Chief of Staff: Emmanuel

Well, according to the Times, Obama has tapped Rahm Emmanuel to be his chief of staff (which I talked about here). As many have noticed, for example the Times only a few days ago, the 2008 election seems to be a weird fiction-nonfiction mirror of the last season of the West Wing. There's a *lot* in common (and a lot not), and this is just one more. The character of Josh Lyman - who becomes the Chief of Staff for the first non-White president (who was based on Barack Obama) was supposedly based on Rahm Emmanuel.

But, in a non-West Wing analysis, if Rahm accepts the job then it should put to rest some of the anti-Obama grumbling in the Jewish community. Rahm is an Israeli-American (his father, who the Wiki says was a member of the Irgun; cool), a member of an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, and extremely pro-Israel (the wiki says he volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf War).

To sum up: Obama has asked, and will likely have, a very pro-Israel, Israeli-American (secular) orthodox Jew run his administration.

Update: See this 2005 Rolling Stone story about Emmanuel and the legends surrounding his intensity.

Wes Clark for VP?

There was much blog-praise for this article by Matt Stoller on Open Left entitled and arguing for The Unifying Choice: Wes Clark for VP.

SPOILER ALERT
It's a good article but not as good as this one by Lawrence O’Donnell from NY Magazine; O’Donnell was a West Wing writer and he describes, in West Wing theatrical fashion, what could have happened in the convention were neither candidate were to have reached the necessary number of delegates. It's a great great read and thank God it won't come to pass.
/SPOILER ALERT

Stoller's point has been made by others, and I could be resisting the allure of Clark because a colleague of mine - whom I think is wrong on everything - was advocating Clark while I was advocating Daschle. I just don't want to be wrong to that guy.

Anyway, the reason why I he thinks Clark is necessary is (a) Clark is a full-bore Clintonite and it would heal the wounds of the primary, (b) Clark is a talented and successful wartime general and brings that foreign policy/military credibility to the ticket, (c) Clark has run for president and has that experience.

Ironically I reject Clark for those reasons and a few more: (a) any connection to the Clintons should be seen as poison right now. The only way the Clintons will be mollified is if Obama were killed by a scandal (or, who knows, a bullet). Even having her as VP won't calm them down (and, as someone wrote, if he does pick her as VP he also better hire a food-taster).

(b) Obama actually has all the foreign policy credibility he desires right now - he opposed the Iraq War, McCain loves that war, and the Americans hate the war. All Obama needs for credibility is to have surrogates (Webb, Nunn etc) do the military talking to rebut McCain. Moreover, as many have pointed out, to admit you need a military man on the ticket is to admit you aren't military enough. Look at Bill Clinton in '92 - he had far less foreign policy experience than Obama (he was a governor of a land-locked state and a draft-dodger) and he picked a virtual clone as his VP (who, admittedly, had been in the Senate for 8 years).

(c) Clark's presidential run was a joke. And he has never won an election! OK, he won the 2004 Oklahoma primary, whatever. Stoller argues that since '04, Clark has a highly requested speaker: "In 2006, Jon Soltz of Votevets tells me, Clark was the single most requested surrogate in the country, with the possible exceptions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton." Whatever. While I think he is an impressive person (four star general, Rhodes scholar, military Democrat) I don't think he's been nearly tested enough in politics. Make him Secretary of Defense, or NSA, let him be a politician for a while.

I still back the idea of Sebelius.

Police Squad is Finally on DVD

Oh Happy Day!

I have been waiting a long time (since 1999, when I first bought a DVD) - but the best TV series ever is finally going to be available for purchase and coveting. And I can stand by the "best ever" - there were only 6 episodes and the quality of each was near 100%. Even the next best TV shows, "The Simpsons" and "The West Wing," can't match that (Simpsons because there's been 17 years of them and The West Wing tanked after the 4th Season).

Jerry Orbach, Star of 'Law & Order,' Dies

Jerry Orbach, Star of 'Law & Order,' Dies - he was really the only thing I liked about the newer episodes.

As I've said before, my wife got me into watching the shows which were good but in my mind not great. A good show is one that is intelligence-respecting, well-written, and entertaining. A great show is a must watch. Examples of Good shows, for me, are "Seinfeld," "The Shield," and "Cheers."

Great shows are "The West Wing," "the Sopranos," "Arrested Development," and the heliege "Simpsons."

But "Law and Order" was decent and I liked Orbach very much - it was nice seeing a plausible Jewish cop on TV.

Backpost finished 2/15/05

Television

Not too long ago, we reinstated our cable. My wife has an addiction to "Law and Order" and that was a hunger that must be filled. For months, I filled my eyeball-media need with Netflix - renting DVDs of TV shows, including the first season of L&O. I used Netflix to experiment with TV shows that I had heard about and wanted to try. I was actually bored by "24" - I felt the whole thing was a badly written gimmick. It was crisis for crisis' sake and the characters weren't sympathetic for me to care if they lived or died.

But I was converted bodily into a fanatic for The West Wing. Man, that's a good show. I have no idea what it's like now, in its Nth season, but the first season is masterful. They're showing the second season on Bravo (which means I need to stay up til 11 to watch it... TiVo is looking more attractive now than ever).

What I find interesting about the show is that it is a Clintonian president in a Bush Jr. world. I have this weird thought that "The West Wing" is probably George W's favorite show. Just that Cheney, or another one of Bushie's handlers, dubs the show with different dialogue. Sometimes they just add the word "not" (e.g. "... Mr. President we do NOT need to have a coherent plan for the future..."), but other times they need to just redo dialogue completely.

The West Wing conceives of the president as an extraordinary person. A Jefferson model. People of achievement. True, The West Wing is made by entertainment type people who are high most of the time; why do we need a president who is a Nobel Prize winner (in Economics, yet; like that has any practical value)?

The show reminds me of the classic Saturday Night Live sketch with Phil Hartman zt'l playing a President Reagan who was a massive dimbulb to the public and a policy whiz in private, secretly in control of the government while publicly in control of nothing save his hair. It was hilarious because it was a perfect send-up of the Republican model of president (e.g. incompetent moron with either a good resume or good appearance... if you don't believe me, explain Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush). When Clinton took over he actually became the policy wonk that we wanted (note: Nixon was supposed to know what he was doing, too, but he was demon spawn).

Bush Jr. is a travesty. The West Wing, while fantasy, does carry the Democrat's idea of president which is an extension of their idea of a government that has value because it puts good ideas into practice. Democratic presidents and candidates have either been brilliant non-leaders or highly talented professionals (e.g. Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore). You wouldn't want these guys to run the country, but you'd like to have them as thesis advisors.