After Christmas, there are a few benchmarks that mark the progression to spring. The first benchmark is the Super Bowl, the second is the Oscars®, the third is the day pitchers and catchers report for spring training, the fourth is the first spring training Mets game broadcast on television.

And the very last one is WKCR's Bix Beiderbecke birthday broadcast (stream here).

Bix's birthday is March 10, and I expect Phil Schaap and others to do their annual 24-hour marathon showcases of the entire Beiderbecke oeuvre -- which is alas limited by the fact that Beiderbecke drank himself to death at the age of 28.

Here's an excerpt from the Ken Burns series Jazz, detailing Bix' tragic fall. Even Louis Armstrong admired the white boy from Davenport, Iowa. When you look at Bix' artistic genius and inability to escape his own head, his story seems not so much different from that of Heath Ledger and the many other prodigies in their various endeavors.



And this is Bix as he's supposed to sound, played on a crank Victrola.



(I have one of the latter, but sweet Jesus would I love to get my hands on some original Bix discs...)

Happy 105th birthday, Bix. Hope you and Satchmo now finally are able to celebrate by playing duets together in the Great Beyond.

Labels: music

What luck to have another worthy entrant the week after introducing this series, which I started last week, because every now and then you encounter a post that requires no further comment.

Today's honoree in the ongoing feature What They Said: David Michael Green, at The Regressive Antidote.

Labels: bloggers

Yes, it plays a little bit cultish. But the people watching this video don't subscribe to the cynical "Any Democrat is better than a Republican" doctrine. If they ever saw the idea of a woman president as being as transformational as that of a black man, watching Hillary Clinton channel her inner Karl Rove has disavowed them of any notion that's even remotely the case.

Hillary Clinton may yet be able to wrest the Democratic nomination away from Barack Obama. But if she does, she's going to find it a pyrrhic victory indeed. Because there's nothing about her tactics this last week, from the "As far as I know..." response to whether Barack Obama is a Muslim, to likening Barack Obama's tax return challenge to Ken Starr, that is even remotely about change. The kids who fill sports arenas for Obama's rallies are not going to come out for Hillary Clinton. The press is already winding up for a return to the All Clinton Scandals -- All the Time News Network as Tweety and Brian Williams pleasure themselves under the desk while waxing rhapsodic about John McCain as some kind of warrior-poet.

Gary Hart is 100% correct:

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.

As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.

Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

I think we already know the answer to that. What Hillary Clinton is doing is just as appalling when men do it, so this is not a slam at ambition because she's a woman. Where I disagree with Hart is his implication that loyalty to the party is necessarily a virtue, given how the Democratic Party has sold us out again and again during the last seven years, and even after gaining control of both houses of Congress. But Hillary Clinton, who seems to be running to be John McCain's running mate if she doesn't get the Democratic top spot, is not the kind of party change we need.

I hope that if Barack Obama should manage to pull out a win in Wyoming today, despite Hillary Clinton's apparently nationally successful Rovian appeals to the worst instincts of american voters, she stops to think about all the people who are going to attend Obama's rally today, and consider how few of them are going to show up for her.

Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

I've been thinking for the past few days that with the right planning to use Barack Obama's middle name as a slur, perhaps we ought to take it back for him. Obviously I'm not alone, as one of Andrew Sullivan's readers had the same idea. So I say we have a blogswarm and appropriate Obama's middle name as our own, to demystify it and remove it from the reptilian brain cage in which it's held.

So for the time being, as you can see, our banner has been renamed to "Brilliant Hussein at Breakfast." Doesn't exactly slide off the tongue, but since I only blog under my first name, it makes it hard to adopt it as a middle name. Doesn't mean I won't do it, though.

Labels: Barack Obama

Not if you listen to military leaders:

Polls show that the economy is a big deal to American voters in the 2008 election. But the apparent effectiveness of the 3 a.m. ad in Texas is a reminder of the importance of national security in voters' minds, and of just how high the stakes are for the next commander in chief. The United States is bogged down in two nasty wars, and the Army and Marine Corps are stretched thin. China and Russia are on the rise. The Middle East is roiling, and Iran continues to bluster and obfuscate over its nuclear program. Something unexpected and bad is likely to happen during the next presidency, maybe even at 3 a.m. Washington time.

But while the consensus is that the 3 a.m. ad helped Clinton, it has also drawn criticism as a tactic that ultimately benefits John McCain, particularly if he is to face Obama in the general election. In essence, Clinton has now turned the debate about commander-in-chief readiness into a contest of résumés. And the conventional wisdom is that John McCain -- ex-fighter pilot, former POW and war hero -- wins.

But that's not necessarily the case, say senior military officials and political analysts. In interviews with Salon this week, several experienced military officers said McCain draws mixed reviews among military leaders, and they expressed serious doubts about whether McCain has the right temperament to be the next president and commander in chief. Some expressed more confidence in Obama, citing his temperament as an asset.

It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain's temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control. It is difficult to find current or former officers willing to describe those encounters in detail on the record. That's because, by and large, those officers admire McCain. But that doesn't mean they want his finger on the proverbial button, and they are supporting Clinton or Obama instead.

"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. "It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."

"One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability," explained retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions. McPeak said his perception is that Obama is "not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature," McPeak said. On the other hand, he said, "McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile." McPeak is campaigning for Obama.

Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown who is studying the personalities of the presidential candidates, agrees McCain's temperament is of real concern. "The anger is there," Wayne said. If McCain is the one to answer the phone at 3 a.m., he said, "you worry about an initial emotive, less rational response."

We've had a president with an anger management problem for the last eight years, one who cowed the press corps into submission and who lashed out at intelligence agents who dared interrupt his summer 2001 vacation, after barely six months in office, with a Presidential Daily Briefing with the blazing title "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US". Do we now really need one with a big honking chip on his shoulder who is still trying to win the Vietnam War taking the reins when we may very well have already attacked Iran by the time the election takes place -- if it does at all?

Which brings us to the second part of this story, and that is how George W. Bush, no lame duck he, is preparing to clear the Centcom decks of Adm. William Fallon, who has said that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch", and replace him with someone more agreeable to going to war with Iran, according to Thomas P.M> Barnett, writing about Fallon in Esquire (h/t: ThinkProgress):

So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon--and apparently Fallon alone--to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Those are fighting words to your average neocon--not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform. But utter those words for print and you can easily find yourself defending your indifference to "nuclear holocaust."

How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?

The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough.

Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he's doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.

It may very well be that by the time the election takes place, we'll be at war with Iran, if ONLY to secure a Republican victory -- particularly if the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama, but I'm not sure that it's going to make much difference which Democrat is nominated at that point. It may also be that the Bushistas will cancel the election and install John McCain as successor "at a time of war", if only to try to avoid a revolution in the streets.

I, however, don't believe that such a revolution will take place. I've written before about the "tipping point of evil", a point the Bush Junta has crossed over with gusto time and time again over the last eight years, while Americans are still wondering if Britney Spears is bipolar and who's going to win American Idol and counting the days until the new Indiana Jones movie opens.

Some mornings I wake up and sit at the computer, and there's so much to write about, and the rants are coming so fast and furious in my head, that I go into complete paralysis and can't do a damn thing. I think that's where Americans are with this Administration. The evil they do is so pervasive and so monstrous, and now it has impacted them in the pcoketbooks, what with $3.50 gasoline and 23% credit card interest rates and $5/gallon milk and a disappearing job market and mortgages they can't pay. So these are hardly people who are going to storm the Bastille. The French in 1789 were used to being poor and they didn't have television, so they weren't suffering from some kind of culture shock -- they had just plain had enough.

And so we are paying the consequences of this notion that a government we elect -- even though this Administration was never elected the first time and only arguably was elected the second time -- is capable of the kind of evil we only expect from brown men leading countries south of the Equator and east of Greenwich Mean Time. Whether any of the three candidates is capable of ending this evil remains to be seen. We do know that one of them, John McCain, is, just as is the president to whom he sold his soul in 2001, bound and determined to continue it indefinitely. And like the president he hopes to succeed, he's perfectly willing to litter the path to resolution of his personal demons and issues with the corpses of American kids.

Labels: Iran, John McCain

Why doesn't anyone know this? The news that Air America Radio is under new management once again came as no surprise to me, but then I guess nothing surprises me anymore. Surely its been a sweet deal for the brother Green who gained control for a minimal layout of money, and has now sold out...its sorta like flipping a building, huh?

The Greens have been a pretty big disappointment for those of us who were hoping for a return to the original groundbreaking Air America formula of edgy, smart, talent that was breaking through the old ho-hum radio of yesterday, and leading the charge into America's next chapter. As a new media outlet, Air America deserved the luxury of the years that it takes for any new venture like this to start turning a profit, and ever since Danny Goldberg cut that off at the knees, what has been needed is new management that could see what happened and try to roll back a bit and try to once again give the brilliant formula a chance. This thing is a long term investment, not a moneymaker....and flipping the mostly empty shell doesn't count.

Mark Green is not what you'd call a beloved New York icon, and his continual run for office and compulsive push towards the klieg lights, with his brother's endless financing, made his view of public service seem like more of a vanity project than an honest move to further the liberal voice or help his constituents .Y'know , we're fighting for our lives in this country; things have never been this bad...maybe it will never be the same...and we need a voice. What we don't need is the cronyism that Green brought to this vital programming. This cronyism brought in a New York programmer on board, who brought his friend "Lionel" along with him. Jerry Springer was a dream compared to this guy, who barged into a morning slot with a bad attitude towards the die hard fans ofAAR , and made it quite clear that he didn't like them. Nor did he feel like a liberal himself...some voice for the progressive movement, huh?

Meanwhile the brilliant programmer just couldn't find a far enough corner to stuff Sam Seder into. For some reason they have a problem with an intelligent, funny, and truly progressive host who can hold his own against any veteran broadcaster, even as he remains fresh and new enough to be edgy and fresh. Seder who easily holds a place among the breakout stars of this thing, has been shuffled around until realizing his upwards book trend involved piecing together 3 different slots, managed to keep his rabid following intact despite the best efforts of the management; currently, he fills in for hosts on damned cruises, and oversees his own little corner of Sundays with his take on the week and the Sunday shows. His fans are waiting patiently to get him back into a daily slot. The fans may be willing to wait but how long is the very talented Seder going to take this shit. Lets hope that the new management rights this immediately.

Surely, the new management of Air America Radio must realize that Seder and Marc Maron are experimenting with a video cast show that already has an impressive following in its beta stage. The show still involves quite a bit of hilarious technical difficulties, but beyond that there is the original, concise political commentary and topical humor that is reminiscent of the golden early days of working out the kinks and moments of sheer brilliance that was the mark of early Air America . They must realize that Maron's following has not given up hope that he might return to radio. They must see that the original formula needed time to gain ground, and that the biggest mistakes made along the way involved yanking shows, shuffling them around, and replacing what had become the branded AAR hosts with what seemed to be "established" shows but were just fillers that alienated the growing audience.

Enter Charlie Kireker, a Vermont investment specialist who has an eclectic background and an iron in quite a few fires. He has done government work, sat on boards, and has consulted on an array of companies. From what I've heard, Kireker is a sharp guy and is someone who could be a good fit with AAR. That remains to be seen, but Kireker's Pendulum Media is in the process of buying Green Family Media, and for the time being Mark Green is still acting as President; the money brother is still sitting on the board as well.

The interesting thing about the team that Kierker is bringing with him, is that
it ranges from founding members of AAR to an array of individuals who each bring very strong backgrounds in business, investment, marketing, and hopefully, common sense, to the table.

Most notable is Phillipe Collin , who has an extensive background in the management of digital media, and who seems to realize the strong connection that Air America has with its audience. If the plan is to tap the possibilities of Internet Broadcasting and the interactive model that is being explored by Maron and Seder, among others, then this is a good place to start and a promising line up.

The fact that this news has not been all that widely reported and has remained underwhelming is testament to the fact of how low AAR has slipped in their interaction not only with the audience, but also as a force and presence in media and the ongoing political conversation that is going to be so vital during this coming political year and further. Unraveling the mess that the neocons have made of this country is going to be a huge job and the progressive voice is going to be ever more important as we move into our next phase.

So, here is my advice to the new guys: Get Maron back under contract. Do whatever you need to to smooth out the crap that he has been through. Get Seder back on 5 days per week for a few hours; how about the empty morning slot? How about the 9-midnight slot? He has been on early and late and his fans seem to follow. Don't dump the mornings;that's a mistake. Get someone like Maron in place and give him a few years to work though the curve. Look at the very real possibility that Rachel Maddow might have better things to do sooner than you think, and that those things may entice her more than a 3rd hour. Be sure to at least have some hosts on board to fill in, so that you're not scraping around for someone after Seder has worked 7 days in a row.

Understand that some of your hosts are a little tired, and really look at how insane some slots have become; lots of screaming going on. But mostly, lets have some humor back in this thing! The thing about AAR that saved so many of us from pulling our own hair out, made so many of us more politically active, and worked in concert with the netroots to bring about real change in this country, was that it mixed the Daily Show funny with really intelligent commentary. It inspired so many people who were in despair and got people off the couch and into elections, onto the net, and out marching and voting. Along the way, many of the shows were on an upwards trend. You are not going to be profitable for years...I cant imagine that you are unless you've got some sort of magic business plan. Just put something good in place and let it grow. Go with the edgy and new, rather than the old tired Springeresque Lionels out there. Your audience is not stupid; don't treat them that way. You've got something that was very special for a long time; don't fuck it up.


Anyone wishing to contact Air America to let them know how you feel about the current lineup or what you'd like to see, should write to Phillipe Collin.

c/p RIPCoco

Labels: Air America, Marc Maron, Mark Green, media, Rachel Maddow, Sam Seder

Remember that whole kerfuffle about Obama's people talking to the Canadians and saying "Don't listen to what we say about NAFTA"? Conventional wisdom has it that this gaffe, and the way the Obama campaign handled it, cost him votes in Texas and Ohio.

But not so fast:

A storm of reports in the Canadian media say that the Nafta-gate flap last week involving Barack Obama was started by a key aide to Canada's prime minister - who told journalists that Hillary Clinton's campaign - not Obama's - had contacted the Canadian government to play down its Nafta-bashing.

The Canadian Press wire service - the equivalent to AP - reports that Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Stephen Harper, was talking to journalists last week: "Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-Nafta voters that carried economic implications for Canada." It quotes a witness who reported Brodie's remarks:

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt ... That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Here's today's splash in the Globe and Mail, which begins: "The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the US presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie." It goes on:

Mr Brodie ... stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.... The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Mr Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the Nafta threats were mostly political posturing.

Meanwhile, back at the Official Clinton Let's Elect John McCain Headquarters, the so-called Democrats that populate Camp Clinton were getting ready to link Tony Rezko and Barack Obama together like Laurel and Hardy, like Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy, like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

Except there's just one problem.



Hillary Clinton's response?

Clinton was shown the photo during an interview on NBC's Today Show this morning but told host Matt Lauer she did not remember meeting Rezko.

"No, I don't," Clinton told Lauer. "You know, I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures."

"I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him," Clinton added.

Does that response ring a bell? Maybe this is why:

"The president has taken tens of thousands of pictures. This does not mean he has a personal relationship with each individual that is in those pictures."

The guy in the photo with George W. Bush is Jack Abramoff.

The guy in the photo with the Clintons is Tony Rezko.

The distancing disclaimers are nearly identical.

So, Hillary.....are you SURE you want to go down this road?

Labels: Hillary Clinton

If I start seeing Subliminal Symbols everywhere, does that mean I can has Nu York Timez collum 2?

First it was the "ZOMG BILL AND HILL ARE SIMULATING SEX IN THIS COMMERCIAL!!!!" fracas.

Then it was the "ZOMG THEY'RE SENDING THE MESSAGE "NIG" IN THE 3 AM COMMERCIAL!!!!" rant, hilariously sent up by the indescribably awesome Lower Manhattanite in verbal AND video form.

But this morning made me wonder why I don't check in with La Althouse more often, because today she's musing that Obama uses the word "bone" a lot. But it's not what you think, you dirty, dirty-minded people. It's about skeletons in his closet. Really. No, I'm serious. Stop snickering. I mean it. It's about the skeletons in his closet. Now cut that out!!

Labels: Ann Althouse, Barack Obama, insanity

(h/t)

Labels: Hillary Clinton, John McCain

What a fine, upstanding, America-loving group this is:



Because after all, wearing a cheapass pin made in China is the mark of a TRUE patriot.

In Republican America.

Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition, hallelujah amen.

(There is, however, an inaccuracy in Dan Abrams' comments. The much-touted photo of Barack Obama without his hand over his heart is taken not during the pledge of allegiance, but during the playing of the national anthem. And as I pointed out here, the national anthem code does NOT require placing the hand over one's heart. That distinction is important.)

(John Cole wants this to go viral. You know what to do.)

Labels: hypocrisy, utter horseshit

Fear....for lack of a better word....is GOOD. Fear is right. Fear WORKS. Fear clarifies and cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Fear, in all of its forms -- fear for one's life, fear of losing one's money, fear of losing one's loved ones, fear of knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind, and fear -- you mark my words -- will save that malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Isn't it funny how you need only change a few words from the infamous "Greed is good" speech from Wall Street, you can encapsulate the results of yesterday's Ohio and Texas primaries? The headlines this morning do everything but call Hillary Clinton "The Comeback Kid."

"BLOOD IN THE WATER" screams the New York Daily News. "HILL YEAH! Clinton Romps in Ohio and Lassos Texas" hollers the New York Post, owned by Hillary's BFF, Rupert Murdoch. Yee-hah indeed. Even the staid old Washington Post has an article titled "Tempers Flare as Contests Heat Up." The Boston Globe describes Hillary Clinton's campaign as "resurgent."

Obviously it's far better for Hillary Clinton today than it would have been had she lost either Ohio OR Texas. In the last few weeks, Obama closed a significant gap, though Clinton seemed to stabilize or pick up support in the last few days. There's going to be much speculation as to why Obama wasn't able to "close the deal", as Tweety put it last night, but I suspect that once again, going negative works, and playing on fear works.

I must confess that I had been lulled into a false sense of a return of American sanity after Rudy Giuliani's "noun, a verb, and 9/11" campaign imploded under its own ponderous fearmongering weight. But I think that despite Obama's calls to our better nature, the appeal to the reptilian brain of Hillary Clinton's "vote for me or your children will be killed by Scary Brown Muslim Men" (sic) ad worked. This clip from Sunday's 60 Minutes shows that the e-mail smears my friend had received and which concerned her are having an effect:



As much as we'd like to believe that Democrats Don't Do That Sort of Thing, unfortunately they do. More unfortunately is that they don't seem to want to do it against Republicans; only against other Democrats.

The Clinton campaign may not be responsible for the e-mail smears, but they are certainly not above exploiting them. The clip I ran yesterday in which Clinton leaves the door open for Obama to be lying about not being some kind of sinister Islamofascist™ mole demonstrated that very clearly. And if the Clintons are using the Scary Brown Men boogeyman, you can bet your life that the Republicans will use entire armies of them.

So Josh Marshall is right when he says:

A lot's getting said tonight. And a lot of it is baseless speculation. But the one thing that rings true to me is this: The Clinton campaign got rough and nasty over the last week-plus. And they got results. That may disgust you or it may inspire you with confidence in Hillary's abilities as a fighter. But wherever you come down on that question is secondary to the fact that that's how campaign's work. Opponents get nasty. And what we've seen over the last week is nothing compared to what Barack Obama would face this fall if he hangs on and wins the nomination.

So I think the big question is, can he fight back? Can he take this back to Hillary Clinton, demonstrate his ability to take punches and punch back? By this I don't mean that he's got to go ballistic on her or go after Bill's business deals or whatever else her vulnerabilities might be. Candidates fight in different ways and if they're good candidates in ways that play to their strengths and cohere with their broader message. But he's got to show he can take this back to Hillary and not get bloodied and battered when an opponent decides to lower the boom. That will obviously determine in a direct sense how he fares in the coming primaries and caucuses.

It's just not helpful to have Hillary Clinton doing the Republicans' advance work for them. Because when you look past the popular vote to the delegate count, Clinton's win is less significant. Chuck Todd explains:



So Clinton may have won Texas and Ohio last night, but she still isn't significantly ahead of where she was on Monday in terms of the delegate count. So it may still be too late for her to get the nomination. But with the help of Rush Limbaugh, who exhorted his mindless, grinning bulldog acolytes to vote for her in Texas' open primary, Clinton has succeeded in "bloodying" Barack Obama in the eyes of the media.

I just hope the Republicans are grateful to her for doing their work for them.

Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Hoffmania is hosting again. Just turn on MSNBC and Join us over there!

I was a loner when I was a kid. Even when I was six, I always preferred to sit in my room by myself making doll house furniture out of construction paper and Elmer's glue than going out to play with other kids. Most of it was that I was both clumsy AND fearful, which meant that I was afraid to climb trees, afraid to get dirty, afraid of a ball coming at my head. I was always the last one to be picked for the team, the one who was teased about my height or my weight or for Just Plain Being Weird. So it became easy to just hang out by myself. It's not that I didn't have friends, but while I know people who have friends they've known since childhood, my own usually cast of characters has always rotated depending on what I was doing at the time.

I often wonder how my life, my worldview, and indeed my own self-esteem might have been different had there been such a thing as "online" when I was growing up. Because for someone like me, online life has opened the kind of doors to social contact that I never could have imagined when I was a child. The friends that I've made online have been more lasting and closer than almost any I ever had that started in real life. The massive amount of online writing I've done, both through this blog and elsewhere, has allowed me to meet so many wonderful and interesting people -- people like Beth, who was my first online friend; Shelly, whose life during the time I've known her is worthy of a full-length book that I've been betgging her to write for the last five years; Shirley, whom I've met in meat world exactly twice and each time it's as if we meet for coffee all the time; and Barbara, who's from Slovenia and is ironically the first online friend who crossed over into meat world during a visit she and her husband made to New York. Then there are the movie review folks, like my honorary brother ModFab and Mary Ann and Betty Jo, just to name a few. And of course since I started this blog in 2004, there are even more, like Tata and Tami and Melina and the Morning Seditionists crew and so many others. I may not be the greatest correspondent in the world, but I value the presence of all these people in my life.

The teenager who sat by herself in a far corner of the schoolyard writing broody poetry about being alone never could have imagined this world ever opening up to her.

So I didn't need a study to tell me that "bloggers are better adjusted and live healthier, happier social lives":

The research, from Swinburne University of Technology found that “people felt they had better social support and friendship networks than those who did not blog” after a two month blogging period when compared to people who do not blog.

The good news also extends to users of social networking sites, with the study finding than any online interaction makes users “feel less anxious, depressed and stressed.”

It’s not all good news however, as the study found that some “potential bloggers” start from a less socially integrated position. Professor Susan Moore told the ABC:

“We found potential bloggers were less satisfied with their friendships and they felt less socially integrated, they didn’t feel as much part of a community as the people who weren’t interested in blogging,” Ms Moore said.

“They were also more likely to use venting or expressing your emotions as a way of coping.”

“It was as if they were saying ‘I’m going to do this blogging and it’s going to help me.”

And the point is?

Of COURSE bloggers are people who use ranting as a coping mechanism. Why on earth else would someone get up at 5:30 in the morning and write almost every day without getting paid? As for those who blog starting from a "less socially-integrated position", that isn't Breaking News either. For social misfits like me, writing was ALWAYS a way of coping. I still have the diaries I kept from when I was in junior high and high school, and if they weren't so painful to read, they would seem as if part of someone else's life. In my generation, we wrote in blank cloth-bound books with little locks on them so we could pretend no one else could read them. Later on there were 'zines and amateur press associations. Now there's LiveJournal and blogs. I suspect that if you polled most bloggers who do this in their leisure time (as opposed to the Big Boiz (and Grrlz) who make a living out of this, you'll see a similar history of diary writing in some form or another.

So I wonder how much of a grant the Swinburne University of Technology got to do this study.

Labels: bloggers

And it isn't Barack Obama:



First of all, what "lifetime of experience" does Hillary Clinton bring? Is she saying she really WAS a kind of co-president, despite having no security clearance? And if so, doesn't that play into every right-wing nightmare about her? Second of all, she has two years more in the Senate than Barack Obama has. What "lifetime of experience" does that represent?

You know, I'm a baby boomer. I'm a later one than the Clintons; I'm kind of a mid-boomer -- too young to have been an activist beyond stuffing envelopes for Democratic candidates after school and cutting class to go to marches. According to the "strict definition" of the baby boom, which went until 1964, so is Barack Obama. But I'm not interested in any more of those Chris in Paris At Americablog screeds about how evil the baby boomers are and how wonderful and virtuous everyone younger is and because they like Obama, they'll decide that the baby boom ended the year BEFORE he was born.

I work alongside a woman who is 38 years old. That's a pretty sizable difference, and a generational worldview one as well. There are things she does better than I do; there are things I do better than she does. And what we've found is that when we work together on designing a user interface, or the way a system should flow, it usually ends up being better than what either of us does on our own. I have more "experience" developing user interfaces, but much of that experience is based on PC-based, client-side Visual Basic applications. I have more "experience" with day-to-day Web site usage because of the ridiculous amount of time I spend online. That doesn't make me an expert on how, say, teenagers use the Web.

Experience isn't the same as longevity. There are people younger than I am who have the kind of experience I will never have. Kyle de Breusset, the young man from the MTV street team that I interviewed here a few weeks ago is better-travelled than I am, and has more "experience" in what people who try to get into this country by any means necessary go through. I'm going to discuss immigration with him, when my experience with Latin American immigrants is limited to the guys who replaced my roof ini 2004? Hardly.

To someone who's twenty, 1992 is so far back s/he probably doesn't even remember it. But I do remember what it was like to FINALLY have someone who didn't see the world through the prism of World War II in the White House. I'm not convinced that the Clintons were ever the kind of 1960's idealists they wanted us to believe they were -- and their membership in the DLC and the policies they enacted showed they weren't.

I've talked many times about the various kinds of people with whom I went to high school in order to demonstrate that "the baby boomers" are not the monolithic image that advertisers and Tom Brokaw use to sell us products and books. Sure, there were the idealists who wanted to change the world; but even they weren't monolithic. Some were the radical types who thought only violent revolution would create change, others thought that advocacy of peace and love was enough. And there were still others; the guys in their Izod shirts and plaid pants; the ones who canvassed for Democratic candidates who believed that you had to work within the system to change it. THOSE are the guys who grew up to become the Clintons.

It may be the curse of every generation to become its own parents. I remember the time, twenty-plus years ago already, when I was leafing through posters in a mall store with a friend. In those days, posters of heavy metal hair bands were in vogue. I heard the following words come out of my own mouth: "But they're all so UGLY!" I whipped around and said, "Who said that?" -- expecting to see either my mother or someone else's mother behind me. That moment horrifies me to this day. Of course the flip side of that is being a fifty-year-old going out to buy a copy of American Idiot, which I'm smart enough to realize doesn't make you cool, it makes you pathetic. But then, I didn't used to be the First Lady in an administration that was all about Putting the Sixties To Work for Change. So to hear Hillary Clinton behaving like as much a spoiled brat as George W. Bush, joining the You Goddamn Kids Get The Hell Off My Lawn caucus, tacitly endorsing a guy whose life's mission is to once and for all win the Vietnam War is particularly distressing.

Labels: Hillary Clinton, WTF

I've always been fascinated with Josephine Baker. I've never really understood why, but I can remember being a young child poring over a big coffee table anthology of articles and photos from the original Vanity Fair magazine of the 1920's and 1930's with a fascination that seemed odd to me even then. I remember having a very odd sensation looking at that book; one I still have, since I now have a copy that I purchased on Ebay a few years ago. It's an odd sense of familiarity, of coming home; similar to one I have when I listen to the very early jazz records of the 1920's. It's one of the reasons I believe in reincarnation -- because I've experienced at least three such phenomena that I can't really attribute to anything else.

If I recall correctly, I think it was this photo that fascinated me:



...but I'm not sure it matters, because there's something about Josephine Baker that still captivates today.

When I began reading about her after seeing the excellent documentary, Chasing a Rainbow: The Life of Josephine Baker, I discovered that not only was she a hero of WWII for her work with the French resistance, but she was a pioneer for race relations during the civil rights era.

For another three days, until March 6, you can catch the exhibit of Baker memorabilia in the windows at Macy's 34th Street flagship store, much of it contributed by Baker's adopted son Jean-Claude Baker, proprietor of the charming Theatre Row landmark restaurant Chez Josephine. When I worked in the city in the early 1990's, one of my splurges was to have dinner with a friend or two after work at Chez Josephine, where I could soak up the aura of the woman by looking at the walls covered with posters and photos. In those days I immersed myself in all things Josephine, from remastered CD recordings of her early vocal performances to the Kino video re-releases of her films Zou Zou and Princess Tam-Tam.

The New York CW affiliate ran a news story on the exhibit this week.

If you're in the area, it's worth your while to go take a look. I don't have to, because I've probably seen everything there. But I am telling you that even though she's been gone 32 years already, her image is so indelible that you half expect her to leap off the page or the poster or the screen any minute.

It's one thing to be this fabulous at 28:

Labels: pop culture

What does it say about Iraqi security and American influence in the Mideast when Iranian President Mamoud Ahmadinejad can go to Iraq and openly parade around surrounded by Shi’ite and even Kurdish love, not to mention the forbearance of Sunnis, while George W. Bush, his Cabinet and our lawmakers cannot even dream of doing so?

I’m no foreign policy wonk or an expert on the Middle East but to my layman mind it tells me two things: That the ruling Shia majority, at least, wants us the fuck out.

Secondly, it tells me that Dear Decider is half right: Iraqi security is firm… as long as you’re a Shi’ite statesman.

Ahmadinejad’s highly publicized and calculated visit to Baghdad was obviously a giant thumb stuck right in George W. Bush’s eye. And it’s buried quite effectively, two knuckles deep.

His one single, simple political act in going to the nation that we’d invaded 5 years ago on the 19th was a brilliantly timed and orchestrated move designed to show off not only his friendly relations with Iraqi Shi’ites starting with our puppet al Maliki, a giant thorn in the administration’s side, but to make a mockery of capricious Iraqi security that seems to work miracles when our sworn enemy’s in town but is otherwise so shaky and inept through corruption and sectarian divisiveness that Bush and his gang of neocons have to slink in and out of Baghdad in the dead of night like burglars and backdoor lovers while bombs go off like the climax of the fucking 1812 Overture.

It’s also a black eye in the beet-red face of an administration that’s been claiming for years that Ahmadinejad’s Iran has been funding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and the Iranian president’s ongoing good health would seem to support those assertions.

After a weekend spent watching far too many decorating and home improvement programs on HGTV in hi-def, my brain this morning resembles something like oatmeal. So I'm letting others do the talking for now:

The Dangers of An Excess of Cute. Cookie Jill over at Skippy's Place has the story.

PhysioProf sure made ME think. Why is Barack Obama disavowing the word "liberal" instead of taking it back from the fucknuts who turned it into a pejorative?

I may yet stay home on Election Day. You'll never, ever see a Republican talking about putting Democrats in his/her Cabinet. So why is Barack Obama doing exactly that? Melissa asks the right question about this lunatic notion. Someone had better remind him that Republicans put party over country every fucking time. This needs to be nipped in the bud NOW.

Kevin Hayden thinks Hillary Clinton will win both Ohio and Texas tomorrow. (And if Obama keeps up this bullshit about his good Republican friends, she'll deserve to. And I'm going to start getting used to hearing "President McCain" either way.)

ShortWoman has some shorties today. (Heh. "No Country for Old Shorties." Cute.

Jurassicpork has some Faux Noise follies over at his place.

Drifty confirms my "Tipping Point of Evil"® theory: That there is a point at which an American Executive branch becomes so corrupt and so evil that it makes people numb and they just sit back and let them get away with it.

And finally: She's smarter than Diablo Cody. She's funnier than Diablo Cody. She writes better dialogue than Diablo Cody. She's better looking than Diablo Cody. And she can carry a Hello Kitty lunchbox as a handbag and pull it off without looking ridiculous. So would someone please tell me why Diablo Cody is off in LA stroking her Oscar® and Tata is here in New Jersey, toiling away at a college and writing her pearls of delightfulness for free?

Labels: bloggers

"There's nothing to base that on...as far as I know"????

Learned well from the dark side, you have, young Skywalker.

Labels: Hillary Clinton, sleaze

The subject of WKCR's Jazz Profiles today was Fats Waller....so why shouldn't he be the subject of ours too?



Yas, yas, yas, I sure do love that stride piano!

Labels: music