Four Great Speeches...and Counting

Something extraordinary beyond the "improbable" candidacy of Senator Barack Obama has happened this election cycle. The Democratic frontrunner has delivered not one, not two, not three, but FOUR remarkable speeches. In fact, remarkable may be an understatement. Phenomenal might be a more accurate characterization. Everyone knows of the Senator's powerful oratory skills, but to deliver four great speeches in one year is truly impressive. Additionally, each speech has come at critical moments in the campaign. I give links and some context to them below.

This speech was delivered at the Iowa State Democratic Jefferson Jackson dinner on November 10, 2007 - just a couple of months before the Iowa Caucuses, where Obama earned his first victory. What's impressive in this speech is that he resisted the temptation to, like his opponent, Senator Clinton, vilify Republicans. He took his message of transcending party differences to the state's most active Democrats and he struck a chord: here

This speech was (oddly enough) Senator Obama's concession speech after his second place finish in the New Hampshire primaries on January 8, 2008. It has been dubbed the "Yes We Can" speech and is absolutely marvelous. He connects the themes of his campaign in a dynamic way to the story of America: here
And of course, it inspired this music video of support produced by will.i.am, which is perhaps the most unique and revolutionary phenomenon of this year's election cycle: here

Senator Obama delivered this speech on February 5, 2008 in Chicago after a strong showing on Super Tuesday. This night was important because many, most importantly those running Senator Clinton's campaign, had previously predicted that February 5th would be the end of the Primary, but what it marked was the beginning of Obama's incredible run (where he built his insurmountable lead) through the rest of February. One of the best rhetorical phrases uttered in this election cycle he delivered here: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." The phrase and the speech echoed a major theme of his campaign, that his candidacy is a movement of the people - something that is bigger than himself: here
Again will.i.am produced a song inspired by the speech: here

Finally, on March 18, 2008, during one of the darkest and most challenging hours of his campaign, Reverend Wright Part I, Senator Barack Obama delivered perhaps the most important speech on race given in the last 40 years. Many said that he did not go far enough in denouncing Wright, but none suggests that he did not give the history of race in this country and its enduring legacy honest, open and forthright treatment. This may be the best and most important one of the campaign for its historical significance. Titled appropriately, "A More Perfect Union": here

Can Love Once Lost Ever Be Found?

"Everyone who goes to 2046 has the same intention, they want to recapture lost memories. Because in 2046 nothing ever changes." So starts Wong Kar Wai's magnificent tale of the intersection of love, space and time, "2046." The movie focuses primarily on Chow Mo Wan, played by Tony Leung. It also shows the tangential stories of others that give his context and texture. The film is a followup to "In the Mood for Love," which was delicate look at two neighbors who find companionship and comfort in one another as they come to the realization that their own spouses are carrying on an extramarital affair with the other's.

Visually, Wong has created another powerful film using limited lighting and darker tones to infuse it with sensuality. The scenes take place in confined spaces that lend intimacy to the characters and bring us closer to them. The lack of space also suggests the confined nature of their lives where their actions are limited and movement dictated. Science fiction is a leitmotif that movie plays with, mainly due to the imaginative possibility that it holds for characters who are lacking in it.

"2046" finds Chow, no longer the cuckold, a playboy who writes by day and parties with friends by night. Bai Ling, played by Zhang Ziyi in a magnificent but largely overlooked performance, enters the story very early and quickly becomes Chow's main love interest. It is through Chow's relationship with her that we understand what he has become by this film, a man held by the past yet so scarred by it as well that his heart is no longer open.

2046 has become a metaphor for Chow's life and is the films primary leitmotif. It represents the quest for missed opportunities and moments. Characters find love in the film but they do not recognize it or embrace it typically until it is too late. And once they discover what their inaction or slow response has cost them, they try and recapture it, their lost memories, an impossibility by the very definition. But the person whose love was unrequited by the delayed response time of the object of his/her affection is equally doomed. At one point, Chow reflects, "I slowly began to doubt myself. Maybe the reason she didn't answer was not that her reactions were delayed but simply that she didn't love me. So at last, I got it. It's entirely out of my control. The only thing left for me...was to give up."

And thus we see driving forces that dictate the hopeless and endless wandering of the characters in the world that "2046" presents. One person falls in love and while the other is delaying, he/she gives up. The other slowly comes to realize what he/she had and has now lost and begins the quest to recapture it, a quest that will bear no fruit. Yet though the person who loved first has moved on, he/she hasn't really. As Chow recounts, "I once fell in love with someone. I couldn't stop wondering if she loved me back. I found an android which looked just like her. I hoped she would give me the answer." In seeking out new lovers, the person seeks to decipher the past, but this too is impossible. By the end, the film's ultimate message on moments and seizing them when they are there, rings profoundly true: "Love is all a matter of timing. It's no good meeting the right person too soon or too late. If I'd lived in another time or place...my story might have had a very different ending."

The Democratic Triumvirate (and the others) Debates

CNN scripted Sunday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire – there are the Big Three – Senator Clinton, former Senator Edwards, and Senator Obama – and then there are the rest. The three were positioned at the center of the stage and were allotted the majority of the time to respond to questions and debate issues.

Hillary handled herself quite masterfully. She displayed her policy knowledge (particularly on the question of having English as our official language) and her political agility. She cast herself as the nominee and matriarch of the Party almost, reminding the crowd that the Democratic candidates on stage were not so dissimilar, that the real differences were between the eight of them on the one side and the 10/11/12 Republican candidates and George W. Bush on the other.

John Edwards continued to antagonize his rivals, which is emerging as part of the dual strategy of his campaign – propose big ideas and take shots at the Democratic frontrunners. He chided Barack Obama on his healthcare proposal and criticized both Obama and Clinton on their lack of leadership on Iraq. Both times, however, Senator Obama rebuffed Senator Edwards quite handily. On the question of leadership on Iraq, the junior senator from Illinois reminded Edwards and all the viewers that he had opposed the War from the start, unlike Edwards who had voted to authorize it, and so Edwards was “4 ½ years late on leadership.”

Obama had a much stronger performance than he did at the first debate. He dealt with policy details well, especially on healthcare, responded forcefully when attacked, and showed some passion that has been lacking (indicative of his more reserved, contemplative Midwestern style) at times on the campaign trail. If he continues to show such improvement, Hillary had better watch out. His political skills have been a bit of a sleeping giant thus far on the campaign.

Kucinich and Biden did the best among the rest to distinguish themselves. Biden flexed his foreign policy muscles in a major way and also showed the most passion of any candidate when he addressed the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Kucinich continued to chastise Democrats for showing a lack of leadership on Iraq and healthcare. His calls for Democrats to cut off all funding did not seem totally crazy as he made a strong case for his reasoning. He still however comes off across as wimpish with his incessant calls for peace (perhaps an indictment on America and perhaps humans in general). And I still cannot decide whether his proposal for a “Department of Peace” reminds me of doublespeak or if it just seems like he is living with his queen Tinker Bell as king of the Faries along with Captain Hook, Peter Pan and the Lost Boys in Never Never Land.

Richardson continues to fail to impress, which is a problem for him. He is perhaps the one candidate who was not part of the trinity that could have broken into the top-tier. However, he also should be making a strong play for the vice president slot, but if he continues to stumble, it will become less and less likely. The good news for him is that there are still a lot of months left to pick his game up.

The most important thing that needs to happen before the next debate is that the Dodd and Biden campaigns need to get together to coordinate wardrobes. If you did not catch it, both candidates were wearing the same tie.

Immediate Thoughts After Watching the 1st GOP Debate

10:30 pm
What was most shocking about the Republican Party debate tonight at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California was the fact that, with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, none of the second-tier (and there are only two tiers) candidates attempted to take down any of the big three. Governor Mitt Romney and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani were allowed their previous flip flops, Giuliani was allowed his less-than-conservative credentials, and Senator John McCain was allowed his previous lack of loyalty to the Party. This is much like last week’s Democratic debate, though the Dems displayed not only civility but congeniality. What is odd about the unwillingness of the GOP candidates to go after one-another is that Republicans are unhappy with their candidates currently, which means that giants can and will fall. The top tier – Giuliani, McCain, and Romney – may be reticent to go after each other because if opens a bigger hole for a Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich to fill.

That being said, Mitt Romney did the best over all. The candidates kept talking about what made President Ronald Reagan great – his unflinching optimism, his unwavering faith in the greatness of America(ns) – and they all laid claim to his legacy, asserting that they could be a Reagan-esque candidate. The only person, however, who channeled that aura was Romney. He was bright, hopeful, and had clearly articulated ideas about what was right with America and what we could build upon. Plus, for a white guy, hair doesn’t get much better than that.

McCain showed his experience, though he appeared nervous at the beginning. He also ruined a great line. After saying, “I’ll follow him [Osama Bin Laden] to the gates of Hell,” McCain flashed a smile showing his pleasure that he had nailed his prepared one-liner. The trick with a one-liner, that is not meant to be funny, is to deliver it naturally, as though it came to you in the normal course of your response rather than rehearsed. He wasted what could have been a terrific clip, played again and again. One refrain that he was very solid on was cutting government spending. If he wins the nomination and if Iraq is on firmer footing (not likely), this could become an appealing mantra.

Giuliani had a very poor performance with the exception of his last statement on terrorism, which was strong and clear. His challenge of wrapping his more Liberal positions in Conservative packaging proved to be a difficult task for him. This is surprising because this obstacle has not come out of left field. He will have to articulate his positions and the nuances therein in a much more clear and succinct way in the debates to follow.

Thompson had the most interesting proposal on Iraq. Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Gilmore, and Tancredo were all solid. However, none of them felled a giant and it seems like they might be playing for a V.P. spot or a cabinet post.

The most interesting question for me that MSNBC did a horrible job of showing was who were the candidates that do not believe in Evolution, and there are quite a few of them. You could only see hands, but it was difficult from the shot to identify the believers and non-believers.

All in all, the Democratic Primary last week was much more entertaining because there were not a bunch of posers on stage, claiming to be someone they’re not – Ronald Reagan (can’t wait for the Loyd Benson moment that is sure to come at some point this election cycle). Additionally, the Dems seemed to have more fun and the characters of Kucinich and Gravel provided some very real comic relief. Ron Paul was not nearly so adapt as an outsider shaking things up in way that lightened the room.

Republicans, Be Wary of a President Giuliani: Why a Rudy Presidency Holds Great Risks for the GOP

The most recent Time poll has former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leading Senator John McCain, 38% to 24% among Republicans. In a January poll McCain led Giuliani by four points. This is very disturbing news for both the McCain and Romney camps, particularly because in the same poll America’s Mayor beats both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head-to-head by three and four points, respectively. He is clearly the man to beat among Republicans, and possibly among all candidates in the race.

While Giuliani is perhaps the most formidable general election candidate to square off against the Democrats next November, Republicans should be wary of a Giuliani presidency, and here are just three reasons why:

1. The Courts: Given Giuliani’s liberal-leaning views on social issues; his history of judicial appointments while mayor of New York City; and in spite of his pandering on a predisposition to appoint Scalias, Robertses, and Alitos, when faced with a moderate-majority (one made up Democrats and moderate Republicans), and a possibly Democratic-controlled Senate, Rudy will likely appoint jurists more in the mold of O’Connor, ones who will adjudicate from the center and uphold precedent. He is likely to do so for reasons of political expediency, electability (his election and reelection will rely on a large amount of support from independents, and he will have an ’84 electoral landslide in his sights for 2012), and because that is where his politics more closely lie. This means, Rove v. Wade will likely remain safely in tact under a Giuliani administration.
2. The Republican electoral coalition: The three major political camps within the GOP currently are the hawks, the fiscal conservatives, and the religious conservatives (of course many fall into some combination of the three). Rudy Giuliani falls into the former two and will likely govern from there, allowing him to maintain his label as a moderate to average voters. On fiscal matters he will preach for limited government and lower taxes, and on foreign policy matters he will pursue a strategy that is every bit as hawkish as the current Administration’s, after all, he is banking his election largely on being seen as strong on national security matters. The group within the Republican constituency that will be left out will be religious conservatives. Giuliani will triangulate much like Bill Clinton did. He will appease two important parts of his base through foreign and tax policy, and on social issues (and a few domestic priorities), he will co-opt Democratic positions. He is likely to support greater environmentalism than the current president, he will likely support stem-cell research, and he is unlikely to be a crusader against Roe v. Wade or for issues like school prayer or a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. After either four or eight years, religious conservatives will find themselves very disaffected with a Giuliani administration, leading to either a primary challenge in ’12 or an uninspired base that will require much work to reinvigorate.
3. The overall Republican Party: After four or eight years of a Giuliani administration, a fissure will likely exist and religious conservatives will find themselves in ’12 relatively unmotivated for his reelection or supporting Primary challenge. In ’16, assuming Rudy is reelected, religious conservatives will attempt to reassert their importance in the Party, but war and fiscal hawks, having enjoyed eight years of front-and-center importance will be resistant to ceding influence and power. They will argue that Giuliani is the model for the future of Republican presidential candidates – fiscally conservative, hawkish on defense, but socially moderate. Yet, as was the case with Clinton, so long as conservatives from the South, those most likely to come from the religious wing, continue to have a strong influence in Congress, it is unclear that Rudy will be able to put any Blue states in play past his candidacy or change any Purple states Red. That is to say, Giuliani probably will not shift the Republican Party’s ideology markedly; he will only expose underlying tensions within it. His electoral success will thus be the beneficiary of ticket-splitting in Purple and Blue states.

While Rudolph Giuliani may be the politically expedient choice for GOP voters, and while they may be willing to cede ground on social issues for the retention of the White House for four more years, Republicans should be mindful that Bill Clinton’s popularity was held in check by Republican majorities in both chambers of the Congress for six of his eight years. His popularity did not translate to Democratic success at local levels. The Party was out of power for fourteen years.

2008 Primary Preview: The Long, Long Sprint

Presidential exploratory committees abound. Candidates, and those who would be candidates, make statements daily. Rallies are held. Pundits speculate. The public scrutinizes. Hopefuls stumble. Presidential primary seasons is underway, so here is a preview of the field on both the Democratic and Republic (take that George Bush) side. I have invited Paloma from bikinipolitics.com (http://www.bikinpolitics.com/ ) to shed her insightful wisdom, like manna from Heaven (she asked that I include the part about manna from Heaven), on the GOP field. Many thanks to her. In the world of politics, reality is ever changing (think: George Allen and Bill Frist would have been on this list just 9 months ago), so take these observations as a snapshot of where things stand today. Most of them will not fundamentally change in the next 6-9 months, but some of them will…

Democrats:

The Big Three:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hill is the former FLOTUS who would be POTUS. I have never been an HRC naysayer. People argue that she is unelectable, and I argue that she will surprise you. She has the organization, the advisers, and the fundraising machine to intimidate everyone in the race. She is smart and knows policy inside and out. Hillary may also benefit from a type of low expectations. People believe that she is unelectable and will not be able to generate support past a certain point, and that she is wooden and uncompelling on the stump. As she begins to exceed the limited expectations others have for her, she may produce a shock factor, much like Bush did when he did not completely stink in debates against Al Gore in 2000. Being a formidable female candidate will present unique challenges for her male opponents and for her as well. How the media and public will interpret attacks and her reactions to them is an important unknown and could cripple both sides equally. It’s important to note that when Rick Lazio ran against her for Senate in 2000, he suffered for seeming too abrasive. Additionally, a year ago when Republicans pounced on her MLK Day “plantation” remarks, her poll numbers went up. In the end, her biggest challenge may be her last name. The presidency is beginning to get a bit dynastic and there may be a subconscious aversion to having the succession go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton… Her last name also comes with a famously warm and compelling spouse, who will surely be an asset but may also prove to be a liability. She will not keep him off the stump as Al Gore did in 2000, but this may not in fact work to her benefit. It is another key unknown of her candidacy.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

John Edwards
Senator Edwards is running to win the nomination and let the rest be damned. He seems most willing to attack his opponents and he is firmly placing himself as representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party this time around. His change from the sunshine candidate to the dems-and-brimstone candidate was abrupt and inelegantly managed, but might yet prove an effective turn of tactic should the media stop writing about how dearly they miss his lovely toothy grin. He has made healthcare and poverty his two big causes and is doing something not heard of often in campaigns – he is pledging to raise taxes (on the wealthy). If Obama is being cast as Bobby Kennedy, Edwards is trying to be J.F.K., stating that American’s will need to make sacrifices to achieve the society they want to see. In 2004 he seemed stary-eyed, but now his mood is a bit more somber, which he is attempting to project as a type of seriousness. Over the next year, he will continue to take advantage of the fact the he is not in the Senate and others are. Like his call on the Senate to refuse to fund the escalation, expect that he makes similar appeals to his former colleagues to make politically difficult if not detrimental votes that nonetheless play well to the base.
http://johnedwards.com/

Barack Obama
Senator Obama is the “rising star” in the Democratic Party and thus finds fertile fundraising soil and a panting, salivating press corps paving the way for his current presidential run. He is the only current front-runner who didn’t vote for the war in Iraq. Plus, he speaks so well. Obstacles in his future may include calls from the left to withhold funds for the President’s escalation/surge. As a candidate, he can deliver a moving speech, is terrific on the stump, and comes across as authentic. He has been likened to Bobby Kennedy in the way he has injected politics with new life. Race will be a hurdle he must overcome, though his positioning as a senator from the Midwest may help in this endeavor. Indeed, Obama may have a hurdle the other way — rather than being “too black,” many now speculate he’s “not black enough” and will have to fight for core Democratic votes in the African-American community. The other big hurdle he will have to overcome is his lack of experience. By inauguration day, 2009, he will have served in the Senate for only 4 years. However, he can argue that despite his inexperience he displayed the judgment the other front-runners lacked when he opposed the war in Iraq. Indeed, one of our nation’s greatest presidents was also a relatively inexperienced leader from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln. Like Obama, Lincoln gained most of his experience in the Illinois state legislature in Springfield, IL (coincidentally where Obama will make his official announcement just 2 days before Honest Abe’s birthday) and only served for two years in D.C. Lastly, it cannot be forgotten that he is so well spoken!
http://www.barackobama.com/

The Rest:
Joe Biden
Joe Biden is one of my favorite senators and one who takes his job extremely seriously. He is smart on issues, particularly in foreign policy, staking out well-thought out (or at least lengthily-verbalized) positions. Indeed, his plans for a political solution in Iraq show some of the deepest thought and analysis made by any in the Senate. He is not a big-time candidate, though, and it is hard to envision a scenario where he breaks in to the big threes' club. That being said, if a Democrat wins in 2008, he would be a terrific Secretary of State candidate, provided that he could bear to be away from home with his wife while his children are asleep and could overcome his malignant, relapsing case of foot-in-mouth disease.
http://www.joebiden.com/home

Chris Dodd
The senior senator from Connecticut is well-liked and well-versed in all of the issues with decades of experience in D.C. under his belt. Plus, he has the hair of a golden-god. He is not going to rise as a candidate to be reckoned with, however. He would be an interesting choice for Vice President as he would not likely run in four years, should the ticket lose, or in eight, should the ticket win. However, in a field with three overwhelming stars, he’s the unknown with the most to gain, giving him the opportunity to launch himself nationally, should his personal blandness not prove too great an obstacle.
http://www.chrisdodd.com/

Dennis Kucinich
The elfish Dennis Kucinich will try to run on liberal credentials as the only candidate to have voted against the Iraq War, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where he creates a real challenge to the big three. Edwards is running to the left of left and has apologized for his vote. Obama was publicly against the war since 2002, a fact he will continue to remind voters throughout the process. And HRC is moving steadily leftward on the war, and may have apologized for her vote as well by the time the Iowa Caucuses roll around.
http://www.denniskucinich.us/

Bill Richardson
The governor of New Mexico and first strong Hispanic candidate for president is one who could break into the big three’s club (although he is a bit saddened that Senator Biden did not refer to him as articulate, clean, etc.). He just finished a successful term as Chair of the Democratic Governor’s Association and enjoyed a reelection victory. He has one of the broadest and deepest backgrounds of any candidate (Democrat or Republican) currently running. He served in Congress for 14 years, was ambassador to the United Nations, was the Secretary of Energy, and is currently in his second term as New Mexico’s governor. The mix of federal, state, legislative, administrative, foreign, and domestic roles gives him the most diverse resume. For these reasons, and because of his geographic location and ethnic heritage, he may also become an appealing Vice Presidential candidate should he not succeed in getting the Party’s nomination. Assuming, of course, he can put his campaign financial transactions of dubious legality firmly in his past.
http://www.richardsonforpresident/.

Tom Vilsack
Former Governor Vilsack is positioned well for the Iowa Caucuses, having served as that state’s governor for eight years. He understands the process and the people very well and they know him. That being said, he will have to overcome the hurdle of being seen as a small-time candidate without a legitimate shot (Iowa caucus voters have a streak of pragmatism to them, one of the reasons why Dean lost in 2004). If not, he may find it difficult to have success in his home state, and if he does not do well in the first caucus, he is all but dead in the water. That said, Vilsack is a compelling speaker who comes across as earnest, honest and plain-spoken (which sometimes is the same as boring) and unlike many front-runners, is a Washington outsider. Should congressional Democrats commit any major legislative gaffes, his distance from these issues may make him an effective “third way.” While he may not be the nation’s next president, do not be surprised to find him as a cabinet secretary in a Democratic administration, agriculture or commerce perhaps as he aptly performed his duties as governor of the Hawkeye state.
http://www.tomvilsack08.com/

X-Factor:
Al Gore
Now an elder statesman, Al Gore is the one candidate in the Democratic field who could significantly reshape the race. He is the star of the Oscar nominated “An Inconvenient Truth” and has been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize this year. He is the standard-bearer for the cause of global warming and many look at him much differently than they did eight years ago. He has also amassed a sizeable personal wealth from his stock in Google (all those who claimed he didn’t invent the internet, who’s laughing now?). With experience, smarts, an ability to fundraise, and a new found stardom, Gore is the X-factor on the Democratic side. It’s unlikely, though, that he will enter the race if he isn’t certain of his chances to win the nomination.


Republicans:

The Big Three:
Rudy Giuliani
This coy candidate seems to have made up his mind about seeking his party's nomination for president. He has well-known liberal positions on hot button conservative issues such as abortion, and his fading image as America’s Mayor might not warm primary voters’ hearts sufficiently to outweigh their concerns that he’s too liberal. There are also the string of marriages and assorted police questions (Diallo? Louima?). Though these obstacles might be too much for a candidate of his advancing years, Giuliani does have a warm and affable personality and national name ID working in his favor. Giuliani is currently leading in the polls against his GOP contenders and would be a formidable general election candidate. If he emerges as the nominee, thereby overcoming his lack of some important social-conservative credentials, the GOP will have made a definitively pragmatic choice, making concessions on certain issues to retain the White House for at least four more years. It’s a tough sell that for Giuliani, the best is yet to come, but who knows? Maybe we’re all ready to fall in love with America’s Mayor once more.
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/

John McCain
John McCain is a longtime senator and war hero, a darling of the Washington press corps, and maybe even other press corpses too. He has accomplished the difficult feat of convincing the media he’s much more moderate than he really is, branding himself as a perennial “maverick” by periodically talking tough to his own party. His support in the press corps, his national renown, and his moderate cred are all formidable assets. However, this has also alienated some core conservatives, who find his double-talking repelling. A McCain strategy counts on his attracting a large number of moderates. Another important part of his strategy would include McCain keeping his legendarily fiery temper under wraps, and off camera. At a very early stop in New Hampshire in 2006, McCain could barely control himself in a town hall when faced with irate questioners. How will he fare in a no-holds-barred campaign? McCain’s temper, his age, and his lack of a conservative base may all harm him in a Republican primary.
http://www.exploremccain.com/

Mitt Romney
Governor Romney is the man who makes everyone ask if we’re ready for a Mormon president. Romney hails originally from the corporate world, and made public-private solutions a hallmark of his tenure as governor. Romney has gained accolades across the aisle for his innovative solution increasing health care coverage in Massachusetts, but he came under fire in his home state (perilously close to New Hampshire) for being out of town so obviously and so often. In a conservative primary, he might also suffer for being the governor from “Taxachusetts.” He’s well-spoken and photogenic, but his late arrival to the social conservative section of the party will certainly be fodder for attacks from his opponents. Clips from his 1994 Senate campaign against one Ted Kennedy where Romney affirmed his support of a woman’s right to choose may prove particularly harmful in the age of youtube and other such mass media avenues of dissemination. Romney has been hard at work honing sections of what looks like a stump speech, and perhaps this long practice will serve him well in overcoming his obstacles to the nomination. However, if he doesn’t make it to the nom, his square-jawed looks, non-fiery persona and businessman cred make him a natural for the veep slot.
http://www.mittromney.com/

The Rest:
Sam Brownback
Sam Brownback’s conservative credentials are impeccable, which will help him in a Republican primary. However, his bipartisan tendencies might endear him to moderates more than his conservatism might suggest. For example, Brownback is not wholly in favor of capital punishment, has voted in favor of immigration reform, and opposes President Bush’s troop surge. Brownback has taken early and public stances on emotional issues such as sex trafficking, the genocide in Darfur, and abortion, which will help in niche fundraising efforts. A devout Christian who converted to Catholicism in 2002, he is comfortable talking about his faith and God, an asset on the campaign trail. Outside of his home state and Washington DC, Brownback is a relative unknown and has a long road to go to make a name for himself nationally. Does this very model of a modern Christian senator have the chops to make a run for it nationwide? Some aregue thatt if the Christian right does not coalesce around one of the big three (mainly McCain or Romney), Brownback may see his fortunes in the Primary rise, but he will have to out compete the former governor of Arkansas to be the religious-right’s standard bearer. However, the coattails of the so-called religious right might not be as long as they once were, if this conservative constituency once again doesn’t feel inspired to turn out (as they didn’t in 2006).
http://www.brownback.com/

Jim Gilmore
This army veteran has competition for the “conservative” slot in the Republican primary field, but he brings his experience as governor to the mix, where Hunter brings less clear executive cred as a congressman. Gilmore is nationally unknown, and it remains to be seen whether he can differentiate himself from the other “conservative” candidates.

Chuck Hagel
Chuck Hagel is quite handsome, but he’s also quite short. He has yet to develop into a compelling stump speaker, and although he has thrown rocks at the Bush administration from time to time, he has failed to create a “maverick” reputation with the press. He’s a serious force on international issues of defense and foreign policy and would make an unsurprising choice for either of these cabinet-level positions in a Republican administration. He is also the loudest and most compelling GOP voice in the Congress against the war. If an anti-war fervor takes hold in the Republican primaries, this war veteran may find himself in a good position.

Mike Huckabee
Huckabee ran the 2005 Little Rock Marathon wearing the number 2008, beating fellow ’08 hopeful Gov. Vilsack by 50 minutes. This governor is famous for shedding pounds, but still has to convince Republicans he’s a heavyweight who can play on the national stage. Huckabee is on the conservative side of several issues, and his previous career before politics was as a pastor in several Southern Baptist churches. He was named one of the nation’s top five governors by Time magazine in 2005, but even this accolade hasn’t given him a national reputation. However, the Republican field isn’t crowded with celebrities, giving this Republican a good shot to make a name for himself as the “other” Arkansas governor and “man from Hope.”

http://www.explorehuckabee.com/site/PageServer

Duncan Hunter
This California congressman brings a good geographical footprint to the bottom of the ticket, should he occupy the veep slot. He’s a bit of a one-hit-wonder thus far, focusing primarily on border security issues. His presence in the debate will keep the dialogue on the hot-button topic of immigration more to the right than perhaps the big three would like. It will be interesting to see how they respond to Hunter’s position, one that is located in the mainstream of conservative thought on security issues but may (or may not) be out of step with conservative primary voters on the issue of reform. In the coming months, it will be interesting to see whether he can develop a broader issues profile or whether he remains focused and campaigns hard for the second slot on the ticket.

http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx

Tommy Thompson
Tommy Thompson himself occasionally forgets he has ever done anything of note. Seeing if he can remind the voters should be fun. By fun I mean funny. In earnest though — Thompson is a serious politician who has a deficit of name ID, and the accomplishments he would likely point to are at this point getting a little dusty. His most recent accomplishment of note is the slightly bizarre VeriChip, an implanted RFID chip that holds medical records. Though he has advocated for it quite publicly, he has yet to get one himself.
http://www.tommy2008.com/Home.aspx

X-Factor:
Newt Gingrich
Newt has said he won’t decide whether he’s running until October, absolving himself of the responsibility of fundraising, and defending his past record, until then. However, Newt has unimpeachable conservative cred, is a brilliant public speaker, and might just be one of the finest political minds of our time. Maybe. With candidates like McCain and Giuliani expected to raise in the area of $100 million this year, it is still unclear that in October, Newt will be able to overcome such a large fundraising deficit. But if none of the big three emerges as the clear front-runner, and a conservatives are still waiting to be moved, he may be able to capitalize on unmet demand in the market. Time will tell.

A Son's Farewell to Ed Bradley

As far back as I can remember, "60 Minutes" was a mainstay in my home on Sunday evenings. Except for the months during the NFL season, without fail the tic tic tic tic tic would start promptly at 7:00 pm EST.

60 Minutes was not a program that I appreciated right away, but I remember it as a time that I spent with my mother and father learning about important and interesting things going on in the world. The routine of our family viewing impressed upon me that there was something worthwhile to take away from the broadcast, and it was in this program that I developed an early appreciation for what quality journalism was.

During his tenure on the program, Ed Bradley was just as impressive as any of his colleagues, yet he struck me as significant because he was black. Diane Sawyer (when she was on the program) had a similar impression on me as a female journalist on the program. The news media then was even more so than now dominated by white-male faces, particularly among the highly-regarded journalists, so Bradley's place on "60 Minutes" carved out an important social, political, and journalistic space.

I don't remember his pieces standing out as better than his colleagues. Over the years, the program has been marked by consistent, quality journalism period. I do remember that his voice always seemed soothing and he had a cool suaveness to him. Those who are followers of "60 Minutes" will surely miss the man and what he brought to the broadcast. For me, I will remember him with fond memories of those Sunday nights on the couch with Mom and Dad, seeing an important man, reporting on important matters as part of an important journalist team with the familiar, comforting, and consistent tic tic tic tic ticking signaling the beginning and end of segments.

Will Republicans be Kicking Themselves November 8th?

Election Day is tomorrow and most political pundits agree that the Democrats will regain control of the House for the first time since 1994. What many did not foresee but what is now a very real possibility is the potential for the Democrats to also regain control of the Senate. Right now this chance still remains remote, but if it is a very good day for Dems, the possibility exists. Currently, there are really only two currently held Democratic seats at risk of being lost, Maryland and New Jersey. However, seats in Arizona, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia are all currently held by the GOP and are all currently in play. If Democrats hold onto the seats in Maryland and New Jersey (which seems likely), they will need to pick up six of these eight red seats. If I were a betting man, I would predict that Dems only get four of these seats, leaving the Senate in GOP control 51-49.

But if on Wednesday morning it happens that Democrats have picked up the necessary seats to gain control of the Senate, Republicans may be kicking themselves, and it will not be over these aforementioned races. George Bush, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, and Elizabeth Dole will be wondering why they did not field a strong candidate for the senate race in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman looks as though he will pull out a close victory over upstart challenger Ned Lamont, though no one should count Mr. Lamont out until the votes are counted. However, if Lieberman wins, he will do so with a large percentage of Republican votes. In fact, if Republicans in Connecticut stay home in large enough numbers, Ned Lamont will pull out a win. This fact has not been lost on the Republican campaign strategists who have refused to endorse their candidate, Alan Schlesinger, who will struggle himself to get to 5%. The thinking goes thus. This is a difficult year for the three GOP House incumbents, all in tight races, and with a governor’s race that is not competitive, Republicans voters in Connecticut, like those nationally, are depressed about their party and may stay home in droves, which means a loss of three seats in the House just in Connecticut. However, Republicans may be inspired to come out to vote for Good Ole Joe, and while in the polls, vote for the familiar incumbents Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays, and Rob Simmons.

These three are facing tough challengers in Chris Murphy, Diane Farrell, and Joe Courtney, respectively, and may lose anyhow. But if the Dems take the Senate, Republicans may be asking themselves why they did not recruit a strong candidate to run against Joe Lieberman. This strategy is not without precedent in Connecticut. In 1970, Rev. Joe Duffey challenged, as an anti-war candidate, the incumbent Democratic Senator Thomas Dodd (father of current senior Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd). Duffey won the primary and Dodd subsequently ran as an independent in the general. The Republicans that year nominated Lowell Weicker who was a moderate representative in the House from Fairfield County. In the three-way race that year, the Republican, Lowell Weiker capitalized on the division among the Democrats to capture the seat that he held on to for three terms until he himself was unseated by one Joe Lieberman in 1988 (Weicker has come out in support of Lamont this year). Given this precedent, the GOP would have been smart to encourage a Republican like Chris Shays to run for Senate. How ironic would it be if Shays loses his House seat in a year that he could have possibly won his state’s senate race.

The Departed - Infernal Affairs on the Mean Streets of Boston

Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” will surely provide an entertaining evening and is well worth the price of admission. In the American remake of the 2002 Hong Kong hit crime drama, “Infernal Affairs,” Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan, a cop who goes undercover to infiltrate the organization of Boston crime boss, Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). Matt Damon is Colin Sullivan, DiCaprio’s doppelganger, a Costello mole within the state police. Both Damon and DiCaprio do a fine job. The latter has perhaps truly found his acting stride with consistent performances – some, like in The Aviator, exceptional. Nicholson, however, is good for the sheer fact that he is one of the greatest actors in American cinematic history. There is nothing particularly wowing about his performance, if you hold him against his ability and past performances, but he does an adequate job as the sleazy, controlling, dirty-to-the-bone boss.

Scorsese’s version is not quite as good as the original. Its overall mood is a bit over the top when compared against “Infernal Affairs.” Nicholson perhaps deserves some of the blame here. That being said, William Monahan has done an exquisite job at translating the original from the streets of Hong Kong to the streets of Boston. And Scorsese adds his part. His movies are not typically about the places they inhabit like Los Angeles in Paul Haggis’ “Crash” or New York in any Spike Lee joint. In such films, the city becomes another character in the movie. Locations in Scorsese films, on the other hand, subtly imprint their meaning upon the films in a way that renders them both important and unimportant at the same time. “The Departed” could be set in any city, but then again it could only be set in Boston.

There are some tour-de-force performances in the movie. Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin are tremendous. Though they play cops, they provide the aesthetic of Boston’s Irish streets. They exude swagger, profanity, and toughness overlaid with a sense (below the surface in the case of Wahlberg) of joviality. The other performance that is quite strong is Vera Farmiga’s so long as you forgive the moments where she appears to forget her Bostonian accent. In this testosterone injected film, she does not provide a counterbalancing soft femininity. She does, however, provide an interesting double for DiCaprio’s character in that they are only two in the film that really display any sort of genuine vulnerability. At one point she asks him if his is real. He could easily turn the question around on her. Farmiga’s bold beauty equals her talent and hopefully Hollywood will utilize her more in the years to come.

Large ensemble casts do not always yield strong results. You hope that film is greater than the sum of its part. “The Departed” seems to be just about equal, and it perhaps suffers from having an abundance of talent without an adequate supply of meaty roles.

The Lamont-Lieberman Primary Fight - An Analysis from the Field

For eight months starting in January and concluding in August, I was involved in a hotly contested Democratic primary in the state of Connecticut. No, it not was the senate race between challenger Ned Lamont and three term incumbent Joe Lieberman. I was working for the Mayor of Stamford, Dannel Malloy, who was vying for his party's nomination for governor. Sadly, our campaign came up just short losing by 1.5% after being down in the polls 20 points just a few weeks prior.

My work on the campaign gave me an interesting, insider if you will, perspective on the Lamont-Lieberman race, however, and what most media pundits have missed. The primary contest had been billed as a referendum on the War. Many liberals viewed it in more encompassing terms as a referendum on President Bush as well - hard to fathom that in a state where his approval rating hovers around 30% that a primary decided by three percentage points would fit that framework. Conservatives spun this as a fracturing of the Democratic Party and as a sign of intolerance toward moderate viewpoints within it.

What this Primary was, however, was all those things and much much more. First, it must be stated that Senator Lieberman's campaign was extremely poorly run from start almost until finish. Here is a quick lesson for any future senator: if you are the most vocal supporter in your own party of a war that is extremely unpopular in your party and your state, if you are additionally viewed as overly supportive of a president who is extremely unpopular in your party and your state and whose legacy hangs in the balance of the aforementioned unpopular war, and if you go so far as to write a scathing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal - that appears as though it could have been ghost written by members of the aforementioned unpopular president's administration - stating that those who criticize the war efforts undermine the troops, you may be susceptible to a primary challenge. The fact that the Lieberman campaign did not sniff the scent of a primary challenger in the air is totally unfathomable, but speaks to a perhaps endemic problem with the Senator that I shall get to later.

Joe Lieberman has not been in a tough Senate race in the state of Connecticut since 1988 when he first upset then three term incumbent Lowell Weicker. In 1994 he was easily reelected and in 2000, reelection came so easily that he did not have to take any days away from campaigning with Al Gore. And what happened between 1994 - the last year the Senator campaigned in the state - and now? He lost touch with his base. Those Democrats that are the party activists, who fill phone banks, who vote at conventions, who are the first point of contact for those who would like to run, Joe Lieberman lost touch with. They are the ones who lost faith in him, who were courted initially by the newcomer, Ned Lamont, who could have served as the first line - and perhaps only line - of defense necessary to turn back any would-be challengers. Instead, Senator Lieberman continued his tried and true strategy of staying in touch, visiting every day folks in diners across the state, doing nothing to repair the bond with his Democratic base.

Out in the field, the reasons why people were not supporting Joe were many. For many it was the War. But for others, they did not feel as though he had brought home the bacon. Others thought that he reveled in undermining Democrats in D.C. Still others thought that he took them for granted. And then there were those who he lost along the way through displays of apparent arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and his unwillingness to abide by the results of the primary. The dynamic that became apparent play was that the War emerged merely a catalyst that allowed Ned Lamont to become a viable alternative to Senator Lieberman. Once Democrats had a realistic choice, feelings and issues that had been stored up over many years for some came to the surface. Many felt that finally they had another option and they were going to exercise it.

This story is neither as sexy nor as black and white as the one the media pundits harped upon, but it is as I, someone working along side both camps in the other hotly contested state-wide primary, observed it. People supported Ned Lamont and opposed Joe Lieberman for a multitude of reasons. The Senator's campaign made many strategic errors along the way. They did not seem to realize they were in a fight until Ned Lamont's candidacy had already gained self-sustaining strength. But at the end of the day, you've got take care of your base. The Senate is a great institution in how it is buffeted from the people through six-year terms. Indeed, some like Senator Lieberman can stay away for twelve. But it is a rule that rings loud and clearly more often than not - you've got to take care of your base. It is fitting and not at all surprising that the greatest challenge that a Democratic Senator who is known for his moderate/conservative views has faced in his 18 years of service comes from a challenge not from the right or center but from the left. And it is not surprising that the Senator is relearning how to fight in his own state – he has not had to fight for 18 years.

Reflectons...

So another calendar year is about to be ending and like everyone else, I would like to make some reflections from the year. This blog will be a mix of favorites, thoughts, and some previews of reasons to be excited for the next year.

Best Movies of the Year (mind you, that I have seen):
Crash - This was one of the most powerful films of the year with an ensemble cast that delivered an ensemble performance.
2046 - The best that I've seen Zhang Ziyi act and a truly interesting look at love and relationships. Best line from the movie: "Love is all a matter of timing. It's no good meeting the right person...too soon or too late. If I'd lived in another time or place...my story might have had a very different ending."
Batman Begins - Christian Bale was superb and the darkness was terrific.
March of the Penguins - Probably one of the most ubiquitous films of the year, equally as good as a date movie, as a family film, or as a documentary to see for general interest sake.
The Aristocrats - Once again, the funniest (albeit dirtiest) film to come along in the longest time. It is truly interesting to gain access to a window into the life of comedians around comedians. The film once again demonstrates that much of humor is about a release of anxiety, making light of those things that are most uncomfortable in life.
Brokeback Mountain - Some of the best acting performances of the year can be found in this film. This was such a touching story about a relationship between two males over multiple decades that to at least one of them was mythic molded by the imagination much like how the American imagination envisioned the concepts of cowboys and the west.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Not much to say here. The books keep getting better and better and so too do the movies.
Munich - Steven Spielberg has made a complicated, interesting, challenging history questioning whether societies should or can ever compromise their values, how effective military response to terrorism is in the short and long term, and the desire for some concept of home and what that will drive men to do.
Paradise Now - An interesting and long-overdue look into the lives of those who become suicide bombers and the internal debate that happens in their community.
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang - Critics did not overlook this film but most others by and large overlooked it. Robert Downey Junior is at his funniest and the script is as smart as it is playful.
Hitch - Finally a romantic comedy that appealed to men. This movie was made for men on a mission to show a woman a good time, appear moderately sensitive, and have a good time themselves.

Favorite books from the year:
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - I didn't like it quite as much as The Order of the Phoenix but I still poured through it in three days, and the ending leaves you so excited for the final chapter in this saga.
Blindness – Saramgo’s book was actually published in 1999, but I read it this year while the horrors of Hurricane Katrina were unfolding. He imagines a world where mysteriously people become infected with a contagious blindness and what then happens in their society. The parallels to what happened in Katrina show Saramago to have made some insightful predictions about our responses to such situations.
Beasts of No Nation - A tale shocking and delicate, warm and disarming that has received wonderful reviews in many newspapers including the New York Times and the Washington Post. Uzo Iweala, a friend whom I graduated with from Harvard, has certainly established himself as someone able to bring politically salient issues to light through compelling fiction.
Never Eat Alone - This is a quick read and will give you a way to approach and manage those softer relationships that can be hard but nonetheless important to maintain.

Favorite Albums from the past year:
Hip Hop - Be (Common) - This album is the convergence of one of the top three emcees out right now and one of the best producers (Kanye West) having found the perfect sound for his distinctive flow. My only critique of the album was that it was not longer.
R&B - Get Lifted (John Legend) - Another album to come out of the Kanye West camp, Legend's debut was soulful from beginning to end.
Other - O (Damien Rice)- I got wind of this artist after hearing the infectious, "The Blower's Daughter" when I saw the film Closer. The album is emotional and moving. There is a sense that nothing was left in the recording studio; it's all on the album. Every person I talk to has a different favorite song as a sign of how thorough the entire album is.
Other2 - Where You Live (Tracy Chapman) - Another soulful album from a soulful woman. Chapman has a special way of capturing experience and life in song with a melody that compliments.

Older Movies Discovered:
Roman Holiday - This is one of the best romantic comedies that I've seen and for my money, the gold standard. Gregory Peck is impeccable and Audrey Hepburn is as charming as always.
The Battle of Algiers - Such a terrific political drama about the early resistance movement (insert: terrorist movement if it assuages your sensibilities) in Algeria against France.

Moves for next year:
Glory Road - This is a must see movie for families and people of all ages. Disney and Bruckheimer have marshaled tremendous financial resources to tell the tale of the Texas Western basketball team that was the first to win the national title while starting an all black lineup.

Some final reflections from the year:
This year has been one of ups and downs, as years seem to always go, at the personal and more general level. We had the highs of the global response to the Asian Tsunami and earthquake in Pakistan and the lows of Hurricane Katrina. Deaths in Iraq have continued to mount as the insurgency rages on, but there were just elections in that country as well. In the next year, I would like to challenge our leaders to finally decide: that all Americans will have access to healthcare, that spying on the American people unchecked by other branches of government is antithetical to our system of government and core values, that real sensible solutions to illegal immigration problems that will make a real difference are needed not just popular appeals, and that we need a comprehensive strategy that takes a perspective on how American innovation will see a resurgence. In addition, I would like to see the UConn Huskies win another national title.

Lastly, be good to the people in your life and show them the support that they need and deserve. Cherish those around you because they make life worth living. Stay in touch with your friends and family because you don't want to wake up five or ten years later and wonder what happened to someone or why that person now resembles a distant stranger. What's more you never know when, how or why a person comes to occupy new significance or importance in your life. Take a chance on love, and continue to seek happiness. Many times it can be found in the happiness of others.

Ms. Aguilera, I'm Singing a Song for You

A successful remake of a song that has been done by an artist whose version is so timeless and classic that it will be forever associated with him/her can be very difficult to achieve. The list of failures includes some that are not too surprising like Michael Bolton's rendition of "When a Man Loves a Woman," but it also includes artists like Alicia Keys who remade Gladys Knight and the Pip's "If I Were Your Woman," in an interesting but not so successful way. The problem is that the original is the gold standard against which every other version is measured and so the remakes had better be made of something a little different and be just as incredible, a brilliant diamond to match the gold. Few have achieved equally great renderings, but some of them would include Jodeci's cover of Stevie Wonder's "Lately," the Fugees version of Roberta Flack's immortal "Killing Me Softly," and Dave Matthews Band's version of Jimi Hendrix' "Watchtower."

An infectious remake that has been released this year is Christina Aguilera's version of "A Song for You" on Herbie Hancock's "Possibilities" compilation album. The song, written by Leon Russell, has been covered by such greats as the Temptations and Ray Charles, but for me, Donny Hathaway still has the version (As an aside, the “A Donny Hathaway Collection” is a soul album must have and one that if you love soul music you can’t go wrong with). Ms. Aguilera's rendering of the song sends chills down the spine when you listen to it just as does Hathaway's. She has always had a voice with power that rivals Whitney's in her heyday, but what she has lacked has been the vocal maturity not to flaunt her tremendous gift on every note that she sings. However, on "A Song for You" her vocals are sufficiently reigned in where appropriate and allowed to soar at many other points to give her ownership over the song to display her range and inject her own creative flare into the tune. What a beautiful song she has graced with her voice, and what a beautiful product she has produced along with Hancock. I continue to believe that she is one the most vocally accomplished artists out in the mainstream today and that, given the right writing and production team, she has a classic cover-to-cover album or two in her ala Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Aretha Franklin, or Sade.

If you so choose, go get the album, a pretty decent one in the easy listening genre or download on iTunes a choice few tracks, mainly the ones featuring Aguilera, John Mayer, Annie Lennox, and Damien Rice along with Lisa Hannigan.

Why a Timetable in Iraq Might Just be Mission Critical

The War in Iraq, now approaching its third birthday, continues to drag on and progress has trickled in slower than some expected and most would hope for. Everyday the headlines are dominated with the latest bombing attack on American soldiers or Iraqi citizens (the significance should not be lost in regards to the fact that I use the term “citizens” in describing Iraqis, a truly laudable accomplishment of the mission over there). And of course, given the way in which the war was sold to the American public and the hubris that infected administration predictions of post-Sadaam Iraq, support has grown stronger, louder and more widespread for a timetable for troop redeployment. But many how countered that a timetable is dangerous because it gives the insurgents a definitive date that they know when the Americans will leave. The logic goes that they will take this as a signal for how long they have to outlast America after which Iraq will be theirs to terrorize unabated.

While this thinking certainly seems reasonable and logically supported, it is nonetheless flawed. A timetable for troop redeployment in Iraq is something that should not be shunned or dismissed. It is actually the better choice between having one and not having one. There are two critical reasons why this is the case. The first is that for Iraqis (and others in the region) that view American presence in the region as occupation, it clearly defines the terminality to American forces in the country. The second reason is implicit in the administration’s language regarding American presence in Iraq mainly that as Iraqi’s stand up, we shall stand down.

However, before delving into these two areas, let me first state that when I say timetable, I do not mean an inflexible one. To have a schedule that does not take into account the current realities of the situation on the ground in Iraq is foolish and lacks foresight and sound judgment.

There are those who view American presence in Iraq through the lens of our presence in other countries such as Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia – place where we maintained a military presence long after the ad hoc conflict had subsided. These people view America’s operations in Iraq as part-in-parcel of a geopolitical strategy in the region where we will use the country as a launching pad to exert undue influence in the neighboring countries. A timetable would do much to assuage a certain segment of this body’s concerns. Insurgent leaders claiming that they be necessary to insure the exiting of Iraq would be undercut in their propaganda campaigns.

As we consider what Iraqis standing up and Americans standing down means, it becomes apparent that we have established an inverse relationship between Iraqi force capability and American military presence in the country. In this case, a timetable is dictated by the capacity of Iraqis to defend themselves. Whosoever says that we should not have a timetable for American redeployment is making an implicit argument that we should not have targets for numbers of Iraqis trained and capable of defending their country. And if we don’t have goals as to numbers and by when, then we will have no metrics to measure our progress in Iraq and progress will limp along. President Bush claims to come from the school of business with management skills learned at Harvard Business School and honed in the private sector at Harken and later in the governor’s mansion in Texas. Would he have any goals that were fuzzy, ill-defined, and non-critical?

No, if we are to hasten and achieve success in Iraq, a timetable must be established that is based goals for trained Iraqis by hard deadlines that will dictate the ability to redeploy American forces. And when those deadlines approach, assessments (which can only be made with established targets) must be made as to how progress has gone and what changes in policy, if any, must be made. A timetable will in this way enhance the work we are doing in Iraq, bolster our claims that this is a finite occupation, and undercut the insurgency.

Paradise Now - A Two Day Vignette - Interesting, Informative, and Compelling

It’s not a movie that will make you cry or one that makes you completely sympathize with its complicated characters, but make not mistake about it, Paradise Now is powerful. The impact of the film exists in the fact this it provides a vignette taking place over two days into the lives of two lifelong Palestinian friends living in the West Bank who have been chosen to carry out a suicide bombing mission in Tel Aviv. What is special about this window into their lives is that it is completely an insular discussion and conversation that happens. We see only the internal debate regarding suicide bombing with no outside perspectives. It is interesting because as we think about what motivates suicide bombers, it is really that internal debate that happens that ends up making the difference. For those who choose to bomb, the perspectives of those viewed as outsiders or the enemy do not matter; the perspectives of the people in their community do.

What seems to be the unifying theme is the Israeli settler as an evil, overbearing and immoral oppressive force that must be stopped. Yet the three character arch-types, while connected in this, nonetheless, are very different. Jamal is tied in with the political movement, those who propagate the political rhetoric to supplement the disdain of Israeli settlers. He is who first informs Said, one of the two “protagonists” of the film, that he has been selected to carry out a suicide mission. He himself, we can assume, will never have to commit this kind of mortal sacrifice. Said’s character is determined to carry out his bombing mission, though with some reservations. We learn that the motive for him, the tipping point, was when Israelis induced his father into becoming an informant. He has lived with that family shame his entire life, and he views his suicide mission as an act of both revenge and redemption. His motives in this sense are very personal and emanate less from Palestinian resistance at the community level. Suha, played by Lubna Azabal with beauty and brilliance, is a Palestinian who group up outside of the region and only recently moved back. Her father exploded himself when she was still very young and is now a legend in their town. But she does not celebrate this act. She provides the voice for those whom bombers leave behind. They must deal with the loss and even greater, the consequences of Israeli retaliation. She argues that their struggle must be a moral one and that bombing will never succeed because of the power asymmetry that necessitates smarter tactics.

The most alarming part of the movie is that when it begins and we first see the film’s protagonists, there is no indication that the next day they might become suicide bombers. The transition happens with the snap of a finger. One moment they are living out what they conclude to be helpless and worthless lives, and the next moment they find something that gives their lives meaning and purpose. They are ad hoc fanatics more than anything else. We don’t see them espousing long tirades about Israel and we don’t here them preaching in the streets that the Jews must be pushed into the seas. No, until they are selected as suicide bombers, we see them as ordinary people. This is quite discomforting because the suggestion is that the ones carrying out the attacks are quite ordinary in everything except this one act. And just like for Said, they all have their tipping point. Said quite possibly would have never chosen to become a suicide bomber but for his father’s informing.

The film only gives two glimpses of Israelis, and they are not the demonized settlers. We see soldiers manning a checkpoint, but this is only meant to provide the backdrop of the power imbalance and physical aesthetic assault Palestinians must endure daily. The other glimpse happens when Said is sitting on a bus, contemplating exploding himself there though it is not his target. Here are the Israelis we see most intimately and they are not the demonized settlers. They are not the politicians. They are not the soldiers. They are simply very ordinary people living out their daily lives. The parallels of them to our first glimpses of Said and Khaled are striking. What makes these Israelis even more sympathetic is that they sit there completely oblivious to what potentially might occur just at any moment. In addition, we know nothing about them, we have only their faces, and so we are forced to imagine who they are. Are they married? Do they have any children? A cat perhaps? What is their profession? It humanizes them on a very individual and personal level as our forced imagining of them connects us to them.

From the beginning, the suicide mission is not a sure thing and the movie keeps you on edge with the possibility that Said and Khaled will not carry out their mission. The film’s strength lies in the presentation of the closed discussion that happens in their community. If we accept that a certain small segment of a population (Bin Laden for instance) are unreachable and will be extremists no matter what, surely our mission must be to then understand that other subset of a population that is ordinary but for some reason is driven at some point to terrorism. When the Bush Administration speaks of winning hearts and minds, these are to whom they should be referring. To the extent also this film helps us to understand the voices in a community, we can then select more intelligently those voices within who preach practicality and find inventive ways to support them. At the end of the day, we need these internal voices to ring loud and reverberate through the souls of a community. That will be a key component to progress in the struggle for peace. A nice bookend to Paradise Now would be this same film, but in the Israeli community. Let us here the internal debate that happens there to the exclusion of commentary from the Arab world, Europe or the U.S. It would make for an equally compelling and equally interesting movie.

On the Name Change

So if this is not your first time visiting this site, you might have noticed the change in the name of my blog from "Movies and Whatever Else It Occurs to Me to Write" to "Notes from a Native Son." I changed the name to more accurately reflect the direction that my blog has gone in since its inception. When I started, I fully intended that movie commentary would constitute the lion’s share of my writings, but as time has gone on, I have found myself not surprisingly drawn to a wider range of topics with political ones coming to occupy as much attention as cinematic ones.

So how did I choose this name in particular? Well, some will undoubtedly note the obvious allusion to Richard Wright's "Native Son" and James Baldwin's "Notes of a Native Son." First, Wright's novel is one of the most important 20th century America pieces of fiction, pointedly looking at the implications on the community - both black and white - of racism and white supremacy. Baldwin picked up on these themes and discussed in his work how racism, or, to be more accurate, how race had colored his experiences and then gave a keen lens through which to view America from behind the veil.

For my part, I can never, and would never want to, escape the fact that I have grown up in America as a black man. This has profoundly affected the way in which I see things, the way in which I understand things, and how I view history’s interplay with the present and culture's coll0quy with life. For these reasons (and because Baldwin is one of my favorite writers) I have changed the title of my blog to more accurately reflect what it is I think that binds my writings together. They are notes, of sorts, compiled by a man born in and of America who has experienced the world as a member of a community that has historically been the most foreign and at the same time the most American of peoples in this nation. My family's (both blood and existential) experiences - past, present and future - the society in which I grew up, and my own personal journeys skew my views that taken together constitute notes from this native son.

Not So Colorblind Katrina: Race as a Subtext to Poverty

Much hoopla has been made over the role race played in America’s response to Katrina. There have been accusations leveled by many black leaders and others in the liberal community that race played a factor in the nation’s neglect. However, as evidence that poor whites in Louisiana faired no better than poor blacks has come to light, the arguments made in William Julius Wilson’s The Declining Significance of Race, that class has supplanted race, seem to ring most true. While some have held on to the notion that race still played a major role in the poor service given to some and not to others, many have retreated from this stand and the mainstream media (save a few) have been sharp to reframe the issue as one of class.

Yet, it seems to me still that race played an important role that cannot be overlooked. First, one cannot talk about class in this country without talking about race. The two have always been inextricably linked. From the antebellum days until the Civil Rights Movement, blacks were proscribed to the lower rungs of opportunity through coercion, terror, adjudication, legislation, social structures, etc. Indeed, between 1865 and 1954 (especially in the Nadir) it was common that when blacks, small in number though they were, started to achieve modest and more than modest business success, which many times brought them in direct economic competition with whites, the response by whites was to riot, destroy, and many time lynch under the false guise of protecting the ever-sacred white womanhood. The Tulsa race riot of 1921 is perhaps the most destructive example of this practice.

With the Civil Rights Movement came economic mobility for some in the community, yet most still suffered in the same conditions as before. The gains of the Civil Rights era were by and large middleclass gains. Affirmative Action was expanded broadly by the Nixon Administration in an effort to drive a wedge either between some combination of middleclass blacks, the rest of the community and the Democratic Party, or between whites and the Democratic Party. Today’s political alignments prove this to be a rather prescient political strategy. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts were important but did little to change the economic conditions that plagued blacks in this country. For these reasons, Martin Luther King at the time of his assassination was attempting to address the issues of poverty and economic mobility. This too was one of the primary concerns of the Black Panther Party, an organization that like King was the subject of relentless harassment and abuse of power at the hands of the Justice Department's COINTELPRO.

As nothing was ever done to address the initial poverty that blacks experience worse than any other group in this country, save perhaps the indigenous populations, present-day conditions look little different from conditions in 1954 where blacks continue to be disproportionately poor, experience unemployment rates at higher than average levels, still have an overwhelming wealth deficit as compared to whites, live in the poorest, most social-capital deficient communities. Given all of this, it seems very difficult to separate class from race. The Oprahs, Jay-Zs, Stan O'Neils, and Bob Johnsons are the exceptions rather than the rules.

But there is another way in which race factored into this equation. While it is true that poor whites and poor blacks received similarly poor relief during and in the aftermath of Katrina, a question of why still remains. And race here comes into play. Black has become the color of poverty, creating a façade that blacks constitute the only or even majority impoverished in the nation. When exposes or articles or documentaries of poverty are relayed, blacks are disproportionately represented in pictures, video and print. Studies have shown that in the late sixties and increasingly in the seventies, blacks began to be disproportionately represented in images for stories related to welfare. These same studies have shown an inverse relationship between the perception of blacks as the recipients of welfare and America’s support of it. And by the eighties, Ronald Reagan, an old-time conservative ala Strom Thurmond, was decrying “welfare queens,” an ugly implicit reference to black women, thereby placing the responsibility of welfare on the backs of blacks, rather than on those of the majority of its stakeholders, whites. This did two things. First, it singled out the unsympathetic poor blacks as welfare’s face, and second, it then capitalized on the historic stereotype of African-Americans as lazy (insert: shiftless), sex-craven people to portray welfare recipients as loose mothers who functioned as baby factories and refused to get jobs.

This all goes to show that to the extent that America views poverty as black, the country looses sympathy for poverty as a public cause. So while poor whites and blacks are equally affected by the nation’s neglect of the poor, it is the combined effect of racist attitudes towards blacks and poverty painted as black that has led to a generally reduced commitment to America’s poor of all colors.

These lessons about America’s subtextual racial tensions playing themselves out in very meaningful yet harmful ways in the lives of both blacks and whites have broader applicability in our society. If we think about the way in which blacks were portrayed as predatory dealers and violence-craven addicts for years, and how our policies toward users reacted to theses images, it was a less-than-honest look at the problem of drugs in our society, and did a disservice to all members of it. What this all goes to say is that the lesson the country never seems to learn continues to ring true year after year. Blinders of bigotry obfuscate fiction from fact, dream from reality, illogic from logic and will have consequences that will look color-blind to the untrained eye but will never be able to completely separate themselves from the cold fact that their roots lie American racism.

When Will Rome Get a Clue?

The Catholic Church's forthcoming review of 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States, handed down from the Vatican, for "evidence of homosexuality" is as ridiculous as it is short-sighted. The main driving force behind this latest inquisition is the sex abuse scandals that have rocked the Church's very foundation over the past few years in the states. By seemingly equating pedophilia with homosexuality, the Church has (at least in its mind) found a scapegoat upon which to heap blame and revealed its enormous ignorance on the issue of sexual abuse raising further questions (as if it were possible) as to its overall ability to handle the issue internally. If the Church were to expel every last homosexual priest they would still not eradicate the sex abuse problems.

In addition to the sex abuse issue, the Church as a fundamental stance that gay priests live in direct violation of divine law. It is important to pick apart this logic because it has major flaws. The first fundamental question the Church must wrestle with is whether or not homosexuality is a choice. If it is not a choice, then it is something one is born with much like brown hair or blue eyes. How then can it be sinful to be born a certain way? How can the Church believe that in a Calvinist fashion a person by definition is sinning from that day he/she is born by virtue of the fact that he/she was born with a particular trait. This predeterminism runs contrary to a belief in reconciliation. If, however, the Church believes that being gay is a choice, then one can only be gay in the doing of that act. Homosexuality in this case becomes a performance. Thus, celibate priests cannot then by definition be gay because they do not perform the acts that would define them as such.

Homosexuals in the Church is something that the Vatican and Catholics worldwide are going to need to examine with stronger logic and reason than they are currently employing. However, if the Church believes, mistakenly, that somehow homosexuality is the locus of pedophilia, a much more important issue, it will fail to substantially deal with the abuses that have gone on within it. Abuse of children is disgusting, perhaps the most reprehensible act to the sensibilities. It is even more distasteful and destructive when the perpetrators are stewards of faith because the effect is to cripple a child's trust not only in people but also in faith. Some real intelligence and not merely group-dogmatic-think must be brought to bear to make sure the Church continues to have relevance in the 21st Century. It is crucial because the lessons, the passion, the spirit, and righteousness it provides in peoples lives will not lose their importance. Introspection, though, growth and re-orientation are just as important to institutions as they are to personal growth.

A Decent Summer for Movies

Labor Day has come and gone, kids are headed back to school, so it's time for this LA resident to accept that summer is over. Consequently, I should provide the bookend to the piece I wrote earlier previewing the summer movie season. Here are some of the highlights and not-so-high-lights...

March of the Penguins - Perhaps the surprise hit of the summer, this film is now the second highest grossing documentary of all-time. The film was a beautiful look at the mating and birthing saga of the Emperor Penguin, a process involving almost constant sojourn, courtship, love, and sacrifice. A fantastic movie for the family, a fantastic movie for a date - Penguins showed that the process of creating and sustaining new life requires commitment, perseverance and resolve.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith - The movie was the highest grossing film of the summer. Lucas rebounded from the lackluster previous two episodes to make a Star Wars movie that was worth of the name. Read my review for further commentary.

Batman Begins - This film could have easily been called Batman Returns, the title of the second of the recent Batman films (directed by Tim Burton) because after the previous two, which were crap, the latest from Nolan proved to be a worthy addition, darker than the others and more introspective. The stellar line-up of cast members did not disappoint, though the Katie and Tom show got a little out of hand (okay, a lot out of hand).

Hustle and Flow - Like Melvin van Peebles before him, John Singleton took a tremendous risk by committing the cardinal sin of investing his own money to make a movie, but he was rewarded with a very good film and a very decent return on his investment. Terrence Howard followed up Crash with a powerful, and affecting performance that may earn him an Oscar nod.

Crash - One of the most beautiful films of the summer, Talyor Hackford's film wove an intricate story of a diverse group of people living in Los Angeles struggling with alienation as their stories crashed into one another. The writing was wonderful, the direction strong, the score a beautiful complement, and the acting solid. Struggle, ugliness, brutality, heroism, intimacy, downfall, and redemption are all the subject matter.

Wedding Crashers - This was probably the second funniest film of the summer with consistently hilarious moments for the first two-thirds. Vince Vaughn was at his best with the timing and delivery of his lines and Isla Fisher was easily his comedic match.

The Aristocrats - Not for those who are easily or even not-so-easily offended, this documentary is the funniest thing I have seen in the past year. People who find this movie funny probably need some psychological help and don't worry, I'm shopping around online for shrinks as we speak. However, the concept of comedy being a release for those things in life that we are uneasy about and make us uncomfortable is perhaps exhibited better no where else than in this film.

2046 - Kar Wai Wong made a beautiful film visually speaking. From a subject matter standpoint, this movie took a great look at the nature of love, relationships, and how we run to and from them. Unlike Closer which examines some similar themes, 2046 has an ambiguous conclusion as to whether what the main characters quest for can be attained. Therefore, the cynics can conclude no, and the hopeless romantics can imagine their happy endings.

And for the biggest flop of the summer, the moviee that stunk in an oh so extra special way...

The Island - Michael Bay can be a great action director, but this was nothing more than 136 minutes of the director getting off while the audience could do nothing but bear witness to a script that looks as though it was part of some eighth grade summer camp final project. Lesson - big budget + two budding stars with no track record or drawing box office crowds + director who is as consistent as Bush administration reasons for going into Iraq ≠ good movie or successful film.

The film that best lived up to the hype...

Mr. and Mrs. Smith - This action movie was more than decent with some genuinely funny moments. What made this movie even more fun though, was that everyone wanted to see what the on-screen chemistry would be like between Angelina and Brad. Conclusion: to anyone with eyes, the attraction between the two was so painfully obvious. Had there been no rumors of an affair between them before the movie came out, once it did, they would have immediately surfaced and there would be the same results for Jennifer and Brad's marriage (though I have it from some different sources that Angelina played a smaller roll in the breakup than tabloids speculate).

So summer is over and now we can all look forward to the crap that will be rolled out continuously until Thanksgiving. Word to the wise, read reviews because the hit-to-miss ratio is about to go down substantially, see some indies and use and abuse the three-movies-at-a-time privileges on Netflix.