Re: All The Debate Wrap-Up You Need

1

Yes. Edwards will not get the nomination.

An Obama/Edwards ticket would remove 90% of my qualms, and I think would be a landslide transformational ticket.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
2

Oh my god that is a pwn.

Hillary's sitting at the table with me 'n the D&D nerds this lunchtime.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
3

What channel/station was this on? Is anything coming up on NPR? Until I get my new/used laptop, I have to watch network tv or listen to the radio.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
4

When will I know whether I need to do strategic voting. Right now, I'm still planning on voting for Edwards, but if it gets to the point where I think that voting for Obama will stop Hillary, then I'll vote for Obama.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
5

ESPNU, I think.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
6

When will I know whether I need to do strategic voting.

It's very likely to be over by the time your state gets around to voting, BG. And if it's not, odds are it will be a two-person race, so the necessity or non-necessity of strategic voting will be pretty obvious.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
7

BG don't do strategic voting! There's no such thing! You'll be shooting yourself in the foot! I swear! Vote for who you like! It's the only logical course of action!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
8

wOOOOObamA!


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
9

Did anybody else think the Edwards/Obama interaction looked like flirting? The laughter, the arm-touch?

I walked away thinking Edwards was auditioning for VP, and he and Obama were tag-teaming Negative Hillary in the Optimism Sweepstakes.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
10

I walked away thinking Edwards was auditioning for VP, and he and Obama were tag-teaming Negative Hillary in the Optimism Sweepstakes.

This would be awesome, if they can avoid coming off like cattily misogynist frat dudes.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
11

BG don't do strategic voting! There's no such thing! You'll be shooting yourself in the foot! I swear! Vote for who you like!

I don't want to rehash this whole argument; suffice it to say that, while I am sympathetic to Sifu's position, he subscribes to a more uncompromising form of it than I do.

I'm somewhat on the fence between Obama and Edwards myself: I'm probably closer to Edwards on most issues, but there are a few where Obama is more to my liking (i.e. trade), and I have a suspicion that Obama may be more successful at getting his legislative agenda passed.

All that said, if it's down to a two person race between Obama and HRC by the time I get to vote, I will almost certainly vote for Obama, even if Edwards is still nominally in the race. A "stop X" vote is one of the few variants of strategic voting that I find broadly defensible.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
12

Clinton:

"If you remove Musharraf and have elections, that's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next,"

This sort of thinking may win elections in America, but it doesn't rebuild alliances. If that line got much airtime in Europe, she'd be as well loved as Bush. For Christ's sake stop that woman now or she'll kill us all.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:22 AM
horizontal rule
13

That line made me snort, OFE. But I think you're right that it seemed totally unremarkable to people watching here.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
14

This would be awesome

Fucking-A it would. Especially considering that serving two terms as Vice President in the Obama administration would make Edwards the logical candidate in 2016.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
15

Hottest. Administration. Evar.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
16

11- I think that's too short-sighted, Knecht. In a longer view, Edwards' platform is revolutionary. Reagan, the last revolutionary, stuck with his platform for years while waiting for sentiment to catch up. Edwards is young enough that he can do the same, so the stronger his support now, the better. I suppose your argument has merit if his actual numbers were to drop to single digits, though.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
17

12: To the overwhelming majority of Americans, the rest of the world is an unruly province unfortunately occupied by irrationally violent, petulantly ungrateful foreigners who must be relieved of whatever claim to autonomy they possess.

I thought Edwards did pretty well, considering his shot at the nomination is gone.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
18

14 - I thought that too, of Obama/Edwards, with Edwards continuing. Then I thought of no women Presidents or Vice Presidents for another 8+ years and I got sad. It isn't quite enough to sway my choice of candidate, but it made me realize how much I want a woman in there.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
19

Given that they're flirting with each other, they would almost make up for the lost opportunity of a woman president by mainstreaming inter-racial homoeroticism.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
20

his shot at the Presidency is gone

ogged, now auditioning for MSNBC's Reductionist Pundit #43.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
21

I wanted to be irked at Charlie Gibson for his dumb hypothetical about a nuclear attack. Way to harp on something that is wildly unlikely to happen.

But I wasn't that irked, partly because the candidates partially salvaged it by talking about loose nukes and nuclear non-proliferation, and partly because I think a lot of people who might vote for a Democrat in November would care about their answer. No matter how unlikely the hypothetical.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
22

Then I thought of no women Presidents or Vice Presidents for another 8+ years and I got sad.

I seriously doubt Obama will pick a woman, Clinton or otherwise, to be his VP. Similarly, Clinton would never pick Obama, or any other non-white politician, as a running mate. No candidate is going to try to break two glass ceilings at once.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
23

19 - Sure, there are upsides.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
24

stras, we're profoundly aware of this, which accounts for the occasional inexplicable outbreak of anti-Americanism here and there. The point is that the underwhelming minority of Americans who might think otherwise need to persuade their politicians not to actively court the contempt of the rest of the world. It's not good for any of us.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
25

24 > 17


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
26

The point is that the underwhelming minority of Americans who might think otherwise need to persuade their politicians not to actively court the contempt of the rest of the world.

Dude. We have been trying. It's been a little difficult these past few.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
27

I was embarrassed for Richardson every time he opened his mouth.

The Edwards/Obama buddy movie was entertaining, and enjoyable from a "stop Clinton" point of view. As much as I love the idea of an Obama-Edwards ticket, it's probably not the most electorally sensible thing for Obama to do, and I get the sense that he'll do what's most electorally sensible.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
28

I wish there were a way you could introduce actual data, too. When Romney said he wanted to deport 12 million people I wanted so badly for someone to tell him the current price-per-deportation and ask where he was going to get the money.

Not to mention the insane new "We need 100,000 more soldiers." Oh really? With what money?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
29

It's not good for any of us.

No, it's not. And it doesn't thrill me either when Obama says things like "I believe in American exceptionalism." The uncontested foundation of the American bipartisan consensus on foreign policy is that America rightly rules the world, and that its primary goal as ruler of the world is to maintain its rule. No mainstream pundit, from Bill Kristol to Matt Yglesias, challenges this. The notion of a world where the president of the United States doesn't actively dominate the politics and policies of every other country on the planet is more or less unthinkable within Washington, and anyone who says otherwise is automatically "extreme" or otherwise crazy.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
30

As it stands now, sure, Edwards has an outsider chance winning the nomination. But he's positioned himself to be the 'heartbeat away' candidate should something happen to Obama, either revelatory or physically. And I'm not saying that is more likely for Obama than anyone else.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
31

15: There were tshirts, when Clinton/Gore was first elected, with Bill and Al's faces 'shopped onto the bodies of stereotypical Chelsea Boys (ripped tummies, short-shorts, mesh tanks) in a rather homosocial grapple.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
32

24, 26, 29: Agree wholeheartedly. I did almost wheeze myself off the chair when the moderator asked about their principles and somebody (Romney) said a strong America, or America should be strong, or some such. Dude, that's not a principle.

Africa was absent from both debates. Nothing about recent events Kenya (no particular reason there should have been, I guess), but just absolutely nothing about whether or why we should intervene in any country there, why or why not terrorism is a risk beyond the Middle East...I dunno. Interesting.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
33

31: I had forgotten about those shirts! Dupont Circle was rife with them.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
34

No mainstream pundit, from Bill Kristol to Matt Yglesias, challenges this.

Yglesias has been pretty clear of late that he believes there are many, many cases when we should not touch. E.g., Pakistan. If you're seeking an American foreign policy that doesn't seek to serve American interests first, then I think you're likely to wait for a long time.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
35

Tim, as a foreigner, I would be appalled at by American foreign policy that doesn't seek to serve American interests first. But American interests are not served by the idea that the US has to micro-manage the political process in countries they understand less well than they understand the geology of Mars.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
36

at


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
37

34: Yglesias is always quick to distance himself, however, from anyone making a leftist or otherwise structural critique of American hegemony itself. That is, while there are specific instances where Yglesias thinks the American empire may have gone wrong (promoting Bhutto and Musharraf in Pakistan, for example), he's very much in favor of America having an empire. He just doesn't like who's running the empire right now.

What I'm saying is, the empire itself is bad. It always has been and it always will be, for as long as it exists. That's the nature of empires. No, I don't expect America to be the first empire in the history of the world to willingly surrender its empire; I expect something like economic collapse to end it instead.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
38

OFE, in his own extremist-isolationist way, Ron Paul did the best job at putting that issue on the table last night. We've been propping up governments, making deals with the devil, and mucking around in other countries' political systems since at least 1898. The distinction between pursuing our own national interest and critically examining whether that national interest is well served by intervening is largely unexamined in national debate, as stras says.

(I don't mean to say this as if you don't already know it.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
39

15 gets it exactly right.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
40

39. BTW Holbo is arguing for the Obama/Clinton ticket at Bent Boards, if anybody wants a bad tempered argument.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
41

But American interests are not served by the idea that the US has to micro-manage the political process in countries they understand less well than they understand the geology of Mars.

OFE gets it right.

We need to pick our spots much better. Moreover, the need for this calculation is going to be exceedingly more apparent. We have critical needs in engineering and language skills. An isolationist approach is going to heighten those problems.

Our Empire will have to managed remarkably more efficiently.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
42

Hottest. Administration. Evar.

This certainly doesn't help Clinton.

We are still a very shallow people. She is not attractive and has kind of a squat pear shape. I thought she was in trouble when one of the early debates should the candidates from the rear. Men in suits all look powerful. Clinton in her suit looked dumpy and fat.

A woman faces huge obstacles for presenting the right look. She must appear powerful, but not harsh. Attractive, but cant show cleavage. Tough to overcome.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
43

I'll outsource the rest of this thread to B.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
44

I'm curious whether and how heavily folks here have been contributing to campaigns. (Each according to her ability, obvs.) For a long time, I didn't contribute much partly out of "it won't make a difference" sentiment and partly because voting for the lesser of two evils was bad enough; funding them seemed like a compromise too far.

But I sucked it up and maxed out for Kerry in '04. I didn't want to regret that I hadn't done as much as I could have.

I've already maxed out for Edwards in the primary (far less sucking up required, but I do have to hold my nose on some things) and will do so for either Edwards or Obama in the general. Hillary would be harder, but I'm sure I'd end up doing it for her, too, unless it seemed clear that she would crush the R candidate.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
45

Totally not with you, Will.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
46

44:

Not much here. I did a fair amount to local elections on the theory that the state legislature was extremely close here and extremely important.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
47

44:

Not much here. I did a fair amount to local elections on the theory that the state legislature was extremely close here and extremely important.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
48

voting for the lesser of two evils was bad enough; funding them seemed like a compromise too far.

This is kind of where I am. In my whole life, I think I've contributed to a handful of local/state races where I knew the candidate and wanted to support them generally, even if not on every policy issue. I also donated once last year to someone in caught up in the Florida electronic-voting scandal. I'm pretty certain I've ever donated in a national race.

I put all of my donation money into social-change organizations, not politics.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
49

To which comment Megan?

You think that Americans are not shallow? Or that women do not have a much harder time presenting a good physical image?

Men's suits are made to present a good look. It is easy, not matter what your body type is like.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
50

ever s/b never


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
51

42: Unfortunately, I think you're right. We elect tall guys with good hair and obsess over Presidential fitness. I'm not sure there's a well-established equivalent look for a woman that won't be derided as too harsh or too sexy.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
52

51: There's no such thing as too harsh or too sexy on a woman.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
53

People (voters) are shallow.

Hillary looked lovely.

Finding a balanced look for a woman politician is hard.

Her looks are not going to settle anything in any direction.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
54

Men's suits are made to present a good look. It is easy, not matter what your body type is like.

What, and women's suits are designed to look bad? You may not notice it as much, but there are plenty of men who don't manage to pull off a very good look in a suit and plenty of women who do.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
55

52: Okay, maybe there is. (NVSFW)


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
56

It is interesting that Hillary's been doing a lot of smiling and giggling and tottering back and forth in her seat (as in the vid ogged linked), while both Obama and Edwards are standing and sitting very still and not smiling much, if at all, despite, like Hillary, having rather dazzling choppers. Hillary is trying hard to be as "likable" as they are, which they can do only because they're not working at it.

Remember when Hillary used to stand and sit straight up and act serious and not smile much? I "liked" her better then, if such things matter.

But I think this really isn't about attractiveness, despite my 15. This is, like all things, about rhetoric. New is exciting, and voters have generally only heard positive things about Obama since he appeared on the scene. The years of Clinton-worship are over, in part because the compromises they had to make in the 90's look really backwards and silly now. Obama is a denouement leading into a happier sequel; Clinton is another chapter of the same story.

I like Edwards best, policy-wise, and would be delighted if he could pull out the primary, but I think teaming up with Obama is both wise and really attractive as a way to go into the main election. No hard feelings, fighting for roughly the same things, etc. Plus, both wickedly cute.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
57

53:

So, we are essentially agreed on everything, except whether it makes much of a difference?

54:

Di: so men and women's professional attire is equal? It isnt harder for a woman to achieve the correct fashion balance? We do not judge women more harshly than men on looks?


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
58

I am not suggesting that the race is decided by physical appearance. It doesnt even have to be attractiveness.

I agree with AWB that Clinton looks like she is trying too hard to be nice.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
59

On lots of it, 'cept I also thought she looked very good.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
60

Eh, Nancy Pelosi is attractive and dresses well. Seems to have mapped out some livable real estate between "too femme" and "serious" (ugh!). She still gets trashed, for her clothes are too expensive (Armani) and OMG what a girl with the shopping!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
61

one who always smiles is Clooney
though i sometimes thought if he'd become serious
he would become another Reagan like very easily, no?


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
62

We need some new kind of professional attire for women. A woman in a suit can be ridiculously hot, but only if she has a certain shape. (Di, for example, seems to have the right shape to look great in a suit. I do not, and have to buy one this year, and am baffled as to what that will look like.) I want options!


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
63

HRC is still going to win. And that's fine, especially now that she's been scared by the voters.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
64

Pelosi is hot.

Here's what bothers me about HRC right now, about shallow things. She reacted good-naturedly to Obama's pwnage, which was cute and natural and funny, and then her campaign is the one putting it on YouTube, presumably to the point that "Obama's the bully picking on the unpopular girl!" Right? Why the fuck else would they have put that up?

Unless it's like, "Look, popular kids! I can take a joke! Please sit with me at lunch!"


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
65

All I know is that every day, I get up and put on a shirt, suit, and a tie. It is remarkably easy. I can get a little more risky by my tie and shirt choices, but I do not have to get risky. I can stick with white shirt, dark suit, and a nice tie and I will look relatively good.

I do not have to worry about whether I am showing too much cleavage or leg or any other bothersome issues.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
66

I sometimes get up and put on a shirt and a tie, but it just ends up looking kinky, which aspect I'm totally milking at MLA interviews this year.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
67

Ugh, sorry to comment so much, but I've changed my mind, if only because HRC is obviously acting like a put-out little girl because the media is treating her like one. (Her pathetic "That hurts my feelings! ... I don't think I'm that bad!" was a terrible, terrible mistake, but one many of us would make in the same position.) I look forward to seeing the media do the same to Romney and Giuliani. "So, polls say that everyone likes Mike Huckabee, and that you two are boring and psychotic." How would they react? Romney probably wouldn't flinch, but I'd bet big bucks Giuliani goes into a picked-on-kid routine too.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
68

As far as those who think Obama might or should choose someone oter than Edwards for VP, someone older or with foreign policy experence or for geographical balance, remember Petey's arguments for Edwards as a Southern White Male still are relevant and perhaps even increased.

I really think that Obama getting all the Blacks and Edwards drawing a significant number of White Moderates the O/E ticket might take Mississippi.
Landslide city, if not realignment.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
69

I agree with Megan that Hilary is looking pretty good these days. I like what she's decided to do with her hair, and whoever is doing her makeup deserves some sort of award. Hilary's figure is a little tricky to dress, but I think that generally she's done well. She's certainly used the woman's perogative to wear colors to her advantage (although, Christ, that yellow textured jacket was awful).

Pelosi's flair for clothes is entirely her own, and while it should give DC ladies some ideas, as apparently it has done, it would be a mistake I think for Hilary to try too hard to match it. Very different figures, for one thing: also, Hilary has an unusually wide face/head.

AWB: My mom got me a suit from Anne Klein the style of which might look good on you. It's a close-cut jacket, nipped around the waist, and a sort of tulip-shaped skirt, close-skimming on the hips and thighs but with a slight flair right below the knee. A little Secretary, but it's Anne Klein, so still very professional. Generally, I could see that sort of sillohuette working very nicely on you.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
70

67: Actually, I haven't watched much of her recently, but I felt like she came off about as well as she could given the "so, I hear you're unlikeable" setup. The "I don't think I'm that bad" sounded joking instead of pathetic, she laughed it off without seeming brittle -- above the particular criticism, but not so far above it that she didn't understand why it was funny.

Of course, I'm so unlikeable that even the unlikeable kids won't sit with me, so maybe my perception if it was off.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
71

Sorry, dropped a thought in there: "I haven't watched much of her recently, but that clip brought her up a couple of percentage points in polls taken in my brain, Obama-pwnage notwithstanding."


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
72

And remember Petey's arguments are not about rationality, not about foreign policy experience/gravitas or Nascar creds or religiosity. It's gotta be a Southerner.

Southerners voted for Carter & Clinton, or at least a few did. "If Karl Marx was from Atlanta and had an accent" ...

Now if you want to come up with a Southern White Male better than Edwards, go ahead.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
73

Her pathetic "That hurts my feelings! ... I don't think I'm that bad!" was a terrible, terrible mistake, but one many of us would make in the same position.

Really? I saw it as tongue-in-cheek, a gentle mocking of the vapid question. It certainly didn't make me think less of her.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
74

69: Ooh, I should look into that when I go shopping. I wear AK well.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
75

72: I read recently that NASCAR's popularity is plummetting. Perhaps this betokens a realignment as well?


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
76

I'm guessing NASCAR is one of those things that might call attention to class difference, finally. Poor people who can't afford to fill up the tank going to watch a bunch of superpowered cars zoom around all day, refueling a billion times? It's not an environmental thing, I don't think, but it's got to feel bitter when your beloved prez is telling you not to drive so much and here are these assholes who burn gas like it's free.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
77

I'm so unlikeable that even the unlikeable kids won't sit with me
this is also very foreign feeling for me, why one would wish to sit to eat with whoever it is and even ask for a favor to sit, when you can be all comfortable by your own yourself
and seriously i think either Clooney or Jolie would do nice future presidential nominees in races so dictated by likeablenesses


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
78

I'm so unlikeable that even the unlikeable kids won't sit with me

You know, it might help if you showed up to meet-ups...


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
79

And that very decadence is, I think, part of why it was popular to begin with. Working-class Republicans were being coached to get off on the Scrooge McDuckery of CEOs, because one day, it could be them! And I honestly believe they're starting to realize that the financial excesses of others are only made possible by the creation of a class of suckers who cheer them on.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
80

It's not an environmental thing, I don't think, but it's got to feel bitter when your beloved prez is telling you not to drive so much and here are these assholes who burn gas like it's free.

Wow. Don't know many motorsports fans, do you?


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
81

62: Thanks! [blush] You could look great in a suit, too -- it's mostly a matter of finding the right cut for your body type.

65: And I get up and throw on a suit and shirt, or slacks and sweater. I can stick with a white shirt and dark suit and look good, too. (I don't ever have to worry about showing too much cleavage, either -- but I'll grant that I can't speak for women who have actual cleavage.)

I'm not saying people don't scrutinize women's attire differently than men's -- I'm just saying that the notion that pretty much any guy can look good in a suit is just wrong as is the presumption that there are no safe, conservative fall-back options for women.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
82

72: I read recently that NASCAR's popularity is plummetting.

Ogged is sad.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
83

74: I deny that it has to be a suit. Don't you wacky MLAers have more leeway than that with your tie-made-skirts and whatnot? I mean, my field is generally considered retrograde and I don't feel the need to bust out the chick suit. Although of course some do, I guess. But I chalk it up to a lack of imagination or insecurity in the face of fashion.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
84

83: Oh, I have a thing about this. I've never had a nice suit, and I want one, and I keep asking for financial assistance from my family by saying, "But this is my wedding dress." The thing about being a lifetime single is that you never get special clothes. I want special clothes.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
85

A woman's got to have one good suit, though. Then you can decide to dress down, rather than resent its being the default.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
86

I really think that Obama getting all the Blacks and Edwards drawing a significant number of White Moderates the O/E ticket might take Mississippi.

That seems like a pretty good argument against Edwards as VP. I want Virginia, Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. After that? The benefit of adding the Dixiecrat states to a Democratic governing coalition escapes me. (And, yes, I'd give Arkansas a pass for '68.)


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
87

Stop it Bob. You're scaring me. I agree re Edwards, though what would you do with Richardson? State? Treasury? Defence?


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
88

19: by mainstreaming inter-racial homoeroticism.

I think Chris Matthews already has that one covered. My God, if Obama would just give his next speech in a flight suit, Matthews will cream himself right there in the studio rather than in the cab on the way home like he usually does. And I swear it is mostly because he is so ecstatic that Obama is pwning HRC so he won't have to deal with having a "girl" president.

(I have come realize that I have become so embittered by the mainstream political narratives and the semi-lunatic millionaire sycophants who promulgate them, that I don't even know what I really think about any national political figure. This does not redound to my credit.)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
89

84: Aren't you a bit young to declare yourself a lifetime single? (Or was that an affirmation that you've gone filly over to Emerson's side?)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
90

Then you can decide to dress down, rather than resent its being the default.

Definitely. I got a really great suit at a consignment store, which I hardly ever wear, but it's reassuring just to have. I don't remember the name of the designer. A Korean woman, I think. The company is based in NY.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
91

84, 85: I want a nice suit, too, but the only ones I seem to care for at all are hanging in the window at Dior or Prada, and, well, that doesn't help at all. Help me at any rate. But, I continue to deny that not wearing a suit is choosing to dress down.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
92

89: I'm not the marrying type. And if I magically were to become the marrying type, I'd probably just wear a nice skirt.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
93

91.---Well, sure. I want one of those highly constructed, thick cotton, Yohji Yamamoto suits, which I hear can be thrown into the washing-machine! And of course there are many things a woman can wear that are not suits. Sometimes, however, it's really nice not to have to work at or worry about whether one is dressed appropriately, whether one is making a statement or if so, the right kind of statement.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
94

Damn.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
95

I possess an entirely unexciting Ann Taylor suit for interviews. It fits me nicely but is far from the most stylish thing I own. It very deliberately conveys pulled-together nullness. I'm spastic enough and my work is weird enough (and not in a popcult hip way) that I am happier having my interview clothes be studiously unremarkable. If I felt like I could afford a Prada suit, I'd buy one, but as it is, eh.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
96

Oh, to have the cash to be Yohji Yamamoto's bitch. I saw a guy at a wine event -- a Scot, even -- wearing one of those Yohji kilts. Swoooooon.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
97

"You're likable enough, where it counts."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
98

86:SCMT, I am talking about landslide here. I am talking about winning 40+ states, 10 Senate seats, 30+ additional House seats. I am talking about Mississippi in addition to all the states you mentioned. Why not? In such a huge coalition, Miss wouldn't exactly have the strongest voice. And of course the coalitions don't last, but the legislation outlives them.

I have seen 2-3 landslides or re-alignments in my lifetime, they aren't even that rare, and I am starting to think the conditions (economy, bad war, etc) & the candidate is out there.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
99

86: I want Virginia, Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas

I'm assuming Florida as well? I want Florida just to ram it up Jeb Bush's ass. (See, the hell with governing, realignment and a new vision, it's all about revenge and settling old scores for me...)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
100

AWB - myself, I don't care at all whether you marry or declare yourself single or anything at all in that realm. (As long as you are happy, dear...)

But as a strategic matter, I cannot imagine that reminding your folks that you've made an unconventional choice at the very same time you ask them for help with a garment that represents a life they don't relate to is going to be a productive approach.

My parents! Instead of this beautiful, flowing, white, virginal dress that the very thing you want most for me, could you please focus on and give me money for a suit so I can continue my incomprehensible life in the dangerous city? Over here. Stop looking at the dress. The suit! Eyes this way! The suit. Never mind.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
101

78: So you see my problem.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
102

Speaking of overpriced ceremonial garments, I am so excited about buying my regalia this spring.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
103

100: I know, it doesn't seem like the wisest strategy, but deep down, they know they raised me to be a cold, calculating careerist. They regret having done so, but I think they get it. Plus, they hatehatehate the wedding industry, and are of the "I Got You, Babe" school of love.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
104

There are lots of different kinds of suits. I have a gray wool skirt suit with some interesting detail (read: black wool-lace) that I got at Nordstrom like 3 years ago, and every time I wear it people still ooh and ahh over the thing.

Lately, though, I've just started buying up cute jackets that I really like and wearing separates to court. I'm too young for this all-unicolor-all-the-time shit.

Anyway I protest that only women of a certain shape can look hot in a suit.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
105

100.3: Heh.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
106

Shopping shopping shopping.

Consignment stores and (good) thrift stores are the way to go: you can treble your wardrobe at a fraction of the cost, and yes, you can find Anne Klein there.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
107

A 6-foot tall woman's got to have never going to find one good suit, though.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
108

Anyway I protest that only women of a certain shape can look hot in a suit.

Confusion: are you protesting the state of affairs, or the claim?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
109

Leblanc's right. Women of all shapes and sizes can look good in (the right) suit. This is what underlies some of what will said above: Our society just has a wacked-out notion that Ally McBeal is the model for what women should look like in a suit. Well, she's not. Or rather, she's a model, but hardly the only one.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
110

It's freaking me out that Bob is making me optimistic.

Frankly, when the suit fits, I think just about everyone looks good in one.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
111

I posted my response to Bob in the Unfogged photo pool.

Frankly, when the suit fits, I think just about everyone looks good in one.

This is completely right. It's also an argument against shopping for a suit in thrift stores: it is so easy to talk oneself into buying something not-quite-right because it's there! it's cheap! it mostly fits! I'm saying this as a committed thrift-store shopper, who has trebled her wardrobe many times, often rather foolishly.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
112

I'd like to let the laydeez know that I know they aren't saying "treble" for me, but I appreciate it nonetheless.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
113

The trick is to find a consignment store in an affluent neighborhood, which is patronized by a woman your size and a lot richer. I had a colleague once who routinely cleaned up at her neighborhood consignment store, because this woman exactly her (oddly petite) size would drop off a batch of clothing every four months or so. Talk about a sweet deal.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
114

111:I don't think I have access to the Unfogged flikr pool, but haven't really been seeking it. No offense. I prefer to interact with other brains-in-vats, and imagine them in really nice suits.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
115

113: This goes for the menz, too. I grabbed mr. oudemia a black cashmere Brooks Bros. coat -- with a slightly torn and easily fixed pocket liner -- at a Junior League shop.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
116

114.---It's just a picture of me in my Obama t-shirt, looking happily whirlpool-eyed.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
117

I think my only successful used clothing purchase was grey jacket bought at a Lyric Opera costume sale for $6. (Though I also had to pay for alterations which were relatively speaking much more expensive.) The top button was gone when I got it and recently the middle button fell off having been abraded away by my bag's strap as I rode, leaving only the bottom button.

Otherwise, great success!


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
118

Our society just has a wacked-out notion

Of course, this has little to do with suits in particular.

It maddens me that I keep fighting the standards, keep finding them bizarre. Every woman should of course have a nice suit? (or, a little black dress)

Wardrobenormatives!

(Damn, I feel like mcmanus with my relentless obsessiveness lately. On, in this case, gender roles and norms, conservative flavor. Help, it's like a stye in my eye. Blink.)


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
119

But: everyone man or woman should have a nice suit. Why not?

(Obviously, if one doesn't have the means to own a nice suit, that's a shame, and there are class issues in play, but there are so many occasions where a nice suit is the appropriate attire. Everyone should have one!)


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
120

If Obama wins 40 states, etc., I'm buying a nice suit for the inauguration. (I'll actually spend the inauguration at home hitting "refresh" on Unfogged, of course.)


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
121

I have a pretty strong impression (based on slim evidence, I admit) that women's fashion among the political set is innocuous to bad, generally. It seems that a Jil Sander look would be ideal—that sleek authoritarian vibe the Germans do so well.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
122

Just imagine how much more efficiently you'll hit ctrl-R, Walt!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
123

Belgian, isn't she?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
124

It's also an argument against shopping for a suit in thrift stores: it is so easy to talk oneself into buying something not-quite-right because it's there! it's cheap! it mostly fits!

Nevermind suits. This is still the case for other thrift-store buys: discrimination, people! If it mostly-fits, don't do it, even if it's only 6 bucks!

That said, it's true that thrift-store shopping is most fruitful for those of a size and shape that's, well, medium. When I've been heavier or lighter than I am now, I couldn't accomplish much: everything that "fit" either had to be baggy, or, uh, wound up baggy. I have too many of these freakin' baggy clothes. Thrift-store sizes seem to come in very large, medium, and just tiny.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
125

How embarrassing! I had Sander confused with Demeulemeester.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
126

I'm a vote for suits being a lot more forgiving for men than for women, on one basic issue. Men are generally rewarded for looking big, so a man's suit jacket is a big padded construction that's supposed to turn a skinny guy into a leanly broad-shouldered athlete, and a fat guy into a football player -- maybe hefty, but imposing. And that's a pretty easy trick -- if you don't care how big you make the wearer look overall, you can change their shape a lot.

Women's suits have to be a lot more artful to change the shape of the wearer, because the simple 'load on more shoulder padding' thing doesn't work the same way. It's not that there's anything wrong with women's suits, but men's suits are really really flattering to someone with an imperfect body in a way that women's suits can't be.

And I'm assuming Obama has it locked too. Which I'm good with, for now. Everything I worry about is that he seems likely to throw me and the issues I care about under a bus in the cause of 'bipartisan harmony', but he hasn't actually done it yet, and maybe I'm wrong to worry.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
127

I really like the idea of Obama & Edwards playing Good Cop/Bad Cop. Barack preaches it to the people, and Edwards gets to do the arm-twisting.

What the Senate majority needs (& I'm pretty sure we'll still have one, realignment or no) is some damn discipline. In my highly detailed fantasy life, HRC drops out of the race in spring & becomes Majority Leader; but it seems equally possible to me that a VP could take on a Prime Ministerial role. This could be a little rough for Edwards, who was kind of an outsider in the Senate, but I think he could handle it.

I can't get behind doing away with the filibuster, because no majority lasts forever (nor should it!), and I'm a bit ashamed when people I respect (*cough* Yglesias!) talk about killing it outright. But an empowered VP or Majority Leader could teach the GOP to fear the filibuster.


Posted by: Rah | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
128

It's not that there's anything wrong with women's suits, but men's suits are really really flattering to someone with an imperfect body in a way that women's suits can't be.

This is true.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
129

Speaking of shoulder padding, AWB, if you're still reading this, I think you would look even hotter in a jacket with some narrow, but very sharp shoulder pads. 1940s-style. Oo, and then maybe a keyhole or a deep curved neckline for your lapels. See if you can swing a broad belt over the top of the jacket. I'm off on a Monroe in Some Like It Hot fantasy for you.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
130

Also, we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves. If Obama could get all of Edwards's vote, he'd have it already. I very much hope they'll all hang in there until February 5th, because as soon as the horse-race is done the MSM will turn its attention to teasing Bloomberg full-time.

I think Iowans did a good job narrowing the field; now let's have just a few weeks in which candidates can challenge one another's proposals & test their own before they have to fire up the War Room and start bailing muck.


Posted by: Rah | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
131

Everything I worry about is that he seems likely to throw me and the issues I care about under a bus in the cause of 'bipartisan harmony'

Barack preaches it to the people, and Edwards gets to do the arm-twisting.

From Edwards' mailing list today:

In tonight's debate, there were two "change candidates" on the stage. But we have very different approaches. I don't believe you can sit around a table with the drug companies, the insurance companies or the oil corporations, negotiate with them - and then hope they'll just voluntarily give their power away. You can't nice them to death - it doesn't work.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
132

126: And I'm assuming Obama has it locked too.

Really, I'm with the whirlpool-eyed set too, but it's way too early to say this.

130: I think Iowans did a good job narrowing the field

Narrowing the field from three viable candidates to three viable candidates?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
133

I'm more and more convinced that Bloomberg is teasing the media, rather than the other way around.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:38 PM
horizontal rule
134

I can't get behind doing away with the filibuster, because no majority lasts forever (nor should it!), and I'm a bit ashamed when people I respect (*cough* Yglesias!) talk about killing it outright.

I can. Kill the filibuster. Better yet: kill the Senate. Both are monstrously undemocratic institutions; neither of them have, in the hands of a Democratic minority, meaningfully slowed down the onslaught of evil shit legislation that's come down over the last few years. The end result: we get the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act renewal, the Military Commissions Act, legalized warrantless domestic spying, just about every nutcase Bush wants on the Supreme Court or the federal bench, but we don't get to raise the minimum wage.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
135

Besides the electoral stuff, I want Edwards in there to push Obama a little to the left economically. I am very worried about Obama's economics.

I haven't even mentioned the Behavioral Economics aspect of Obama's team yet, partly because I don't know anything about BE, partly because who can tell how it plays out with Obama.

Think "Behavioral Psychology" I suppose

"With this view of human fallibility, it is not surprising that practitioners of this sort of economic thinking incline to paternalism. The non-biased minority with impeccable cognitive skills (you know who you are) must take it on themselves to guide their less capable brethren toward more rational choices. I exaggerate, but not too much, as those who have delved into this literature will recognize." ...from the link

Is this evidence of some kind of lefty Straussism in Obama? Is there other evidence in his speeches? I think there is.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
136

It seems that a Jil Sander look would be ideal--that sleek authoritarian vibe the Germans do so well.

It's the 'sleek' part that is so hard.

I used to walk by her store quite regularly when I lived in Hamburg. The mannequins didn't have breasts.

Clothes that are best displayed on mannequins without breasts are probably never going to flatter me.

Or many other women.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
137

Huh - another thing that I haven't seen people talking about here lately (except an allusion from parsimon's mom): Edwards in the VP slot instead of in the Oval Office nicely negates concerns about his wife's cancer: you don't want the president distracted, but it's not such a big deal if the Veep has to take a break for a couple of weeks to take care of family business. Edwards might actually prefer that outcome at this point, so maybe he's playing to lose -- that would explain a lot of the love.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
138

131:

Yes, but you have to give people an out. We can't just throw all the pharmaceutical lobbyists in jail & nationalize the industry, for example. Will it be easy? No. Will the entrenched interests try to cheat? Yes. But all stick & no carrot won't work any better in domestic affairs than it has with Iran. That's why we need the Good Cop/Bad Cop.

132:

Doubling the amount of time each of the three viables can get in a debate.


Posted by: Rah | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
139

Women's suits have to be a lot more artful to change the shape of the wearer, because the simple 'load on more shoulder padding' thing doesn't work the same way. It's not that there's anything wrong with women's suits, but men's suits are really really flattering to someone with an imperfect body in a way that women's suits can't be.


As always, LB says it better than I can.

In addition, I agree with anyone who said that we scrutinize women's shapes more than we do men's shapes. This is not to suggest that it is impossible to overcome (ie Thatcher as she got older).

For what it is worth, I think women have a harder time pulling off the aggressive, outspoken role as well. (Certainly not an original thought to me.) This is not to suggest that there are not women who can pull it off. But, it is more difficult for a woman.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
140

Like ogged, I thought Hillary came off poorly when she "shrilled out for about ten seconds." But I also thought the point she was making about her experience was valid, and I suspect that a man getting intense/angry in a similar situation wouldn't have come off as "shrill."

Contra AWB in 67, I thought Hillary's "that hurts my feelings" moment was endearing.

I wonder how much of my and others' perceptions of these moments is colored by our gender expectations.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
141

I think women have a harder time pulling off the aggressive, outspoken role as well.

I nominate this for understatement of the week.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
142

and I suspect that a man getting intense/angry in a similar situation wouldn't have come off as "shrill."

Go check out what conservatives are saying about, for example, McCain. I guess neither "mean," "nasty," nor "petty," is the same as "shrill," but I'm not sure any one is better.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
143

It's a populist year. The economy is going down, and the only question is how far. Clinton doesn't have a clue, or simply hasn't the resources to play a populist game. Bill Clinton was a "change candidate" in 1992, but history goes one way, and people get older. HRC would have been better in 2000 or 2004, altho obviously not possible then either.

If it is Obama vs McCain, economy trumps National Security so bigtime I am not even worried about an "event" or see a need for military experience on the ticket.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
144

Better yet: kill the Senate. Both are monstrously undemocratic institutions; neither of them have, in the hands of a Democratic minority, meaningfully slowed down the onslaught of evil shit legislation that's come down over the last few years.

Actually, this is a lot less true than it seems. No, Senate Dems haven't been very effective, esp. in the civil rights/war matters that we all esteem so highly. But think back on Tom DeLay, and all the insane shit his caucus passed in the House. Even with the BS conference committees of the final years of the R majority, the actual acts passed into law were about 55% less insane than the original House bills.

This actually has less to do with the Senate's anti-democratic makeup than with Senate rules that (traditionally) don't permit the top-down control that has long (always?) been part of the House. Hell, look at the D House vs. the D Senate. Of course, we wish that the Senate weren't roadblocking Pelosi's many good bills, but we shouldn't forget that they also roadblocked a lot of DeLay's batshit bills (for example, flag-burning and anti-gay marriage amendments both passed the House; neither passed the Senate).

Until we have an actual parliamentary system, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a single chamber run like the House.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
145

Contra to many, it seems, I don't see that many men looking good in a suit. 10% maybe (and some, very good). They look acceptable, which is more important often, but rarely actually good. For the most part, I don't think most care.

I suspect you could argue successfully that many/most men look better in a suit than they would in other clothes that they put equivalent effort into. That's quite a ways from good, though.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
146

Oh, and by all means get rid of the filibuster. Not for the advantage it gives one party short term, but for the advantage it gives the country. Other reforms are more important, I suspect.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
147

Well, if you're starting from the assumption that most people are kind of ugly, you can't blame the suit for that. I'm just claiming that men tend to look better in a suit than in a non-suit.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
148

143: If it is Obama vs McCain, economy trumps National Security so bigtime I am not even worried about an "event" or see a need for military experience on the ticket.

I think this is the wrongest thing you've ever said. If there's an "event", everyone will transfer their vague fears about the economy into sharp fears about teh terrists in a heartbeat, and we will be fucked, fucked, fucked, which brings us back to Ogged's post from the other day.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
149

I thought Hillary came off poorly when she "shrilled out for about ten seconds." But I also thought the point she was making about her experience was valid, and I suspect that a man getting intense/angry in a similar situation wouldn't have come off as "shrill."

The 'shrillness' epithet is, for this reason, obnoxious -- alas -- and reinforces exactly the sort of gender norming we'd be better off trying to combat. If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, her run in the general election isn't helped by framing her in this way. "Shrillary," right?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
150

141:

Wow Parsimon, why do you have to be so bitchy to me about that?!?!


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
151

Rimshot.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
152

I kid of course.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
153

I'm just claiming that men tend to look better in a suit than in a non-suit.

As noted upthread, suits on men tend to accentuate (or fake) broad shoulders and so on. They mimic a certain ideal of the male physique, which is why one might find oneself saying that men look "better" in a suit than in a non-suit: it makes them look like something that most real men actually don't look like. To the extent that one fetishizes the ideal physique in question, I guess most men are ugly. It's all pretty silly.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
154

148:Assuming the economy is bad enough I disagree. I do expect we will gather evidence this year. Obama (or Clinton, but probably not Edwards) looks and talks tough enough.

The arguments & evidence are subtle and complicated. Did Ike beat Truman/Adlai in '52 based on the economy or Korea? Did Reagan run a foreign policy or taxes campaign? Did the fall of the Soviet Union really take foreign policy off the table in 1992?

Clinton had high approval numbers in the middle of impeachment. Nixon was not so lucky. "It's the economy."


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
155

150: will, sweetheart, your carefulness in making that understatement, as though every word was pondered and weighed, was delightful!


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
156

It's a populist year. The economy is going down, and the only question is how far.

Gawd, I hope you're wrong.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
157

154 cont:And this means I believe that Bush's current low poll numbers have little or nothing to do with Iraq, even tho people might say otherwise.
Honest direct discourse about jobs & Main Street is buried by the media in this country under mounds of bullshit, Wall St, and war. It ain't an accident.

But people vote their pocketbooks if their pocketbooks are empty. Always. Why the hell would they do otherwise? "I lost my job, my house, I don't have health care, but I don't care, bomb Iran" ??

No way.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
158

Bob, Hillary said last night that she thought we were heading into a recession. I think she was the only candidate who came close to using the r-word.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
159

156: that seems unlikely.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
160

156:Probably a 75% chance now of a true recession, 9+ months of negative growth, in 2008. Starting about now.

I could give you a lot of links.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
161

159: There's down and there's what bob occasionally seems to hope for.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
162

154: I'm not disagreeing that the economy may get bad; I'm disagreeing that the people will necessarily have a rational reaction to that fact -- and I don't see that Obama will necessarily look better on the economy than McCain would, for all that.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
163

Temporal horizon, baby.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
164

oudemia, I haven't looked at the Prada stuff, but I lust after the stuff in the Dior window. The mannequins aren't super tall and they have breasts. Perfect for me!

If anyone has good consignment stores to recommend in Boston, please let me know. The designer ones are really expensive. The clothes aren't necessarily in amazing condition and are still quite expensive. I like French clothes and MaxMara a lot. One of the non-Vogue semi-serious fashion magazines had an interview with the new designer ofr Balenciaga; she had done some gorgeous dresses.

I had a beautiful copper silk shantung suit from a company called Gruppo Americano that I got at Jasmine Sola, but it's all worn out now. (That company is going out of business, because its former owner was involved in some sort of sexual harassment thing. It's sort of sucked for a while. It used to be really expensive but with great sales. Now the sales (even the going out of business one) stink, and it's very teeny-bopperish. It had a jacket, trousers and a sheath dress. I like suits with dresses, because they work for both work and social occasions.

I'm going to listen to the debate repeat tonight. Before then I can't make a substantive comment about the politics.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
165

Occasionally? It's looking pretty grim economically; a lot of the recent economic growth appears to have been driven by borrowed money that is drying up now that it's become clear it's not going to be repaid. Who knows how long it's going to take that to work its way out of the system.


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
166

159:Aw hell. An instant search. I could fill the thread.

Mark Thoma ...12:38 PM today

Remember, there will always be a strong bias against admitting recession til long after one starts. And the Fed with big cuts may be able to do stagflation instead, but that don't feel much better.

We are at least mildly screwed, and perhaps tragically fucked.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
167

164: Before then I can't make a substantive comment about the politics.

So make a shallow one.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
168

44: I'm in for about $150 to Edwards. Strangely, this doesn't turn up online.

Will is showing too much cleavage.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
169

Enh. I like Edwards health care plan better than Obama's, because Edwards doesn't talk about keeping 25 year-olds on their parents' plan. His health markets don't subsidize employer premiums they just take money from employers to put into a general fund. I don't want to prop up the employer-based system at all.

I don't know enough about their foreign policy positions. I only know that Edwards said he'd do anything if he knew where Osama Bin Laden was, but what the hell does that mean? That's neither shallow nor substantiated.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
170

162:Good grief.

McCain & Republicans have little to offer on the economy. There is plenty of coverage of last night's Repub debate, they didn't even wanna talk about it, and you can predict what they would say. "Tax Cuts" Huckabee & Paul are out there because a) they feel the worker pain, and b) mainline Repubs are always, have always been, hopeless.

Obama would clean McCain's clock.

As far as grooving on recession/depression. I like liberals/progressives getting elected exactly to lessen economic pain. If it takes recessions to get social welfare...I won't say it's worth it, but it's a much better alternative to Republicanism.

Now wars and National Security crises benefit Republicans and they really groove on them anyway. They will almost take a Democrat if they can get a war. I won't take a war or recession if a Republican comes with it.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
171

Only for you Wrongshore. Only for you. The Bro helps.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
172

Hillary said last night that she thought we were heading into a recession. I think she was the only candidate who came close to using the r-word.

Really? Interesting.

It's true that the economy is a more worrisome issue than any, and frankly, if Hillary looks more capable of addressing it (despite the fact that it would mean shoring up the corporate status quo), I'd have no problem putting a competent administrator at the helm. You don't change the economic tenor of a country when it's in crisis, but when it's relatively stable. (And I'm only slightly choking on these words. Contrary, I appear to be.)


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
173

89, 92:

:-)

Remaking the world, one psyche at a time.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
174

I have not spent sufficient time comparing Obama, Edwards, and Clinton.

Nor do I trust any of them to hold fast to any specific proposals.

Therefore, I am left with who will get elected and who is more likely to pull us more left.

Under those two tests, I come down to

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3.Clinton

Despite the Muslim slur and the race issue, I think Obama is the best candidate. He has fewer negatives that bring out such hatred (Not slick trial lawyer; not Bill's wife). I'm guessing that he will generally be able to accomplish more of what I want than the others.
But, who the heck knows?!?!


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
175

I forgot until just now that when ABC showed the online poll of Facebook users asking what issue they wished the candidates had talked more about, it was the economy by a substantial margin. Twice -- once after the R debate, once after the Ds.

(The other issue that popped up was the environment, which I attributed to the youth of the Facebook users.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
176

Recessions are never certain, but the coming recession is as sure as any as I've ever seen. The only positive news lately has been that exports are up.

I think Bob is right and HL is wrong on this one. The Democratic nominee only has to make sufficiently martial noises to win.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
177

Recession Mild or Severe ...Calculated Risk, 12:07 PM today

Notes for those who clickthru:1) Nouriel Roubini has been predicting recession for years, and has lost some credibility. But CR has his own predictions at the bottom.

2) I don't trust unemployments numbers in the Bush adminstration
3) I definitely don't trust real GDP figures, since inflation doesn't include food or energy


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
178

I'm afraid I don't assign much value to the responses of Facebook users, responses provided online, at that. Unless ... are they representative of a larger portion of the electorate than I think?

Nonetheless, as someone said somewhere, so-called bread and butter issues (will I lose my job? how will I retire? health insurance?) obviously resonate most deeply with a public that feels on the edge.

Damn, but the bipartisan corporate party has really fucked up here, don't you think? You don't disenfranchise the proletariat, much less the middle class, to the point where its members become downright alarmed. You will be overthrown.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
179

are they representative of a larger portion of the electorate than I think?

No.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
180

You will be overthrown.

Isn't that only true if there is any kind of organization and leadership among the proles?


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
181

Isn't that only true if there is any kind of organization and leadership among the proles?

Yes, no, yes, no. I mean, certainly. Does Obama count?

I raise the question chiefly because a good friend is convinced that while the corporate party has indeed been dedicated to, you know, the furtherance of its own interests, indeed to an extreme degree, it's still wholly in control of the situation -- so my friend thinks -- while I think they've really messed it up, they've gone too far. That they're on the verge of a civil uprising, if you will.

New Orleans was an illustration of the ways in which we've been structured for some time now to deal with civil unrest: Blackwater staff deployed ... cf. Naomi Klein on what she dubs "Disaster Capitalism."

I can argue against myself well enough: look at the Supreme Court. Look at, oh, tort reform, welfare reform, the WTO. Our hands are tied, and it's been brilliantly done. Food supply is pretty well sewn up (control the food, and control the fuel, control the people.) So the argument goes: they haven't messed up at all.

I'm not buying it, but it's an academic argument, really.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 4:37 PM
horizontal rule
182

Randomly off topic: Who knew that Jack Black is married to Charlie Haden's daughter? Huh.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 4:39 PM
horizontal rule
183

AFAIK, real GDP _is_ adjusted for inflation in food and energy. The significance of the inflation figure without food or energy is that it's the figure that the Fed targets when deciding to crush the economy in order to save bond holders (so basically it's a good thing they leave out food and energy, not a bad thing).


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
184

182: really? since when?

She did an album of covers with Bill Frisell that made me think less of the Frisell and her father, though I suppose I have no reason to blame her father for it. (She escaped unscathed because it was my first encounter with her.)


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 4:55 PM
horizontal rule
185

are they representative of a larger portion of the electorate than I think?

Sorry, I should have made my point more explict. I thought it was notable precisely because the young, college-student, relatively more affluent Facebook users would be if anything less likely than the general public to cite the economy as a big concern.

Not to generalize too much about young people, but being in college often buffers you from some of the costs and worries of the wider world.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 4:59 PM
horizontal rule
186

184: Apparently married since 2006. I've never heard anything by her, but I always sort of dug Charlie.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
187

147: Ok, coming back to this late, but I really disagree. I think that a) a lot of men don't care much, or at least don't take enough time to understand enough to feel like they can strike out on their own and b) either through necessity (work) or absorbing by osmosis the idea that suits make guys look better, they buy a suit or five. Mostly ill fitted, and many of the cheap/unflattering materials. However, if saves you from screwing up too badly. Going for all sorts of other options opens you up to all sorts of possible gaffe's, so why risk that? Doesn't mean a lot of men wouldn't look better in other clothes, or at least as good.

There's nothing magical about them, they are just a fashion.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
188

Petra was affiliated with the Decemberists for a time. IIRC my son had a favorable impression of her after having met her.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:12 PM
horizontal rule
189

This is Tanya. A cellist.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:17 PM
horizontal rule
190

I thought it was notable precisely because the young, college-student, relatively more affluent Facebook users would be if anything less likely than the general public to cite the economy as a big concern.

Apparently they're smart enough to realize that their futures depend on prevailing economic fortunes.

Seriously, though, it doesn't surprise me that much. I don't know, I've never even looked at Facebook.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
191

Petra was the one with Frisell.

Charlie Haden got his start with a (white) family gospel group in the midwest and southwest.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:24 PM
horizontal rule
192

I didn't know there was more than one, actually.

A bassist had cellist and violinist daughters. Hmm.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:29 PM
horizontal rule
193

Aw. Jack and Tanya met when they were students at Crossroads, but didn't start dating until 2005.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
194

Two of Don Cherry's children have shown up on music charts.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:34 PM
horizontal rule
195

One of Don Cherry's children is named David Ornette Cherry. I got an album of his, Ensemble for Improvisers, from eMusic thinking that "David Ornette Cherry" was either a fictitious person or the name of a group or a strangely-named trio of David Someone, Ornette Coleman, and Don Cherry, who decided to use his family name for the date. (Could also have been Someone David, I guess.)


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:37 PM
horizontal rule
196

I look better in a suit than otherwise -- at least that's a pretty consistent message I get the rare times I wear one. That is, the message doesn't much affect my behavior. A male privilege, to be sure.

I'll max out for the Governor of Montana, and probably Obama.

I've been reading about the Whiskey Rebellion the last hour or two. The balance is much worse now than then, and those poor saps never had a chance.


Posted by: Napi | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:46 PM
horizontal rule
197

I'm in for about $150 to Edwards. Strangely, this doesn't turn up online.

IIANM, contributions under $200 do not have to be disclosed in the FEC database.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:47 PM
horizontal rule
198

Actually Petra and Tanya are triplets. The third is Rachel a bassist.

Here is Petra doing The Who's "I Can See For Miles" a cappella. From her interesting project of doing the entire The Who Sell Out in that manner, a project inspired by Mike Watt. A similar treatment of "Don't Stop Believin'".


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
199

Rachel should have been a violist.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
200

Kobe plays bass viol.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 6:06 PM
horizontal rule
201

Summary: buy a Prada suit before the recession starts.

Facebook users (the Hedgemonics) are for Obama;
Myspace users are for Edwards.

Sartorial arbitrage: a nice suit does more for the looks of former SF Mayor Willie Brown than for Angelina Jolie;
Bloomberg has an unknown number of suits in his closet;

@195: take a Buffalo Stance.


Posted by: Econolicious aka anonymous D. | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
202

I've pretty much missed all of this thread, and watched football instead of the debates. I'm imagining this

Oh really? With what money?

(which followed this: Not to mention the insane new "We need 100,000 more soldiers." )

becoming the new playground comeback to replace, "Oh yeah? You and what army?"


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 6:25 PM
horizontal rule
203

Yeah, I was watching football yesterday, so I'm catching the replays on CNN. The GOP one has been fun, insofar as the rare occasion when someone (Paul or Romney, apparently) says something I agree with, and the rest of the stage mocks them.


Posted by: Sharkey | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
204

Ogged, would it just *kill* you to avoid words like "shrill" in contexts like that? Pretty please?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
205

Would it kill him not to bait you? Probably, yes.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
206

Hey B, you didn't get swept into the ocean--I heard Ventura county got rained on a bit.


Posted by: TJ | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
207

I was in Minneapolis getting a really nasty head cold. Which--because *I* have responsibilities--I flew home today with anyway, unlike some whiners I know.

Of course, the effect is that my left hear is completely stopped up and uncomfortable, and my sinuses feel like they're stuffed with cotton. But, you know, hey.

(And yes, it was raining on the way back from the airport. And PK, at my dad's place, apparently had no power yesterday, which made him really mad, apparently. And Mr. B. drove to get him from Vegas yesterday, then took him home this morning, then came down to LAX to get me, so he's just a wee bit sick of driving in storms, yes he is.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
208

My mother, earlier today (and up in Canada, so admittedly basically irrelevant to the entire process): "I'd vote for Hillary. They're so hard on her. Why are they so hard on her?"


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
209

Re: Petra Hayden doing Journey

Sometimes a clever and funny cover and bring out something cool in a song that originally sucked. Some songs resist all attempts at improvement. Petra's video really just shows how much Journey sucks


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
210

Am I imagining that someone previously linked to a review arguing (correctly) that her cover of "Don't Stop Believing" is, from a a capella point of view, not actually all that impressive an arrangement? The gimmick is just that she's singing all the parts, yes?


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
211

Shrillary is agent of change! Action, not words! 35 years of taking on special interests!

Bwahahahaha.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
212

Yeah, I have to admit the "I've been changing things for 35 years" statement is not a real confidence-builder.

Have I mentioned that my left ear hurts? And I feel awful and terrible and waaaaah??


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
213

Petra's video really just shows how much Journey sucks

Actually, the video itself is pretty neat.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
214

I believe I just heard Richardson talk about "embouldering" the American people.

http://superherouniverse.com/superheroes/images/fantastic-four/movie/thing.jpg

?


Posted by: Sharkey | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
215

How cromulent.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
216

214: lotta nice boulders in New Mexico.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
217

I thought Edwards was on record some time ago saying he did not want to be Vice President.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
218

I encourage people to download Petra Hayden's "God Only Knows" as well.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
219

*I* encourage people to make "poor B" noises. Dammit.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
220

There, there... there, there...


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
221

Some searching suggests that I'm mistaken. He probably only reiterated that he wants to be President, and never explicitly said he'd turn down the VP nomination.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
222

Yes, like that.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
223

222 to 220. NOT 221. Hmph.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
224

210: Searched and did find some of prior discussion, as well as Ben's post on his blog, but did not find that review. However, I did find this comment from one "mrh": Wow. I might have to get Petra Hayden's album, despite my solemn vow never to own another a cappella album..

To be fair that response may have been to snarkout's linking of her cover of "God Only Knows".


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
225

Journey was great at what Journey was built to do. I came back for the irony, stayed for the ... hell, craft.

But my feelings on power ballads have previously been stated.

I met one of the Haden trips at a party. Tanya, I think. Not Petra. Very nice, smart, cool, short woman.

My L.A. existence has me at exactly that level of fame-periphery where I frequently meet notable people but never in circumstances where I can have more of an interaction than "hey, you're that famous person! Neat!" Of course, because it's at that level, I never get past the thrill of running into/spying/meeting somewhat famous people. A mixed bag.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
226

To be fair that response may have been to snarkout's linking of her cover of "God Only Knows".

This is correct. (Still, I am shamed, for now I have admitted not only to liking a capella, but merely serviceably arranged a capella.)


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
227

Man, thank god I never ran with the semi-famous in LA. The unfamous natives have better parties, Wrongshore. You heard it here first.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
228

To be fair that response may have been to snarkout's linking of her cover of "God Only Knows".

I'm sure I'll still be promoting it at the tail end of the Jenna Bush presidency.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
229

227: Like I said, I never get up to "running with". It's more like "awkwardly introducing myself to". You've got to admit that awkwardly introducing yourself to the unfamous natives doesn't have a lot going for it.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:43 PM
horizontal rule
230

229: skipping that stage, you can get right to the fun times with interesting people. I swear, it's awesome.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
231

I'm wary, Sifu. All of your fun times with interesting people seem to involve guns, shipments of drugs, and strange crypto-bovine activities. I think I'll stick to clumsy sycophancy, at least for as long as I can avoid paying for valet.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
232

Re 127's "Good cop/bad cop".Sounds like:
'While he was Education Secretary, Mr Clarke got the Bill introducing university tuition fees on to the statute books despite a massive Labour revolt, with the Government's majority slashed to five at one point. Alan Johnson, his deputy at the time, said they got measure through by means of a "charm offensive" - "I was charming and he was offensive."'


Posted by: Herr Torquewrench | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:49 PM
horizontal rule
233

Crypto-bovine? Not a prominent google presence.


Posted by: TJ | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
234

233: search "cult dead cow tweety" if you're actually curious.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 9:56 PM
horizontal rule
235

What you're doing wrong, Wrongshore, is that you're not being a hot chick. I know a hot chick who lived in LA for two years. In those two years, she got hit on by both Shaquille O'Neal and Eddie Murphy, and was the proximate cause to an almost-fist-fight between her boyfriend and Kiefer Sutherland.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
236

All of your fun times with interesting people seem to involve guns, shipments of drugs, and strange crypto-bovine activities.

You say this as if it's a bad thing.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:04 PM
horizontal rule
237

The unfamous natives have better parties, Wrongshore

This is an old idea, I think, and true. I'd predict that if you graphed `famous' against `party quality', famous helps for a little while, peaks when you have maximum connectivity but minimal visibility, and then falls off pretty hard to a level of ok parties.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
238

Sure, I've heard about this cult. I just find the lack of use of "crypto-bovine" to be disturbing. Such a fine hyphenate.


Posted by: TJ | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
239

Most of the time, if you're dealing with a cow, you know it.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
240

On the intarwebs, nobody knows you're a cow.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:30 PM
horizontal rule
241

Generally, I like hosting a party and having a party to go to much better than going to parties.

I don't think I'm invited to very good parties. With the exception of weddings.

Most of the good parties I can remember also involved trips to the lip of the abyss.

The best celebrity-party-LA story: a New Yorker friend found himself, within 3 weeks of arrival in Los Angeles, in a basement jam session with Beck.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 10:53 PM
horizontal rule
242

All this talk of revolution -- so, so weird. Are people actually serious?


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 6-08 11:50 PM
horizontal rule
243

I'm listening to Journey's Don't Stop Believin'. Still great.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 12:34 AM
horizontal rule
244

my sinuses feel like they're stuffed with cotton

Nasal irrigation, Bitch. The wonder drug that works wonders.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 5:42 AM
horizontal rule
245

The Haden sisters were in a band called "That Dog" that had some Buzz Clips in the mid-90s.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
246

I am a 62-year-old feminist, the mother of 4 daughters, the grandmother of an 8-month-old boy, the wife of an Englishman 16 years younger than I. In my gorgeous youth, I was a radical feminist, a civil rights and anti-war activist. I am unquestionably dumpy and dowdy. And I would like to knee in the balls every man who comments on Hillary's appearance or her shrill voice. I wish their mothers, lovers, or wives would deride them as sexist pigs at least three times daily. I wish no one would have sex with them until they repent. I have 5 younger brothers, and I haven't tolerated this crap since my brorther was born when I was 18 months old.


Posted by: Mary Jo Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
247

I would like to knee in the balls every man who comments on Hillary's appearance

You sound a little hysterical there, Mary Jo.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
248

Geez, Apo, do you have to bait instantly? She's perfectly right.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
249

Geez, Apo, do you have to bait instantly?

How long have we known each other now, LB?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
250

Also, on a barely related tangent, this is funny.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
251

249: Well, duh -- you say that to me, and I think it's funny. But Mary Jo doesn't know you.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
252

Hysterical is much more of a compliment than shrill:) It's equivalent to Hillary's "meltdown." What I sound is pissed
and after 62 years, I am entitled.

I love being baited. Arguing with men has always been an incredible turn on for me. I talked myself into Fordham the year before they admitted women. Being the only girl in my political science class and the best student was utter bliss.


Posted by: Mary Jo Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
253

251: I thought it was kind of funny and I don't know her either.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
254

I love being baited.

Stick around the comments, then -- this is exactly your kind of weblog.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
255

Also how awesome would it be if we could turn this into a gender-switched version of the infinite meta-debate thread?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
256

Arguing with men has always been an incredible turn on for me.

Now who's baiting whom?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
257

I am not interested in defending Hillary's politics. I hate many of them as much as many of you do. But I think the left needs to object to the sexist attacks made against her. Just because someone says their attack has nothing to do with her being a woman, doesn't mean they don't need their consciousness raised.

I actually adore men and have never kneed anyone in the balls, even my 5 brothers. My only weapons are my tongue and my pen. But I wanted to make an entrance:) I don't have the eloquence and intellect of my daughter Katherine.


Posted by: Mary Jo Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
258

Well, I love baiting as much as being baited.

Incidentally, I have just started my redstocking grandma blog. My wise elder blog is Matriarch
http://matriarch17.blogspot.com

Up until now, I have just been reading political blogs since I discovered Obsidian Wings years ago. The sexist attacks on Hillary have been empowering.


Posted by: Mary Jo Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:52 AM
horizontal rule
259

Well, I think Obama has wrapped up the Unfogged primary. He told TV Guide that his favorite show is The Wire.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
260

Yeah, we've actually had a couple knock-down-drag-out arguments about Hillary and how people react to her around here. (When you say 'your daughter Katherine', do you mean 'Katherine who used to post at Obsidian Wings and does the amazing rendition work'? If so, congratulations on some very successful parenting. If not, I'm sure your daughter's great anyway, but I don't know her.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
261

Hillary's admitting to Grey's Anatomy lost my support. I weaned myself off that disaster this year, because watching made me hate myself.


Posted by: Mary Jo Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
262

Yes I mean that Katherine, and I hope she isn't reading this thread because what woman would want to admit I was her mother. Please don't tell her. Incidentally, I blog with my maiden name.


Posted by: Mary Jo Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
263

Marty Feldman on a STICK did anyone stop and think that just maybe this wasn't the best way the headline could have been written?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
264

Katherine...I was her mother....I blog with my maiden name.

Woo hoo! Credit cards for everyone!


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
265

I am unquestionably dumpy and dowdy. And I would like to knee in the balls every man who comments on Hillary's appearance or her shrill voice. I wish their mothers, lovers, or wives would deride them as sexist pigs at least three times daily. I wish no one would have sex with them until they repent. I have 5 younger brothers, and I haven't tolerated this crap since my brorther was born when I was 18 months old.

What about the women?

Welcome Mary Jo. Your daughter is fabulous.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
266

Re: sexist bullshit thrown at Hillary. I find this really frustrating. I think she's a poor candidate and would make a mediocre president, at the very best and with substantial luck. I think she's a good representative of many of the worst parts about the Democratic party. There are substansive reasons to reject her --- yet most of what I hear about her is either sexist bullshit or weird Clinton-obsessive bullshit. Both of which she doesn't deserve.

I hate feeling the need to defend someone who I don't respect much; so much wasted discussion that in theory could have been spent usefully.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
267

There are substansive reasons to reject her --- yet most of what I hear about her is either sexist bullshit or weird Clinton-obsessive bullshit. Both of which she doesn't deserve.

I agree completely.

There is a substantive problem though. We want our leaders to be leaders. As more women become leaders, perhaps our society will be less likely to want a leader with broad shoulders and a deep voice.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
268

That's 'substantive'? On what planet?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
269

(That is, I agree there are substantive reasons, but not that her vocal pitch or shoulder breadth is one of them.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
270

Perhaps substantial is a better word. Or not insignificant.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
271

Gobama!


Posted by: the Other Paul | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
272

Damn. Let's try that again. Gobama!. I think Mark Penn's missing bounce has finally arrived.


Posted by: the Other Paul | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
273

Hilary would make a decent, solid President. She's a master (mistress?) at working for progressive change within the framework of Washington as it has existed for the past 15 years or so -- with a conventional Democratic party on the defensive against a surging conservative movement. She believes in it and she knows how to do it. She's extremely hard-working, very good on an interpersonal level, and has terrific mastery of detail.

The thing is, we're in a very fluid and uncertain historical moment when we're transitioning away (one way or another) from that past Washington. I don't think we're headed for some kind of fantasy liberal progressive order, but there are all kinds of opportunities for creative progressive moves with a President who knows how to take them. Hard to see her as that person, especially after what she's shown on Iraq the last few years.

You can add that she carries all the baggage of being a radical leftist anyway.

All this stuff should be pragmatic and not personal. I admire Hilary a lot as a person.



Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
274

but there are all kinds of opportunities for creative progressive moves with a President who knows how to take them. Hard to see her as that person

She won't be that person. Which is the majority of my problem with her as a Democratic candidate. When I say she'd be a mediocre president, I mean that in the same way that her husband was. From a progressives point of view, it's a case of not losing too much ground. Which is preferable to the current regime, but hardly anything to get excited about. And I believe that she is very capable of fucking up very, very badly on foreign policy, given a lousy set of choices. She's an annointed representative of the corporatist, DNC, right leaning core of the Democrats. Given how badly the GOP has screwed up recently, surely better can be hoped for in a Democrat executive?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
275

I too find that the real reason I want to support Hillary is because of the stupid garbage continually thrown at her by the left as well as the right. What must young girls think of this? Then I am tempted to ignore why I am really for Edwards. Electing a woman president seems the most important thing to do. I am deeply afraid my feminist mother will come down from heaven and smite me if I don't support Hillary. My brothers express similar fears. I have never been so undecided in an election.

Whom do you all prefer for the first female president?


Posted by: Mary Joan Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
276

I too find that the real reason I want to support Hillary is because of the stupid garbage continually thrown at her by the left as well as the right. What must young girls think of this? Then I am tempted to ignore why I am really for Edwards. Electing a woman president seems the most important thing to do. I am deeply afraid my feminist mother will come down from heaven and smite me if I don't support Hillary. My brothers express similar fears. I have never been so undecided in an election.

Whom do you all prefer for the first female president?


Posted by: Mary Joan Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
277

I too find that the real reason I want to support Hillary is because of the stupid garbage continually thrown at her by the left as well as the right. What must young girls think of this? Then I am tempted to ignore why I am really for Edwards. Electing a woman president seems the most important thing to do. I am deeply afraid my feminist mother will come down from heaven and smite me if I don't support Hillary. My brothers express similar fears. I have never been so undecided in an election.

Whom do you all prefer for the first female president?


Posted by: Mary Joan Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
278

Rachel Wacholder.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
279

I was a high school and college debater. In my first debate, I got top points for research, arguments, preparation, but lost the debate because "your voice tends to get shrill when you raise it." I was warned that my brilliance couldn't overcome my voice. That was in 1959. Can you imagine how I reacted to Ogged's "shrilled out"?

You should be glad he said it. I immediately resolved to honor Unfogged with my bitchy presence. I have always believed that sexist pigdom is an educational problem:) that appears in both sexes. Unlike me, most of your girlfriends presumably had sex with you before you read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.


Posted by: Mary Joan Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
280

I apologize for double posting. I don't know what I am doing wrong. Can anyone delete the duplicate posts.


Posted by: Mary Joan Koch | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
281

Unlike me

Mary Jo had sex with me after I read Beauvoir.

Don't worry about double-posting. The site hiccups sometimes.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
282

In my first debate, I got top points for research, arguments, preparation, but lost the debate because "your voice tends to get shrill when you raise it." I was warned that my brilliance couldn't overcome my voice.

Oh man. What pigfuckers!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
283

Jesus, I said "shrilled out" because I was talking about perceptions of Hillary Clinton, and "shrillness" is something she's often charged with. The point was that she was doing "that thing" that "people" don't like about her.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
284

Don't get defensive, ogged. Sexist.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
285

279: In my first hs debate, I was told to wear heels to overcome my midgetude.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
286

You're right, you're right, chicks do get a little hysterical; just gotta ride it out.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
287

Hey, holy shit, Mary Joan would it be correct to describe you as (a) opinionated and (b) a grandma?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
288

276-7:
Whom do you all prefer for the first female president?
I still cherish the hope of voting for my dream ticket someday: Wilma Mankiller/Winona Laduke!


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
289

I don't think this country is ready for a female mankiller as president. Then again, we do have one as first lady.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
290

283:

Jesus, I said "shrilled out" because I was talking about perceptions of Hillary Clinton, and "shrillness" is something she's often charged with. The point was that she was doing "that thing" that "people" don't like about her.

Heh. Good try, ogged. But it really doesn't matter -- public opinion isn't made and manipulated here, after all.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
291

283: Jesus, I said "shrilled out" because I was talking about perceptions of Hillary Clinton

Good, shrill assertive defense dude!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
292

287: BingoBINGO


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
293

263: HL, do you mean the lead (which is embarrassingly bad)? The headline itself seems unexceptional.

I never truly excelled at getting laid until after I read Second Sex.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
294

293: It has changed from before.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
295

293: I could have sworn last time I clicked on the link in 263 it was to a completely different article, that mentioned "sniping" and "Obama" in the headline.


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
296

293, 294, 295: Yes, when I found it it said the NH campaigning featured "sniping" -- as in candidates being snarky with one an other -- but when I saw the headline by itself in the newsreader I freaked out for about a millisecond.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
297

277: Whom do you all prefer for the first female president?

How about Kathleen Sebelius?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
298

I can't stand her droning late-Romanticism and sentimental nationalism.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
299

297: I've been idly thinking she might be a good VP for Obama. I don't know much about her, but isn't she a centrist-type? A ticket with the two of them might be nicely balanced, and it would set her up to run for President later on.


Posted by: the Other Paul | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 3:58 PM
horizontal rule
300

Stupid, mendacious, or inarticulate; today's leading harpy has none of these problems.

277: Whom do you all prefer for the first female president?.
Hillary before Debblie Schlussel or Monica Goodling.
Hillary before 99 others.


Posted by: Econolicious aka Anonymous D | Link to this comment | 01- 7-08 6:56 PM
horizontal rule