Reed

I like the allegorical implications of your post. Sports is a lot like politics. The NBA, for instance, is somehow popular even though the NHL is a vastly superior product in terms of intensity and overall athleticism.

The same goes for the presidency. Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or John McCain WILL be the next president of the United States despite the fact that there are thousands if candidates more qualified to at least slow down our nation's decline.

Posted at May 4, 2008 3:02 AM in response to Wizards

All three presidential candidates have decided that the war must continue; consequently, the media will play along because they have an agenda of their own. Beltway journalists are already lining up and waging PR campaigns of their own to ensure a spot at the daily White House press briefings of the new administration.

Who wants to make political enemies at this point?

I think it was in the movie Scarface where one of the lessons being preached to Tony Montana was, "never underestimate the greed of the other guy."

Posted at March 18, 2008 1:35 AM in response to So Wrong For So Long, So Why Change Now?

whoffman:

It's not just that the Sopranos was well written and acted. It certainly has that special subversive element that the Godfather had.

Just as Marlon Brando opined that he never viewed the Godfather as a mafia movie; viewers cannot (with any basic level of interpretation) view the Sopranos as just a mafia show.

What Brando was insinuating was the allegorical symbolism of Don Corleone and his 'family.' He and the other Don's of New York (and their respective families) come to signify the ruthless corporations of the United States and the power-hungry CEO's who head them.

The Sopranos hones in on similar themes. Tony Soprano is a business man whose sole interest is earning money. His employees, or salesman, are forced to go out and earn money by any means necessary. The materialistic nature of their desires comes to highlight the hypocrisy and overall baseness which has slowly spread in our society.

The Sopranos doesn't have the neo-realist personification that makes The Wire such a gritty and unforgettable show. And indeed the Sopranos resorts to obvious theatricality at times. But there is nothing wrong with that.

Posted at March 11, 2008 9:57 PM in response to Life After "The Wire"

This is literally unbelievable.

I just looked up the word "Hypocrite" in the dictionary and there is a huge inset photo of Eliot Spitzer.

What a jerk. Begone with him.

Posted at March 10, 2008 10:32 PM in response to Spitzer Open Thread

I still argue the Sopranos is the better series, for different reasons which I will not get into here.

But regarding the ubiquitous corruption that you speak of:

I guess Ayn Rand was right, the world is full of Looters. Atlas Shrugged should be required reading.

Posted at March 10, 2008 10:23 PM in response to Life After "The Wire"

artappraiser:

Obama said Saturday that he had no interesting sharing a ticket with Clinton. I find it interesting (and a bit desperate) that Hillary even brought up such a possibility. How generous of her to extend such a generous offer to Obama, especially when he leads the contest and will more than likely win the nomination. That would be like being down 3 games to 1 in the World Series and offering your opponent a split championship if they'll only agree.

It certainly doesn't appear that Obama needs Hillary Clinton. I'm not exactly sure where his campaign is getting all of its money, but it seems a bit suspicious considering his prime demographic is the 30 and under set; the ones with the least amount of money or influence in society. I don't believe that he can so easily outgain Hillary Clinton (whose supporters are generally older and wealthier) with $25 internet contributions from his college-level supporters.

So where is his money coming from?

I wouldn't say Saudi Arabia, but his rise from nothing to almost president is virtually unprecedented in American politics when taking his race into account. It almost seems as if someone or something is propping him up.

In which case I'll concede that McCain has no chance anyway.

Posted at March 9, 2008 4:21 AM in response to Why'd She Win?

Historic indeed. But what seems to be lost on the masses is just how indescribably weak the three major candidates truly are. At a time when the Free World is relying on American leadership (Western Europe, after all, has never in history been as impotent as it is now), we here at home have narrowed it down to a conglomerate of highly disparate nominees who all carry with them significant built-in enemies.

Barak Obama has zero experience in national politics. John McCain is a crass old man who is completely and utterly out of touch with a majority of Americans. And Hillary Clinton suffers from not only gender inequality, but also by possessing a last name that will no doubt draw the ire of every Congressional Republican.

These are an extraordinarily significant set of drawbacks because now more than ever we need a president that will work to overcome Congressional gridlock and get substantive, progressive legislation passed.

With Russia heading back toward Communism (Socialism at best), China continuing its economic domination in manufacturing, and the Middle East only one Franz Ferdinand away from a massive eruption of war; foreign policy will also play a significant role for our new president. And once again, it's pretty evident that all three of these candidates will be a little overwhelmed by these issues.

And why is it that the candidates refuse to stop the outsourcing of U.S. jobs? Hillary and Obama talk about creating "new jobs" but say nothing about curbing the deportation of our jobs.

Posted at March 8, 2008 3:39 PM in response to History in the Making

It's interesting because now that Hillary will be in the campaign until the finish, we know both camps will resort to negative attacks; it's the only option left at this point.

Consequently, as the divisiveness grows between Clinton and Obama, John McCain will gradually come to be seen as "the safe candidate."

And that is not such a bad thing.

I don't know what shocks me more: McCain's improbable rise to the GOP nomination, or failure the of Democrats yet again.

In the weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucuses, it was the Democrats who were adamantly declaring that their party would be many faces but one voice. Meanwhile, the GOP appeared to be in complete disarray; half the party sticking to President Bush's leadership while the other half scurried as far away as possible. Indeed, it appeared as if either Mitt Romney or Rudolph Giuliani would likely steal the nomination. John McCain was given scarcely more chance than Mike Huckabee just a handful of weeks ago.

And yet here we are again. The Democrats are embroiled in a bitter civil war that could very realistically result in John McCain's presidential victory.

To be clear, I do NOT believe that behind closed doors the GOP is as comprehensively enthusiastic and gung-ho about John McCain as they appear to be on the outside. How could they be? Hellen Keller could at once sense the many flaws of John McCain. Despite this, however, the GOP has miraculously managed to present a magnificently unified front in the face of great odds.

The problem for the Democrats is two-fold. One, the party is split internally. There is a bloc of Democrats who will simply never vote for Barak Obama even in a general election. Similarly, there is a bloc of Dems who will never vote for Hillary Clinton; even if she gets the nomination. That bolsters McCain. To have any chance in November, the Democrats have all of their people voting for their candidate. At this juncture that seems to be an impossiblity.

McCain,therefore, has a better than 50/50 shot at the White House.

Posted at March 6, 2008 1:57 AM in response to Why'd She Win?

Gregg,

Instead of placing the sole blame on the heads of the politicians, why not direct some of the outrage at the the owner's of all these businesses that decide to pull up the stakes and leave places like Ohio? Sure, the government should probably try to step in at some point and do something, but ultimately it is the businessmen who are the true enemies here; yet they seem to get a free pass for some reason...

Posted at March 5, 2008 11:10 AM in response to Why'd She Win?

Easy:

1. Rural Texans have that old Confederate spirit in them and they will simply not vote for a black man. Period.

2. Blue collar Ohioans just aren't very smart. "They're taking our jobs!" is their rallying cry, despite the fact that "they" often comes to signify anyone residing outside of the state of Ohio.

Honestly, I feel bad for anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton. It's just illogical, that's all there is too it.

Posted at March 5, 2008 11:07 AM in response to Why'd She Win?