[Hat tip: the Anchoress.]
I don’t know quite what to make of this You Tube video, except it made my jaw drop at around minute 3:22 and thereafter.
Before that, it’s somewhat weird, but rather boring and silly. After minute 3:22, however, it suddenly becomes riveting, and only gets more astounding as it goes on. Continue reading →
As I was going up the stair
I saw a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish, he’d stay away.
The above ditty, “Antagonish,” is a children’s poem written at the turn of the twentieth century. At this point, Obama probably would like to apply it to his tarnished relationship with his erstwhile pastor, Jeremiah Wright. But I think it also applies to Obama himself, who is in some ways a man who wasn’t—and isn’t—there. Continue reading →
John Heileman has an article in New York Magazine listing ten reasons Eliot Spitzer was politically undone by his infidelities while Bill Clinton managed to survive his.
The most important reasons seem to be that Spitzer had already become very unpopular in New York even before the scandal whereas Clinton was riding high when the Lewinsky affair broke; Spitzer was guilty of a crime in his infidelity whereas Clinton was not (leaving aside the question of perjury for Clinton, which was secondary to the infidelity); the resignation of a governor is a less serious event than that of a President; and Spitzer was perceived as a hypocrite whereas Bill was not.
True. But the differences were even more powerful than that. Continue reading →
Peter Wehner presents an absolutely devastating critique of Obama’s most visible foreign policy record, his position on Iraq.
It’s also the record of which Obama is most proud. But if one closely follows his shifting statements, it’s hard to conclude anything other than that Obama is an intensely political animal who changed positions based on what he thought would gain him votes, using no other internal compass.
Of course, this is hardly unique in the annals of politics. But if Obama wants to present himself as a profile in Iraqi courage—in his opposition to the war, that is—the record certainly contradicts him: Continue reading →
David Mamet’s Village Voice piece on his political conversion—“Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal'”—has caused a minor sensation.
To me, of course, it’s an old story, not only because I experienced something of the sort myself, but because I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time analyzing the process.
Each such tale is unique in its details, but each one is also similar in broad outline. Mamet’s is getting a lot of attention because he’s a famous playwright who moves in artistic (read: highly liberal) circles, and the Village Voice venue (hey, I like that alliteration!) in which he chose to “come out” guarantees him high visibility. And it doesn’t hurt that his piece was linked by Drudge.
And so as a self-styled expert on the subject, I want to welcome Mamet to the fold.
His tale involves three important elements that I have found are almost standard in such stories. Continue reading →
No, there’s not really any relation between Mamet, change, and Eliot Spitzer.
Except that I was planning to write a post today on playwright David Mamet’s Village Voice essay “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal.'” It seemed tailor-made for me. But the site appears to have crashed shortly after I began reading it, and I can’t load the rest of it.
Which brings me to the default post for today, Spitzer. But I must confess that I’m not all that interested in exploring the fall of this particular public figure.
Why not? Maybe Continue reading →
I grew up in New York City during what may have been the golden age of ballet. My parents loved dance, and so they took me at an early age to see the greats—the New York City Ballet and American Ballet Theater, the Royal Ballet, and then the Bolshoi and other Russians when they came to town.
If there was a famous dancer of the 50s, 60s, or 70s I didn’t get to see, I don’t know who it might have been. I have fond memories of it all—which is a good thing, because dance is an exceptionally ephemeral art best seen in three dimensions rather than on film or video. There’s something about the power of dance, the sheer physical energy and the sweeping dimensions, the height and the breadth of the leaps and bounds, and the intensity of the emotions, that is sadly diminished when viewed in two dimensions only.
But two dimensions are all we have now for looking at the greats of the past. So they will have to do.
I’ve been taking notes for a post (still forthcoming) on one of the favorite ballet dancers of my youth: Maya Plisetskaya, whom I first saw in the late 50s when she was allowed a rare visit to this country with her company, the Bolshoi. The Bolshoi (means “big”) dancers were a revelation at the time, bold, dramatic, and powerful, and quite over-the-top. In retrospect, they may—and often do— appear corny and sensationalistic and overly emotional. But back then the Bolshoi Ballet was extraordinarily exciting.
Plisetskaya was a unique combination of femininity and power. Her leap was legendary, high and strong. Her arms were also renowned, as well as her ability to inhabit the roles she took on. She was perhaps best known for her “Swan Lake, ” in which her rippling, seemingly-boneless arms appeared to hardly be human.
But my favorite role of hers by far was in an obscure and very funky old warhorse that is rarely, if ever, performed in this country. This was the ballet “Walpurgis Nacht” from the opera “Faust.” Continue reading →
Hillary’s “red phone” ad may have been many things, but racist was not one of them.
Presidential races require strategy. As they’ve become longer and more complex, they’ve taken on qualities somewhere between a marathon, a boxing match, and an advertising campaign.
Special advisers can help the candidates, much like trainers, coaches, and promoters. But still, a candidate has to have the goods.
These “goods” involve many elements in addition to stamina (necessary) and good PR (necessary) and prepared speeches that present a program and vision for the future that appeals to the majority of the American people (necessary). They also tend to include a certain innate likeablity and/or toughness, the perception of trustworthiness, an ability to think and speak on one’s feet, a sense of humor (self-deprecatory is especially good), and a past that includes both some sort of accomplishment and freedom from major scandal.
The press is required to document whether a candidate has all of this, and the candidate’s opponents are allowed to criticize any lack thereof. That is politics, my friends.
But some years ago there arose a vogue for trying to make political battles more “positive” and to avoid the politics of “attack.” Continue reading →
Michael Totten’s latest. Worth reading, as always.
[NOTE: For earlier posts about my mother, see this one about her stroke, this one about her recuperation, and this one about her move from the New England town where we’d both been living to the New York City community where she’d lived most of her life.]
My mother’s been in her new place in New York for a year and a few months.
At first, she didn’t like it. She complained that the food was dreadful. The people, likewise; and that included both staff and residents. Her room itself was beautiful, and she stayed in it most of the time, not wanting to mingle very much.
I had worried that she’d have trouble with the adjustment from an independent living situation with personal attendants, where the other residents were all pretty spry and fairly alert, to an assisted living facility where the other residents were in various states of decrepitude and the aides far more overburdened.
And I was right. Continue reading →
By now the consensus is that Hillary’s red phone ad probably helped her comeback on Super Tuesday Two.
The ad was controversial but traditional, in the mold of a famous ad Walter Mondale used against Gary Hart in 1984, and the LBJ vs. Goldwater “daisy” ad of 1964. The suggestion is that, if Obama is elected President, he’d make some snap foreign policy decision that would endanger your children’s lives. Or fail to make one that would protect them.
The questions being asked about the ad now fall into the headings of whether it was too nasty and/or too-fearmongering, too potentially useful for the McCain campaign, and just how effective it actually was in helping Hillary. Obama, of course, believes it was also incorrect in its implications, and that the previous “red phone” moment on which he chooses to focus—Iraq—was handled incorrectly by Hillary, who voted for the war.
I’m not sure Obama gets what the ad is actually about, Continue reading →