The Sad Tale of Wilentz

In the last post I described the core constituency of Hillary as basically women, old people, dumb people and racists. So where do Professor Sean Wilentz, and his fuzzy alter-ego Paul Krugman, fit in? Both are not women, dumb, or racist. Why do they hate Obama, and like Hillary, so much.

Part of the answer comes from analyzing their screeds. For Wilentz (who, I should add, was my professor in college and knows me personally, even if won't remember my name correctly), see this piece of guano in the New Republic:
"Making the Case... for Hillary Clinton" and for Krugman, just read any column over the past 4 months.

What both have in common is the small group of the Democratic elite who support Hillary:

1. Baby-boomers (who are the "old" category of the previous post)
   
2. and/or fierce liberals who hate the GOP so much that they want to keep fighting the fractious red-blue wars of the 90s (and the 60s, go figure).
   
3. and/or pundits who endorsed Hillary too early - before Obama showed himself the real deal - and are now trapped in either cognitive dissonance or, worse, Pundits Dissonance (the malady that afflicts moron commentators, disallowing them from admitting error).

Wilentz and Krugman are in all three of these groups.

Baby-Boomers Against the Youngin': These hypocrites were inspired by JFK as teenagers, flocked to an inexperienced hillbilly when he was in their age group, but now that the candidate is younger than they are - like the narcissitic nihilists they have been since the banana-peel smoking 60s - they can't handle it. Punk bastards. I'll be glad when they are shoved aside, because the next president will either be the anti-baby boomer Obama (say that 5 times fast) or the stodgy crew-cutted square that the hippie boomers rejected back in the day (McCain).

Liberal Fighters: Nothing quite so sad as a victim turned bully. Especially when they don't know how to bully well. Wilentz and Krugman don't want the culture war to end. They hate Bush and the GOP so much - for what happened to Bill and Hill in the 90s and for what Bush has done since then - and heck, maybe allaway back to Nixon - that they want to keep the fight going. The logic - and Wilentz/Krugman say this explicitly - is that the GOP needs crushing and Obama is a weenie and Hillary is a fighter.

Let's take this apart, because all three premises are wrong. First, we see what a great fighter Hillary has been (even when this was first proposed, back in 1-15, and its crystal clear now): she's awful. A shrill maladriot. She can't convince a drowning man to drink and she can't beat Obama - a political newcomer with a funny name, handicapped skin, and who refuses to fight back! Hillary is as good a fighter as Kerry/Dukakis/Gore. That is, she sucks.

But the real false premise combines the misdiagnosis of Obama and the nature of our battle with the GOP. Assume for a moment that the GOP needs to be punished for the horrific misdeeds of the past 15 years (the Clinton-Bush terms). What's the best way to do that? There's the shrill victim way - that of Hillary/Wilentz/Krugman - which is just fantasy. The victim getting the upper hand on the bully... doesn't happen in the schoolyard, and it certainly doesn't happen in the boardroom. Power is power and doesn't switch hands unless the bully is in a coma.

Which brings us to the weenie charge. Only true weenies - like Hillary/Krugman/Wilentz, and their mentors in weenie-dom: George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, Rush Limbaugh - think that direct conflict is the way to win a war. Obama's skill is that of great politicians (think FDR or LBJ): diplomacy. To quote LBJ: "Remember the prophet Isaiah: Come let us reason together. Telling a man to go to hell and making him go there are two different things." A diplomat will defeat a bully unless he's outnumberd 5:1.

Obama has the true political skill that converts enemies into allies and to get his agenda - which is delightfully left-wing - passed. Bullies and other weaklings want wars because they like the glory of battle (specifcally the glory of winning). Obama, following the principles of Master Sun Tzu, will win. And if Wilentz/Krugman were real culture warriors they would flock to Obama because of that. But they're blinded, or bullies, and can't escape their prisons of thought.

Pundit Dissonance - Just as Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge became towering figures because they were the populist opposition to Pres. Clinton, so academics like Wilentz and Krugman were the necessary opposition to Bush. Especially when the mainstream press rolled over and played dead during these years, these pundits were must-reads, providing information and courage during the dark times. These smart guys became talking-heads, and they lost their academic skills and fell into a papist 'just so' trap, where they considered that their words were incontrovertable truth (note: this is also known as the Charedi Rosh Yeshiva With Only a High School Education trap).

But times have changed since Krugman had been elevated into infallibility. From 2000-2006 his indispensibility was valid and unquestioned. But then came the realigning midterms of 2006, the explosion of trusted blogger journalism, and Youtube. The Democrats now have the GOP in a fair(ish) fight, the news and reality are getting out there. Krugman is not indispensible, and he seems to have let the revolution pass him by.

One proof of Wilentz/Krugman's failure is to assume that Hillary is experienced, and/or liberal, and/or a fighter, or whatever new guano comes out of her self-inflicted wounded bunker. Her claims are demonstrably false. Any intelligent person can see that. Wilentz/Krugman won't. They are infallible! They cannot be wrong. It is we mush-headed youngsters who are being snowed over by a talented black man! Whatever.

The mystery fourth category

Even were my above analysis to be wrong (and it isn't because I am now a pundit), I have discovered, through this painful primary, a mystery fourth category that Wilentz/Krugman - and many other wrinkly Democrats who support Hillary - are in: they are McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry Democrats (MMDKD). I'll explain that later.

Backpost: 1/15/08, 1:48 PM. All I had was the link. I'm adding the context and commentary now. Pic from here of Wilentz in 1994, 2 years after I had him in class.

Backpost Cleanup

I have an enormous amount of drafted blog material. I'm going to try to spend some time roto-rootering this atherosclerotic blog, so there's going to be some irrelevancies coming your way.

25 Years: Never Say Never Again

Just a quick post with some love for the heilige Never Say Never Again.

The most recent bond, Casino Royale, was actually as good as I had hoped. We now have an adequate 'beginning' for Bond, the way the book should have been adapted. During the hiatus after the execrable Die Another Day, I had hoped that if they did scrap Brosnon (who was the third best Bond, after Connery and Connery - so good he gets the top two slots) that they should re-start the franchise.

And now that we have the well-crafted Bond beginning, can we finally take Never Say Never Again out of the Apocrypha and put it in the official canon? There the reasons of quality (it's based on the best plot of all Bonds, Thunderball, and is actually much better than the original movie - better villain, technology, women, etc), the reasons of overwhelming sentimentality (it's Connery for goodness sakes) but mainly because it's 'unofficial' nature becomes feature, not a bug.

Because while Casino Royale is the - out of sequence - beginning of Bond. Showing how our hero comes into being and hardens into the ruthless lothario we know... Never Say Never Again shows how Bond will retire. And it's wonderful: living in Ian Fleming's Jamaica, with a young Kim Basinger.

Enjoy the (lo-res) intro:

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-11-30. This was totally finished, by the way, but I've fixed a broken link.

'Do the Right Thing' Anniversary

I'm not a fan of Spike Lee, the director. He's a loud, angry bigot. Yes, he's quite talented but that means I put him in the same category as Oliver Stone - their clear talent just makes it easier to effectively transmit their myopic anger. It's odd how a movie-director, whose expertise is in image and spectacle can see the world in such simplistic and monochromatic (in Spike's case literally) terms. When I see one of their films, I feel that I'm being lectured by a loud and stupid co-worker. Thankfully, I can just turn the movie off (not so with work), and therein could be a joy I should find with them: I'll rent their movies just so I can turn them off, achieving a grace that the rest of life denies me.

Note, Lee & Stone's talent is manifest; unlike other screed-screamers (e.g. Michael Moore), their movies need to be taken seriously by movie-buffs. And since I am a self-declared cinefile and I felt it necessary to at least see one Lee film. I had already subjected myself to Stone's Platoon - which was quite good if not simplistic - and Wall Street, whose misapplication by Reaganite greedheads shows Stone's unskilled didacticism, and I was turned off him utterly when I saw a few minutes of Natural Born Killers, an experience I revisit whenever I want to make myself nauseous. Since then, no Stone and I'm a happier and smarter man for it.

Everyone acknowledges that Do the Right Thing is Lee's best film, so while I may have seen it when it came out, I saw it again back in the late 90s. And it's terrible. Seriously bad. The characters are caricatures as imagined through Manichean blinders, the "messages" are telegraphed and dangerous, the portrayal of women sexist, and it's knowledge of human behavior flawed. It's a well-made, yet stupid, movie.

But that's my opinion - and I need to recognize that many people think it's Teh Awesome. It has a 98% ranking at Rotten Tomatoes and for African Americans of my age cohort, the movie said very important things. I acknowledge the movie's power, it's ability to speak to people who are different from me. 1989 was a weird time - we were 9 years in Reagan hell with no end in sight, Apartheid was still the law of South Africa, crack and AIDS were wreaking havoc, and - as stated clearly in the movie - incidents like the Howard Beach 'lynching' was in the minds of the black community.

Yet Lee seemed to just become the cinematic arm of Al Sharpton - and the late 80s was filled with Sharpton's most wicked acts (e.g. Tawana Brawley was 1987). And while it's conventional wisdom that there were false accusations by those 'white people' who claimed that Do the Right Thing would result in riots, just because the movie theatres didn't erupt, is it wrong to connect the call to arms in the movie with the 1991 Crown Heights pogrom or the Rodney King riots in 1992?

Yeah, I know. As a sociologist-in-training how can I claim that a movie that premiered in 1989 lead to riots 2 and 3 years later? Well, uh, if a movie is beloved + advocates, in some measure, violence by young black men as a vehicle for reacting to oppression + young black men react to perceived oppression by rioting soon after = a serious possibility of linked behavior.

Note, I dislike the movie as a piece of art without getting into the real-world misery it may have caused. But I would like to believe that comic book morality can be exposed for what it is and recognized.

All that said, there was a recent interview in New York Magazine with Lee on the 20th anniversary of his movie. And despite all I wrote above, I sympathize with his sentiment here: Q&A With Spike Lee on Making 'Do the Right Thing' -- New York Magazine:

[NY Mag] Do the Right Thing never won an Oscar.

[Spike Lee] Remember what Kim Basinger did? Onstage she said, "The best film of the year is not even nominated, and it’s Do the Right Thing." I didn’t even know her. But when Driving Miss Mother[---]king Daisy won Best Picture, that hurt … No one’s talking about Driving Miss Daisy now."

He's right and not only in this one occasion.

I've written elsewhere about how the Oscar "Best Picture" is often a flash-in-the-sky weepy which moves the maudlin high-school dropouts who populate the 'academy.' Do the Right Thing is no Taxi Driver or Raging Bull, but it was sick irony that a movie about Southern race hierarchy (DMD) beat Lee's movie about race rebellion (and it doesn't help that DMD's nice white people are Jews, that must hurt).

Yet, just to say, Glory was better than both.

And of the big movies of that year, I still watch/own The Abyss, Batman, Hard to Kill, Major League, Say Anything..., Tango & Cash, Uncle Buck, and When Harry Met Sally... This is just to say that popular, effective, films don't often win awards.

First pic of the movie cover, found everywhere. Second pic of the pogrom, found here, third pic from the Wiki. Backpost finished 2009-11-30.

The W Bush Effect

A study, back from 2000, reported by the SF Chronicle about what we have now come to know as the dreaded "W Bush Effect":

Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find: "There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning is haunted by the fear that he might be one of them. Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because, according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent. On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dunning has found in studies conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well."

Too bad that this study wasn't more widely disseminated in 2000. Now we know (or, actually, most people still don't and never will).

h/t McArdle

Bruce Lee Films

By gender and age, I've been genetically and culturally determined to like Bruce Lee movies. Can't help it - genes and breeding make me want to see talented beat-downs with absurd sound-effects.

Sadly, Lee died after making 1 American movie, the iconic "Enter the Dragon" (which is must seeing for anybody who wants to understand Kung Fu references afterward; it's the martial arts cognate to Planet of the Apes). If you don't understand why a movie/story hero needs to go to a distant island to compete in a tournament in front of a disfigured mastermind (e.g. Mortal Kombat, or The Quest (1996), or Balls of Fury, or this awesome Onion article, and many others [has someone made a list?]) see the movie. Also it allows you to understand spoof that makes the majority of Kentucky Fried Movie.

OK, all that said, I've been searching Netflix for other Bruce Lee films. Sadly, it appears that any non-American movie he made doesn't match the quality of EtD. I rented Fists of Fury (note, there's a whole weirdness about Chinese titles - which were largely interchangeable - and how they were translated, as it is with this film, but whatever) and it's pretty bad.

How bad? Well see this listed "goof" on the IMDB page. I'm not making this goof up, and it's probably the best goof I've ever read: Tang shan da xiong (1971) - Goofs:

Revealing mistakes: When the guard dogs leap at Cheng, they are obviously thrown.

'Obviously thrown'? Oy.

Backpost finished 2009-11-30.

Mmmmm, Sacreligious

This version of the 10 plagues - peeps for passover - would be perfect for my Haggadah. I must ask the wacko who put it together for the rights.

h/t McArdle

He Was Still Alive?! (Arthur C. Clarke)

Arthur C. Clarke, Premier Science Fiction Writer, Dies at 90...

2001 was great. Turns out it was mainly Kubrick. But I heard a speech from Clarke (on the 2001 DVD) and one line has stayed with me. I'm paraphrasing, but basically he asks what would happen if, in 1850, we had been given an image of the future, a jet airplane. To just know that the jet was possible would greatly clarify our thinking and enable a giant leap in technology and science. This is what he claimed would happen if we encountered alien intelligence (and what's the basis of the book/movie).

Note, this is the (unwritten?) basis for the great, underrated, Galaxy Quest.

Pic from here.

Andrew W. K. about the McLaughlin Group

This is why the Internet was created. This is a video from Slate explaining how weird the McLaughlin Group is and - using Internet cartoon magic - debuts a song by Andrew "Party Hard" W.K. about said group.



Note, my family used to watch the McL group every week starting from the early 80s. Even back then I thought McLaughlin was insane. Years later, I discovered that McL was Nixon's personal minister (or something like that). Freak.

(h/t Yglesias)

My New Favorite Dummies Book

As I wrote before, the 'Dummies' books, while useful, are unnecessarily insulting. Why penalize curiosity by calling the reader stupid? And, in many cases, the title combinations are even more cruel than necessary (see below for the previous winner: "Depression for Dummies.")

However, some combinations can be funny, like this year's top choice:
Athletic Scholarships For Dummies

Update: some runners up:
1. Raising Smart Kids for Dummies (points for illogic)

2. Alzheimer's for Dummies (points for cruelty)

3. Living Longer for Dummies (points for its defiance of social engineering)

4. Job Hunting for Dummies (points for imaginative scenario: 'yes, I'd like a starting level position in being a dummy')

5. US Citizenship for Dummies (points for political relevance)

Stand by Yourself

This op-ed by Dina Matos McGreevy, ex-wife of NJ Gov. McGreevy, about the recent Spitzer scandal, "Stand by Yourself" highlights a key fact about (you guessed it) Hillary Clinton.

Her claim of 'executive experience,' is subject to McGreevy's inadvertent catch-22: because if Hillary (claims) not to have known about Monica (and all the rest) so too, how can she call herself a full partner in the governance?

Pic from here. Backpost finished on 2009-11-29.

Onion of the Day

Arranged Marriage Reality Series In Production

CBS has picked up a reality show with the working title Arranged Marriage, a program in which contestants’ spouses are selected by friends and family, and the married couples’ lives are then filmed. What do you think?

James Varana,
Service Associate
"That's disgusting. They are ruining the sanctity of reality TV shows."

Susan Feeny,
Claims Adjuster
"They're ripping off that Indian show Marriage Based On Mutual Love And Respect. "

Eric McElhaney,
Legal Assistant
"I don't get Hollywood. What's the difference between this show and my idea to push people out of planes?"

Backpost finished 2009-12-03. PS - our guy wins.

60 seats in the Senate? (And Response)

This is in response to the idea that Obama may get 60 Democrats in the Senate, an email I sent to Mark Kleiman of the RBC. I've redacted for publication. My argument is that it may not be necessary:

To be honest, all we (Democrats) need are 52 seats. At least according to my theory... Ya see, the reason why 60 is necessary is because of the most recent set of Senate rules that require that arbitrary number to end a filibuster. As we learned back in 2004-2006, the GOP was threatening us with a "nuclear option" that would have removed the filibuster entirely (or at least that's what the Wiki tells me).

Now that we won back the Senate, why don't we just enact the nuclear option? Especially when the rate of filibustering has gone through the roof and the bills being squashed are matters of life and death? Here's where my theory comes in: Senator Lieberman.

Lieberman was on the "gang of 14." And he's the only reason why the Senate is in the Democrats' hands right now. My theory is that if Reid tries to implement the nuclear option, then Lieberman will leave the Democratic caucus and throw the Senate into balance (making Cheney the head) or even start caucusing with the GOP! And because of that 51-49 balance, the 60 supermajority is still needed.

If my theory is correct, then all it would take *right now* to end the filibuster impasses would be for one more defection to the Democrats (Collins? Warner?) But if that doesn't happen, then even without getting 60, as long as we have 52, Reid can use the nuclear option.

Kleiman's Response:

I thought, and think, that the "nuclear option" involves flat-out cheating. I wouldn't want to see the Democrats use it.

Me:

Not even to stop torture? Congress has been squashed by the executive for a long time, a few 'nuclear strikes' by the Senate - just to roll back some of the major excesses - may be in order.

Kleiman:

If the Dems have that much backbone, there's other stuff to do that's fully legal.

Anyway, I expect the executive to change hands. The question is how much legislation we can pass.

Backpost finished 4/11/08, updated 2009-12-15.

Fallows: Clinton, Obama, and the OODA loop

James Fallows, an Atlantic blogger, is one of the reasons why I subscribed to the dead-tree magazine. While very young, he was a speechwriter for HGM Carter - but I don't hold that against him. He's currently in China and has been many other places in his reportery career. He's also, and I say this with actual respect, very goyish (which means that he has many friends in the military and the business world, has traveled all over and is a pilot - many things that I can't/don't have/do because of my non-goyishness). He knows a lot about politics and speeches, so his political analysis in the primary is instructive. I just wish he could post more often.

If you've heard anything about the OODA Loop, it's because of Fallows. Read this excellent take on the current battle between Obama and Hillary (it's brilliant because, as usual, he's saying things that I've been saying. I admit that, so sue me): More on Clinton, Obama, and the OODA loop, James Fallows (March 05, 2008), with this especially important bellow:

In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama's anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)

I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of "experience," knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience.* But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special. (Also, I think she means 2004 for the speech.) If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can't think of it now.

The conclusion of Spinney's (and Gerson's) analysis was that Obama had put Hillary Clinton into a position where in order to win, she had to damage not just him but the party. That is why, as everyone is saying, the big victor today is John McCain, and not just in the obvious way.

Fallows asks implicitly what I will say explicitly: will Hillary come to her senses, and even if she does, has she gone too far to be accepted by the party again?

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-11-29.

Gary Gygax, 1938-2008

Gary Gygax died today. Very sad. He's second to Tolkien, I'd say, in his impact on the fantasy genre, and a very important figure in the world of entertainment. And I didn't see anything (yet) on the Times...

Pic from here.

Oscar Predictions 2008

Yeah, I haven't written almost anything in weeks and I'm breaking silence to do the Oscars? Yup. That's tradition.

Standard disclaimer: I know even less than nothing about these movies. I've been much more interested in politics (more than usual). I'll include the nominees and put an asterisk by my pick.

Best Motion Picture of the Year
Atonement (2007):
Juno (2007):
Michael Clayton (2007):
* No Country for Old Men (2007):
There Will Be Blood (2007):

To be honest, I was first going for There will be blood, because it's about oil, yet mentions blood, and that's a Hollywood shibboleth. But everyone else is predicting it's "no country." Maybe insted of Iraq politics (blood) it's US politics (Obama vs. McCain)

Best Actor
George Clooney for Michael Clayton
* Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd
Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises

Even though it's supposed to lose Best Picture to No Country, Daniel Day is supposed to be the finest performance this year. Then again, despite not being nominated for 'No Country,' Tommy Lee Jones is nominated for another forgettable film, so shouldn't they do a two-fer? Also, while he won Best Supporting for the Fugitive, he's never won Best Actor... and Day has. And the Academy may think that Day has more in him while Jones not. Eh.

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth: The Golden Age
* Julie Christie for Away from Her
Marion Cotillard for Môme, La
Laura Linney for The Savages
Ellen Page for Juno

It's supposed to be between Christie and Cotillard. I have no idea who the frog is, but people are saying it will be her. Yet why bet on a foreigner when there's a well-liked American (Christie) who also won back in 1966. I think sentiment will win out.

Best Supporting Actor
Casey Affleck - for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
* Javier Bardem - for No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - for Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook - for Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson - for Michael Clayton

Bardem is supposed to be the best thing about the movie I've been told is gonna be best picture. So there.

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett - for I'm Not There.
Ruby Dee - for American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan - for Atonement
Amy Ryan - for Gone Baby Gone
* Tilda Swinton - for Michael Clayton

Maybe Blanchett because the double nom shows she's prized by her peers and this may be a weak category. Yet she's won for supporting already, and she's young. Ah, but what about Swank? Yeah, but she was in the best picture that year and Blanchett ain't. Ruby Dee's never even been nominated before... but she does have a Cable ACE! I think it's Swinton because Clayton is an actor driven movie and it just seems like a catchall category that the voters will support the movie more than the actress.

Best Director:
Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood
* Ethan Coen, Joel Coen for No Country for Old Men
Tony Gilroy for Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman for Juno
Julian Schnabel for Scaphandre et le papillon, Le

I've heard the Schnabel film really showcased his talent as a director. But when has that ever been important? "Juno" is the quirky film that gets awarded for its script. Same with Clayton, if possible. So it comes between the two best picture favorites. But also, Anderson is young and has a lot more in him (but he's been doing great stuff, cf. Magnolia). Anyway, the Coens are gods among directors and they've only won once - for Fargo (which wasn't all that great). No Country is supposed to be the same genre but one better than Fargo.

Best Original Screenplay:
* Juno: Diablo Cody
Lars and the Real Girl: Nancy Oliver
Michael Clayton: Tony Gilroy
Ratatouille: Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco
The Savages: Tamara Jenkins

Juno. And that's despite/because the writer being a former stripper. Then again it could be Clayton for that reason too.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Atonement: Christopher Hampton
Away from Her: Sarah Polley
Scaphandre et le papillon, Le: Ronald Harwood
No Country for Old Men: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
* There Will Be Blood: Paul Thomas Anderson

Tough category. Because the standard ageing merlot-drinking Academy voter may want to spread the wealth on the awards, and give Anderson the adapted to offset losing picture/director. Because for a young guy, all three were pretty spectacular achievements. Again, they may have liked 'No Country' well enough to give the Coens the full monty. Or the directoral achivement of Scaphandre may not be enough for the biggies but will be recognized it what seems to be the category to reward the 'edgy' stuff. Orr says the Coens. I think it'll be Anderson as a consolation.

Honorable Mention: An Israeli film is one of the Best Foreign nominees (Beaufort). The director is evidently frum. Here's to hoping.

The Demise of Red/Blue States

The Clinton campaign has tried to explain that their steady stream of losses don't count because only blue states count. Or something.

Anyway, according to the Wiki, these states came within 5% of flipping to the other side (the chart has state, who won, by what percent):

1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
   
2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
   
3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
   
4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
   
5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
   
6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
   
7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
   
8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
   
9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
   
10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
    
11. Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

The poll numbers out now are pretty spotty, but I'd say that in any of these states, if the number of people who came out to the primaries for the Democrats is larger by the necessary vote percentage over the GOP, then these states can be won by the Democrats in 2008.

Of these 11 states, 3 haven't voted yet (OH, MI, PA). Of the remaining 8, a bunch are caucuses, which still give numbers of attendees. Now this is for the real number crunchers, but there's probably a small number of votes that will magically transform red to blue.

As you can see from the accompanying pic (click to enlarge) big chunks of the country are 'purple.' So anybody who tries to sell us on an irrevocable blue/red divide, can be tarred as a liar trying to sell you spam.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-11-29. Most of the text from back then. Since I did this, some others have tried to do the same analysis. Gratifyingly, I started it first.

Many Back Posts

I have about 2 dozen drafts of unpublished backposts in the (blog) hopper. I have been crazy busy over the past few weeks - including fending off a coup by a bunch of oompa-loompas - so I may try to update and up-post 'em.

Strangely enough, I have been talking to people almost every day about the election and I've been almost 100% right about things. Then again, the Oscars are coming up and I'm going to pooch those... so it evens out.

GOP Advantage

When it comes to the military, the GOP can get away with murder.

What I meant is put better in this letter I sent (February 15, 2008 1:11 PM) to the Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman, about how McCain gets a free-ride on his non-opposition to torture:

This issue reminds me of the paradigm-based immunities that separate the supporters of each party.

The Dems and GOP have a set narrative, a paradigm of rectitude, a set of orthodoxies, in the public eye. When a person in the party, or the party leadership, goes against that orthodoxy, the press and by extension the people, give the party the benefit of the doubt. The 'sin' is either ignored or pardoned.

My examples are 'national defense' for GOP and 'civil rights' for Democrats. A Democrat can get away with doing bad things to minorities. The same things, if done by Republican, would be considered abuse, are ignored if done by a Democrat. The examples for this are rife from the Clinton era, but a more recent example is Senator Biden's remarks a few months about Obama (calling him well-spoken, etc) Yeah, it's not 'macaca' but it'd be called racist if coming from Romney. The Clintons were allowed to slash welfare, enact NAFTA, and Don't Ask Don't Tell and are still given credit for being "liberal." While die-hard partisans on those issues will still blame the Clintons for abandoning core principles, that's not the press narrative.

Andrew Sullivan makes a big deal about DODT -- it's the main reason he gives for distrusting the Clintons and attacking the Human Rights Commission -- that the Clintons have a bad civil rights record for gays and yet the HRC supports Hillary.

Note, when the Clintons recently were staked out as being in the opposition to a civil rights icon (Obama - who will be in history books for the next century whether he wins the nomination or not), they lost their paradigm immunity. Minor comments were considered race-bating not only because they were but because it was assumed that they were. I.e. Hillary & Bill were being treated under the Republican 'civil rights' rules.

The Republicans have the same immunity when it comes to national security and the military. Even though any right thinking person recognizes that the GOP (president & congress) has left the country vulnerable to terrorist attack, electively stirred up a massive world-wide terrorist movement, and have nearly crippled the military - they are given a pass for all of that. Surely, if a Democratic congress/president did any of this they would be pilloried. But it's just assumed that the GOP is loyal to the military and will be tough on security. Even when they're not.

A proof for this is John Kerry's 'botched joke' back in '06. He was making a comment about Bush, but through bad delivery, it came out as a swipe against the military. And that's the interpretation the press swallowed (probably til this day). But I thought Kerry was a dedicated war hero who volunteered to go into Vietnam? No dice. He's a Democrat, he's against the military.

This goes with your comments about the public perception of a "liberal." That Obama is not considered a liberal by many Americans because Obama talks about religion (and patriotism) as if they were good things. Same paradigm issues.

This is why McCain gets a pass by the press for betraying the military and the constitution vis-a-vis Iraq and torture. Because McCain *can't* betray about torture. That's his paradigm. And, if Kuhn was right, it will take massive amounts of evidence to argue the contrary.

Backpost started 4/16/07 with just the bolded line and finished 4/11/08.

Obama's Methodology

This is Obama's own words on how he plans to use diplomacy to accomplish his liberal agenda (which I consider a good thing). This is from his senate website, but it was originally sent to the GOS (acronym for the Great Orange Satan, a.k.a. the DailyKos): "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party."

The venue is important, because - back in September 30, 2005 - Obama was kindly lecturing the frothing hordes at the DailyKos that Democrats will more advance the liberal agenda if they act with respect and wisdom than with bomb throwing.

To recap: it was Obama's first year in the Senate, the Democrats were still in the minority, and even in that environment Obama was telling the biggest rabble-rousers the same message he preaches today. So not only is he consistent, it should be remarked that the GOS is almost an entirely pro-Obama website now.

And that's another example of how good he is.

Backpost finished 4/8/08. Just the link.

Secret Service Code Names

Marc Ambinder (Atlantic's "expert" politics blogger) reports (on February 12, 2008) that McCain doesn't have secret service protection yet [note: yesterday, he agreed to it]. He didn't have it because he's super macho. And, evidently, stupid.

Anyway, Ambiner asks what McCain's nickname would be. To illustrate that, he lists the current & former nicknames: of this list of notables: "To the Secret Service (technically to the WHCA), President Bush is Trailblazer, Laura Bush is Tempo, HRC is Evergreen, Bill Clinton is Eagle, Dick Cheney is Angler, and Barack Obama is Renegade."

Renegade for BHO?! That's so cool. OK, two questions:

1. Marc's: what to call McCain.
   
2. My question: What would you like for yourself?

To answer #1 many commenters suggested 'maverick' (which makes sense both for his persona and for the movie Top Gun.) And I'd put money on that. If not that, maybe "Goldwater" or "Dole" after his two doomed predecessors.

For me? I'd suggest "Styx," "Rabbi" (which was also the nickname of one of the top-gun fliers, Lt. Ben Schneider), "Chumbucket", "Wideload", "Jabba", or "Rover."

Backpost finished 4-8-08. Had link and some commentary.

Yglesias about Russert: Sillyball

Nice article by the increasingly solid Yglesias about just how bad Tim Russert - and by extension the rest of the mainstream media - is: The Unbearable Inanity of Tim Russert (read the whole thing, but here's a great set o'quotes):

"If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press, where newsmakers go to be grilled by one of television news's most respected figures. If moments like the above exchange between Russert and Richardson seem unhelpful—even ridiculous—to you, rest assured that Washington thinks otherwise. ... Actually, the balls Russert favors may be hard, but the pitches he throws aren't curveballs, which go someplace useful. They're sillyballs, which go somewhere pointless. Russert has created a strike zone of his own where toughness meets irrelevance."

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-23.

The Rest of the GOP Race

Text of a letter I sent to TNR:

Good point that if McCain and Huckabee have more debates (without R. Paul) then it's basically free advertising.

Now that the GOP field has settled, it'll make it easier for Clinton/Obama to attack a specific enemy instead of each other. However, is there any way that McCain's candidacy helps Hillary? McCain has oodles more "experience," has better Commander in Chief cred, and will actively enjoy making her cry.

Considering she voted for the war (and hasn't recanted), McCain can take credit for the war's phantom successes and she can't attack him about the failures.

Backpost finished 2009-12-23.

Romney and the GWOT

The body of a letter I sent to TPM:

Reading the transcript of Romney's concession, I see that he's making the global war on terror the number one issue of his support for John McCain and his opposition of Barack and Hillary.

So, does that mean that Romney's kids are free to join the military? Their earlier excuse was that they were busy getting Mittens elected. Now, they have loads of free time and they need to stop the terr'rsts...

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-23.

Obama and Israel

Naturally there's those who declare that Obama is an enemy of Israel. I don't buy it. But there's a hubbub that's been causing trouble. As per Ben Smith at Politico.com the focus is on a guy, Robert Malley, who hates Israel and is listed as a foreign policy advisor. Here's the text of a post I made on the Spine (where Peretz also defends Obama of the charges):

About Obama and Malley: According to Ben Smith at Politico.com the Obama campaign doesn't entirely disavow Malley, nor is it clear whether Malley is part of the Middle East advisory team or not. Some reporters should look further into this.

It's likely that the Obama campaign picked up whatever leftovers from the Clinton administration it could and Malley came along for the ride based on reputation.

Until I hear something from Obama that sounds like it comes from Malley, I think it's OK to give BHO a pass on it. As rhubarbs says, Obama hasn't hugged any terrorist spouses (unlike Hillary). I'm surprised more people don't remember that.

Backpost finished 2009-12-23.

Obama's Super Tuesday Performance

2009 Update: Modified from an email to my brother; the names of congregants have been changed.

As I've been saying to everyone in earshot, don't listen to the Hillary spin - Obama actually 'won' Super Tuesday because he received the most delegates... and that's the score that matters. In baseball, for a simile, the winner is not who gets on base more, but who crosses home plate more. Obama crossed home more than Hillary.

Don't believe me, see this Politico piece:

"NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton. "

What do we know:Obama is still climbing in the polls, does not have Hillary's negatives, and does well in red states. Yet, you can say, Hillary has her great points too! She's got experience! She's slept with a former president (then again, so did Gennifer Flowers... a potential running mate). Hillary has health care experience! 15 years ago - with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress - she destroyed any chance to get health care!

And she's old. Which is what "experience" means.

This morning, my second favorite congregant [Mr. Chuckletrousers] was gloating at Hillary's win. Yeah, he supports Hillary. She has "experience." Anyway, he said to me (because he knows I hate Hillary) that it's a known fact that the presidents who came into office without experience were bad presidents. To which I responded: "Yeah, Abraham Lincoln was terrible! And you know who was good? George Herbert Walker Bush."

Yup, I said it. I have witnesses.

A few days ago, [Mr. Happypants] (another Hillary supporter... because of "experience") said that he's worried that Obama won't be good for Israel. And I asked him if Obama has hugged Suha Arafat any time recently?

All in all, I'd bet on Obama right now. Good thing too.

Oh, by the way, Obama does pretty well with White Men over Hillary. She has locked up the white women (sorry, that's a bad image vis-a-vis Obama, but that's probably the image Hillary and her race-baiting scumbag advisers like), but will she win any white men in November?

Quick answer: No. They'll flock to McCain

Long answer: Hell no. White men hate Hillary. As P.J. O'Rourke described her: she's America's ex-wife.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-18.

Caucuses and Obama

Body of a letter I sent to TPM:

I just submitted this comment on the New Republic's Plank, intended for Judis or somebody to answer, but you guys are good at these things too:

Obama's wins in caucuses should be emphasized. Looking at the win differentials (from the NYT), Hillary's biggest numbers (above 20) were in Arkansas (+42) and Oklahoma (+24) but Obama had Alaska (+49), Colorado (+34), Georgia (+35), Idaho (+62), Kansas (+48), Minnesota (+35), and North Dakota (+25).

These big blowout numbers came from states with caucuses (AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, ND). Georgia is the only non-caucus on his big list (and the last caucus state to report is New Mexico which always seems to be a few days slow).

What does it say that Obama wins big in caucuses?

Pic from this great website. Backpost finished 2009-12-18.

Good Line from McArdle

Megan McArdle, about finance:

"[Recall] the old trader's adage: the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-21.

Video of the Day: Will Ferrell Superbowl Commercial

Recommended by my brother. Note, I've still not seen the movie Ferrell's character's from:

Backpost finished 2009-12-20.

Ninja Wisdom of the Day

"I'm not advocating violence... I'm just saying that it works and I highly suggest using it"

- The Ask the Ninja, Ninja

Backpost finished 2009-12-19.