Shock and awe

Just a few words about Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech, because I won't be able to match the eloquence on display by both politician and pundit alike tonight.

The expectations for this speech seemed impossibly high. In front of a crowd of 84,000 (and millions at home), on the anniversary of arguably the most famous speech in American history, and in light of a speech four years earlier that launched him onto the national scene, Barack Obama did everything he had to do, and much, much more.

Outlining a specific, Democratic plan for America's future, Senator Obama answered the questions posed even by doubters in his own party, basing it on the core values shared by all Americans, chiefly responsibility for self and for each other.

Rhetorically brilliant and inspiring, it reinforced the themes that have propelled this historic campaign: change that you can believe in and change you must work for. The "rhetorical flourishes" did not weigh it down - they lifted it up.

It brought the fight to Republicans like most Democrats have not been able or willing to do. It was filled with charge after charge, not only against the Bush administration and its faithful sidekick John McCain, but also against the failure of a self-defeating conservative ideology. Obama is ready to lead, and ready to fight for what he believes in.

And we need to fight with him.

Reviewing the Convention - Half-time

Predictably, this morning's coverage is focused on the Clintons: did Hillary do enough to bring home her rational supporters? Will Bill's speech focus on the night's theme, and more importantly, on Barack Obama, rather than on 1993-2000? This myopic view of the convention misses a lot of good moments, but the storyline for this week has been clear.

Obviously, I have no love lost for HRC, and I was ready for a speech where Barack Obama was an afterthought. While the beginning of the speech confirmed my fears, the second half really brought the fight to McCain and demonstrated why electing Barack is every Democrat's imperative. And while I'm no fan of Hillary's non-style, she did have some compelling rhetoric (the Harriet Tubman quote). I think she did what she needed to do, and no more, because the stakes are so high.

However, as MSNBC talking head / McCain BFF Mike Murphy pointed out, she could have given the same speech if Dennis Kucinich won the nomination. Here's someone you've been in the Senate with for four years, and you campaigned with/against for a year and a half. No personal anecdote? Sure, that's what Michelle's speech was for, but can you have too much about personal values?

As President Clinton continues to undercut Obama whenever someone puts a microphone in his face, I don't have high hopes for tonight. What should be a night about introducing Joe Biden to the nation and demonstrating why Democrats are ready to secure America's future will be reduced to a reminder about what people loved and hated about the 90s. But what do I know.

This might come as a surprise to people who watch cable news, but there were other speeches last night. After Monday's offering was described as too nice, Democrats went on the offensive (see below). At first, I was disappointed. The people I liked for VP/President were uninspiring: Kathleen Sebelius gave another speech that proves she cannot modulate her voice, and Mark Warner delivered a keynote that will be quickly forgotten. Warner's theme and the theme of this campaign dovetail nicely, but he's not a great orator.

I'm also disappointed that Gov. Schweitzer had to speak on 'Hillary Night'. What a speech! I think the analogy is set: Obama : 2004 convention :: Schweitzer : 2008 convention. He proved you can be a technocrat, folksy, and authentic at the same time. The governor knows how to work a crowd, and there's definitely going to be buzz around his name, especially if Democrats continue to see a Western Renaissance. Schweitzer 2016?

Here's your red meat

For everyone who thought Monday night was "too nice..."

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr.:

John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick!

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano:

Barry Goldwater ran for president, and he lost. Mo Udall ran for President, and he lost. Bruce Babbitt ran for president, and he lost. For this election cycle, that's one Arizona tradition I'd like to see continued.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius:

For John McCain , there's no place like home, or a home, or a home.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland:

You know, it was once said of the first George Bush that he was born on third base and thought he’d hit a triple. Well, with the twenty two million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base. And then he stole second.

Virginia Governor/Senator Mark Warner:

In four months, we will have a president who actually believes in science.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (ahem):

If you drill in all of John McCain's backyards, even the ones he doesn't know he has...that proposition is a dry well.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton:

It makes sense that George Bush and John McCain are going to be together next week in the twin cities because these days, it's hard to tell them apart.

I Like Joe Biden

The message from 62262 finally arrived at 2:16am on Saturday: "Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee. Watch the first Obama-Biden rally live at 3pm ET on www.BarackObama.com. Spread the word!" The story had broken earlier, but not through the usual series of leaks to friendly reporters. Instead, they happened to catch Secret Service at Biden's home. Take that, old media.

I embarked on the four hour trip down to Springfield, IL at 4am, for what was sure to be another historic speech (or two) at the Old State Capitol. Having missed Obama at a 2006 campaign event, the Miami Book Fair later that year, and the Kennedy endorsement celebration at American University, I simply had to do it. I was not disappointed: about 20 yards from the podium, I had an excellent view of the event. And while I didn't think Obama or Biden delivered their best speeches, the excitement put it over the top.

So, why do I like Joe Biden? In my Vice Presidential Diatribe, I categorically eliminated him for being a Washington insider, antithetical to the change message. If I had been asked to elaborate, I would have said he's blowhard with foot-in-mouth disease, the senator known online as Joe Biden (D-MBNA). Plus, his foreign policy experience balances rather than reinforces Obama's strengths. Oh, and he voted for the war. But at the end of the day, he's a passionate fighter, an old-school liberal, has a compelling personal story, and he's just plain likable.

As with any of the choices, Biden has weaknesses. Obviously, the RNC was going to attack any pick, especially someone who was an Obama detractor during the primaries (doesn't McCain know the DNC can do the same thing with Romney?). Predictably, they also are throwing Hillary's words at Obama for passing her over. And who knows if Biden can be disciplined, even with the stakes this high.

Strategically, Biden also has numerous strengths. He delivers attacks with a smile and bit of sardonic humor. Examples abound: he had the best line of the day when he said McCain would have to choose which of his seven dinner tables to sit at. In 2004, he allegedly told Dick Cheney:
"Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required." And there's always this, the best line of the debates (that can easily be adapted for McCain):



Biden is going to eat the Republican VP alive in the debates, outperforming Lieberman and Edwards in his sleep. He wears the attack dog role well, unlike a Kaine/Sebelius/Bayh pick. His energy and attitude belies his 66 years. Plus, his age in 2016 precludes him from a presidential run, creating a real opportunity to nominate a new, progressive candidate. Can you imagine being 'stuck' with Evan Bayh in eight years? :shudder:

Obama/Biden is a formidable ticket, as Republican Senators Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and Arlen Specter have acknowledged (good message discipline, GOP!). Despite any initial disappointment with such a safe choice, I'm reminded that most of the short-listers were safe. None were unacceptable to a majority of Democrats, in a way that Romney, Lieberman, Ridge, Huckabee, Jindal, and Crist are to Republicans. Each of those picks has the chance to fracture the Republican base and upset some of the -Cons (paleo-, neo-, corporate-, etc.) that make up their party.

So bring it on, Old Man McCain. Try to step on Obama's bounce by announcing your choice on Friday. It's your 72nd birthday, so don't pick someone too old or too young! It's also the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, so don't pick someone whose negligent deregulation put American citizens in danger. Oh, and try to beat this picture:

From David to Dexter... Michael C. Hall's Deeply Damaged Dramatics

I recently finished watching Six Feet Under in its entirety, during a week of marathon viewing sessions (the only way to truly appreciate TV, in my opinion). What a fantastic show... I regret not watching it earlier. SFU at its best explores the dualities of life, often by having the characters confront the contradictions of their personalities desires, struggling with the cognitive dissonance.

This is never more apparent than in the character of David Fisher, played by the brilliant Michael C. Hall, who has had the most post-SFU success as the titular Dexter on Showtime (which is quickly becoming the destination for quality TV as HBO's franchises retire in succession). At first glance, the two characters seem very different, but they actually have a great deal in common.

*Spoilers to both series follow.*

David begins the series as a closeted gay man, battling his own homophobia and self-loathing. He is totally repressed and conservative, from his bottom-down attire, to his cold, controlling interactions with family and clients. Even as he comes out, he is hardly ever at ease with his life, struggling with how his sexuality defines him. He insists on living with what society has deemed as normal.

Dexter hides his life as a vigilante serial killer, and turns his loathing outward, to a world and to people he does not understand. He represses and channels his urges using the "Code of Harry," killing only those that have wronged society yet fallen from justice's blind grip with a cold, clean, bloodless brutality. Dexter is forever grasping for normality, figuring out what society expects, and faking the appropriate reactions.

They both love broken people. Dexter purposely seeks out the battered Rita; abuse has left her just as asexual as Dexter, and she becomes his 'beard.' And as Rita heals, Dexter begins to legitimately feel affection for Rita and the kids, a strange tinge of compassion that had previously been limited to his sister. Keith is David's soulmate, but he must deal with the scars of an abusive father and reconcile his sexuality both with his race and his hypermasculine professions. These couples may be damaged, but they're damaged in all the same places.

The fathers of David and Dexter loom over them, even in death. As he works to maintain the family business and follow in his father's footsteps, David is haunted by his father's disapproval (although since they only interact in dreams, we only get one side of the story, as David projects his inward anger onto his father's ghost). Dexter's father saves him from the tragedy that created him, and crafts a set of rules that will allow him to live in society. However, as Dexter is still a story in progress, we'll have to see how he lives now that the truths about Harry has allowed him to stop deifying his adoptive father.

The characters also have significant relationships with their older brothers (who both die young, Brian at Dexter's hand and Nate by David's side). Both sets of brothers are two sides of the same coins. Dexter and Brian are both irreparably corrupted after witnessing their mother's brutal murder, Scarface-style. However, as Dexter is molded by Harry, Brian's demons are allowed to fester into the Ice Truck Killer. And while Nate tries to run from the funeral home that dominates their family, David tries his best to make peace with Fisher & Sons.

One of the central themes of Six Feet Under is finding purpose in life. After struggling for his entire life, David finally finds happiness with Keith and their adopted sons, continuing the tradition of Fisher & Sons, and eventually pursuing his musical interests in retirement. As he dies, he sees Keith one last time, and his final expression suggests that he's ready to die, even if there is nothing beyond. Once again, Dexter's entire story has not been told, but the end of the second season definitely entails a turning point in how Dexter will continue to define himself.

Michael C. Hall deserves a lot of credit for making these characters refreshing and real, but a lot must go to the writers and casting directors who saw his potential for such tormented characters, both in Six Feet Under (2001-2005) and Dexter (2006- ).

At it again...

Who said this?

My career -- and this campaign -- is about changing the Democratic Party. It's about changing America. And this campaign is about taking back the White House so we can have health insurance, so we can have a balanced budget, and so we can have an inclusive society where everybody believes in each other and believes in America.

Obviously, it's a trick question: it sounds like Barack Obama, but that would be too easy.

It's part of the closing to a speech Gov. Howard Dean made in Sacramento back in March 2003, the speech known by the lines "what I want to know is..." and "I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." It was a turning point in Dean's campaign, as I am reading about in Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope, a collection of essays by the people closest to the Dean campaign. The book is sort of the academic companion piece to Joe Trippi's excellent The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, and I highly recommend both.

Watching Dean's speeches from the '04 campaign, and reading the campaign post-mortems, reminds me that Dean was the first candidate I was ever excited about. Furthermore, the campaign foreshadowed the Obama phenomenon in many ways, in what has been written about elsewhere in great length; Obama has even adopted the 50 state strategy that Dean has instilled since becoming DNC chair.

Which reminded me of an idea I've had before but somehow neglected to write about in my last post (not to say that I'm the first to think of it): what about Howard Dean for VP?

For the most part, he fits the reinforcement criteria I laid out previously. Howard Dean is the consummate outsider, even as the head of the DNC. He was famously against the war since the beginning. He was the first Change Candidate. Plus, he'd make a great Vice President, relying on his experience providing health insurance and balancing budgets. An additional plus: an A rating by the NRA (since there is still no consensus on how Heller will play in November). And he doesn't leave a post that will be ceded to the GOP.

He is not without his faults. If I don't want to hear about JRE's haircuts, do I want to see The Scream ad nauseum? He's not disciplined and would surely cause some headaches every time he's on camera. As the head of the DNC, he's stuck his foot in his mouth plenty of times.

As with any presidential or VP candidate, the media will make or break you. In a way, they've already done this with Dean, so will they find a new narrative? I highly doubt it, which unfortunately makes this a non-starter.

An Obama/Dean ticket would make the netroots happy, combining the two movements that have revolutionized how we do business. But Dean's strengths as a presidential candidate are weaknesses as a VP: the direct, pragmatic message and a refusal to go along with the way things are done. So while it may not happen, at least we can look back on What Might Have Been with speeches like this:

My Vice Presidential Diatribe

I almost don't want to write a post about possible VPs, because it contradicts my general feeling about the subject: they don't really matter. Unless the VP is particularly offensive or unpopular with large parts of the population, no one votes for or against a candidate based on their VP pick. I think the CW surrounding vice presidential candidates is entirely wrong, and like most political conventional wisdom, comes from the echo-chamber and is not based in reality.

Vice presidential candidates cannot win a state, much less a whole region, simply by being from there (short of having the type of state-wide political machines of previous generations). Luckily, it looks like Obama's team gets this. And while most of the media looks for candidates that "balance the ticket," I agree with Chris Bowers that presidential candidates are better served by VPs that reinforce the campaign's narratives. For example, while an old, white Southerner with military/national security credentials makes the media cover their shorts, pairing that type of VP with Obama screams "you're right, I have no idea what I'm doing in foreign affairs, please help me." It plays right into opposing frames, and even if it's the media calling for it, they'll be the first to start asking "what the pick really means," etc.

So what criteria should we hope Obama's team uses when narrowing down the short list? Again, I mostly agree with Bowers. Obviously, the "change" meme is the strongest part of the Obama phenomenon, so someone without DC/establishment ties would be a good start. Same with being against the war from the start, or at least having the judgment to be firmly against it for the last several years. Also, I'm weary of losing a Senate seat that will be tough to regain, especially when a 60-seat supermajority, without Lieberman (I-Lieberman), is within reach. Plus, discount the idea of naming the standard bearer for (hopefully) 2016 now - a lot changes between now and then.

Also, it should go without saying that I think picking Senator Clinton would be a huge mistake. Off the top of my head: it weakens Obama, attaches Clinton baggage to the ticket, goes against "change," and validates all the ridiculous claims she made during the primary. It would be a true shit show, and luckily it looks like it won't be necessary; women are a big part of the "bounce," and the "PUMA" (Party Unity, My Ass) crowd can go vote for McCain for all I care. They are not part of the 21st century Democratic party, nor part of the winning coalition in November. Some of these concerns extend to vocal supporters of Clinton, as well - you're already on record attacking your running mate. Sorry, you picked the wrong horse.

I came up with a list of 25 people that are frequently speculated as possible VPs or members of the Short List Club. I don't plan on profiling people that don't meet the qualifications I've put forth, especially when most have the same concerns.

• DC establishment: Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Chris Dodd, fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Jack Reed, fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn. Tough to make a clean break with DC when you're firmly entrenched in it.
• Losing a Senate seat: Sen. Jim Webb, Gov./Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Bill Nelson, Sen. Sherrod Brown. We might be able to hold a few of these, but why take a chance, especially when the bench is so short already in a place like Virginia.
• Too much balancing: Gen. Wesley Clark, Gen. James Jones, Sen. Chuck Hagel. Military experience is great, but it plays into McCain's hands.
• Clinton BFF: Gov. Ed Rendell, Gov. Ted Strickland. Some people say putting a Clinton surrogate on the ticket will help heal the wounds (really?). Images of Strickland standing behind HRC as she screamed "Shame on you, Barack Obama" dance in GOP strategists' heads.

That leaves, in my opinion: John Edwards, Sen. Patty Murray (WA), and Govs. Tim Kaine (VA), Janet Napolitano (AZ), Brian Schweitzer (MT), Kathleen Sebelius (KS), and Bill Richardson (NM). Unfortunately, media obsession with the "dream ticket" and the Clintons will not let Obama pick a woman not named Clinton, even if she is the best candidate and better suited for the VP than HRC. So as much as I admire Gov. Sebelius and think she would make a perfect reinforcement pick, it's not gonna happen. So the list quickly becomes two '08 presidentials and a couple of governors.

I think Richardson is off the list because he's the type of undisciplined, foot-in-mouth guy unsuited to the VP role. Would the first African-American/Hispanic ticket be a high-risk, high-reward venture? Sure, but do low information voters even know Richardson is Hispanic? Either way, he's got a great resume, but as he often proved during the primaries, he's not ready for prime time.

How about John Edwards, would he carry the warm bucket of piss a second time? He was pretty Shermanesque but started to back off into the standard, "I'm not interested but I would serve my country" type answer recently. Paul Rosenberg has been making a case for Edwards for VP on Open Left, and while I think the poll analysis is premature, he has a point that Edwards would be both balancing and reinforcing. I think this is a real dream ticket, as in keep on dreaming. He supposedly would be happier as Attorney General, like his idol, RFK. Who knows where that puts him as a 63 year old in 2016, but it's fun to think about. I'm weary of all the trial lawyer / $400 hair cut crap that this would open the ticket to, but it's an interesting, if unlikely, prospect.

Gov. Kaine was an early supporter of Obama, but he's also the 3rd best option from a critical state. However, he is the youngest of the bunch at 50 years old, and would be a steady if unimpressive candidate to balance out the ticket. However, his three years haven't been as successful as Gov. Warner's, and leaving Richmond a year early gives the GOP a jump-start in the '09 elections. Maybe he's better suited to AG as well?

Which leaves us with my favorite at the moment, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He definitely reinforces the change/outsider theme of the campaign and his "folksy charm" is a tool that Obama doesn't have at hand. While the political impact of today's Heller decision is still unclear, it won't hurt Obama to have someone on the ticket whose stance on gun control is "you control your gun, and I'll control mine." Plus, it'd be funny if the one who speaks Arabic on an Obama-Schweitzer ticket is the latter.

On a serious note, Schweitzer's main issues are clean government and clean energy, and I doubt he'll hesitate to take a combative stance from the #2 slot. He's a progressive in Western populist clothing, and his kind of Democrat is a big part of the party's future. Check out these brief remarks - he's the real deal and he knows what Democrats have to do to win.

When Life Attacks... Again

As with my multiple attempts at journals and blogs, life has once again intruded. Maybe if I used this to document my personal life I wouldn't have that problem, but that's not gonna happen.

Just over two months since relocating from DC to Dayton, I was forced to move again - this time to Madison, Wisconsin. In the context of the blog, hopefully I'll be able to see more films and concerts that call for reviews in what is definitely a 'liberal college town.' As time permits, of course, as this job will get progressively busier as we approach Nov. 4.

I'm planning to post a Senate race breakdown, a look at a few VP candidates, and a review of Snuff as soon as I finish it. The reality of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee hasn't really set in. And as exciting as the presidential race is, I'm not sure how much I'll be posting about it.

So, I expect to start writing here again, but it will be helpful to have electricity and Internet access at my new place first. Until then, my hard copy journal desperately needs an update for posterity's sake.

(PS Why doesn't the blogger spell check recognize any form of the word 'blog'? It's no Obama/Osama, but the little red dots cause my OCD to flareup.)

The dog days of... March?

I think even I may have presidential fatigue, and not just the kind that comes after 7.5 years of the Bush administration. With no one actually voting until April 22nd (Pennsylvania) and then on May 6th (Indiana and North Carolina), the campaigns have gone stagnant. Clinton did her part by stirring up the Wright mess, but Obama pushed back with one of the most important speeches of a generation (not to be hyperbolic or anything). Bill Richardson followed his heart and his head, endorsing Barack shortly after, but no other super delegates followed his lead.

But other than that, the echo chamber has been left to debate the after-effects of the Wright debacle. At least they get to finally talk about race, which is making Pat Buchanan so happy that he might explode, covering Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski with Hot, Nativist Craziness. Until a new story breaks, we're stuck with this one, so hopefully Barack can just wait it out. Stories like the Hillary's Bosnia lie, which she somehow made about Wright. I'm sure more stories like that are out there: ones that undermine the whole argument for her candidacy.

Not having cable news for a few days has been a mixed blessing. I feel a little out of the loop, getting all of my info from the blogosphere. But, I don't have to here about the daily movements of tracking polls that look like this:



The race is basically tied, and nothing in the last two weeks has changed that: not Wright, not Richardson, not Bosnia. I believe the double-helix structure goes back even farther, probably to right around March 5th.

It is clear that as long as HRC has a mathematically possible (though highly unlikely) path to the nomination, she will not bow out gracefully. Are there any circumstances that would change this? Howard Dean working with other party leaders to finally fix it? An Obama upset in Pennsylvania? The elusive Gore endorsement of BHO? My guess is none or even all of these will do the trick. See you at the convention!

Returning to scheduled programming

Due to a confluence of events (leaving my job, getting a new one, moving 500 miles away, and other Major Life Changes), I haven't posted in a while. But as I get settled in my new job and have more freedom with my online activities, I will be getting back into the swing of things.

Clinton Campaign: Strategic Racism?

Geraldine Ferraro yesterday:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

And today:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

So, from the campaign that repeatedly plays the race card and justifies itself with the gender card, here comes a high-level surrogate with some of the ugliest rhetoric so far. The first quote is bad enough - it sounds very much like the criticism hurled at successful African Americans in the age of affirmative action: "oh, he got where he is because he's black." The galling irony of the second quote is that the Obama campaign is supposedly racist for being upset about a race-based attack? Very rich, coming from the campaign that finds misogyny in every political debate.

Worse yet is that this may not be accidental, despite the admonishments from the Clinton campaign. Polls close in Mississippi in about 5 minutes, and Barack Obama will no doubt win big by dominating with the black vote (even though Clinton will maintain close in delegates because of gerrymandered districts). But maybe the Clinton's know that they're not getting the black vote back, not with Barack in the race, and certainly not after South Carolina. So what's the difference in losing that bloc 80-20 or 90-10? Why not go after the Reagan Democrats with something they understand: racism. Not only does it help her in the South and the Rustbelt, but it will further polarize the electorate and stigmatize Obama as "the black candidate." Just a thought - hopefully I'm not finding racism where there is none.

Oh, and thanks Geraldine, for helping create superdelegates! To paraphrase Igby, the Democratic Party is drowning in assholes.

Edit: Check out the end of the clip of Ferraro on Fox News:



Don't antagonize me, Barack. I'm a Democratic Party fundraiser - you NEED me. If I call her a relic of a broken system and mention that she was on one of the worst Democratic tickets ever, am I misogynistic?

Super Tuesday, Jr. Preview

With 3 days to go until the Texas/Ohio/Vermont/Rhode Island primaries, the final picture is starting to come into focus. Despite all the hype, it looks like the real battle will be in framing the results. The most likely outcome is two states to each candidate, with a small delegate difference, making March 4th resemble the near-tie that we had on February 5th rather than a decisive win for either Obama or Clinton. Here are the current Pollster trends:


Texas is not a slam dunk for Obama, but his momentum over the last two weeks cannot be denied. Wild cards include the effects of early voting, state senate based allocation of delegates, and what are sure to be chaotic and contested caucuses. Still, I think it will all add up for an Obama win.


Despite similar demographics to Wisconsin and a larger African-American population, Obama's momentum hasn't been enough to catch Clinton in Ohio. It looks like Clinton's base is sticking with her. However, even a win here will barely net her any delegates. Obviously, that won't stop Penn/Wolfson/et al from harping about it, reality be damned.

Vermont and Rhode Island seem to be securely in the fold for Obama and Clinton, respectively. Even large wins will result in small delegate gains, but neither campaign is taking these states for granted, campaigning there between longer stays in Ohio and Texas.

Whereas a tie a month ago began the momentum towards Obama, a tie at this point hurts him. The Clinton campaign has been casting Obama as the frontrunner, with the March 4th primaries as a referendum on his status as such. For all their strategic incompetence, the Clinton campaign has been able to move the goalposts at their will. Luckily, Obama will most likely still hold a delegate lead as the calendar again starts to favor him. So, instead of ending her campaign once and for all, the slugfest will continue, possibly until April 22nd (a discouraging thought).

I also want to use this post to note how Obama has been able to turn Clinton's narrative against her. All the talk on Friday was about Clinton's ad titled "Children," with most pundits putting it in the fear-mongering category with "Daisies" from '64 and "Red Phone" from the Democratic primary in '84.



It's the same old message: I'm experienced, ready on day one, etc. Except now, appealing directly and superficially to the mothering instincts of women voters. Even her campaign couldn't name a "3am moment" in her career during a conference call, prattling on about military endorsements and the Armed Services Committee.

So, within about 12 hours of the ad coming out, the Obama team crafted a brilliant response ad that is a tribute to the professionalism and message discipline of his campaign. The ad insists that she had her 3am moment and blew it: the Iraq War vote.



As has been noted, the ability to fight off attack ads will no doubt help Obama in the general. And by the looks of March 4th, he'll have to fight off Clinton for another two months.

Review: IN BRUGES

This won't be a long review, because I can't imagine speaking at length about this godawful waste of celluloid. While I hadn't expected much, it received a respectable 77% on Rotten Tomatoes and looked better than any of our other options. Obviously, dumping season has begun.

The movie fails in many, many ways. It is not sharp enough to match the verbal ratatat and dark situational irony of a Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie flick, which it tries desperately to be. It never establishes how dreadful the titular city is, instead substituting fat Americans in Yankee caps and bitchy Canadians for real satire. And it can't decide what kind of film it wants to be: the dialogue isn't funny enough for straight comedy, the action isn't any good for a crime caper, and the dark moments are played for drama instead of black comedy. Also, the screenwriter thinks midgets, racism, and senseless gore are comedy gold.

Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are wasted as a pair of hapless hitmen, as is Ralph Fiennes as their dreadful boss. They all play on the criminal stereotypes that have been done to death in every ironic crime movie since Pulp Fiction.

If you've already seen every Tarantino or Ritchie film and you want some of the style but none of the substance, see Smokin' Aces or Layer Cake. But stay the hell away from In Bruges.

My Rating: 0 out of 5 midgets

What's Next for the Clinton Campaign

With Barack Obama going 10-0 since February 5th, the Clinton campaign has been on the ropes. Insider accounts of campaign infighting don't paint a pretty picture, and the lame negative attacks on Obama have failed to stop the bleeding. Today, the NY Times published a story that further illustrates the campaign divisions, with Mark Penn pushing for sharper negative attacks and Mandy Grunwald begging Clinton to consider the future.

Mark Penn, when he's not busy attacking Democratic voters or busting unions, is quite the loser. His claim to fame is being Clinton's pollster for the re-election campaign of '96, a victory that is more the work of Penn's mentor, Tricky Dick Morris. He was also the chief strategist in Hillary's two Senate coronations campaigns. However, he's never won a tough campaign like the one we have now, and his incremental, triangulation style is not suited to this race. This Washington Post profile from April 2007 demonstrates how wrong he was about this campaign.

Mandy Grunwald, to her credit, is one of the few Hillaryland people with actual experience from Bill Clinton's 1992 race. In a lot of ways, that campaign is similar to the one that Obama is running now: insurgent, positive, hopeful. Now, on the other side of such a campaign, Grunwald knows how difficult it is to push back on the momentum, no matter how negative it gets. So she's asking Clinton to think of a possible 2012 campaign, or even a future as a Senate leader.

Ohio and Texas could very well be Hillary Clinton's last stand in this campaign, despite her ability to consistently move the goal posts. Even Bill is acknowledging the stakes, saying at a recent speech in Texas, "If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be." The debate tonight should be an indication of how down and dirty the next two weeks will be. At this point, the campaign needs a major gaffe or scandal from Obama, as it has been proven they cannot make the case for Hillary on their own.

WTF Politico?!

Apparently I'm not the only one who sees the similarities between The West Wing and the 2008 primary season:

In presidential campaign, life imitates TV

However, they flip it a bit and draw on the Abby Bartlett - Hillary Clinton connection: ambitious First Ladies unsatisfied with serving cookies and hosting dinners.

Did The West Wing Predict the 2008 Primaries?

So, I've finally been able to catch up on watching The West Wing, finishing the sixth season last night. Without Sorkin/Schlamme at the helm, it had become a shadow of its former self, using cheap "Must See TV" gimmicks and frenetic camerawork more akin to ER. But the introduction of the campaign midway through the sixth season rejuvenated the drama, reclaiming some of the gravitas that The West Wing was so adept at presenting.

The most interesting thing about watching the sixth season right now, however, is the often eerie similarity between The West Wing and the 2008 primary season. While not perfect, it's a pretty good analogy:

Congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits), the Hispanic representative short on experience but inspiring and charismatic, easily compares to Barack Obama. Even their speeches are cut from the same cloth, focusing on hope, innovative solutions, and uniting the country. VP Bob Russell (Gary Cole), the presumptive nominee with perceived weakness in the general, can be seen as Hillary Clinton with a bit of Bill Richardson's glad-handling and resume-flaunting. I've always thought former VP John Hoynes (Tim Matheson) was Al Gore with Bill Clinton's indiscretions, and Josh's offer to make him a "party elder" seems to be the role those two men have in the party. The last two may be stretches, but the Santos-Obama connection cannot be dismissed.

For the Republicans, Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) seems to be an idealized version of John McCain, with elements of Arlen Specter: a maverick moderate who fights for pragmatic solutions and regrets the influence of the Religious Right on the GOP. While Vinick's main difficulty in securing the nomination is his pro-choice record, McCain has his own problems with conservative orthodoxy (immigration, campaign finance reform, the environment, etc). The Reverend Don Butler works as a Pat Robertson clone, but functions as Governor (and Reverend) Mike Huckabee in this analogy.

Despite being dogged by Huckabee, McCain is almost certain to wrap up the nomination in advance of the convention, while the Obama-Clinton battle may continue into the summer. Same thing happened in the West Wing. So, will Obama have to make a passionate speech on the floor of the convention after being asked to drop out for the sake of the party? Will a party elder come to his aid and swing the necessary voting blocs, like Bartlett did for Santos? Anything is possible, and this analogy may prove useful (even though the West Wing implied that the state delegations were winner-take-all, while the Democrats actually use proportional delegation).

One of the intriguing points that I hadn't thought much about in the real world is the role President Bush will play in the convention. Will the GOP trot out Mr. 24%, 2 months before the election, perhaps letting McCain and Bush relive The Hug? Or will a two-term president be relegated to some opening remarks, pushed aside, and flushed away with the remainder of this administration?

Slacking, Redemption

Nearly two weeks since my last post. I let myself off the hook because I've had a nasty bug for about 10 days, but I need to show a little more dedication to my own project. Many observations have been ruminating, so without further ado:

The February 5th races led to a few surprises, but the main result was a draw with a slight edge for Obama, simply for surviving. I remember not even 6 months ago thinking this primary would be sealed by Super Tuesday. Instead, the contest is escalating and gaining excitement. Massachusetts was not a big disappointment: the machine politics are far removed from Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick, and Obama held his own. Neither Edwards or Richardson has endorsed, instead choosing to wait for the right time to play their cards; at this point, I'm not sure if either really matters, unless Edwards' 20something delegates are required for a win. Obama rolled to huge victories in 13 states throughout the country simply by showing up, something that the Clinton campaign is now admitting they didn't do.

The momentum carried Obama to wins in Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine. What is astounding is that he won by huge margins (21, 46, 37, and 19 points, respectively) in geographically and demographically diverse states. By this point, he was expected to win the Potomac Primary on the 12th, and I began to get a little nervous about the expectations game: would a win of "only" 10 points in VA be seen as a Clinton victory? Or would there be a huge swing in undecideds a la NH?

Last night, my fears were put to rest. Barack Obama crushed Hillary Clinton by 23 points in Maryland, 51 in DC, and 29 in Virginia, well past most polls of the region. Maybe the Clinton camp can continue to disrespect the voters, saying that MD and DC don't matter, but Virginia? Obama won across all demos, with a decisive win with white males. He's shrinking her supposed base with each successive victory, and her camp is grasping at straws.

Things are getting worse before they get better for Clinton (if they ever do). Long-time Clinton confidante and campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was fired. According to everyone close to Hillaryland, it was way past due, and possibly too late. Solis Doyle was an ineffective manager and in way over her head. Plus, the person who supposedly coined the term "Hillaryland" for a group of professional adults needs to hit the bricks. Deputy campaign manager Mike Henry also left after the embarrassing loss in Virginia, a state he won for Gov. Tim Kaine (who must. Plus, the surrogates are out freelancing, with Carville saying she needs to win Ohio, Texas, AND Pennsylvania, and Ed Rendell blathering on about race. If I was impartial, I would feel bad. As it is, I'm thrilled that her hubris is coming back to her tenfold.

Wisconsin and Hawaii look to be locks for Barack, and Clinton has conceded both of them to move down to Texas, sombrero in hand. If he goes 10-0 post-Feb. 5, the Clinton-Giuliani comparisons become more apt. She's banking on states where her leads are soft. Plus, thanks to a primary-caucus hybrid only Texas could love, her diminishing leads among Hispanics might not even help in her "firewall state."

As good as the picture looks, Obama supporters need to keep fighting. Hillary has nothing left to do but go negative, so the missiles should start flying... now.

Super Tuesday Predictions

Over at Daily Kos, diarist Poblano has written an excellent state-by-state breakdown of Super Tuesday/February 5th. I had planned on doing something similar, but the graphical analysis in that post is comprehensive. I have a few comments, however:

• As stated, the debate tonight at 8pm is major. With Edwards out of the race, there will be no "teaming up" and hopefully Obama and Clinton will be allowed to debate each other. Unfortunately, it will be "moderated" by Wolf Blitzkrieg, so I'm sure Clinton will be allowed some cheap shots. The Snub is this debates Race War and I expect an awkward hand-shake or hug between the two.
• The two major endorsements to be expected are Edwards and Richardson (I doubt Gore endorses because he has nothing to gain) and they could happen between now and Tuesday. I believe a Richardson endorsement is more important because of the influence he supposedly has in the Latino communities of CA, NM, and AZ. An Edwards endorsement is less important now because his supporters are ideologically inline with Obama, though this could change if his delegates are needed in the convention.
• As Poblano suggests, the most likely situation is the nomination being open with the media calling a slight frontrunner.
• Most of the states will probably be close, and the proportional delegate distribution is the main factor in the likely closeness of the race. However, I think the Kennedy endorsement is underestimated in MA and CT and Obama will make up more ground there.
• Momentum is definitely going for Obama - it was just announced that he raised a staggering $32 million in January alone. Aside from a Richardson endorsement of Clinton, I don't see this changing (unless the debate is really nasty). Momentum will be a key decider for the undecided voters in these states.

I'll definitely be watching the entire debate and I'll post about it afterwards.

A South Carolina Thumpin' and the Momentum Swings

Barack Obama - 55%
Hillary Clinton - 27%
John Edwards - 18%

Pretty amazing. Soon after polls closed, it became clear that the only question left would be how large the margin of victory would be. I was legitimately worried that "only" a 10% victory would let the Clintons spin this into a win. However, you can't shine shit, and losing 2-to-1 is never a good thing. The CNN exit polls show that Obama won across demographics, and the media narrative has thankfully focused on that. Also, it looks like Noam Scheiber's "reverse Bradley effect theory" was proven, at least in SC: black voter preference for Obama was under-reported because of a desire to appear colorblind.

On the heels of the win came major endorsement news: Ted Kennedy would be announcing his support for Obama at a rally at American University on Monday (which I cannot attend due to work!). This should hopefully seal the MA primary and put a nail in the "Obama the Reaganite" story being pushed by Camp Clinton. Plus, the media will now have a day to cover both the victory and the endorsement before the Florida primary.

When Hillary Attacks

There are many reasons why I don't believe Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for president. Chief among these is the deep well of hatred ("the vast right-wing conspiracy") that will rear its ugly head and work against the Democratic wave, possibly delivering the presidency and countless down-ticket races to an outmoded, foundering GOP. Furthermore, the insider-first, triangulation model of government that Hillary strives to uphold is the opposite of what the party should be working for: the real change that Americans want.

The worst thing about Clinton, however, is the tone that her campaign has taken in attacking Barack Obama. Until a few months ago, the Clinton campaign attempted to deflect any of Obama's criticism by mocking the "politics of hope," a cynical knock on something that many people feel passionately about. But after losing Iowa and substantial momentum (even after winning in NH and NV), the campaign has gone on a full-throated offensive, spreading lie after lie about Obama's works and words. By using President Clinton as just another surrogate, the campaign teamed up on Obama in a way much worse than any Obama/Edwards parternering ever could be. The ugliness continued at the last debate in South Carolina, which found Hillary at her most shrill and angry.

This is scorched-earth politics at its worst, and it comes from Clinton being unprepared or simply shocked that someone would have the audacity to challenge her inevitable run. A new radio ad once again takes Obama's words about Ronald Reagan and the Republicans out of context. Obama was making a point about the conservative movement and how Democrats should emulate his success in crafting a governing supermajority. He definitely wasn't praising his policies; you will not find much common ground between the two. Obama was simply reiterating a strength of his campaign: reaching out to a large group of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.

Will the attacks work? Obama will probably win by a large margin in South Carolina, which no doubt will be spun as black voters choosing "one of their own" rather than a clear win for a candidate who made a nearly 20-point net gain in just a few months. This conclusion gives Clinton the rest of the week to start hitting Feb. 5th states with this crap, negating any bump Obama should receive from a solid SC victory. If her tactics don't change, hopefully the media narrative will, focusing on her dubious claims and petty politics.

EDIT: I alluded to it in the last paragraph, but the race card has been played by the Clintons, and it may be what eventually dooms Obama. If they can cast him as "the black candidate," emphasizing his win in SC, its no longer a post-racial candidacy. Plus, by Clinton ceding the black vote for the Latino one, she positions herself better for Feb. 5 but plays off racial tension.

Review: THERE WILL BE BLOOD

Yesterday, I re-watched There Will Be Blood at the E Street; my initial vantage point of somewhere under the screen didn't really do the film justice, necessitating another viewing.

There Will Be Blood is Paul Thomas Anderson's oilman epic starring Daniel Day-Lewis, who simply dominates the film as Daniel Plainview. Much like he did with Bill the Butcher in Scorsese's Gangs of New York, Day-Lewis creates an unrelenting, monomaniacal man obsessed with advancing himself and his ideals. Ironically, it takes a British actor to capture these two monuments to the American character.

The film is a character study set against the desolate background of the turn-of-the-century West. The barren land, dotted with derricks, ranches, and near ghost towns lets the film focus on Plainview and those with whom he interacts, removing all but what Anderson wants the viewer to see. When all that was known about the film was the people involved and that it was based on an Upton Sinclair novel Oil!, I expected a more complex film involving the Teapot Dome Scandal and the politics of the oil fields: something resembling Boogie Nights or Magnolia in the sense that it would weave together a diverse group of characters and their story lines. Instead, the film is more in line with Punch-drunk Love, decidedly smaller and more personal. As PDL was my favorite Anderson film until this one, I was surprised but pleased by the similarities.

While the easiest comparison to Plainview is Bill the Butcher, I also saw in him shades of Patrick Bateman, but drawn without irony for a satire. Here is a man who only sees others as impediments to his success; business, and his life, are zero-sum games in which only he can prosper. For this reason, he thrives on his hatred for people. The only person he loves is his adopted son HW, whom he immediately casts aside when he no longer fills a convenient niche. And when a grown HW attempts to stake out on his own, entering Daniel's sphere of business, Daniel renounces him, re-imagining his parentage as a business maneuver of great foresight.

The central conflict of the film is between Daniel and evangelist Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Daniel views Eli and his faith with great contempt, especially as his control of the town through the church rivals Daniel's control through the oil. Daniel spurns Eli at every point - refusing to pay him a promised amount, beating him up, and even undercutting him by blessing the well himself. Dano is definitely skilled and keeps up with Day-Lewis as well as he can, and Eli is a challenging character. However, he cannot outlast the fierceness of his rival, and is ultimately consumed by the worldly pursuit of wealth that leaves Plainview a tragic, drunken waste.

Watching There Will Be Blood you cannot help but feel that you're watching something important, and not just another pretentious independent film that strives for past greatness by making vague, symbolic gestures. Not to overstate this film's importance or significance, but I couldn't help but think of Citizen Kane at many points, especially as we see how far Daniel has fallen in his Xanadu-esque mansion. Anderson's script is sharp (and gets a few nervous laughs) and his directing is masterful, the performances are deep and expressive, and Jonny Greenwood's score is vibrant, exciting, and new. The contrast between the expansive setting and the narrow focus of the film lets every piece of work together, drilling home some cinematic Oil.

My Rating: 5 out of 5 Milkshakes (I drink it up!)

Review: JUNO

Last Saturday, I saw Juno from the second row of a sold-out E street auditorium.

The retro look of the cell-shaded credit sequence reminded me of that of You can't Do That on Television, the first of many 80s references. The tone is immediately set with a scene between Juno (Ellen Page) and a convenience store counter jockey (Rainn Wilson): with lines like "this is one doodle that can't be undid, homeskillet," it's clear that the dialogue will be stylized hipster-ese. Luckily, I think the script balances the hypercool jargon with enough realism, preventing it from falling over the cliff of self-parody like Napoleon Dynamite.

The tight script is held together by great performances from nearly everyone involved, which is definitely a testament to the casting. Ellen Page is a developing star with range, as evidenced by the contrast between this role and her breakout one in Hard Candy. Arrested Development alumni Jason Bateman and Michael Cera (who are never on-screen together, unfortunately) both play guys affected by pregnancy who have difficulty adapting to the circumstances. Bateman, as the castrated former rocker, is too nice to root against, even if the character is less than admirable. If anything, Cera is underutilized, leading the love story element of the film to be a bit unfulfilling. Allison Janney and JK Simmons are the Best Parents Ever, quickly getting beyond the hangups of teen pregnancy and looking out for their daughter. Even newcomer Olivia Thirlby contributes, going beyond the typical best friend role.

The lone exception to the skilled casting and acting, and the film's glaring weakness, is Jennifer Garner as mother-to-be Vanessa. Her bad acting distracts, especially against everyone else, and it unnecessarily complicates matters. Whether or not she actually has an unquenched maternal drive, or if she justs feels compelled by the pressures of suburban adulthood, is unclear due to a particularly flat performance (its probably the former). I would have loved to see Amanda Peet in this role, or anyone able to both emote and deadpan.

Jason Reitman turns in another solid satire, albeit one with a less biting script than Thank You For Smoking. While I don't recall any specifics about his directorial style, I attribute the balanced structure of the picture to him. Keeping it grounded in character and story gives the film a lot of heart.

The press coverage of Juno has focused on the hype ("it's the next Little Miss Sunshine!"), reading into it pro-choice/pro-life arguments, and comparing it to Knocked Up (from the girl's perspective). However, I think that all misses the point: at it's core, Juno is a simple, sweet story about less-than-perfect circumstances with an irreverence that is endearing and not mean-spirited. I'll definitely be looking forward to the next efforts from everyone involved.

My Rating: 4 out of a possible 5 Fetuses

More Endorsements

I would be remiss if I did not post about two more high-level endorsements: Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Another two superdelegates from states with February nominating contests (Missouri has a Feb. 5 primary and Nebraska a Feb. 9 caucus) add to the momentum. As for message, this allows the campaign to stress the "working across the aisle" and "working for change" memes; Nelson is a noted conservative Democrat and McCaskill is the first woman elected to the Senate in Missouri, a 2006 freshman.

Once again, I believe endorsements are most important as a piece of the press narrative. However, it would be nice to have some push-back against Clinton surrogates like former Sen. Bob Kerrey, former NH Chair Billy Shaheen, and even Bill. Thankfully, Dick Durbin has called out the former President on his assertion that Obama wasn't really pro-war, but I don't see the campaign engaging Clinton's in such slash-and-burn tactics.

As a side note, I believe Richardson will stay neutral when it still matters. However, if/when Edwards loses in NV and SC (and runs out of money), I really hope he bows out and throws his support behind Obama before Florida and Feb. 5. Uniting the two change candidates against Clinton could really help, and I have a suspicion that Edwards may see his last chance to get to the White House on an Obama ticket.

Kerry Endorsement Starts Paying Dividends

Endorsements of presidential candidates are tricky. I doubt voters ever cite specific endorsements as their reason to vote for or against a candidate, but they can add to the a campaign's momentum or sense of viability. Like with much of these campaigns, it's not what happens but the reaction to what happens that matters.

With that in mind, I was a little apprehensive at first when John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama. Gore's endorsement of Dean in 2004 did not protect him from his eventual downfall, and John Kerry is neither a symbol of change nor a true icon of the Democratic Party. However, I thought that when a Senator like Kerry came out for Obama, it would lead other superdelegates to do the same and further tarnish Clinton's "aura of inevitability."

Today, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano endorsed Obama. This is a good one for the press to be talking about: popular, two-term Democrat, in an ostensibly Republican state, in a key region. Her gender will no doubt be seen as a sign that there are powerful women who aren't falling in line behind Clinton because of their chromosomes. Plus, she would make a great VP candidate, if like me you believe in the reinforcement over balance theory being kicked around. In this vein is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who could endorse soon, hopefully before the Feb. 5 Kansas caucus.

With news of the Kerry endorsement came an endorsement from Pelosi lieutenant George Miller (CA-07), the chairman of Education and Labor. Much was made of whether or not this is the closest Pelosi will come to endorsing, which lead to a lot of regrettable crap about a Pelosi vs. Clinton powerplay. Either way, it is a powerful Democrat sending signals to the liberal base.

Most intriguing, however, is a NYT piece suggesting that James Clyburn could break his promise and endorse a candidate, predicated by the nasty tone the Clintons have taken against Obama. Specifically, Hillary's remark that MLK really wasn't that important after all, but also Bill's "fairy tale" garbage. Black leaders have been hesitant to back Barack for a variety of reasons, and a respected Congressman like Clyburn giving his seal of approval before the SC primary would be choice.

The benefit endorsements actually contribute is debatable, but their strategic use can no doubt help Obama's campaign, dampening the effect of NH and regaining some of the momentum before SC and NV.

My Golden Globes Picks

I wanted My First Post to be about something important. Unfortunately, I've opted instead for breadth over depth.

The ongoing WGA strike leaves the Golden Globes reduced to a press conference on Jan. 13. I think most people can agree that the Globes are a pretty superfluous awards show, allowing studios and networks to squeeze a little more free advertising ("press") out of their prestige pieces. I don't remember ever watching the awards ceremony on purpose, and I can't recall specific winners. With that in mind, a press conference is a bit disrespectful for the winners who actually deserve awards for their craft. But I'm sure true artists don't need the validation of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (yes, I did look that up). And anything that keeps Bruce Vilanch out of work is good in my book.

So, here are my picks for most of the categories, omitting those for which I can't make a well-informed choice; apparently I didn't see many leading women films last year. These are personal favorites, and not my guesses at the winners. I'm curious how much overlap there will be in 3 days.

MOTION PICTURES

• Best Motion Picture - Drama : There Will Be Blood, American Gangster, Atonement, Eastern Promises, The Great Debaters, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men.
• I actually saw 6 of 7 in this category, and while they were all very well done, none had the gravitas of the epic PT Anderson flick (expect a review after a second viewing). I'd be happy with any of these winning, except for Atonement and The Great Debaters.
• Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy : Sweeney Todd / Juno, Across the Universe, Charlie Wilson's War, Hairspray.
• And it only takes 2 awards before I'm equivocating. I'm reserving judgment until I see Juno, because of my anticipation and the buzz. I did enjoy Sweeney Todd, but I think Juno will be more up my alley. Only in the GG does an Aaron Sorkin picture end up with this company. It's moot - CWW was disappointing on all fronts.
• Best Actor - Drama : Daniel Day-Lewis, George Clooney, James McAvoy, Viggo Mortensen, Denzel Washington.
• Once again, Daniel Day-Lewis dwarfs the competition in a role more intense, determined, and sadistic than Bill the Butcher.
  
• Best Actor - Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy : Johnny Depp, Ryan Gosling, Tom Hanks, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Reilly.
• Johnny Depp nailed the title role, but this ridiculous category doesn't put up much of a fight.
• Best Actress - Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy : Ellen Page, Amy Adams, Nikki Blonsky, Helena Bonham Carter, Marion Cotillard.
• Placeholder vote - I need to see Juno!
  
• Best Supporting Actor : Tom Wilkinson, Casey Affleck, Javier Bardem, PSH, John Travolta
  
• This is a toss-up between him and Bardem, and while Bardem hulked and killed his way through No Country, Wilkinson's role actually surprised me and punctuated a rather methodical film.
• Best Supporting Actress : Amy Ryan, Cate Blanchett, Julia Roberts, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton.
• Helene McCready is the "white trash Southie broad" for the ages - compare that to the sedate Beadie Russell and you can't even tell it's the same actress. By the way, does Horse Teeth get everytime she wanders on screen?
• Best Director : The Coen Brothers, Tim Burton, Julian Schnabel, Ridley Scott, Joe Wright.
• Where is PT Anderson? Not very often does a film get mentioned in the same breath as Citizen Kane and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, even if only for scope and subject matter, not significance. The Coens get it by default for putting sweltering West Texas on film and ending up with molasses and whiskey.
• Best Screenplay : Aaron Sorkin, Diablo Cody, The Coen Brothers, Christopher Hampton, Ronald Harwood.
• This is a homer pick, straight-up. The dialog was sharp enough but the film fell flat for whatever reason. This might end up being Diablo Cody if I actually like Juno as much as I anticipate.

TELEVISION

• Best Drama : Big Love, Damages, Grey's Anatomy, House MD, Mad Men, The Tudors.
• I'm abstaining here but thought it was worth mentioning. I've heard good things about Mad Men, but can't pick it by process of elimination. No Dexter, Sopranos, Shield, Rescue Me, The Riches, or Brotherhood is just unacceptable. TV drama is in a new Golden Age and this is the best they can do? Good job guys!
• Best Musical or Comedy : 30 Rock, Californication, Entourage, Extras, Pushing Daisies.
• This is definitely more acceptable. Pushing Daisies is charming, as if Tim Burton decided to do a crime procedural, and it's a close second. But 30 Rock is the funniest thing since Arrested Development, and it might actually have network support.
• Best Actor - Musical or Comedy : Alec Baldwin, Steve Carell, David Duchovny, Ricky Gervais, Lee Pace.
• Alec Baldwin takes his role in Glengary Glen Ross and turns it into a deadpanning straight man. Jack is one of the best roles on television while illuminating its worst aspects. The fact that your typical Hollywood Liberal plays a market-testing, soulless corporate shill like Jack is just another layer on the meta cake that is 30 Rock.
• Best Actress - Musical or Comedy : Tina Fey, Christina Applegate, America Ferrera, Anna Friel, Mary-Louise Parker.
• And it's 30 Rock for the trifecta. Weeds has fallen into a funk and Mary-Louise suffers for it. For a comedic role, Liz Lemon is just sad, but she is best leading lady in a comedy since Mary Tyler Moore (That's an example of a reference that I pull directly out of my ass, because it sounds right).
  
• Best Actor - Drama : Michael C. Hall, Jon Hamm, Hugh Laurie, Bill Paxton, Jonathan Rhys Meyers.
• Dexter is the role of a lifetime, and Hall brings the cynical detachment of David Fisher. Instead of being a homophobic gay man, he's a charming serial killer - with a heart of gold. Sadly, I don't know which one most Americans find scarier.
  
• Best Actress - Drama : Minnie Driver, Patricia Arquette, Glenn Close, Edie Falco, Sally Field, Holly Hunter, Kyra Sedgwick.
• File this with Amy Ryan. Seeing an actress capture a character that we don't often see on screen, yet making it feel vivid and real is always award worthy. Plus, its The Riches only nod.
  
• Best Supporting Actor : Kevin Dillon, Ted Danson, Jeremy Piven, Andy Serkis, William Shatner, Donald Sutherland.
• This is a surprisingly weak category, and while Johnny Drama will probably split votes with Ari, only one of the characters is still entertaining. They should end Entourage and spin-off a show for Johnny Drama, but instead he'll have to carry a show from a supporting role.

For the most part, the voters did pretty well. There are only a few glaring omissions from the entire list (Zodiac?), and clear winners in each category. Ironically, I've now contemplated the Golden Globes more than ever, and the presentation is a mere formality. Hopefully, I'll be able to see Juno soon and vindicate picking it three times on spec.

Taking the Plunge

It's finally come to this. I've graduated from marble notebooks to an actual blog. I'm a late adopter on certain things, and a technology with such a regrettable name and an equally annoying user base is no exception. I was hoping I could survive the wave, even as I watched it from a distance. But with no creative outlet to speak of, and grad school an inefficient & costly way to satisfy my drive, I've decided to collect my rants on a myriad of interests in this format. I'd expect film, television, music, politics, and sports commentary to fill this space very shortly.

Rest assured that neither the minutia of my daily life nor a dairy of my feelings will end up on the Internet. While that seemed like a good idea in 11th grade, it was a ephemeral experiment in emotional exploration. Much like excessive alliteration, which I will also be avoiding.