Sunday, June 29, 2008

Cool Hand Luke

I saw this last week and recorded it. This was the first time I've seen it in HD and the first time I noticed the tears on Luke's cheek following news of Arletta's death.
Here are a few crudely recorded clips of my favorite scenes.

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Luke says goodbye to Arletta, John says Luke "ain't got nothing to come back for." Harry Dean Stanton sings "Just a closer walk with thee."

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Arletta dies. Luke sings "Plastic Jesus."

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Luke wishes the warden would quit being so good to him. The warden diagnoses "failure to communicate."

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Luke pronounces "a failure to communicate"

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Epilogue.



//////////////////////////////////////////////

Friday, June 20, 2008

WWD on Noonan

I've enjoyed reading Noonan's Wall Street Journal Columns and have posted quite a few in this blog, typically titling them "Noonan on this" or "Noonan on that." I don't always agree with the point that Mrs. Noonan makes, but she is very good at what shes does.

Now I'm not quite sure why Women's Wear Daily posted a 3500 word article in the Media and Advertising section of today's issue, but here it is. I suppose that although WWD is primarily a trade daily, it may also may also approach being a lifestyle publication as well.
The article is, nonetheless, a most topical subject for our times as well as interesting and revealing.



//////////////////////////////////////////////////


Published: Friday, June 20, 2008

How Peggy Noonan Won the Democratic Primary

By Jacob Bernstein


Peggy Noonan is apparently freaking out. Somewhere (probably in her Upper East Side apartment, probably chewing a piece of Nicorette) she is sitting in front of a computer screen, staring into cyberspace, thinking she has done something catastrophic. And really it's unfortunate, this dilemma she finds herself in, because she'd been on an uninterrupted tear of late.

This spring, her Wall Street Journal column, "Declarations," has generated more Internet traffic for Rupert Murdoch than any other regularly scheduled feature in the paper. At the end of April, NBC anchor Brian Williams wrote on his blog that Noonan deserved to win the Pulitzer Prize for her musings on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The staff of The New York Times has been buzzing with speculation that she's about to get a column there.

And the attention is nice, even if the rumor might not be true, even if a recent lunch with Times' editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal was just that (lunch), and even if the job might not actually be in the offing. Certainly no one was talking about a Times column as a possibility for Noonan two years ago. Then, she was midheap in a pile of conservative pundits when patience with the breed was running thin among readers.

But now, right when things are looking up for her, Noonan claims to have made a mistake: She has given an interview. And for four weeks since the meeting, she has replayed each and every "silly" thing she said that day and wished she had declined the offer to be profiled.

But maybe it's not too late. Maybe she can get the reporter to kill the piece.

And so she types a plaintive e-mail, attempting to extricate herself from this self-generated drama.

"Please don't be mad at me. I don't mean to show disrespect for your time, or for you. You are a doll. I have to admit to second thoughts, none of which are connected to you. What I have been thinking each day is this: I really want the column to speak for me. Because it's better at speaking for me than I am. The thing about writing is that, as you of course know, it requires — and allows — reflection and consideration and figuring out what you really think, what you really want to say. And each week I try to get to that, sometimes getting there and sometimes not. But when I talk I find myself more inclined to pop off, or go for a joke, or attempt to entertain, or fill silence lest silence be misunderstood....In the weeks after we spoke I sort of winced at things I'd said. (That would be just about everything.) I feel I was babbly, nervous, and in general...wanting. And I felt, Oh, don't be a noisy person, be quiet and write. (I was hoping you found me sufficiently boring not to go forward.) This is not in any way your fault as I'm sure you know or have a sense of, but mine. Could you allow this to just pass, and not do the piece? I would be so grateful."

Finally, she clicks send and apparently hopes that's it. Which it isn't. Which she should have known, having been a member of the media for more than 30 years.





Ordinarily, Noonan loves giving interviews. She particularly loves boys with political roundtables, and boys with political roundtables love her back. George Stephanopoulos, Chris Matthews and the late Tim Russert have all invited Noonan on air repeatedly, partly because she is a good counterpoint to people on the left and partly because she is reliably theatrical and can be counted on to flatter her host. Nearly any time a question is directed at her, she will turn her head slightly, look off into the distance and do what might be described as a long-studied blink, followed by the signature Noonan double-nod of agreement. It's a dramatic gesture that says that her host is so unbelievably smart he's caused Noonan to consider, for the first time ever, something that is, in fact, her job to consider all day long. Then comes her response, which more often than not begins with a sigh and is then followed by a Dale Carnegie-esque incantation of the host's name. Such as, "Here's the thing, Chris" or "I'll tell you the truth, George." As if Noonan and he are best, best friends and she is going to tell him (and the whole audience) a big secret. "It's full-body communicating," says Stephanopoulos.

A few weeks back, Noonan and her TV-perfect auburn mane appeared on Stephanopoulos' Sunday morning show, "This Week," where she had lots to say about the impending demise of Clinton's presidential campaign. "Look," she said, before giving a signature pause, and another glance beyond the horizon. "She's got a new ad up now in — where the heck is it?"

"Oregon," offered Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

"Oregon," Noonan, continued. "Where Mrs. Clinton doesn't even pretend that she's fighting Obama. She's fighting the press in the ad. She's saying they weren't nice to me. To my mind that is not talking to voters. What she's doing is spinning why it's over."

It would be hard to underestimate the enjoyment Noonan has taken in Clinton's downfall. Eight years ago, the former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan penned "The Case Against Hillary," a 181-page polemic against Clinton's bid for the Senate and attacking her character, as well. As Noonan saw it, the former first lady and her husband were responsible for the coarsening of American culture, the quintessential example of a generation who'd put ambition ahead of principles. "Together they stand for one thing: maximum and uninterrupted power for the Clintons....America is the platform for the Clintons' ambitions, not the focus of them," she wrote.

Though "The Case Against Hillary" made The New York Times Best-Seller List, it was largely received as a sermon to the Republican base, delivered by the woman who'd written George Bush the elder's "thousand points of light" speech. Of course she would oppose Hillary's candidacy. Nothing much new there.

But in 2005, Noonan broke with President George W. Bush's administration over the Iraq war, among other things, and it gave her an air of cross-partisan credibility going into the current presidential season. Then, as Clinton stumbled in the Democratic primaries, Noonan found herself being embraced by an unlikely coalition of Obama supporters and disaffected Republicans to whom she was no longer a boilerplate conservative, but an iconoclast who'd turned on President Bush and been vindicated by anti-Clinton sentiment that was growing among Democrats. What's more, being a woman gave Noonan a freedom to write critically about Clinton with little risk of being labeled sexist by the senator's supporters.

"With Peggy Noonan, not only did I share many of her views about the election, I felt she was coming at it in a fair-minded way," says New York Magazine columnist and Obama supporter Kurt Andersen. "It wasn't like Bill Kristol, who you know what he's going to say before he says it."

"This moment was made for her," Stephanopoulos says by phone. "She has a special feel for Hillary, though I'm sure it's not one Clinton supporters always appreciate. And she's had tremendous insight into what has been a troubled period for the Republican party. It gave her an opportunity to show some independence."

Or, as William Greider of the left-wing staple The Nation puts it: "She's come face-to-face with what happened to the Republican party and acknowledged it rather than pretending it's not so or blaming the Democrats. I think she's terrific."





Perhaps it isn't surprising that a sizeable chunk of the left eventually fell in love with (or at least got a crush on) Noonan. As she notes, no one ever expected her to become a conservative Republican.

It's earlier this spring and Noonan is sitting in Sfoglia, a trendy restaurant on the Upper East Side, near the apartment she shares with her Obama-supporting, 20-year-old son, Will, when he's not off at college. (In another piece of the puzzle that makes up the former speechwriter's life, she is a devout Catholic with traditional views on "family values" who is in fact divorced.) Noonan is 57, and her natural good looks remain. She is wearing a simple long-sleeve T-shirt and a prairie skirt, her feet inside a pair of bright red cowboy boots she bought in Texas in 1985, just after she'd gone to work as a speechwriter in the Reagan White House.

"My parents were ancestral Democrats," she says, chewing a piece of Nicorette gum as she waits for her salad to arrive. "They were working-class folk. It would never have occurred to my grandmother to vote for a thing called a Republican. I'm not sure she ever met a Republican."

Born in Brooklyn in 1950, Noonan was the third of seven children. Her father was a merchant seaman and then a furniture salesman. Her mother was a housewife. When Noonan was five, the family moved to Massapequa, N.Y. As a child, Noonan and her siblings rode around the neighborhood on cheap bikes and spent their summers frolicking in a neighbor's 3-foot pool. Everyone worshipped the Kennedys.

Finally, the family wound up in Rutherford, N.J., where Noonan graduated from high school. She took a job waitressing and enrolled in night school at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Teaneck, N.J., where she studied for two years before being admitted full-time. Occasionally, Noonan attended anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, one of which featured a speaker who asserted disdainfully that the United States' greatest accomplishment was exporting Coca-Cola. "I couldn't get into the spirit," Noonan later wrote. "There was contempt for the 19-year-old boys who were carrying guns in the war or in the [National] Guard....There was contempt for America." The experience was transformative for Noonan. These were not her people.

In 1972, she graduated with a degree in English literature and a minor in journalism. Without any connections to speak of, she took a job at CBS' all-news radio station in Boston, where she shared an apartment with Lisa Schwarzbaum, the future film critic of Entertainment Weekly. Though they'd met before Noonan "switched teams," as Schwarzbaum puts it in an e-mail, they never stopped being friends. "The thing about Peggy is, she's got a lot of friends who aren't on her team. (Because, really, oy, what a team.) And still we love her, because she can be so warm, so silly, so charming, so compassionate. (Well, except about Hillary, her 'Moby Dick.')"

At CBS Radio, Noonan did well and was transferred to New York in 1977, where she became a producer for Dan Rather. He says her politics were never an issue to him. "I didn't think of her as a conservative. I didn't think of her as anything but a fiercely independent reporter. She's a very good writer and thinker."

Rather at times would ask Noonan to moonlight as his speechwriter and she was good at that, too.

By 1984, she was itching to work for Reagan. So she did two things. First, she prayed. Then, she sought advice from Joe Sobran of the National Review. He didn't have a way into the White House, but a fellow editor at his publication did. As it turned out, Ben Elliott, head of the president's speechwriters, had an open slot.

When Noonan made it onto the mother ship, she was 33, a young woman in a department of older men. Perhaps predictably, the job had its pitfalls. She was pressured to write speeches for Nancy Reagan, which she did not want to do. The president himself turned out to be aloof. Inside the White House, there was a cold war being waged by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford loyalists who opposed Reagan's economic policies and wanted détente with the Soviet Union.

"The White House I lived through was an abattoir," Noonan says, taking a sip of water. "There was blood on the floors. Everybody fought. They undercut each other, they tried to remove each other from the meeting. But the argument was held every day, and it went to the president every day, and things got adjudicated. That's the way it ought to be if you're serious. One of the things I have not liked in the past two administrations is this extraordinary inner-house awe for their president. You know, I loved Reagan, but he was a man and he was flawed and I wrote about that in my first book. I am astonished that the Bush people are so robotic. I am astonished that if you ever criticize your guy, he will banish you from the kingdom."

Of course, it's worth pointing out that most of Noonan's "fights" at the White House were not with her "guy," but with the holdovers from the previous two administrations. Noonan not only agreed with the president on the economy and the Soviet Union, she shared in his predilection for rhetoric that connected the administration's policies to the will of God. And she, like Reagan, believed in strange, mystical things.

When Noonan was in high school, she had a dream the night before Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. As she wrote in her 1990 memoir, "Things I Saw at the Revolution": "I saw Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theatre. He was sitting in a box and suddenly a shadow came from behind and Lincoln turned to look and there was a sharp retort and he slumped in his chair. But the moment before he was shot, I saw his face and he was black."

Shortly thereafter came another foreboding premonition about the murder of Bobby Kennedy.

"Whether those stories are real or not, she and Reagan both had an affinity for right-wing new age-ry," says Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker, a former speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter. "Even though she didn't know Reagan that well, her fantasy of herself tracked with his fantasy of himself. The most famous passages of the speeches she did were pure Hollywood."

On June 6, 1984, the 40th anniversary of D-Day, Reagan delivered Noonan's first speech, in which the only thing missing was a John Williams score. "These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc," he said. "These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent."

It was a smash hit, as was an admiring tribute to John F. Kennedy that Reagan delivered at a fund-raiser for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum.

By 1986, however, the writing was on the wall. Noonan's boss, Elliott, had been removed from his post as the head of speech-writing, and it was seen around the office as the triumph of the pragmatists over the idealists. She'd recently married Richard Rahn, who was then the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (they divorced in 1990). She had quit smoking and it left her exhausted. She also wanted to have a baby. "Time to go," she thought.

So Noonan resigned in a letter to Reagan, and signed it with x's for kisses. "My secretary said, 'No, they won't like it,' so I sent a plain one, got mad, and sent the kisses," Noonan later recalled.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush drafted her to work on his presidential campaign, where she was responsible for thinking up his famous "Read my lips: No new taxes" pronouncement. "It was a reminder to beware of sound bites that come back to bite you," says Aram Bakshian, the first head of Reagan's speech-writing department. "It was clever, but foolish."

Happily, politics is one of the few businesses in which leaving (or losing) the best jobs is often the best that can happen: book deals, op-ed columns, consultancies at think tanks and lucrative speaking engagements on the lecture circuit. All of which Noonan has enjoyed since returning to New York nearly two decades ago.

First up was her memoir, "What I Saw at the Revolution." It was a bestseller, though reviews were mixed and former White House colleagues such as Pat Buchanan claimed not to recall having had conversations that appeared in it. Similarly, Rather felt Noonan's characterization of CBS as overly liberal served her outsider-ish narrative, but not necessarily the truth. "She described CBS in a way that didn't match my memory," he says. "There were many people there who were Republicans and wanted Reagan to win."

Six more books followed, including a treatise on how to be a more eloquent you, encomiums to Pope John Paul II and Reagan and the anti-Hillary book that came out in 2000, the same year she was given her weekly column in the Journal.

In 2005, after taking a leave from the Journal to campaign for Bush's reelection, Noonan's views began to shift. Increasingly, she came to believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. She also felt Bush's spending was out of control, a common complaint from economic conservatives. Then came the President's inaugural speech. "This was an American president saying, essentially, it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate evil from the world, and to be friends with those countries that are democracies and not friends with those that are not," she says. "To me that's so mad, it stopped me in my tracks and made me reconsider everything. It's both utopian and aggressive. You cannot decide to tell the world how it will govern itself."

And so that's what she began to write, to the delight of people like Russert, who said just days before his death: "Peggy is someone who has been a traditional conservative writer and thinker, but if she finds shortcomings in a conservative or a liberal, she points them out. The only predictable thing about her column is its unpredictability."

Adds Marie Brenner, one of Noonan's closest friends and a self-described liberal: "She's constantly thinking and reflecting. She's not interested in living in an echo chamber."





Noonan is cooperating with the profile again, but on her terms, which means e-mail only and thus little talk of herself.

At the moment, she is discussing the perception that Bill Clinton destroyed his wife's campaign: "The scarlet-faced, finger-waving, reporter-lecturing manner and tone; the sly race-baiting; the insistent ego; the me, me, me. It made her look like she wasn't in charge of her surrogates. It also left her looking like her spouse was a crazy person. He reminded people of what they didn't like in the Clinton years, which was deadly. He didn't make her lose, but he was part of the loss....This guy's not a documentary, he's an opera. Somebody should write it."

Also earning her ire is the evangelical wing of the Republican party. "In 2008, we had Mike Huckabee going before voters in Iowa and saying, in essence, vote for me because I'm Christian. Catholics thought, huh? That's not how we do it. Religion is part of the package in terms of leadership — it's not the entire package. We had evangelicals rejecting Mitt Romney because he's Mormon. Catholics are very sensitive to that kind of thing — we can remember, 'I can't vote for that guy because he's a papist.'"

Some Democrats — noting the affectionate feelings she has expressed for Obama — have begun to wonder if Noonan might do a complete ideological flip, becoming this year's Arianna Huffington.

This seems unlikely, however. Huffington is the woman who came to oppose the entire conservative agenda. She jumped ship and suggested that others do the same. Noonan's the woman who stayed on the ship, organized a rebellion and suggested tossing the captain overboard. And on the most significant issues, she is still very much a conservative. She's still pro-life, she still opposes gay marriage, she still believes in lower taxes and smaller government.

And, perhaps predictably, some of Noonan's critics already are predicting the end of her comeback. Last week, the political blog Wonkette ran a post about her first post-primary election column, saying: "Our girlfriend Peggy Noonan has been more enjoyable than usual this year, as a tragically drawn-out Democratic primary battle provided her with endless opportunities to touch herself while Barack Obama spoke pretty things....Now, that tortured eloquence has vanished."

Not so fast — though the Obama folks may have less in common with Noonan in the general election than they did in the primary.

"Jacob," she says, incanting my name for what must be the dozenth time, "the past few years have left me understanding more than ever that I am a conservative, and a particular kind of one. The Republican party has been, in my lifetime, the conveyor of conservative ideas. That has ended the past eight years. We'll see if it comes back. But conservatism is what engages my mind, and the U.S. is what engages my heart."

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Message from John McCain concerning Tim Russert


Yeah, everybody's jumping on the fairly predictable departed bandwagon. Although predictable, McCain's tribute is fairly tasteful.

I'm a fairly cynical fellow, but have always been of the opinion that among media talking heads, he was the best. The phrase "fair & balanced" was a joke when uttered by some other folks (kind of like the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere conceived by Japan leading up to WWII .)

Tim Russert never needed to make a claim of "fair and balanced."

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My Friends,

Today I would like to take a moment pay tribute to a man I was proud to call a friend, Tim Russert.

Tim was a great journalist - tough yet always fair - and a great American who loved his family, friends, politics, and of course, his Buffalo Bills. Perhaps the life roles in which he took most pleasure were that of a father to his son Luke and as the son of Big Russ.

The relationship between father and child is a deep bond unlike any other and Tim certainly celebrated this bond with his books, Big Russ and Me and Wisdom of Our Fathers. Tim loved his family above all else and I think it is only fitting this Father's Day to honor his life.

I hope you will take time to watch this special video message and remember the life and legacy of a terrific father and son. Tim Russert leaves a legacy of integrity of the highest level of journalism and we will miss him deeply.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family on this Father's Day. And I know I speak for many in saying, Sunday mornings in America will not be the same without him.

With Warm Sincerity,

John McCain









Monday, June 9, 2008

America at its best

This column is a wonderful illustration of what I like about The Economist.


////

America at its best

Jun 5th 2008
From The Economist print edition

The primaries have left the United States with a decent choice; now it needs a proper debate about policies


IT IS hard to believe after all the thrills and spills, but the real presidential race is only now beginning. In any other country, the incredible circus that has marked the past year could not have occurred. The business of choosing the main contenders for the top job would have been done behind closed doors, or with a limited franchise and a few weeks of campaigning. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by contrast, have spent well over a year in the most testing and public circumstances imaginable—and that was just to get to the final five months.

The Republicans settled on their candidate more quickly, but theirs was still a marathon by anyone else's standards. And the end of it was surely the right result. In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see that he offers the party its only realistic hope in November.

Over the past 16 months, the organisational skills and the characters of the two contenders have been revealed. Mrs Clinton, surprisingly in the light of all her claimed experience, was shown up for running a less professional and nimble campaign than her untested rival. She has also displayed what some voters have perceived as a mean streak and others (not enough, though) saw as gritty determination. And she could never allay confusion about the future role of her husband.

Mr Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America's history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page.

But will he play in Pennsylvania?

But that does not make Mr Obama the new messiah. The former law teacher has had obvious problems convincing America's middle-class voters that he understands their concerns. He has also displayed a worrying, somewhat Clintonian slipperiness on difficult issues, both trivial (whether he would wear a flag-pin) and significant (whether he would talk to rogue states). His victory, it must be noted, has been wafer-thin: in terms of delegates, a couple of hundred out of 4,500; in votes, only a few tens of thousands out of 35m. In the end, the Democrats have, very narrowly, opted for the candidate who has put together a novel coalition of blacks, young people and liberal professional sorts, rather than the candidate of their more traditional blue-collar base. How this coalition fares against the Bushless Republicans remains to be seen.

For what America's voters, and the world's fascinated spectators, have not had so far is much of a policy debate. Yes, there were bone-aching arguments between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton as to whose plan for health care would work best. And yes, Mr Obama refused to endorse Mrs Clinton's bad plan for a gas-tax holiday. But on the whole, it has been a policy-light contest for the simple reason that there was very little to choose between the two Democrats either on domestic or on foreign policy. Small wonder, then, that the Democratic race focused on character more than content.

All that has now changed. With his victory speech in Minneapolis on June 3rd, Mr Obama took the fight to Mr McCain. Though there are a fair number of things on which Mr Obama and Mr McCain, admirably, agree (a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, the immediate closure of Guantánamo and a more multilateral approach to diplomacy, to name just three), there is a lot more that they disagree over.

Blood, treasure and votes

The choice will be starkest over Iraq. Mr McCain backed the war in the first place, and he proposes to stay the course there no matter how long it takes. Mr Obama opposed the “dumb” war from the start and has pledged to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, though he has lately wriggled a little on this commitment. Although most Americans now think the war was a mistake, polls suggest that Mr McCain's determination to see it through may stand him in better stead with voters than Mr Obama's determination to pull out whatever the consequences, especially since the tide of war seems at last to have shifted firmly in America's favour. In general, Mr McCain will offer a much more robust approach to security issues than Mr Obama—and that may help him.

That said, the war is clearly receding as a political issue, just as concerns about recession are growing. America no longer has a Hummer economy (General Motors is considering selling off the gas guzzler). And there are clear choices about how to fix it. Mr McCain offers orthodox supply-side solutions, stressing deregulation, free trade, competitiveness and the use of market mechanisms to cure the problems in everything from health care to education to pensions. The trouble for him is that America is already a pretty deregulated place, and many voters feel that globalisation has brought them much less than was promised (and bankers a lot more). Mr Obama offers a very different vision: more spending on education and training, an expensive expansion of health care to (almost) all Americans and better benefits for the unemployed. His problem will be convincing sceptics that his sums add up, though it may well be that voters, battered by falling house prices and rising oil prices prefer not to worry too much about that.

Both candidates have their flaws and their admirable points; the doughty but sometimes cranky old warrior makes a fine contrast with the inspirational but sometimes vaporous young visionary. Voters now have those five months to study them before making up their minds (and The Economist will be doing the same). But, on the face of it, this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time.

Friday, June 6, 2008

My goodnesss....that Peggy Noonan sure hates Hillary!

DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN



Recoil Election
June 6, 2008



It is the most amazing thing that a young black man who was just a few short years ago unknown to most of his countrymen—really, unknown—could, this week, win the presidential nomination of one of our two great political parties. It is even more amazing that this historic news could be overshadowed by the personal drama and spite of the woman who lost to him.

I like it that she spent the campaign accusing America of being sexist, of treating her differently because she is a woman, and then, when she lacked the grace to congratulate the victor, she sent her stewards out to tell the press she just needs time, it's so emotional. In other words, she needs space because she's a woman.

A friend sent, by instant message, the AP flash that ran at 16:56 ET on 06-03-2008. There it was suddenly on my screen:

"*** WASHINGTON (AP)—Obama clinches Democratic nomination, making him first black candidate to lead his party."

A great old-school bulletin, and of course it carried a huge and moving message. It is good when barriers fall; it's good when possibilities seem to open up to more people, especially the young, who are always watching. (That's what's wrong with them, they're always watching, and we're always doing terrible things, like, say, not congratulating the winner on the night he won.)

But what I thought of when the friend sent the flash was something another friend told me months ago. It was the night Mr. Obama won Alabama. My friend was watching on TV, in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, looked, saw "Obama Wins" and "Alabama." She said, "Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school." She said, "That's where they used the hoses." Suddenly my friend saw it new. That's the place they used the water hoses on the civil rights marchers crossing the bridge. And now look. The black man thanking Alabama for his victory.

What kind of place makes a change like this? Only a great nation. We should love it tenderly every day of our lives.

* * *

We will hear a lot of tasteful tributes this weekend to Hillary Clinton's grit and fortitude. The Washington-based media may go a little over the top, but only out of relief. They know her well and recoil at what she stands for. They also know they don't like her, so to balance it out they'll gush.

But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week.

Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her—the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him.

We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.

They had a great and roaring fight, a state-by-state struggle unprecedented in the history of presidential primaries. They created the truly national primary. They brought 36 million people to the polls, including the young, minorities and first-time voters. They brought a kind of dogged brio to the year.

All of this is impressive, but more than that, they threw off Clintonism. They threw off the idea that corruption is part of the game, an acceptable fact. They threw off the idea that dynasticism was an unstoppable dynamic in modern politics, that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton could, would, go on forever. They said: "No, that is not the way we do it."

They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.

But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.

May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party.

* * *

Should he make her his vice president? He shouldn't, and he won't.

The reasons:

The only ones who could force him to do it are party elders, and they don't like Mrs. Clinton. They're the ones who finally forced her from the race. Their antipathy was not apparent when she was inevitable. It is obvious now.

She would never be content to be vice president. She'd be plotting against him from day one. She'd put poison in his tea.

She brings Bill.

She undercuts the cleanness of Obama's message. She doesn't turn the page, she is the page.

She would give Republicans something to get excited about. She will revivify them. They're not excited about Mr. McCain, but they could become excited about opposing her.

Her presence on the ticket would force the party to have two breakthrough moments when a rule of political life, and life in general, is: one breakthrough at a time.

He doesn't need her. He needs a boring white man. Because he's an interesting black man. He needs a sober, experienced, older establishment player who will be respected by the press, the first responders of the political game. They'll set the tone in which the choice is celebrated, or not. He needs someone like Sam Nunn. Or, actually, Sam Nunn. He could throw a wild pass at Jim Webb because he has a real-guy, Southern, semi-working-class persona, and a Scots-Irish grit and chippiness. He is from important Virginia, has Vietnam boots and is moderate.

Choosing Mrs. Clinton would make Mr. Obama look weak. No one would believe he picked her because he respected or liked her. They'd think he was appeasing her. This is not something he can afford! And in any case some people cannot be appeased. Voters would assume she and her people did their voodoo—I have 18 million voters!—and he fell for it. She doesn't have 18 million voters, she got 18 million votes. It is telling the way she thinks of them, as if they are working-class automatons awaiting her command.

As for reports of their rage, there are always dead-enders, and frantic lovers of this candidate or that. This goes under the larger heading "lonely people." But there's reason to think, and some Democratic insiders do think it, that a lot of the supposed pro-Clinton furor is ginned up on Web sites by the Clinton campaign, and even manufactured by the Clinton campaign, to prove Clinton loyalists are real and their demands must be met. In any case, you can see how Mrs. Clinton views her supposed working-class heroes by what she is doing with them now: using them as a bargaining chip to get whatever she wants.

Democrats this year have the winning fever, and Democrats will come out. By November they will be united.

Also, he doesn't like her. He recoils. Just like his party.





Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sunday, June 1, 2008

What is So Rare As a Day in June

AND what is so rare as a day in June?
Then, if ever, come perfect days;
Then Heaven tries earth if it be in tune,
And over it softly her warm ear lays;
Whether we look, or whether we listen,
We hear life murmur, or see it glisten;
Every clod feels a stir of might,
An instinct within it that reaches and towers,
And, groping blindly above it for light,
Climbs to a soul in grass and flowers;
The flush of life may well be seen
Thrilling back over hills and valleys;
The cowslip startles in meadows green,
The buttercup catches the sun in its chalice,
And there's never a leaf nor a blade too mean
To be some happy creature's palace;
The little bird sits at his door in the sun,
Atilt like a blossom among the leaves,
And lets his illumined being o'errun
With the deluge of summer it receives;
His mate feels the eggs beneath her wings,
And the heart in her dumb breast flutters and sings;
He sings to the wide world, and she to her nest,
In the nice ear of Nature which song is the best?

Now is the high-tide of the year,
And whatever of life hath ebbed away
Comes flooding back with a ripply cheer,
Into every bare inlet and creek and bay;
Now the heart is so full that a drop overfills it,
We are happy now because God wills it;
No matter how barren the past may have been,
'Tis enough for us now that the leaves are green;
We sit in the warm shade and feel right well
How the sap creeps up and the blossoms swell;
We may shut our eyes but we cannot help knowing
That skies are clear and grass is growing;
The breeze comes whispering in our ear,
That dandelions are blossoming near,
That maize has sprouted, that streams are flowing,
That the river is bluer than the sky,
That the robin is plastering his house hard by;
And if the breeze kept the good news back,
For our couriers we should not lack;
We could guess it all by yon heifer's lowing,
And hark! How clear bold chanticleer,
Warmed with the new wine of the year,
Tells all in his lusty crowing!

Joy comes, grief goes, we know not how;
Everything is happy now,
Everything is upward striving;
'Tis as easy now for the heart to be true
As for grass to be green or skies to be blue,
'Tis for the natural way of living:
Who knows whither the clouds have fled?
In the unscarred heaven they leave not wake,
And the eyes forget the tears they have shed,
The heart forgets its sorrow and ache;
The soul partakes the season's youth,
And the sulphurous rifts of passion and woe
Lie deep 'neath a silence pure and smooth,
Like burnt-out craters healed with snow.

~James Russell Lowell~