a lot of money to spend but want to spent it on something GOOD).

Somewhere, Al Gore is smiling.

Awards Preview: "Australia"

2008-12-09T23:34:00.003-05:00

The Golden Compass. The Invasion. The Interpreter. Cold Mountain. Bewitched.

All Nicole Kidman movies that flopped in some way, shape or form. Will Australia be any different?

Well, Oprah liked it. But what the heck does that mean? Dave Karger doesn't think it's a serious contender for any of the major awards. And the movie is practically nowhere to be seen on Buzzmeter, save the Original Screenplay category.

Look guys, I think there is a Nicole Kidman curse (see the list of movies above), so therefore this movie has to tank in some way. And I am on record as saying that Australia will be the Flop of the Year.

I think Karger is on to something when he says that all this movie can reasonably expect is a Screenplay nod and maybe some artsy nominations (like Art Direction and Costumes). Other than that, though, uh-uh.

Maybe the HFPA will feel generous and give it a Best Picture (Drama) nomination. But that'll be it. Bummer, Baz.

Just Impeach the Guy

2008-12-09T22:32:00.002-05:00

It's not often in politics that an impeachment acts as a simple solution. But thanks to the master class in bribery blunders given to us by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, we have the rarest of occurrences: an impeachment not only makes sense, it's the easy way out.

Earlier today, Illinois's senior (and lone remaining) senator, Dick Durbin, called on the state legislature to change state law so as to create a special election to determine who will take Barack Obama's seat on Capitol Hill. Right now, Blago still has the power to appoint whomever he wants. And he won't resign. So the thinking is, Illinois will just change the law, the people will decide who replaces Obama, and we'll all move on, right?

One little problem: the COST. Illinois is a state with a $2 billion deficit, and it's estimated that a special election would cost roughly $50 million. The state itself wouldn't pay for the special election (that honor falls to the counties themselves), but still: $50 million is an enormous amount of money. How happy will Illinois taxpayers be after their governor not only tried to sell one of their U.S. Senate seats, but cost them $50 million in the process?

Instead of reconvening on Monday to change state law, the Illinois legislature should reconvene to bring up articles of impeachment against Blagojevich. It's not like it would take very long to come up with a list of impeachable offenses - and they're not even in session right now anyway. Yes, there would be a trial. Yes, impeaching a sitting governor is slightly more complicated than "well, what you did was illegal, in fact it was REALLY illegal, so out you go." But the evidence incriminating Blago is overwhelming, and, considering the governor's approval rating is somewhere between the single- or low double-digits, it seems politically suicidal for any Illinois legislator to not vote for impeachment.

An impeachment trial would theoretically take time - but so would organizing a special election. And an impeachment trial wouldn't cost $50 million. But the other benefit of moving to impeach Blagojevich - besides saving the money - would be that maybe, just maybe, it would compel him to resign. He may not want to now, but if he's going to be impeached anyway, he might be forced to pull a Nixon and save the little face he has left by leaving. Then the lieutenant governor would assume the top role in Springfield and appoint Illinois's next U.S. senator. Problem solved, piggy bank in tact (minus that $2 billion hole).

It's an unprecedented game of political musical chairs - no matter what they decide to do. Let's just hope Illinois gives this guy what he deserves and save its beleaguered taxpayers $50 million in the process.

Wanna Buy a Senate Seat?

2008-12-09T12:03:00.003-05:00

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested this morning for conspiring to give away President-elect Obama's vacant Senate seat in exchange for gifts for him and his wife.

Blago apparently also planned on filling the seat himself if he didn't get an offer he liked.

Yeah, I'm sure that would have gone over really well with the people of Illinois, where has literally like a 5% approval rating or something.

Were he to take the seat himself (guess that's off the table now), Blago thought being a senator could help him remake his image in preparation for a - get this - presidential campaign in 2016.

Hmmm... something tells me that the Oval Office is permanently out of reach for Mr. Blagojevich. Just a guess, though.

Awards Preview: "Revolutionary Road"

2008-12-09T00:54:00.003-05:00

Kate Winslet. Leonardo DiCaprio. Sam Mendes? Is there any way Revolutionary Road won't get at least a few nominations?

More importantly, will this finally be the year that Kate Winslet - five nominations and zero wins - finally wins an Oscar? Gold Derby thinks so.

Keep in mind that Winslet may get her votes split between her role in this film and her starring performance in The Reader, another movie generating some buzz.

Guys, I'm tired. And I'm having trouble linking to people who have actually seen this movie. So I'm just going to throw this out there:

FEARLESS PREDICTION:
Kate Winslet will finally win an Oscar, and she will win it for this movie.

Brendan agrees with me on this.

And since this write-up is so short, take a look at the Revolutionary Road trailer. It seems like it's a 50's version of American Beauty. That can only be a good thing, right? I mean, I'll see it. Eventually.

Awards Preview: "Wall-E" (cont.)

2008-12-08T18:26:00.001-05:00

TIME Magazine has Wall-E in the top spot of its Top 10 movies of the year.

:)

(Hat tip: Brendan)

The Definition of Insanity...

2008-12-08T16:59:00.002-05:00

...is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Erick Erickson thinks that, if you want to help restore the Bush name, you should support a Bush election to the Senate from Florida:

For conservatives who are tired of Bushes, the Bushes got into power with a lot of your support. You don’t fix your mistake by running from it. Fix your mistake by fixing it — embrace Jeb Bush and help redeem the image of a party largely hurt by its connection to the wrong Bush. Supporting Jeb Bush does, in fact, help rebuild the brand, and it does so in sharp to his brother.

Jeb Bush may very well become an effective United States Senator from Florida. But short of a subsequent run for the presidency and/or an ascension to a Ted Kennedy-like role in the Senate, nothing Jeb does will in any way atone for or "fix" what his brother did.

The notion that we could somehow repair the damage George W. Bush has done by electing his brother to national office is absurd. And who cares about the Bush "brand?" Oh, boo hoo, the Bush name is tainted now, and that shan't be so, so let's elect Jeb to the Senate. Yeah... thanks, but I'll pass.

Gold Star Winner: December 8, 2008

2008-12-08T15:50:00.003-05:00

Jon Stewart
Host, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart has been on fire lately, and he wins a long-overdue Gold Star in appreciation of his consistently excellent work, and for this Bush-bashing gem in particular:

"Do we really have to build this guy a library? I mean, can't we just get him an arcade-slash-go-cart course? I know he'd like it more."

How right he is. Mazel tov!

The Transition Soap Opera

2008-12-08T15:41:00.001-05:00

From the geniuses at Slate:

Written In The Stars

2008-12-08T14:38:00.003-05:00

Take a look at the astrological signs of all the U.S. presidents.

Barack Obama is a Leo. If you're even a little bit familiar with the Zodiac, you'll know that makes, like, the most sense ever. Leos are usually bold, assertive, ambitious and born leaders.

I am a Cancer, as is - SIGH - George W. Bush. And Gerald Ford. And Calvin Coolidge. And John Quincy Adams. We didn't luck out too well in the White House, did we?

Oscar Snub: Peter O'Toole (cont.)

2008-12-07T20:31:00.002-05:00

Why he should have won for The Lion in Winter in 1968:

Oscar Snub: Peter O'Toole

2008-12-07T19:35:00.004-05:00

Welcome to OSCAR SNUBS, the latest feature here at The Danifesto. In this series, I'll profile people and pictures that have been notoriously snubbed by the Academy. Some have only one infamous snub, while other, like this week's "honoree," have been repeatedly passed over for an Oscar. This feature will continue every Sunday until February 15, which just so happens to be the week before the Oscars themselves. Enjoy!

Some things in life never change, no matter how much one may try. Seasons will always change. Birds will always fly. The sky is blue. The earth is round. Survivor, after all these seasons, is a popular TV show.

And Peter O'Toole, no matter what he does, regardless of the film for which he is nominated, will always lose at Oscar time. Always.

Peter O'Toole is one of the giants of cinema. Period. His first major role was as the titular character in David Lean's 1962 epic Lawrence of Arabia, a Best Picture winner. His prolific career has spanned decades, on stage and screen, in classical and non-classical works, opposite famous and not-so-famous co-stars. Equipped the bluest eyes the world has ever seen, he has bewitched audiences with his talents for nearly half a century.

Yet, with all his fame and fortune, one thing has notoriously alluded him: an Oscar.

Eight times has Peter O'Toole been nominated for an Academy Award: for Lawrence of Arabia, for Becket, for The Lion in Winter, for Goodbye, Mr. Chips, for The Ruling Class, for The Stunt Man, for My Favorite Year, for Venus. Each time, he has lost - first to Gregory Peck, then to Rex Harrison, then to Cliff Robertson, then to John Wayne, then to Marlon Brando, then to Robert DeNiro, then to Ben Kingsley, then to Forest Whitaker. Eight nominations. Over 42 years. Nothing to show for it.

Peter O'Toole's futility at the Oscars ranks as one of the all-time greatest Oscar snubs. He's lost to screen legends (Peck, Wayne, Brando, DeNiro), he's lost to guys giving the performances of their careers (Whitaker and Kingsley, who is now probably a legend but wasn't in 1982), he's lost to a guy who talked when he could have been singing (Harrison) and he's lost to a guy who ended up being practically kicked out of Hollywood for a time (Robertson). He's lost when his film swept the other top awards (Lawrence of Arabia), he's lost when his co-star has won (Katharine Hepburn, The Lion in Winter), he even lost at the age of 74, theoretically the perfect time to finally give him his due (Venus).

No other actor has been nominated as many times without winning. The Academy tried to rectify this in 2002, when they bestowed upon O'Toole the "I've Never Won A Real One So I'm Getting This Instead" Award, also known as an Honorary Oscar. O'Toole, to his credit, showed up at the ceremony - he originally thought he might not - and gave a gracious acceptance speech. But that's been it for him so far, and, at the age of 76, one would presume there's not a real good chance of a competitive win coming any time soon.

So I kick off Oscar Snub Season with a tip of my hat to the great Peter O'Toole, one of my favorite actors, and one of the world's most treasured acting legends. Pete, you may not have an Oscar, but all is not lost, for you now have an award from us, and no one can ever take that away from you.

Congratulations?

Awards Preview: "Doubt" and "Frost/Nixon"

2008-12-07T18:56:00.003-05:00

Since I took the day off from awards previews yesterday, I'm back and better than ever today with a double whammy of a post. Today I preview Doubt and Frost/Nixon, the two Broadway adaptations in this year's race.

From the buzz, it looks like Frost/Nixon is in a much better position to scoop up the bigger awards, though it seems like Meryl Streep, who stars in Doubt, will probably get nominated for Best Actress (stop me if you've heard this before).

david's take:

FROST / NIXON is functional, and probably could not have been anything less given the source material. howard makes no strides to elevate it or take full advantage of the cinema's unique narrative offerings, and the whole thing is entirely forgettable. 2 acting nods all but guaranteed, with pic, director, and screenplay likely in the bag as well.

DOUBT is a sliver of what it could have been. busts out of the gate strong but never finds any true footing. the last scene is a real deal-breaker. most likely to be the token film extolled for its performances but omitted from the big 3 categories. and the academy's presentation order be damned, the screenplay awards far outweigh the actor / actress categories as far as importance in my estimation.

As usual, I haven't seen these movies (I'm POOR!!!). But a word of caution regarding Doubt, which I took of notice of as soon as I learned they were making a movie version: John Patrick Shanley himself directed it. Shanley is a brilliant playwright - a BRILLIANT playwright - but that's just it: he's a playwright. His only other foray into film direction was Joe Versus the Volcano.

This is not to say that this film was doomed from the start, but stage-to-screen adaptations are tricky enough, and in my opinion it's generally better to have a more experienced movie-maker at the helm. Just look at what's happened to some recent musicals that have made the jump to the big screen (Mamma Mia, The Producers). Yes, those are musicals, but the same criteria applies.

For the record, Dave Karger has Frost/Nixon third and Doubt fifth on his list of the top eight Best Picture contenders, which strikes me as about correct, except I think it's weird to have Doubt listed above The Dark Knight (#7). I do not get the feeling that Sister Aloysius has a better chance than Batman at Best Picture.

Karger is spot-on, however, in his analysis of Frost/Nixon's best bets:

Best Picture
It's got prestige, relevance, assured direction, and fantastic acting. The negative New York Times review stings, but most critics are loving it.
Best Director, Ron Howard
As soon as voters see his name on the credits, they'll know it'll be a confidently-directed film. Can he score his first nomination since winning for A Beautiful Mind seven years ago?

Best Actor, Frank Langella
Along with Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke, and Clint Eastwood, Langella—who's never been nominated for an Oscar—seems to have a slot sewn up.

So you wait long enough and Richard Nixon comes out on top... kinda. As for Doubt, Karger thinks is "still a contender for all the big prizes." I disagree.

In the end, I'd bet on at least a Best Picture and Best Actor nomination for Frost/Nixon, and Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress (Viola Davis) nominations for Doubt. I really don't expect wins for either film in the big BIG categories, though Viola Davis - who's getting rave reviews - has an interesting shot. Not the front-runner, but an interesting shot.

Senator Chris Matthews? PSYCH!

2008-12-07T18:52:00.003-05:00

It looks like he's staying at MSNBC.

Good. I want to watch him be grumpy to his guests for years to come, and I have also been very skeptical of his chances to win a Senate race in Pennsylvania, despite what the local Democratic leaders may have thought.

Though, at this moment in time, there is still a chance that the Senate, in a few years' time, could include Al Franken, Chris Matthews, JFK's daughter and Jesse Jackson's son. And maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger will even run in two years.

I feel like I'm on crazy pays!

Burning for Bush (The Other One)

2008-12-07T18:39:00.003-05:00

Peter Robinson reeeeeeeeeeeeeally wants Jeb Bush to run for Senate in Florida:

The first day he walked into the chamber, Bush would already possess a more impressive record of accomplishment--not talk, accomplishment--than all but a few of his new colleagues. For that matter, his record would compare favorably with those of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and nearly everyone else in Washington, including President Barack Obama.

I get the swipe at Obama, as well as the one at Hillary. But, if you think about it, it's not really fair to compare governors to senators. Seriously. And excuse me but, even if you want to play that little game, how many governors (or former governors) across America have records that compare favorably with Joe Biden?

Um, gee, let me think: no one. The guy's been in the Senate for 35 freaking years, and has built up a resume colored primarily with achievements in foreign policy, not to mention other goodies like the crime bill, as well as an election to the vice presidency. This is not to take anything away from Jeb Bush, who is LEAGUES ahead of his nitwit older brother, but seriously - there's no point in comparing apples to oranges.

"Senator Jeb Bush" would be okay with me if he promised to:

change his last name, and
promise never ever to run for president, and
prohibit George W. from leaving the state of Texas.

Other than that, I think the federal government in this country has had enough of the Bush family for at least a generation. Let George P. run for something in 20 or 30 years. Until then, we're done.

We Are The Music Makers, And We Are The Dreamers Of Dreams

2008-12-07T13:28:00.003-05:00

Obama wants to invite musicians and scientists and hold poetry readings at the White House:

"Historically, what has always brought us through hard times is that national character, that sense of optimism, that willingness to look forward, that sense that better days are ahead. I think that our art and our culture, our science--you know, that's the essence of what makes America special, and we want to project that as much as possible in the White House."

Thanks, But No Thanks

2008-12-07T13:18:00.003-05:00

As President-elect Obama has been appointing various people to Cabinet positions, the media has gone after the opinions of the people in the Bush administration that are about to be replaced.

Why? It allows these people, like Condi Rice and others, to offer an "informed" opinion of the new team, as if they've done such a bang-up job that, oh yeah, it's really worth it to hear them guage who is or isn't going to do a good job.

Condi Rice, queen of the "well, none of this has been MY fault!" crowd of Bush administration officials, offers her validation of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Great. It's like a vegan recommending filet mignon: DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

As you know, I'm a big believer in the belief that everyone is allowed to speak his or her mind, even if they're a political appointee of George W. Bush. I'm just wondering why the media is trying to delude us into thinking that anything people like Condi say has, at this point, any merit whatsoever.

XOX-NO!

2008-12-06T19:06:00.002-05:00

The CW is thinking about making a spin-off for Gossip Girl.

Who would it be about? You can't break up the five main characters (Blair, Serena, Dan, Chuck and Nate). I suppose you could make it about Jenny or Vanessa, but... really?

It would certainly be something different, I guess. A show centered around Jenny or Vanessa would be very "'poor' girl from Brooklyn trying to make her way to the top," which is different from Gossip Girl, which is "really really rich young people doing stuff in New York." Also, note that I use the word "poor" in quotes, especially applied to Jenny, who is supposed to be poor but lives with her rock star dad in a gorgeous loft in Williamsburg.

A spin-off around Jenny would seem to make the most sense, but I ask again... really?

Quantum of OMG Best Song Ever

2008-12-06T12:20:00.002-05:00

I haven't seen Quantum of Solace yet (because I haven't seen anything), but this song is amazing:

Bye Bye, Biden

2008-12-06T12:08:00.002-05:00

Mike Allen reports:

BLOCKBUSTER-- Coming in Sunday's LAS VEGAS SUN, By Lisa Mascaro/Washington Bureau -- BIDEN TO BE BARRED FROM SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS MEETINGS AS PART OF REID EFFORT TO RESTORE CHECKS AND BALANCES: 'The new Congress will reassert its constitutional independence from the White House by barring the vice president from joining in internal Senate deliberations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview with The Sun. The move is intended to restore checks and balances to a system that tilted heavily toward the White House in the Bush presidency. By giving Vice President Dick Cheney regular access to Senate Republican caucuses, at times with White House advisers in tow, party unity became more important to many Republicans than upholding their responsibilities to provide legislative oversight of the executive, experts say. Asked if Vice-President Joe Biden will be allowed to attend Senate Democratic caucus meetings, Reid said: 'Absolutely not.' Must credit Las Vegas Sun. Full story 2 a.m. Sunday at http://www.lasvegassun.com/

Well that's a good sign, isn't it?

It will be interesting to see how Vice President Biden, who actually will have almost no authority granted to him by the Constitution, fits into the Obama White House equation. Biden's a foreign policy heavyweight, but he'll be part of a team of other foreign policy heavyweights - Hillary, Bob Gates, etc. I do expect him to be Obama's wise(-cracking) old sage, offering advice for a wide range of issues. Biden himself even promised that, for every major decision, he will "be in the room." But I'm glad that room won't be where the Senate Democratic Caucus meets.

Good rule of thumb for Biden: whatever Dick Cheney did, yeeeahhh... you pretty much just wanna do, like, the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

Awards Preview: "Milk" (cont.)

2008-12-05T15:20:00.003-05:00

Brendan thinks Milk will win Best Director for Gus Van Sant, as well as Best Original Screenplay.

I think Screenplay is a safe bet, but Van Sant would a real pushing of the envelope, in my view.

Of course, I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING BECAUSE I AM POOR AND HAVE NO MONEY TO SPEND ON MOVIES so it's hard to make an informed opinion. :(

Anyone who wants to donate to the Danifesto Give-Me-Money-So-I-Can-Watch-Movies-And-Stop-Half-Assing-My-Awards-Previews fund, inquire within.

Awards Preview: "Milk"

2008-12-05T14:52:00.005-05:00

Three years after the disaster known as "Brokeback Mountain loses to Crash," and in the wake of Prop 8 hysteria, comes a movie about Harvey Milk, this nation's first openly gay elected official (in any high-ranking, meaningful office).

The movie has generated strong buzz thus far for its acting performances (Sean Penn, Josh Brolin; wish James Franco got some too), as well as its writing.

But what about the movie itself? Can it win - or even get nominated for - Best Picture?

As one might expect, the problem with a movie like this is that it's going to be labeled "the gay movie." That makes it instantly less attractive to the old, stuffy Academy giving it any kudos (again, remember what happened to Brokeback Mountain). It's the same thing with "black movies," "chick flicks," or anything else. There are certain types of films that are branded as some kind of "other" stereotype that instantly places them outside of the mainstream. So let me just say right off the bat that I think Milk's Oscar chances are dubious because of this.

Reaction to the movie also seems to be split. Andrew Sullivan loved it:

The movie's brilliance is not that it begins and ends with his death as a reflection on the first and last things; it is that it begins and ends with Milk's love for another human being as well. This reach for intimacy - always vulnerable, always intimate, never safe - endures past movements and rallies and elections. These manifestations of the political are the means to that merely human end.

While david called it - and this is the best phrase I have EVER heard - "one big gay pile of underwhelming"...

MILK is one big gay pile of underwhelming. sean penn plays the eponymous role as if he were (i am) Sam but liked boys rather than the beatles. that being said, his performance is predictably strong but his nomination will be a result of penn sinking his teeth into a joyful role more than anything else. anyhoo, for a film about such an unconventional and downright revolutionary man, milk is just too bland to really curry any true favor (though reparations for the brokeback mountain losing to crash fiasco might up milk's stock). gus van sant's biopic is rife with absolutely fascinating characters, almost all of which are consistently ignored in favor of redundant stock footage and a cursory and second-rate overview of milk's political achievements, all of which were more indelibly covered in rob epstein's doc "the life and times of harvey milk." van sant's work shines whenever the always-intimidating josh brolin is onscreen and the film threatens to become an intriguing study of a socio-political dichotomy as personified by two riveting individuals but... no. cut to captain of the d-bag brigade, emie hirsch, whining about something or the tragic figure of a crippled gay teenager calling milk directly only at times that impossibly compliment the narrative... ick.

Of the movies we have previewed thus far, I'd say that Benjamin Button remains the only lock for a nomination, while Slumdog Millionaire looks to be this year's best bet to fill the Indie Film Representative Slot in the Best Picture race (taking its place next to Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, Lost in Translation, etc.). I still think that the unprecedented uniqueness of circumstances surrounding The Dark Knight will be enough to score a Best Picture nod. That leaves two spots.

As much as I wish it weren't the case, I highly doubt WALL-E's ability to get nominated for Best Picture. I also refuse to believe that Australia will get nominated because I am on the record having stated that it's this year's Mega-Flop. Doubt? Frost/Nixon? I suppose. But I feel like only one Broadway-to-the-big-screen picture at a time can get nominated for the big prize. Maybe they both can do it, and that fills it out. Maybe, maybe not.

So what about Milk? God, I don't know. On one hand, like david says, the Academy might feel it necessary to atone for Brokeback Mountain. There is also the incredible backlash in California and elsewhere to the passage of Prop 8. Oscar loves to make a political statement (or likes to think it's making a political statement). So that bodes well for Milk. But I still just don't know.

This one is really hard to gauge. I feel pretty confident in predicting that it won't win Best Picture, but less confident in predicting that it won't even get nominated. It's got as good of a chance as any movies that's not Slumdog Millionaire or Benjamin Button. But it being what it is - THE GAY MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! - just throws a wrench into the whole damn thing.

It's 50/50. Your guess is as good as mine.

Four Years From Now

2008-12-05T12:56:00.001-05:00

Awards Preview: "Wall-E"

2008-12-04T23:25:00.004-05:00

It started with the "Central Services" music.

Some of you will get that reference (Brendan and david at the very least... LoquaciousMuse, are you familiar with the Brazil soundtrack?*), and if you do, odds are you'll know why I loved Wall-E before I even saw the movie in its entirety.

I'm a big fan of quasi-fantasy movies - in other words, movies that are fictional, and a stretch of one's imagination, but still entirely within the realm of possibility. This, I suppose, is why I always liked Deep Impact, The Truman Show and TV shows like Weeds. Obviously an apocalyptic comet is not hurtling towards earth, but it could be at some point. Obviously no man has ever grown up as the unknowing star of his own reality show, but he could be. Obviously no suburban mom is a pot dealer, or most aren't, but at some point, certainly in this economy, she could be.

My point is that Wall-E struck a chord with me from the very beginning. It's computer-animated, it takes place 800 years in the future and is, at its core, a love story between two robots, but it's feasible. One can imagine Earth getting so cluttered with trash that human beings are forced to leave. One can imagine human beings getting so fat that they just zip around all day on scooters while tuned to an endless TV screen that accompanies them everywhere. One can imagine humanity's meals consisting of an endless barrage of Slurpee-like soft drinks. One can imagine a robot that can think. One can imagine a computer running a sophisticated ship, or plane, or automobile. One can imagine when a grown man - the captain of an enormous space cruiser - has no idea what the sea is. Or dancing. Or farming.

So Wall-E fits into my personal "within the realm of possibility" folder. On top of that, it deals with the very urgent issue of the environment, and how we need to (no pun intended) clean up our act. It is against this topical, very relevant backdrop that, oh by the way, a funny, heartwarming, endearing love story is told between a clumsy-yet-cute robot named Wall-E and a prickly-yet-peach-hearted robot named Eve.

When I think of great love stories, I think of Casablanca. I think of The Apartment. Yeah, I think of Titanic. And now I think of Wall-E.

I loved Wall-E. I cried when I saw it for the first time. It was my favorite film of the year. And besides my personal attachment to it, it is yet another in a long line of brilliant Disney/Pixar computer-animated features (Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo). It is a lock to win Best Animated Feature at the Oscars, and - seeing how this is a kooky year, awards-wise - it would be unwise to write it off totally from the Best Picture race.

Oh, who am I kidding. The Academy won't nominate it for Best Picture. They can't, can they?

I suppose there's always a chance. Who knows? Seabiscuit made it in, and that was a love story between a horse and a redheaded version of Tobey Maguire. I'll take Wall-E and Eve anyday. And Jeff Garlin's voice, too.

P.S. I have decided to forgo my usual samplings of experts' opinions from around the web because I just needed to gush about my love for Wall-E. Regular awards previews will resume tomorrow.

*Disclaimer: I haven't seen Brazil, but I know that song, and loooove it, obviously.

Obama '08 or [Insert Issue Here] '08?

2008-12-04T22:36:00.003-05:00

There is a debate going on about why young people - people my age, your age, our age (early 20's a.k.a. YOUNG) - voted in 2008. Was it because of the magnetic attraction of Barack Obama, or because of the specific substantive issues at stake in the campaign?

Erica Williams believes that much of the credit for young voter turnout simply goes to the fact that Obama was on the ticket:

Who are we kidding? Many people voted because of Obama. Deal with it. I think one of the main failures of youth vote advocates this election season was in the shallowness and transparency of our messaging. The message that “young people voted on the issues” never broke through to mainstream media because it frankly wasn’t true. It was a message set up to support our organizational missions and demand legitimacy and credibility not just for our constituency, but mostly for our own work. And I understand that. But there is a difference between saying that young people care about the issues – that is true – and that young people voted because they care about the issues – not true. You can care about issues and stay your butt home on the first Tuesday in November, particularly in our communities (young, black, latino, disenfranchised). Because guess what? Young people have always cared about not having clean air to breathe, or money in their pockets, or their loved ones at war. And while yes, the past 8 years have brought us to a boiling point, logic would not tell our communities that voting is the solution. Obama is what made them channel their frustration about the issues onto the ballot. And denying that reality is going to make tomorrow a cold blast of water when we go back to our newly registered voters and find out that they actually know very little about “the issues” or how those issues will really be changed.

Man, I'm really torn on this one. There is a part of me that agrees with the premise that it was generally Obama, and not "Man, you know, this economy sucks and we NEED Obama's policy proposals" that led voters 18-29 to vote Democratic 2-to-1. I think Erica is on to something when she says that a lot of the appeal was Obama being Obama. He served as a unique blank slate on which Americans, particularly young people, could project their frustrations. I do take issue, however, with just one part of what Erica says:

Because guess what? Young people have always cared about not having clean air to breathe, or money in their pockets, or their loved ones at war.

[Emphasis mine.] Obviously, people care about clean air and money in pockets and not losing loved ones at war. Those are pretty much basic wants of human life - meaning, it shouldn't be considered a luxury to have or require those things. The thing is that eight years of George W. Bush have turned things that used to be basic guarantees of American life for most people (clean air, a stable economy, peace) into relatively rare commodities. We have a president who doesn't believe in global warming, has destroyed our economy and killed thousands of Americans with his war. So we have "always cared" about these things, sure, but only in the past two elections have they become debatable issues on which one chooses to vote.

While I think the general point that Erica is making - that most people voted for Obama because he's OBAMA, the Hope/Change/Unity guy, and not necessarily because he aligned perfectly with them in terms of policy - is valid, I don't think dismissing clean air, money and the war as things we young people would be caring about anyway is correct. They didn't use to be votable issues, and now they are, so I think it's valid to say that, yeah, maybe people of our generation actually were voting for issues like those, and chose to vote for Obama on those reasons - rather than vote for Obama based on his cool brand and pop culture appeal, and it's just convenient that he turned out to be against the war and in favor of renewable energy.

Michael Connery is thinking more along those lines:

The media may have lampooned the Obama campaign's celebrity power, but it's not like all these contacts, and all of Obama's stump appearances, amounted to nothing more than a call to "vote for me because I'm awesome." There was a little more substance than that, even if we junkies craved even more substance than was offered. Expecting more than that, I think, is unreasonable. The percentage of voters - among all age groups - who cast their ballots based on the minutia of policy are so small as to be an insignificant portion of the electorate. Using such a standard as a talking point to the media is, I think foolhardy (if in fact that was the message some orgs tried to send), but to rate the quality of youth involvement or the effectiveness of youth organizations on the policy knowledge of the electorate seems unfair.

I think, if anything, the Bush years have made policy wonks out of more young Americans than ever - or at least in a generation. An electorate that used to snooze through general elections has now woken up, and it's no surprise they voted for Obama in huge numbers. Much of it had to do with the cool "O" logo, the Facebook and iPhone applications, the XBox advertising, the celebrity endorsements and the canon of YouTube classics, but some of it undoubtedly had to do with the fact that George W. Bush has turned a lot of young people into Democrats - and not just as a knee-jerk reaction to the Republican disaster of the past eight years. I think, as people come of age during turbulent times such as these, it's natural to become more engaged because things really start hitting close to home - in the form of a dirty power plant nearby, a mortgage foreclosure or the death of a loved one in Iraq.

In the end, a lot of it was about Obama. But a lot of it was about issues, too. Obama just happened to be right on most of them.

Just Checking In

2008-12-04T09:57:00.003-05:00

I just wanted everyone to know that, even if I don't respond to your comment(s) and/or email(s) directly on the site, that I read each and every one of them and take every opinion, observation and piece of feedback into consideration. Thank you for reading, and keep the conversation going.

ALSO: I believe I may have somewhat slandered david in my "Benjamin Button." He did NOT "hate" The Dark Knight. He is not as enamored with it as, say, Ms. LoquaciousMuse. That's okay. That's why God made chocolate and vanilla. And, you know, "hate" is a strong word. So it doesn't fit in this context.

But it's still gonna be nominated for Best Picture - at least at the Golden Globes. Then again, I could videotape myself humming "Row Row Row Your Boat" and probably score a nod for Best Picture (Musical or Comedy) at the Globes. Oh, the Hollywood Foreign Press......

TEASER: Check back later this evening as I will post the latest Awards Preview, and this time we're going with the film that was, without a doubt, my favorite film of the year thus far...

Senator Jeb Bush?

2008-12-04T00:38:00.004-05:00

DISCLAIMER: I realize as I type this that I've had a lot of "Senator [Insert Name Here]?" posts lately. Sorry about that, although you've gotta love my consistency.

A great deal of fuss has been made over speculation that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (yes, the brother of you-know-who) will run for the Sunshine State's open Senate seat in 2010. The conventional wisdom is that the Republicans would obviously just hand him the nomination and he'd be the odds-on favorite to win the seat in the general election.

Am I missing something here? Matt Stoller apparently isn't:

This track record has been compounded by the weirdness of Florida, which is Alabama in the north of the state, Cuba and New York in the south of the state, and the exurbs in the I-4 corridor in the Disney middle. Jeb's conservative politics play well in the north of the state, and have been pretty irrelevant elsewhere. Should he run for Senate, Jeb Bush will have an entirely different experience. If his opponent is Alex Sink, my guess is that he's going to have a really tough time. Sink is a wonderful and highly respected former banker who is now the state's chief financial officer. She's a very very strong opponent, and Bush's background as a semi-corrupt businessman who participated in a scheme to, get this, sell water pumps in Nigeria, will emerge.

Jeb served two terms as governor in Florida and is still very popular there. But there's something else at play here: has anyone caught his last name? This is how it's spelled:

B U S H

...as in, "I share genetic material with the guy who's currently in the Oval Office. Yes, him. The least popular president... um, ever, basically."

Florida's blue right now, it's been red for a while before that, though its Republican governor is pretty much moderate (also probably gay). That makes Florida purple. Can a Bush still win in a purple state, even a popular Bush whose first name isn't George?

I don't know. All I know is, John McCain used to be the most popular politician in America and he lost the modern battlegrounds of not just Florida, but Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and New Hampshire, not to mention usually Republican states like Colorado and Nevada, and that's before we even talk about always Republican states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia (!!!!!).

Obviously, Senate and presidential races are very different, and in 2010 George W. will have been out of power for over a year and a half. But I just don't see the toxicity of the Bush "brand" (like anyone would buy such a thing) dissipating within the near future. Is 2010 too soon? At this stage, I'd bet that it is.

However, there is a George P. Bush (Jeb's son) who is wealthy, smart, well-connected, good-looking and part-Hispanic (his mom's side), so maybe, I dunno, 2024? If the Bushes can wait that long?

Awards Preview: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

2008-12-03T22:37:00.003-05:00

For those of you confused by the curiously long title, this is the movie where Brad Pitt is born as an old guy and gradually gets younger. In other words, it could actually be called The Curious Case of Plastic Surgery in Modern Hollywood.

Ba-zing! Whatever its title, the film is undoubtedly the odds-on favorite right now to win Best Picture. Don't believe me? Just ask Buzzmeter.

Why is it winning the Oscar race so far? According to Dave Karger, because it's a weepie:

Button is an Oscar movie with a capital O, with jaw-dropping production values, a soaring romance, and terrific performances, particularly from supporting-actress candidate Taraji P. Henson as Benjamin's de facto mother. Even if Brad Pitt doesn't make it into the tough Best Actor race (the likes of Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio may squeeze him out), I still can see Button racking up as many as 11 nominations, which could very well be the highest tally for any film this year. Once the film opens on Christmas day, I guarantee we'll all be talking about one thing: whether or not Benjamin Button made you sob.

Titanic, Schindler's List, Driving Miss Daisy, Ordinary People, American Beauty, The English Patient, On the Waterfront, The Apartment... all of these movies won Best Picture, and they're all weepies. Well, you weep during all of them, if you're human.

Being a weepie is generally the best way to score an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (once again, Atonement, I am looking in your direction), the same way making yourself ugly is a good way to get an Oscar nod for Best Actress (Hilary Swank, Nicole Kidman).

So what does the rest of our panel of experts think? Here's david:

BENJAMIN BUTTON is gonna make a splash of some kind come its xmas release. the film is in line with fincher's zodiac in its stately, matter-of-fact pace and tone. a gentle, cumulatively devastating film about (a) life that almost entirely circumvents peaks and valleys, it's astonishing cg and digital dreamscapes make it play like an elegy for a life not yet lived. it features some of the most practical and seamless effects work of any film ever (EVER), and i'll be more than a little offended if something a bit splashier steals the tech awards. film's unforced grace is not going to work to its advantage come february, so my initial guess is that it'll dominate the nominations (expect it to garner the most of any film with nods across the board from make-up to maybe even actor and of course picture), but perhaps fall short of the podium. SEE IT.

This coming from the guy who, yes, hated The Dark Knight (cue protest from LoquaciousMuse). Oh, and speaking of LoquaciousMuse:

Benjamin Button leaves the audience oddly emotionally detatched in what should be a tearjerker.

Okay. So the movie is either:

A tearjerker.
Supposed to be a tearjerker.

Well, I got news for you, sports fans (or movie fans? It's just an expression). Whether or not Benjamin Button actually makes you cry, the point that it's supposed to is going to be enough, and probably more than enough. The last time a movie that was supposed to be a weepie but wasn't got shunned for a Best Picture nod was 2003 with Cold Mountain, and that was just a mess.

I don't know if this movie can win the big award, as that would make it two years in a row of two really-long-titled movies winning Best Picture (after No Country For Old Men last year). At any rate, Cate Blanchett better start trying on dresses, and Brad needs to fit Maddox, Pax and Knox for tuxedos. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will be nominated for Oscars, lots of them, and right now is the odds-on-favorite to win the big prize. Not bad for a silly title.

Scenes From "The West Wing"

2008-12-03T00:50:00.001-05:00

"Let Bartlet Be Bartlet."

Awards Preview: "The Dark Knight" (cont.)

2008-12-02T23:55:00.002-05:00

Brendan of Hey Brendan! has a neat thought:

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight (accepted by Michelle Williams on behalf of her ex-husband.)

That would certainly be an Oscar moment-to-remember, wouldn't it?

Awards Preview: "The Dark Knight"

2008-12-02T23:25:00.003-05:00

The Dark Knight is, without a doubt, the most popular film of the year so far. In fact, it's currently the second highest grossing film of all time (and when it's re-released this winter, it'll probably pass Titanic for #1 on the list).

Fuck all that. Can it win an Oscar? Fuck THAT. Can it even get nominated?

My gut instinct is yes. I think it can. It can certainly count on a slew of nods in the technical categories, and the late, great Heath Ledger looks to be a look for at least a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

But how about the only one that really, really matters: Best Picture?

Well, Buzzmeter's got it at #4, which I take to be a very good sign that the hoopla over the summer is actually very real. david at All Things Fangirl (guy?) is not so optimistic:

...as far as the big race is concerned, you can all just go ahead and forget about the DARK KNIGHT.

Okay. Dave Karger, for one, thinks that Obama winning the presidential election actually helps The Dark Knight's chances:

Usually I'm not the kind of guy who thinks that outside events have too much influence on the Oscar race. I generally think it's about the movies, more or less in a vacuum. But I do think that this week's election-day results may have a profound effect on the Best Picture chances of two films. For starters, there's The Dark Knight. I thought the sequence involving the two ferries (in which a group of commuters and a group of convicts have the power to blow up each others' boats but don't) was a bit too reality-show-ish for my taste. But I know most viewers loved it. Either way, that part of the film speaks to the innate goodness of human behavior. And let's remember that Oscar ballots are due next January 12, just a week before Barack Obama is inaugurated. It's safe to say most Hollywood types will also see that event as an example of innate human goodness. All of this only helps The Dark Knight's chances, don't you think?

The problem with The Dark Knight, of course, is simple: It's THE DARK KNIGHT. It's not your "typical" Oscar movie - even though "typical" Oscar movies frequently suck (Atonement, I'm looking at you). In fact, Karger today started a mini-maelstrom of sorts by asking this question:

will voters really check off a popcorn movie?

Zing! To which the revered movie/geek/pop culture expert (seriously, check this girl's blog out) LoquaciousMuse responds:

I understand that for some people, the Dark Knight hype got the better of them..well...I sort of understand...in that way that I'll pretend I understand if you want...but so far, it's hands down the best picture I've seen so far this year. To insult my taste and the taste of millions of others just doesn't seem right to me. The whole reason this movie made as much money as it did, beyond your average comic book movie's total, and why it's getting Best Picture talk in the first place is because it ISN'T just a popcorn movie. It reinvented and elevated the superhero genre to a whole new level and to demean that accomplishment and ignore its quality is condescending at best. Those who are at this moment considering nominating Dark Knight are doing so because it's a great god damn movie and won't change their minds last second, "Bradley Effect" style. Those academy members who won't be nominating Dark Knight? They were never entertaining the thought in the first place.

I stand firmly by the belief that in the end Dark Knight will pull out a Best Pic nod. If it doesn't, it's due to that faction of the academy that will always point their noses down on superhero films, no matter how great they are. But look at this years contenders - Slumdog Millionaire is pretty good, Frost/Nixon, you know, gets the job done and from what I hear (and will be able to confirm soon) Milk is more of an accomplishment for telling the story it tells rather than an achievement in filmmaking and Benjamin Button leaves the audience oddly emotionally detatched in what should be a tearjerker. All four times I saw Dark Knight, I did laugh, I did cry, I marveled at the gorgeous IMAX sequences, I noticed new things, was affected by new things, I was always impressed with the performances and was consistently left itching for the continuation of this story. Some say the film is too didactic, but one element of the superhero genre that should always be maintained is the moral lesson, the grand themes of right and wrong and the epic battle of good versus evil. It's why the genre was created and why it's not going anywhere.

Okay, soooo... here's what we can conclude:

Everybody liked The Dark Knight.
Because everybody liked The Dark Knight, its Oscar chances are iffy.
None of this actually makes any sense.

Christopher Nolan made a film that has become one of the biggest hits ever, thanks to a perfect storm of factors surrounding its release: it was a sequel to an extremely popular film, it fits into a well-established and revered pop culture franchise, it was impeccably well-made and well-acted and, it must be said, transcended the normal world of fandom with the tragic, internationally-reported death of Heath Ledger, who happened to give a performance that was bound to be hailed as visionary and legendary anyway.

There's never before been a movie to which all that has happened. So, even though The Dark Knight may be *gasp* a popcorn movie in the end, it is at an almost Titanic- or Star Wars-like level in terms of pop culture phenomena. Both of those films - popcorn movies - got boatloads of Oscar nominations, and Titanic, of course, won Best Picture. The Dark Knight might not win anything (big) come Oscar night, but I do expect it to be nominated, if for no other reason than it is one of those rare, once-or-twice-in-a-generation pop culture EVENTS that, by nature, throw all rules of normalcy out the window anyway. The Dark Knight has, as LoquaciousMuse says, rewritten the superhero genre. It's poised to rewrite Oscar history as well.

Obama/Hillary Headaches & Hullabaloo

2008-12-02T20:16:00.005-05:00

There was an exchange at Obama's press conference yesterday in which a reporter asked the President-elect about the "evolution" of his views on Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience. Obama, as you may recall, essentially trashed Hillary's foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail, but is now praising her qualifications as he nominates her for secretary of state. In response to the reporter's question, Obama said something stupid about how "this is fun for the press" and avoided giving a concrete response.

This has caused a mini-firestorm among media types, angry that Obama a) did not provide an answer and b) dismissed the question as simply being another incident of the media pointlessly stirring up trouble. Campbell Brown had this to say on CNN last night (hat tip to the aforelinked Jason Linkins for the video):

I have to say, I agree with Brown on this one. Obama was wrong to just dismiss the question the way he did. While I will be first in line to proclaim that the media's continual milking of the Hillary-vs.-Obama-so-much-drama-all-the-time--OMG-WTF "storyline" - which doesn't even exist anymore - is completely inane and a waste of time, energy and money, questions about Obama's change of heart regarding Hillary are perfectly legitimate. He did scoff at her foreign policy credentials. So did I. In fact, I still do, from time to time (Bosnia, anyone?). the fact that he said those things and is still making her the country's chief diplomat is a valid topic of discussion, and, frankly, I'd appreciate an answer.

It seems to me that Obama is up to one of three things here. Choose one from the following:

During the campaign, he really did believe that her expertise in foreign affairs was exaggerated, but has since legitimately and honestly changed his mind to the point where he believes she is the best candidate for secretary of state.
During the campaign, Obama was just talking shit because, duh, it was the heat of a campaign and he wanted to win. So, basically, he was exaggerating or stretching the truth about Hillary when he said that she was exaggerating or stretching the truth about herself. In truth, he really thought she was qualified all along.
During the campaign, Obama was being truthful when he said that Hillary's credentials were BS, and while he's still not totally sold on her as the best choice for State, he's going with her anyway because he wants her in the tent, not outside.

For the record, I think it's a combination of all three. I think all along, Obama believed truthfully that he, and not her, would be better on foreign affairs. I think he found legitimate holes in her record, and in turn exaggerated those holes so as to benefit in the campaign. And I think that, at least on paper, he believes that there are other people more qualified to be secretary of state, but is going with Hillary because of the international power of the Clinton brand and because of the whole "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" thing.

As that article above points out, Obama will be on Meet The Press this Sunday. I hope he gets this question again, and that he actually answers it this time. I voted for him twice, proudly, and I trust his judgment, but we deserve to know his thought process on this, because it's a tough sell for a lot of people and, for others, reeks of pure political maneuvering.

Aw, Shucks

2008-12-02T15:02:00.002-05:00

Bill Clinton is nixing the idea of him replacing Hillary in the Senate.

As I wrote last night, I thought the idea of "Senator Bill Clinton" was intriguing and potentially beneficial to both Clintonistas and Obamans alike. I still continue to think that, and must confess a bit of disappointment that it doesn't appear like it will happen.

It was always a long shot, but a boy can dream, can't he?

So who will Hillary's replacement be? Caroline Kennedy, maybe? Andrew Cuomo? Rosie O'Donnell? I hear she's out of a job.

Stop Using Plastic Bags!

2008-12-02T13:22:00.004-05:00

This falls into the "duh" category of easy things one can do to help the environment, but seriously: stop using plastic bags. Or if you're going to keep using them, then please recycle them:

Switch to reusable shopping bags. Reusable shopping bags made from renewable materials conserve resources by replacing paper and plastic bags. Reusable bags are convenient and come in a variety of sizes, styles and materials. When not in use, some reusable bags can be rolled or folded small enough to fit easily into a pocket.
Recycle your plastic bags. If you do end up using plastic bags now and then, be sure to recycle them. Many grocery stores now collect plastic bags for recycling. If yours doesn't, check with your community recycling program to learn how to recycle plastic bags in your area.

It's really easy to do this, obviously. And I'm guilty of it as well. But according to the guy who wrote that post, Americans throw away 100 billion plastic bags a year. 100 billion! Imagine how much good we could do if we just cut that in half - and how easy it would be to do it.

The Mormons' "Perfect Storm"

2008-12-02T13:10:00.002-05:00

A respected historian says that, since the passage of Proposition 8, the Mormon Church is facing a PR nightmare, the likes of which it has never seen before.

Remember that the LDS Church poured millions of dollars into an effort to help pass Prop 8.

(Hat tip: Sheldon Rampton)

Spirit Award Nominees Announced

2008-12-02T12:41:00.003-05:00

View the list here. I guess Slumdog Millionaire wasn't eligible for nomination, because it didn't get nominated for anything.

I'm puzzled by the fact that the Spirit Awards announced their nominees today, December 2nd, when the awards aren't held until February 21st (the day before the Oscars), almost three months from now. The Oscars, by comparison, announce their nominees on January 22nd.

Mel Martinez Not Running In 2010

2008-12-02T12:19:00.004-05:00

The Republican junior senator from Florida, still in his first term, will return to the private sector. Martinez was briefly chair of the RNC and was one of those ho-hum Republican candidates swept into power by the 9/11 Republican wave of 2002-2004 (think John Sununu, Liddy Dole et. al.).

Florida has a moderate Republican governor who may or may not be gay, a Democratic U.S. senator and just voted Democratic for president for the first time since 2000... er, 1996.

Martinez's exit will set up a big battle for the heart and soul of Florida for the next half-decade or decade or so. The Democrats are going to go after this seat hard, and for good reason:

Martinez was one of the most vulnerable senators up for reelection in 2010, with multiple polls showing him with approval ratings well under 50 percent and with weak reelect numbers.

A November Quinnipiac poll showed a 38 percent plurality of Florida voters believe Martinez doesn’t deserve another term, while only 36 percent believe he should be reelected. Against an unnamed Democratic opponent, Martinez trails by 4 points, 40 percent to 36 percent.

It's two years away, so no need to get one's hopes up. But based off the success at the presidential level in 2008, Florida Democrats should be feeling pretty confident about their chances, especially now that Martinez is gone.

He Said He'd Do It All Along

2008-12-02T09:53:00.003-05:00

I know that I've had some periodic queasiness over the non-liberalness of Obama's appointees thus far, and others in the blogosphere have as well. It's important to keep in mind, though, that the divergence in policy and world views between Obama and his more hawkish Cabinet is not a broken promise of some kind, and should not come as a surprise:

Some liberals might have cringed yesterday seeing Obama unveil a national security team consisting of Hillary Clinton (who voted in favor of the Iraq war), Bob Gates (Bush's current Defense secretary), and Jim Jones (who is close to McCain). The truth is, however, that the president-elect is simply following through on a promise about changing the tone and creating a bipartisan atmosphere in Washington. Yes, Obama opposed the war in Iraq and probably owed his victory in the Iowa caucuses to that fact. But outside Iraq, he never pandered to the left as much as they thought he did; the left simply heard what they wanted in Obama. Some examples that come to mind: his reversal on FISA, his support for merit pay for teachers, and his championing of faith-based services.

If you look at Obama's appointees, coupled with the Lieberman situation, it does seem like he is thus far following through on his promise to be bipartisan president for all, and someone who just leaves the old Washington bullshit at the door ("No Drama Obama"). That's music to my ears after eight years of Bush, Cheney and Rove, who played politics with everything - including our soldiers' lives.

Senator Bill Clinton?

2008-12-01T23:40:00.003-05:00

OMG:

In an op-ed column last week in The Washington Post, journalists Karl Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac urged Paterson to "send Bill Clinton to the Senate."
If that happened, Clinton would become the third former president to go from the White House to Capitol Hill.
President John Quincy Adams lost his re-election bid in 1828. Two years later he returned to Washington after winning election as a congressman from his home state of Massachusetts. He served in the House of Representatives until his death in 1848.
President Andrew Johnson also served as a Senator from Tennessee in 1875, 7 years after the Senate acquitted him of impeachment charges. He died a few months after taking office.

Adams actually became a very effective congressman after leaving the presidency, and he supposedly loved that job much more than his one term as chief executive. Johnson - well, like it says, Johnson died like two seconds after returning to the Senate.

How would Bill Clinton do?

There's a part of me that actually really wants to see this happen, and it actually makes sense for the Obama administration on a few levels: the biggest impediment to Hillary Clinton's nomination, and theoretical confirmation, as secretary of state, has been the (shady) international work of her husband since leaving the White House. Bill has been involved in a number of... entanglements... overseas, and had to undergo a ridiculously thorough, and probably invasive, vetting process in order for Hillary to be cleared for takeoff.

What better place to keep him out of trouble than to stick him - way down in seniority - in the United States Senate?

Think about it: the way it stands right now, Bill has a bunch of restrictions on him regarding his work with the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative, so much so that he won't really be able to continue his work abroad as long as Hillary is heading the State Department. I don't know about you, but the thought of Bill Clinton just sitting around looking for something to do kinda freaks me out. He's liable to do something - dare I say - Clinton-like under those circumstances.

But if you put him in the Senate, give him a new challenge he's bound to excel at, put him on a committee or two working in concert with the Obama administration on a big issue of the day - say, health care or economic stimulus or something like that - and he could not only excel, but he'd be able to avoid the kind of entanglements that would get him into trouble with the White House. He's much less jeopardizing to his wife's new job if he is one out of 58 (or 59, or 60...aahhhh!) Democratic senators who will, by and large, be working with President Obama & Co. on pulling the country out of its mess.

I don't expect it to happen, and I don't really know if it should, but it sounds so crazy that it just might work.

Oh, By The Way...

2008-12-01T23:09:00.003-05:00

...we're officially in a recession, in case you hadn't noticed.

So on December 1, 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that we have been in a recession since December 2007:

The announcement means that the downturn is already one year old. That is longer than the average length of 10.5 months for recessions since World War II. The current record for the longest recession over the last half-century is 16 months, which was reached in both the downturns of 1973-74 and 1980-81.

So we're already in worse shape than we've been in at least 35 years, and there's no end in sight, either.

Incidentally, I didn't even know that we had a National Bureau of Economic Research, but as long as we do, how about they research these things as well:

Why does the bailout money seem to not be having any effect?
Why are the credit markets still frozen?
Is a multi-trillion dollar stimulus package (like the one Obama is proposing) really going to help us get out of this rut?
Should we let Detroit go bankrupt?
When is this going to end?

The scary thing is that I feel like I hear these questions all the time on the news - but I never hear any answers. Now, a lot of the questions asked on the news are very dumb questions indeed, but still - with all the back-and-forth incessant parroting of the mainstream media, you'd think that by this point someone somewhere would have somehow come up with some kind of sensible plan to get us out of this mess.

I'm an economics newbie, if not an economics know-nothing (which is probably closer to the truth), yet even I can tell that it seems like for this mess, there are no quick fixes or easy answers.

Oscar season is arriving just in time, my friends.