I don’t think James is wrong, necessarily, but if I can don my inside-the-beltway-elitist hat (a black bowler, complemented by a gold rimmed monocle, natch): To win the presidency, the Dems need to recapture Reagan Democrats–i.e. white, poorer, working-class folks. Folks who, and I don’t think I’m being overly provocative here, remain less enlightened, racially-speaking, than their upper-crust, hyper-liberal, Northeastern/West Coast counterparts in the Democratic party.

I know a few people matching that Reagan Dem description in a crucial swing state that shall remain nameless, lifelong party members all. It would be pretty easy for some shadowy, Rovian political operator to come up with a campaign narrative capable of driving them directly into the arms of the GOP. It would look a little like this: “You can vote for the American Hero who was tortured by the VC, dedicated his life to public service, and doesn’t get along all that well with Dubya [voiceover on top of beatific montage of McCain in Navy garb, VC prison, and on the campaign trail], or you can vote for the uppity Ivy League law professor [insert photo of Obama, preferably in the embrace of the good Rev. Wright]. Which is better for America?”

And this is the point Hillary is driving at. Again, I’d say you’re probably right about the vast majority of Democratic primary electorate, but I don’t think pundits should underestimate the subset of that population amenable to this kind of appeal.

There’s been some interesting chatter over Hillary Clinton’s interview with USA Today, namely her appeal to “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.” Jonathan Chait takes issue with the implicitly racist appeal of her words, whereas Andrew asks if she’s intentionally trying to tear apart the decades-old Democratic coalition. Chait’s point is an intriguing one–imagine the media outcry had McCain said the same thing–but I think Andrew’s a little off base (at least in that post). She’s not trying to tear the Democratic coalition apart because she believes the African American vote is going nowhere. Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is, I think, 100% right: “Senator Obama does well in areas and demographic groups that the Democratic nominee will win anyway.” It’s hard to tear a voting bloc asunder when a key component refuses to leave despite being slapped in the face.

But if we can step away from heated racial rhetoric for a second, we should probably ask ourselves a question: What if she’s right? It’s true that no Democrat can win the presidency without getting a large portion of the black vote…but a large portion of the black vote isn’t enough. (See: Al Gore and John Kerry.) And since she’s going to win the black vote anyway (unless Andrew and Jonathan really think they’ll head to the GOP or sit out in larger numbers than usual), isn’t it important to point out that white antipathy towards Obama cost him votes in Ohio, Texas, and Florida (even though there was no campaigning in FLA yadda yadda yadda)? And, though primary voting doesn’t correlate to general election voting necessarily, if the same thing were to happen in the general that it would be a disaster for the Democrats?

Strategically speaking, there’s nothing left for her to do: she can either quietly give up or carpet bomb the Obama campaign with accusations of unelectability and racial polarization. Can’t say the route she chose was terribly surprising; no one’s ever accused the Clintons of a surfeit of class.

As promised, more thoughts on Redbelt at the Weekly Standard.

One expanded idea: as I mention, David Mamet could have taken the movie in an entirely different direction–more action-oriented and focused on Mike Terry’s background. This is what I wrote the movie could have looked like:

If Redbelt had been made by a director/writer less sure of his abilities–or if it were a superhero movie–the first act would have opened in the Iraq desert, just prior to the First Gulf War. Lieutenant Terry, a member of Delta Force with a knack for hand-to-hand combat, engages the enemy but commits some sort of atrocity–accidentally, of course. Trying to purge his memories he takes to drink, alienating friends, family, and fellow soldiers. Dishonorably discharged, Terry treks into the Brazilian jungle where he encounters an enclave of jiu-jitsu practitioners. After years of hard training, Terry recovers his honor and wins the respect of The Professor, promising to spread his teachings across North America.

I remember thinking to myself while writing that paragraph: Holy crap that sounds awesome (and incredibly, incredibly generic*). And, maybe in the hands of Mamet, it would be awesome. But it’s not the movie he wanted to make; if you add all that stuff in, even in brief flashbacks as opposed to a full two acts, you lose the soul of the story. He’d have to cut other plotlines, like a thematically-important one revolving around a disgraced police officer who trains at his dojo. It’s important that we see Terry’s sense of honor as something innate, not something he worked for. Ironically, showing the protagonist in a quest to regain his honor probably diminishes the concept.

*This is why I would be a bad screenwriter perfectly suited as a Hollywood executive; I recognize mediocrity and celebrate it.

It’s hard for me to describe just how great the Criterion Collection is. If you’re into foreign/indie film, you probably know them already, but on the off-chance you don’t, check out their website. The centerpiece of my (probably too sizable) DVD collection is the three disc set of Brazil that Criterion released a few years back–stocked with extra features and three different cuts of Terry Gilliam’s dystopian classic, it’s the single most informative DVD collection I’ve ever encountered. Their releases often play a part in my movie reviews and Christmas time suggestions as well.*

The thing I appreciate the most about Criterion is their commitment to picture quality; the company usually transfers the prints themselves, bringing a rarely-duplicated clarity to the onscreen image. Watching my new copy of If…. a few months back, I could barely tell the difference between it and the high def feed from my cable box. I can’t wait to see what they do with Blu-Ray and true HD.**

*And, you know, if the good folks at Criterion were to add one of their most dedicated critics (say, a young blogger for Doublethink Online/film critic for The Weekly Standard) to their publicity distribution list (if such a creature exists), well, I don’t think anyone would complain, do you?

**Of course, this does me and my obsolete HD-DVD player little good. As I said…this is just one more reason to pick up a Blu-Ray player. Or a PS3.

Actually it was just Kumar. Kal Penn was on Keith Olbermann’s show Monday, and the following interview was full of silliness. To his credit, Penn admitted that, whatever grievances he has with the American government, at least we have the right to criticize it (unlike some places). Olbermann was having none of that, however. The transcript reads:

PENN: I don’t know. We should ask them, maybe. I think it really is just as Americans being able to poke fun at ourselves. I also think it’s an oddly patriotic film. I know that while we were shooting it, there was a satirical representation of President Bush, for example. If wasn’t meant to serve any political purpose. But while we were shooting that scene, we kind of thought, in so many countries around the world we would be liable to be shot or hung for a satirical representation of the prime minister or the president. And here we are in the world’s greatest country, where we have the opportunity still—hopefully we continue to—

OLBERMANN: So far.

PENN: — to do that. And it is not from any political purpose, just for the fun of it, I guess.

OLBERMANN: Now that you mentioned it, let me check the wires and make sure that’s still true.

Earlier in the interview, Olbermann also wonders how conservatives could possibly find the movie funny (nofunniks that we are), and seems to confuse actors from the movie with actual homeland security agents.

I didn’t review Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, but if I had I would have focused on its schizophrenic nature–on the one hand you have lighthearted stoner comedy (good), and on the other you have heavy-handed political commentary (bad). And when I say heavy-handed, I mean leaden hands festooned with gloves of marble encased in granite. Whereas the first movie deftly touched on issues of racism and identity politics, the sequel features, among other stupid gags, a white homeland security agent “harshly interrogating” a black man by pouring out a can of grape soda. Seriously. With that kind of subtlety it’s no wonder that Keith Olbermann loves the flick.

I’ll second David’s chagrin at seeing Vito Fossella collapse under a baby-daddy scandal hot on the heels of a DWI scandal. Though I never worked for the man worked in his district, as Mr. Freddoso did, I did intern at a political talk radio station in DC one summer, and Fossella was always one of our favorite guests to have on–funny, smart, gracious, and always willing to play up his Italian heritage for a laugh. A genuine pleasure and a nice guy.

James has the moral implications covered; I prefer to tackle the nuts and bolts. New York’s 13th District is pretty solidly Republican: Fossella’s last two victories averaged 16 points, and Bush won by 8 and 10 points in ‘00 and ‘04, respectively. The Rothenberg Political Report lists NY-13 as “Republican favored,” but I just shot political editor Nathan Gonzales an email about the race, and he had this to say:

Just a couple weeks ago this race was a long-shot scenario for Democrats. But now, as Fossella’s personal life unfolds before our eyes, this could be a real opportunity for Democrats to win yet another congressional seat in New York. Voters might have been willing to give him a pass on the drunk driving, but we’re in a whole new ballgame now. And if Fossella leaves Congress, this is not the time or the place Republicans want to be defending another open seat.

His dropping out would indeed be very bad news for the NRCC, since, last I saw, 29 Republicans on the House side had decided not to run for reelection. Depending on the timing of Vito’s exit, we could see a special election, or the seat could sit empty until the national election in November. Things keep looking up for the GOP in ‘08, don’t they?

/sarcasm

(Updated to reflect the fact that David worked in Fossella’s district, rather than worked in his district office as I originally thought. Reading comprehension skills clearly aren’t my strong suit.)

There’s a very interesting profile of John Yoo in this month’s Esquire, which arrived in my mailbox yesterday. (Yes I subscribe. And I love it.) The story isn’t online yet, but there’s an excerpt from Yoo and the author’s interview on the web. The profile is, surprisingly, extremely sympathetic. If Glenn Greenwald reads it, after clamoring for all this time for mainstream media attention on John Yoo, he will probably blow his top. Shockingly, it turns out that Yoo is…A LAWYER!! And he used legal frameworks (Supreme Court precedents, laws on the books, treaties and conventions, etc.) to formulate the controversial “torture memo.”

An excerpt:

“I really tried to distinguish between law and policy,” he insists. Despite Yoo’s shocking language defining severe pain as “equivalent to” organ failure or death, he points out that the memo clearly defines as torture mock executions, threats of imminent death, and beatings. He also says it’s unfair for people to confuse the war crimes of Abu Ghraib with the aggressive interrogations he authorized. His memo also includes a long list of examples of acts that various courts have found to be torture, page after page of severe beatings and electric shocks and even one case where guards shackled a man to a bed, placed a towel over his face, and poured water down his nose–a nearly exact description of waterboarding, “which people ignore because they focus on that one sentence,” Yoo says. “So if you read the whole opinion, I don’t think of it as a license to do anything you want to.”

It’s true, the list is there, the cautionary intent is clear. I’ve never seen it mentioned by any of his critics.

I’m surprised Esquire didn’t get cute and title the piece “The Banality of Lawyering,” or some such. It’s a remarkably even-handed profile featuring interviews with his critics (including Jose Padilla’s lawyer, who is suing Yoo for violating his client’s civil rights) and detailing Yoo’s background (his parents are an amazing immigrant success story). Give it a read when it hits the web.* You won’t be disappointed. (Unless you are, as I mentioned, Glenn Greenwald…or someone like him, who merely wants blood for what they see as grave crimes against humanity.)

*Or go buy a copy. In addition to the Yoo profile there’s also the “Esquire Guide to Denim.” Among other things, you’ll learn the difference between $50, $98, $210, and $440 jeans. Like I said, I love this magazine.

I’d like to clarify one point from James’s collegial reply, namely my own policy preference when it comes to Iran. This sentence–”Sonny seems to be arguing that because all three of our options suck, we might as well pick the suckiest one and hope it might trigger the least sucky consequences”–is not quite right, for two reasons. First, I never actually called for bombing Iran, specifically noting that “I don’t think the third option will accomplish its stated goal, and could backfire by rallying the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad, emboldening him to strike the U.S. more openly.” I’m merely suggesting we leave the option open.

Secondly, I think that James’s formulation of the consequences is wrong. All three of our options do suck, and bombing Iran has the greatest chance of backfiring horribly. But it’s also the only chance we have of getting Iran to stop killing American citizens. I’d probably put it this way: “All three of our options suck, but if we decide that Iran training terrorists and sending them into Iraq to wreak havoc is unacceptable then option number three is our only choice at this point.”

It is unclear that Iran training terrorists and sending them into Iraq to wreak havoc IS unacceptable, however. For all intents and purposes, we have accepted it since the beginning of the insurgency. To be entirely honest with you, I think the Bush Administration has shown remarkable restraint in NOT bombing Iranian camps, if they have the proof of Tehran’s interference that they say they do.

Anyway, my initial post was merely one neocon’s plea to leave all the options on the table, even if we probably won’t (and probably shouldn’t) end up using them. There’s no reason to excoriate John Bolton for reminding Iran that there are consequences for killing American soldiers.

Do you get annoyed by incessantly blaring car alarms? Ever want to do something about it? Well…why don’t you?

I predict this movie will spawn a wave of violence against cars and the idiots who let their car alarms run unceasingly. And I am fully in favor of it.

James argues over at The American Scene that John Bolton’s suggesting the U.S. bomb Iranian military camps responsible for sending terrorist squads into Iraq with the intention of killing Americans is wildly irresponsible and over the top. I tend to disagree.

Now, James admits that Iranians are killing Americans (albeit in Iraq) and suggests leafletting the Iranian camps, telling them to knock it off or face the consequences. Makes sense, except for the fact that we’ve been telling the Iranians to knock it off for some time now, going so far as to capture Iranian actors in Iraq to get the point across. Nothing has come of these attempts to get Iran to stop. As far as I can tell, this leaves Bush and the DOD with three options, none of them good.

1. Do nothing, and allow Iranians to keep killing American soldiers and Iraqi allies.
2. Continue to tell Iran to knock it off, drop leaflets on Iranian soldiers, and hope for the best. (Functionally this seems to me to be identical to option one.)
3. Bomb Iranian training camps in the hopes it will deter further incursions.

For the record, I don’t think the third option will accomplish its stated goal, and could backfire by rallying the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad, emboldening him to strike the U.S. more openly. But option one and option two haven’t really worked either, now have they? Is it really so outlandish to suggest a show of force? Furthermore, isn’t an action like Bolton is suggesting at the heart of the post-9/11 mindset…that we will neither tolerate terrorism nor the states that house and train and support terrorists? Plus, what do we have to gain by taking military strikes off the table? Why not rattle the sabers a little in the hopes that bold talk will bluff them into folding?*

P.S.–Where does this post fall under the rubric of blogger collegiality?

*Mixing metaphors is fun.