It's a Festivus Miracle!

The good news is, after my blegging, I discovered that there IS supposed to be a Festivus celebration in New York.  And not only is it in Manhattan (I was guessing it'd be in more hipster-friendly Brooklyn), but it's only a few blocks from my apartment, at BAMN!, an honest-to-god automat on St. Marks.  

The bad news is, the FestivusBook.com website is down or screwed up or something, so I can't confirm the time.  I remember it being 6:30 to 8:30, with any overflow crowds being shunted to the bar next door.  But now not only is the site not letting me in, but there are ancillary reports that it's supposed to be invitation only, and/or that it's a promotion for Festivus The Book, which is being released in paperback.  

So I was going to make this a post saying, "Hey, everybody!  Come join me for a Festivus celebration that's apt to be a real hoot!"  Instead, I'm now offering myself as a sacrificial lamb: I'm going to head over at 5:30 or so and report and take pictures and so forth, so we'll see what happens.  I'd hate for anyone else to make a long trip--say, from Jersey City--only to be spurned at the threshold and left to weep in the cold.  Wish me luck.

By the way, BAMN! stands for By Any Means Necessary, which is not much of a surprise when you notice that one of the proprietors is named Nobu X.  

UPDATE:  Forgot to mention: Festivus is TODAY, December 23rd.  So if you want to risk joining me, you've only got a few hours.  

LATE UPDATE:  The website is fixed!  And as you can see here, the event starts at 8:45.  Good thing I checked!  Looks like you're all welcome, and there's still several hours to RSVP.  Woohoo!

Eating the President-Elect, Part I

I was in Chicago for Thanksgiving, and I asked my friend Jen, "How come I'm not seeing any Obama stickers on the cars?"  She said, "In Chicago, it goes without saying."  

I guess this is the case, because here are a few pictures I took at a deli we visited a few days later.  I have to say I'm impressed at the accuracy of the drawing.  I couldn't do a recognizable Barack even in pen, much less in frosting.

UPDATE:  I should add that, although she's clearly very popular, not all of Obama's foodstuffs had him sharing the spotlight with his wife.  Here was a twofer I bought whose point seemed to be Illinois Presidential pride:

Black Nerds Unite!

Ta-Nehisi Coates, who is now one of my favorite writers, has a hilarious little article on how NOT to survive as a black nerd.  The article is here, but be sure to read the comments, too, in which the readers add their own experiences.  

By the way, Obama collects comic books.  So he really is a nerd made good.  All hail President Spock!

Next Up: The Hand Formed in the Shape of a Tiny Pistol

I love this: The stick is inducted into the Toy Hall of Fame.

The Triumph of Old Media

Nate Silver says it best:  "Good luck finding a newspaper this morning."

Wham, Obam, Thank You Maam

For some reason I decided to get dressed up a little for voting day.  I put on a hat, a nice new suit jacket I just bought in San Francisco, and shaved.  It took a little extra prep time, but it was coming on 8am, so I figured even if the line was hours long, I'd still get in eventually.  I brought a book--appropriately titled And Then We Came to the End--and an iPod, and a bottled water and a snack, just in case it took the hours I'd been warned about.

I needn't have worried.  Although some people have reported lines around the block, here the lines were all inside.  It still took a good deal of time (there were two booths for the entire 35th District), but I got in and out in about 45 minutes, which is less time than it took to vote for Kerry back in Tallahassee, where the lines really were out the door and down the steps.  As proof, I offer this photo of the polling place.  Notice the no lines--although I think this says more about its extensive interior space than it does about everyone's excitement.

Speaking of which, it was over rather quickly, and wasn't quite as magical as I had hoped.  I mean, yay Obama and all that, but for some reason I expected to be moved--this is a huge vote and a historic opportunity--and instead I simply felt, "Well, it's about fucking time."  Maybe that's just as well.  Common sense shouldn't feel heroic.  It should feel common.  

Of course there are perks to make this day feel more special.  But please note that while Ben and Jerry's is offering free ice cream, and Krispy Kreme is offering free donuts, and Starbucks is offering free coffee, no one is as committed as Babeland, whose stores are actually offering free sex toys ($15-20 value each)!  Let's hope they don't go bankrupt.  For today at least, and to keep Babeland solvent, I recommend widespread partnered sex in the streets, sort of like V-E Day.    

Post-Debate Reaction

I guess the second scenario I envisioned came to pass: Palin's "attacks" were pretty weak, Biden was a class act, and Palin didn't completely embarrass herself except for the constant lying, which America is used to by now.

And yet, although Veep debates don't generally amount to much in the grand scheme of elections, I suspect this one actually helps Obama. Because it was one of the most widely watched debates ever (or was at least projected to be; I haven't seen the ratings reports yet), which means that lots of low-information voters stopped by just to gawk at the potential train wreck. And if the snap polls even come close to reality (we're not supposed to trust snap polls, but they were remarkably accurate in the wake of Obama-McCain #1), then 87-95% of the viewers thought Biden was qualified to be Vice President. Surely the numbers weren't that high going in, given his history of gaffes. Throw in the fact that he consistently leveled the most withering attacks at the top of the ticket, and I bet this results in even better poll numbers for Obama. It's possible we've even reached a tipping point, if McCain's abandonment of Michigan is any indication.

The most interesting element to me was how quickly the CNN audience of independents turned on Palin every time she said something calculated to be folksy. "Darn right we need tax relief," "There you go, Joe!"...every time she said something like that, the viewer response plunged, and one of Tina Fey's sketch writers sprouted wings. Wow, I thought. The independents actually don't trust her. (At least not in Ohio on CNN in real time.) If she has to prove herself--instead of waltzing onstage and being trusted on sheer mom-and-apple-pie spunk--she's going to be useless to McCain, because the best she's able to do when pressed on issues is say a few quick bromides and run away before they have follow-up questions. (As Josh Marshall has noted, all of the embarrassing Katie Couric moments came when Palin was asked to clarify something--she is literally a surface-level candidate, one determined scrape away from appalling the nation.)

A roundup on Andrew Sullivan's site shows that a few commentators (like Erick Erickson and Jay Redding) actually think Sarah Palin completely dominated the debate and mopped the floor with Biden. If you really think this happened, get yourself checked: it means you're not paying attention to what mainstream independents are listening to, and it's a sign that you're very much out of touch with politics in America--and possibly reality itself--and the electoral map this season will only cause you shock and heartbreak. The sane conservative commentators are mostly shrugging and saying, "Well, at least she stanched the bleeding from the wound she caused." That I can agree with.

The other thing that struck me is that Palin's message of alleged "change" falls flat with independents precisely because what she calls "change" is what any sensible political observer might call "the same Republican talking points we've heard since Reagan was a pup"--lower taxes, rein in spending, strong America, tax-and-spend liberals, blah blah blah. And it made me think that those of us who are actually looking around at the modern Republican party have been seeing how empty those promises and ideas actually are: Clinton gave us a surplus and actually reduced the size of government. Bush squandered it while making government larger than ever; Bush's policies have overtaxed us militarily, helped create our current economic disaster, and have brought our national reputation lower than any time in modern history. (And where the fuck does she get off talking about how "bipartisan" their ticket is? Was she even watching her own convention? Did she not remember her own ugly-ass speech? Jesus.)

Perhaps this is the biggest tragedy of the campaign: McCain might have had a chance to represent change, if (in some ideal world) he actually were a vanguard cutting-edge Republican of principle and not (as we've seen now) a soulless opportunist who will lie about anything if he thinks he can apologize for it later in his next book. But the diehard right wing of the party is so in love with itself, so blinkered by its own rhetoric, that it isn't even aware that its policies have failed and that maybe it's time to change something somewhere. For the most part I say good fucking riddance; let the Rush Limbaughs and Dick Cheneys wind up scraped off the bus tires of history. But for an actual Republican of principle, the religious right wingnuts, with their dog-in-the-manger approach to outreach have left the tent too small to support life.

(Picture: the amusing poster for where I watched the debate last night. A fun time, except that the promise of free beer caused an overflow and they actually shut off the TV when the fire marshal made people evacuate. So I actually missed the entire section on Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Was it as good as I hear?)

Updated Debate Prediction

Oy vey. According to this article, Palin actually plans to go on the attack against Biden--particularly by picking on statements he made against Obama during the campaign when they were running against each other.

On the one hand, I can see how that might work--if she attacks, and he defends, the debate stops being about her. Particularly if he's been coached to be nice to her for fear of seeming "sexist" by the GOP's bizarre "don't ask our women any unfriendly questions" definition of the term. Because the more the debate is about Palin proving herself, the worse she'll do.

I was furious after the Convention because up through Obama's acceptance speech, everything had been fairly reasonable: this is my policy position, my opponent has that one, here's why mine will work. Then Palin came along and drove the entire campaign into the gutter by stoking cultural resentment with cheap shots, snarky attitude, and basically dividing the nation while speaking with no authority whatever. And for a few weeks it worked. Then McCain started playing completely idiotic lies in his ads, and no one seemed to be calling him on it, and between the two events I was so furious I refused to even talk about the campaign to anyone.

Then, in the past few weeks, we've had what you might call a karmic rebalancing, as the evil that McCain has spouted--as well as his reckless tendencies to gamble and grandstand--have really toppled him, and his campaign looks like it's heading into loser territory. (Fivethirtyeight.com has the statistical projections, and they're pretty staggering.) McCain just pulled out of Michigan to focus on Florida--Florida!--which is tipping toward Obama. And it's hard to imagine this loss wouldn't have happened without the millstone of Palin costing him credibility with adults who care about their leaders actually knowing things.

It's entirely possible that Palin's "attacks" will be lame antics that Biden can simply shrug off. This would be in keeping with much of the McCain campaign, who has only been able to attack Obama by lying about him; the truth tends to favor Obama's wisdom, caution, and careful policies, and any true thing they say about Biden is likely to be in non-substantive "gotcha" areas. Generally speaking, if they stick to the truth, they've got nothing. But if Palin LIES about Biden--and particularly if it's an ugly lie--then I can't see Biden NOT attacking. That's what he's best at. And moreover, he's also very likeable, even when he's on the attack.

So what this really comes down to is how disciplined Biden is, and how much control the Obama campaign has over him. But this leaves us with two options, not the most obvious scenario I was predicting earlier: either she attacks, Biden shrugs it off, and it's more or less a tie, or she attacks, Biden snaps back, and the whole thing melts down into a partisan bloodbath. Which, whatever else you might say, will make for pretty good TV.

In any event, if the worst thing happens and the veep debate turns ugly, two other things are guaranteed: first, that no one will actually care that much (this was the vice debate, and Palin's the only reason anyone's watching), so it will have little impact on the overall polls, and second, that no matter what else happens, Palin will almost certainly have to appear on network shows the day after (my birthday!), and this will again take her off message and out of her comfort zone. Expect more Palin gaffe clips on YouTube.

Don't forget how fragile she is when she's out of her element. A single offhand remark about Pakistan made to a passerby with a question made McCain sit beside Palin across from Katie Couric to explain what she "really" meant. It looked like Palin had been taken to the principal's office. (And predictably, McCain lied.) Even half a dozen unscripted questions from people who are actually skilled at asking them is likely to produce even worse results. So in a way, I don't even care about the debate: I want to see her press conference afterward. And if there aren't any press conferences, and the media doesn't raise holy hell, I'll be very surprised indeed. On press-conference-avoidance alone, Palin is now one month more cowardly than Dan Quayle.

Why Palin Probably Can't Win

I wasn't going to blog today (I've got an apartment to clean, after all), but I've seen so much hand-wringing about the upcoming debate that I feel obliged to say something.

Mind you, I'm not expecting a blowout. As I've said before, I expect Biden and Palin to both play it safe--Biden because he's been coached to shut the hell up, Palin because this isn't a safe environment for her like Fox News would be. But on about half a dozen blogs, I've gotten references to Palin's performance in the debates in Alaska and how powerfully she dominated. "Watch out!" I hear my Democratic friends saying. "We don't want to misunderestimate again!" (And by the way, the more you watch Sarah Palin, the more the George W. Bush parallels pop up.)

But if I'm seeing things correctly, Sarah Palin "won" those debates not on substance, but on charm. According to a BBC interview with Mr. Halcro, who lost to her in the debates...

""I don't think anyone could have beat her," Mr Halcro said. "It wasn't about how much she knew about the issues. People didn't care about her experience, they just thought, 'This is the drink of water we need'."And she beat the incumbent by presenting change and difference and newness. She's just really really likeable.

Here's why I think it won't work. We've seen her likeability already. She's the only reason people are coming to McCain rallies, she's the reason McCain spiked for a while there, et cetera.

But now the news is out: she's a national joke. A nice joke, a likeable joke, but a joke. And since the Convention high, her approval ratings have fallen to a net negative 3 from a high of positive 17. This is not because she's suddenly become unlikeable; it's because she can't even answer the simplest fucking questions from Katie Couric without making even her supporters cringe. I suspect if you canvassed America, you'd see over and over again people saying, "I like her personally, but there's no way she's qualified to be Vice President." She's not the drink of water we need.

So in the debate tonight, everyone will be obsessively focused on what the hell she knows. And frankly, after her last awful set of gaffes (on Russia, on Roe v. Wade, on "the newspapers" and the list goes on), she literally can't win. Even if she suddenly pulls out an appearance of competence, surely people will say, "Wow! She must have been really cramming for this debate! She didn't know half this stuff last week...um, do we want someone in the White House who's been desperately cramming for the job?" Those clips aren't going away, the meme has already done its damage--and particularly in the case of the CBS News clip that shows Biden and Palin being asked the same questions, and Palin fumbling awkwardly, you can't really blame "the liberal media" for being unfair. She's a complete embarrassment to everyone outside her base--and since her base of diehards is smaller than it's ever been (Bush's approval ratings hit several historic lows this week), she's going to have to win over new people who already know her reputation as an ignoramus. So again: the focus will be on what she knows, not what kind of beer buddy she'd be, and a pleasantly surprising performance still has that unfortunate word "surprising" in there.

If the economy weren't in crisis, I imagine the electorate would be a trifle more forgiving. But a crisis demands weighty people with serious answers, and Palin's really not up to it. What I predict will happen: She'll survive the debate just fine, and her supporters will breathe a sigh of relief...and then they'll pause and think, "Is it really wise to hire someone that makes us this tense?"

Alas and Barack

Well, damn. I've been talking all week about wanting to go to Philly to help out the Obama campaign. But I had a friend in town yesterday and today, tomorrow's the debate[CORRECTION: today now; I started writing this at 11:45], and--oops!--I have several tickets to the New Yorker festival this weekend, including seeing Stephen Colbert, a humor master class with Ian Frazier, and possibly even a ticket to the big dance on Saturday night. (I'll have to check with my social secretary.)

And now, thanks to the constant emails I'm getting from the Obama campaign, I have just discovered that THIS WEEKEND IS THE LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER VOTERS IN PHILADELPHIA, which is the nearest swing state for New Yorkers like me to be able to influence. So while I may be able to help out NEXT week instead, by that time the most important part may have already been done. Sigh.

So since I can't really justify going myself, I'm assuaging my conscience by at least suggesting that YOU--all you New Yorkers and other borderers-of-Philadelphia--ought to consider going down there for a day or two. There are bus trips and the like happening all over the Obama campaign's site, and this really is the last chance to do some good.

Meantime, I'm crossing my fingers and hoping I can make it NEXT weekend, which is still free of special events. I guess I'll know by Monday if I have to work on the book some more or not. Wish me luck!

Putting the "Why"s in Holy Days

So wait a minute--the bailout bill didn't pass...and now the lawmakers are going on vacation for two days? For what purpose, exactly? How is anything that happens during Rosh Hashanah more important than helping out the economy?

It's times like this that being an atheist makes me feel very alien indeed. I want to explain to everybody, "Rosh Hashanah is a very nice ritual, but come on! It's not even a real new year! Do you really think God, who knows everything, observes a lunar calendar? Do you really think the world is 5,769 years old? More importantly, do you really think God thinks its more important to sit still and do nothing for two days than to help prevent millions of Americans from losing everything? And even if God thinks so, isn't he wrong?"

And then I just sigh. We're wired for ritual. I understand that. And it's meaningful and cultural and historical and it roots us and gives us community and all that. But Jiminy. At a time like this, I'd expect my lawmakers to work through Christmas or Easter, or to postpone Thanksgiving, and if some holy book didn't order it otherwise, surely we'd be skipping Rosh Hashanah too.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a great time off. I hope nothing terrible happens. But if the worst occurs, I hope those apples and honey were REALLY tasty.

UPDATE: Okay. It looks like the non-celebrating legislators ARE in fact, still at work hammering out a bailout bill. So the only thing that's been delayed is an actual vote. That's still a little silly, but it's not as crazed as I thought it was. Whew! I always feel better when human beings make sense.

A Frank Opinion

One of the small upsides to our current financial crisis is that it's put Barney Frank, my favorite legislator, front and center on all the news networks. I don't know whether he's a great legislator or not--I imagine he's got to be good, though, if he got caught with a male prostitute and still got reelected--but I do know he's the funniest member of Congress that I'm aware of, and has been for a long time. In interviews he will swear freely, or say shocking and unsayable things. In an interview he did with Rolling Stone during the Clinton impeachment, he was asked who he likes and dislikes in his party, and he said two interesting things: first, "No one likes to admit it, but deep down all of us are basically alike" (i.e., lawyer types who liked the thrill of passing big laws). And second, asked to single out anyone for real hatred he said, "If Bob Barr was on fire, and I had a pail of water, I'd have to think long and hard about whether to put him out. I'd probably do it, but I'm sure I'd feel bad about it later."

Anyway, here he is on today's bailout bill failure, after the Republican leadership blamed the failure on Nancy Pelosi's apparently partisan speech. It's an absurd excuse, and Frank is appropriately withering. It's only a minute and a half. Enjoy.

Palin-Biden: A Prediction

Everywhere I go I hear that Palin is going to do surprisingly well against Biden in the debate, that she's not to be underestimated, she's a quick study, etc.  Even given her disastrous Couric interview, hopes seem to be bizarrely high--Biden has to be careful not to seem dismissive or mean, and all she has to do is show up and seem competent.  

I expect this sort of thing from the Obama campaign, who of course have an interest in keeping expectations for Palin high.  (It's one of the most amusing things about debates: in the run-ups, you actually get to hear the campaigns say good things about their opponents for once: "He's a deadly debater!  We're probably going to get killed!  Lord a-mercy!")  And certainly Palin had an impressive debut at the Convention.   But there are a number of things I'm noticing that lead me to think it's going to be a bloodbath.

1.) She didn't show up on the news after the first debate.  Commenting on your own lead guy's performance is the only thing the vice president does in campaigns like this.  They're hired to be attack dogs.  And so far, attacking--or rather, delivering attack lines written by a Bush speechwriter on a TelePrompTer--is the only thing Palin has shown any proclivity for.  So the fact that the McCain camp didn't release this alleged pit bull on the one night everyone's expecting her to show, and the entire campaign actually let Joe Biden rip McCain apart on every news station unopposed, tells you how little confidence the campaign has in her.    They actually judged that having her not show up at all was less damaging than letting themselves be attacked unopposed.

2.)  The people who made this decision--Palin's handlers--are actually the only people who know anything about her, thanks to the media freezeout.  So although idiots like Bill Kristol (who has been wrong on everything, right? So why is he still allowed to talk?) are starting to say "let Palin be Palin," and blame the campaign for overmanaging her, all of these calls are coming from people who don't know much about Palin (thanks to that media freezeout again) and are animated more by wishful thinking than observable fact.

3.) When Palin first appeared, she was a nobody, and anyone who disliked her was a partisan who wasn't giving her a chance. In the weeks since her arrival, even though her appearances have been tightly controlled and she's only taken 'safe' interviews, her approval ratings have fallen 27 points (to a net negative 3), and she's become an official national joke (thanks to Tina Fey--and, of course, thanks to Palin herself, who provided the script for Fey's last sketch).

4.) Palin's worst interview moments were with Katie Couric, who could hardly be accused of being sexist, or even of asking a single unfair question, and this has allowed people to think, "Wow.  I think Palin may be dangerously uninformed because she's dumb, not because she's a woman and I'm a sexist."  That meme is now safe, and Biden can retreat to it plausibly.  (I expect the McCain campaign to accuse him of sexism no matter what happens, but I also expect it'll have no impact on the polling.)  

5.)  Biden already has a history of misspeaking.  A huge long embarrassing history.  And for this reason, if he says something wrong, it's not going to be nearly the millstone it'll be for Palin if and when she does the same thing.  He's been inoculated against culpability for his words going back years.  (This is the same inoculation that has largely worked for the McCain campaign against Obama so far: "Oh, sure, McCain got the Sunni and the Shia confused, but he's been a senator for a long time and it's just that one error."  The larger narrative is stronger than the recent gaffe.)

In sum, then, I think the debate will be moderate and calm--because that's no doubt what Biden's going to be coached to do, and Palin's going to be in a defensive crouch, and the format itself is the most rigidly structured of the four--and when it's all over, Palin will probably have said two or three mildly absurd things, plus maybe two memorably heartwarming coached moments, and Biden will too.  Net result: further loss for Palin, because she now needs to prove she's amazingly competent and not just a hockey mom, and she doesn't have it in her.  Not for ninety minutes.  Not without a TelePrompTer.  

That's the other nice thing about a debate.   In the Potemkin world of modern Republican politics, it's become essential for conservatives to stage-manage their own reality (with Fox News, Conservapedia, and the like).  But there's a limit to how much you can stage-manage a debate, and once the cameras are on, Palin will be alone out there.  And then, as an additional treat, Palin will have to appear the next day on talk shows--no doubt to defend something she said that showed a depth of ignorance or was contrary to McCain's policy or something.  Which will give her a further chance to either say something worse or--more likely--freeze up and repeat the same empty talking points, which seems to be her fallback position when she senses hostility.  Either way, it ain't gonna be loveable.   

By the way, I turn 40 on October 3rd, the day the fallout goes down.  I predict a very happy birthday to me.  (And P.S., I won't be celebrating with a party; I'm looking into a quick jaunt off to Philly to volunteer for the Obama campaign.  I'll organize something when I get back.)

Why I Love This Guy, Part 2

Kevin Drum has left Washington Monthly for Mother Jones, but he left behind Steve Benen, who's been maintaining Drum's great standard, and this post in particular is the sort of thing more people should be talking about.

Short version:  McCain has been claiming that Obama voted against money for the troops.  Which he did in a sense; he voted against a supplemental budget bill, along with many other Democrats, as a way to show opposition to the continuation of Bush's Iraq policy.  But there was another supplemental budget bill, backed by Democrats, and McCain voted against that one.  

In the he-said, she-said world of idiot politics, the expected response--and the sort of thing that Clinton tended to do, smart as he was--was to simply accuse right back: "McCain voted against a bill for the troops!*  (*Details elsewhere.)"

Obama is refusing to play the game, and in this article, as you can see, what he says instead is, "Look--here's how bills work..."  Read it here.  It's just as refreshing as hell.  

I don't understand how anyone can make any moral equivalence between these two campaigns. Take away the lies, and McCain has almost nothing compelling to say.

Be sure to read the comments.  There are some pretty good ideas in there too once you sift through the trolls.  Washington Monthly has always had a really healthy substance-to-troll comment ratio that I don't see at DailyKos.

(Okay.  Back to writing, dammit.)

McCain Base Betrayal Watch

If Kevin Drum is right about this, then I stand by my earlier statement: in a speech that was incredibly light on policy--and said very little about the economy, which is the main issue for people this year--one of the few specific things he has mentioned is "wage insurance," which is a neoliberal social policy. Sounds like he might be a real fan of the idea.  The base should be bleeding from their ears.  

I'm starting to think that, with Palin on the ticket, they just want to elect McCain and then shoot him themselves. 

P.S.--if the economy continues to take hits like this, surely this bodes poorly for the ruling party.

P.P.S.--and doesn't it also bode very poorly for a campaign that they're actually making arguments this idiotic?  Once I could see.   Twice maybe.  But five times?  With McCain the last speaker?  How can this not hurt him with the reality-based community?  Wouldn't even a casual voter see this as a sign that they've really got no good arguments?

Why I Love This Guy

I should be writing, but in all the Palinoia I can't resist.  Two examples today of why I love Obama: 

First, Southern ignoramus Rep. Lynn Westmoreland called the Obamas "uppity."  The racial baiting could hardly be more obvious.  Obama's response?  A shrug: "I've been called worse on the basketball court."  

Then yesterday in her speech, Palin criticized Barack Obama as a "community organizer."  He gave this amazing response, which everyone should read.  It's not sound-bitey.  It's not shallow gotcha politics.  It's better than that--it's thoughtful and sensible and doesn't do what Palin did to Obama: treat him like an idiot.  I think the tone is perfect.

By the way, since everyone seems to be wetting their pants about Sarah Palin, let me just point out that, barring a huge slipup somewhere, there's really no way McCain can win this year.  This is going to be the year of throwing the Republican bums out, and if people could vote against George Bush (who now has four solid years of under 50% popularity) they would.  So McCain had two choices: appeal to the moderates by being NOT like Bush, or appeal to the base by being EXACTLY like Bush 2.0.  Both of these are losing strategies, chiefly because the base is jealous of their lunatic ideology and they snarl at anyone who asks for a step of compromise.  

His choice of Palin shows the second strategy: Palin's speech was snarky, resentful liberal-bashing that sounds exactly like the Rove divide-and-conquer strategy that put McCain in this no-win position in the first place.  If you say "you're either our friend or our deadly enemy" often enough, a schism is guaranteed.  Obama isn't drawing huge crowds just because he's a good talker.  He's actually selling something that people want WAY more than they want McCain (as evidenced by the comparatively small crowds McCain's been drawing all year).   

People are excited about Palin because she gave two entertaining speeches and has an intriguing new bio.  But she's not selling change.  She's sucking up to the oil companies, she's an inexperienced good ol' boy you'd want to drink a beer with, she brushes off criticism with a folksy charm, and she's obviously ignorant about huge swaths of policy. (As Matt Yglesias pointed out, even on the one thing that she's supposed to be good at--energy--she didn't say a single even moderately sensible thing.)  This is obviously energizing to the base, but here's the thing: the base--which STILL loves George W. despite his record of actual incompetence--is driven by ideology and charisma and is fucking insane, and while they're clapping each other on the back at the convention, sensible people actually hungry for change aren't apt to change their Obamaward trajectory.  Zealotry breeds ignorance which breeds an echo chamber which breeds self-destruction.  If Obama continues responding smartly, this is going to be a nine-days-wonder of a threat.  (Especially if she keeps insulting non-small-town big cities as being somehow elitist and unAmerican.  That's where most Americans live, for god's sake...)

Two other things that haven't been touched on in any of the blogs I've been reading: 

1.) Since McCain is on record as having originally wanted a moderate veep (Ridge or Lieberman) and Palin is his third choice, and since he has clearly reversed himself on huge segments on his own record in order to get elected, why the hell does the base even trust him not to flip again?  Once he gets into office, what's preventing him from reverting to the actual rebel he's intermittently been for the last 26 years?  Why isn't anyone in the base seemingly worried about this?  (Possible answer: they can't afford to be?) 

2.) Since McCain chose Palin against his will as a sop to the base, and since he obviously doesn't know anything about her, what are the odds that they'll actually get along?  I suspect there may be a whole backstage melodrama in the offing.  His next autobiography could be a hoot.

Final note:  Great line from Josh Marshall, liveblogging McCain's acceptance speech:  "It's so great to have George Bush in the White House.  Now let's get elected so we can clean up this mess in Washington."

As Proof of Evil Mounts...

I suppose there are still some people who will be shocked to learn that the Bush administration displays a pattern of faking intelligence in order to justify war, but Washington Monthly efficiently lays out the latest, with helpful links.  

No Thumbs

Ack! Apparently, At the Movies--which I still think of as "Siskel and Ebert"--is finally ceasing production after 33 years. Ebert has a terrific reminiscence here.

I've been cableless and haven't even been able to watch the show for five years, and this still makes me sad.

(Hat tip: Eric Berlin)

The Honorable Gentleman Can Start Rotting Already

Jesse Helms has died, which reminds me that a friend of mine at Hallmark actually kept a bottle of champagne ready to celebrate with in just such an event. So drink up, Mark! You've had to wait at least ten years longer than anyone had a right to expect.

I was going to add a note or two about how, despite my general optimism, you have to admit that some people really don't have redeeming qualities. But really, this post from Dan Savage, which gives a rundown of Mr. Helms's unrepentantly odious career, is all anyone needs to read about the guy.

...And Now Mel Ferrer

It seems like every time I watch an old movie off of Netflix, someone in it dies. Earlier this year it was Jules Dassin, and then Richard Widmark. This time it's Mel Ferrer, who I saw only last night in Scaramouche, which is probably the single most pleasant surprise I've had in the last few months of movierentery. According to the AP, he's apparently most well known for being married to Audrey Hepburn, and did more as a producer than an actor (including Wait Until Dark, which is in my queue).

All I know about him is he's terrific in this film. Scaramouche has Stewart Granger on a quest in Enlightenment-era France to revenge himself on the man who killed his best friend--the incredibly snide Mel Ferrer, who is such a great swordsman that he can kill anyone he duels with, and can therefore dispatch people simply by taking offense at them and demanding satisfaction. On the lam after his friends' murder, Granger becomes a commedia dell'arte performer (Scaramouche--a good choice, since Pantalone doesn't quite have the same adventurous ring) and polishes his swordplay skills by day while performing at night.

Everything about the film works, if you're willing to give it a little slack for being from 1952. The cast is uniformly terrific, with the always-alluring Janet Leigh paired as romantic rival with the stunning Eleanor Parker. Don't know her? Neither did I. A word about that. Eleanor Parker, who never seems to have come into her own as a star, is so gorgeous that, although it's tempting to call her the poor man's Maureen O'Hara--same flaming red hair, same stubborn jaw, and (here) the same tendency to swing pots at her man before he picks her up, kicking and flailing in standard 1950's retro-caveman style--I think she's actually even prettier than Maureen O'Hara...and this film doesn't actually require O'Hara-level acting anyway. She was a really good choice.)

The plot is chock-full of amiable melodrama--mistaken identities, mysterious births, folks leaping off of balconies or galloping like mad--and there really isn't a dull foot of celluloid to be found anywhere. And, as any reference will tell you, it's absolutely famous for its six-minute climactic fencing scene, which has to be seen to be believed. (And don't let that distract you: there are seven duels in the film, and they're all great and all different.)

But for me, what makes the film most fascinating is its obvious influence on that other famously great swordplay movie, The Princess Bride. There are so many parallels it'll make your eyes cross--the guy working to train himself to defeat a great duellist; the battle where the characters talk about strategy while they fight; the way the bad guy stabs his victim in the left and right arms in the beginning, and how this is mirrored in the final battle. Even Mel Ferrer's face seems to have been borrowed by Chris Sarandon in an attempt to work in yet another allusion.

It's not a feminist film, and the humor is at middlebrow 1950's levels, but as a representative of the swashbuckling genre, I'd rank this at the very top, right next to The Mark of Zorro and The Sea Hawk. So find it somewhere tonight and enjoy.

By the way, the next movie in line is 1948's The Three Musketeers, and it looks like everyone in the cast is already dead--Gene Kelly, Van Heflin, Gig Young, etc.--with one exception: Angela Lansbury. Let's hope this connection between my Netflix queue and the Entertainment-section morgue notices is just a coincidence. If I wound up killing Angela Lansbury, I'd never forgive myself.

P.S. The DVD of Scaramouche has a little overview of the film given by Mel Ferrer, so that's not a bad bonus in light of today's news. He aged very nicely.